Ocean Protection in New Jersey

Transcription

A BLUEPRINT FOR STATE-LEVEL ACTION
COASTAL OCEAN COALITION
Conservation Law Foundation
Environmental Defense
Marine Conservation Biology Institute
Natural Resources Defense Council
in partnership with
Bayshore Regional Watershed Council
New Jersey Audubon Society
New Jersey Chapter, Sierra Club
New Jersey Environmental Lobby
New Jersey Public Interest Research Group
The Ocean Conservancy
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
Surfrider Foundation
A BLUEPRINT FOR STATE-LEVEL ACTION
COASTAL OCEAN COALITION
in partnership with
Bayshore Regional Watershed Council
Authors
Sarah Clark Stuart, Amy Schick Kenney
Editor
Benson Chiles
Cover photo by Stephen Voss
Our mission
The Coastal Ocean Coalition is a network of environmental organizations working
to conserve, protect and restore some of the nation’s most vital marine environments:
state waters. COC provides policy makers and community groups with the tools
they need to help coastal states take the bold steps necessary to protect their ocean
resources. COC is a project of the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental
Defense, the Marine Conservation Biology Institute and the Natural Resources
Defense Council.
Coastal Ocean Coalition
P.O. Box 73
Atlantic Highlands, NJ 07716
732-291-2163
©2005 Coastal Ocean Coalition
The complete report is available online at www.OceanBluePrintNJ.org and
www.CoastalOceanCoalition.org.
Printed on paper that is 100% recycled (100% post-consumer), totally chlorine free.
Contents
Acknowledgments
iv
Executive summary
v
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1
CHAPTER 2
Clean beaches, bays, and estuaries
4
CHAPTER 3
Healthy seafood and abundant fisheries
10
CHAPTER 4
Effectively managing the coastal zone
16
CHAPTER 5
Governing ocean resources for the 21st century
21
CHAPTER 6
Other coastal issues requiring proactive state-level action
25
CHAPTER 7
Conclusion
28
About the authors
30
About the Coastal Ocean Coalition
31
About the partner organizations
32
Notes
34
Figures and tables
Figure 1: New Jersey’s coastal waters and tidal streams
Figure 2: New Jersey geography
Figure 3: Number of ocean beach closings since 1992
Figure 4: Number of bay beach closings since 1992
Figure 5: 2004 shellfish water classifications
Figure 6: Impacted and degraded watersheds, indicated by impervious cover
Figure 7: Areas of New Jersey covered by the “Fast Track” law
1
2
5
5
6
17
19
Table 1: Highly prized fish for New Jersey
Table 2: Fish consumption advisories for New Jersey’s estuarine and marine waters
11
14
iii
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the
following persons who provided constructive comment and suggestions on
many drafts of this report. We are indebted to their feedback and thoughtful
insights:
Priscilla Brooks, William Chandler,
Alison Chase, Sarah Chasis, Benson
Chiles, David Festa, Kathleen Goldstein,
Linda Jantzen, Justin Kenney, Ted
Korth, Heather Leslie, Bonnie McKay,
Kelly McNicholas, Dena Mottola, Doug
O’Malley, Michael Pisauro, Jr., Joseph
Reynolds, Eric Stiles, Jeff Tittel, John
Weber, and Bill Wolfe.
Any errors are the responsibility of
the authors, not the endorsing
organizations.
Benson Chiles, director of the
Coastal Ocean Coalition, played a
pivotal role in the creation of this
report. He brought the partner organizations together, and he guided the
process of content development. Undoubtedly, without him, this report
would not have happened.
iv
ISTOCKPHOTO/DANIEL NYDICK
Executive summary
The quality of life and the strength of
the economy in New Jersey are challenged by persistent threats to the health
and viability of one of its most cherished
and fragile assets: its ocean resources.
Despite regulatory efforts to date, New
Jersey residents still face beach closings,
seafood health advisories, and prohibitions on shellfishing in some areas
because of pollution. In addition, pressures on fisheries due to overfishing and
ecosystem destruction have jeopardized
the future vitality of these resources.
New Jersey now has an opportunity
to seize a leadership role in strengthening protections for its ocean resources,
rebuilding valuable fish populations, and
cleaning its coastal waters. Two national
blue-ribbon panels, the Pew Oceans
Commission (POC)1 and the United
States Commission on Ocean Policy
(USCOP),2 recently reviewed the state
of our country’s declining ocean resources
and made recommendations to policy
makers about improving or overhauling
existing ocean laws and management.
While a majority of the commissions’
recommendations are directed to the
federal government, many can be undertaken directly at the state level.
State governance of coastal and ocean
waters extends three miles from the shore.
These environments function as critical
habitat for many marine species and also
represent the environment that humans
use—and abuse—most. Indeed, both
commissions stressed the importance of
state policies and actions in abating the
threats and restoring coastal and ocean
fish populations, habitats and waters.
Several states, including California and
Massachusetts, have already taken steps
toward implementing recommendations
from these reports.
In April 2005, Governor Richard
Codey released New Jersey’s Coast 20053
(hereafter, the Plan), which outlines
immediate actions his administration
v
beaches, healthy seafood, abundant
fisheries, and effectively managed
coastal and ocean zones.
We call upon New Jersey’s governor
and legislature to act immediately to:
proposes to take to protect the state’s
valuable coastal resources. This is an
important and welcome first step.
However, the Plan does not adequately
reflect the urgency of the problems
outlined in the USCOP and POC
reports, and it fails to acknowledge
many of the important policy recommendations that are applicable to state
waters. For example, the Plan:
Protect coastal and bay waters:
• Develop water quality criteria and
sewage treatment plant permit limits
for nutrients to ensure safe swimming,
shellfish and fish harvesting;
• lacks specificity about what regulatory
actions the administration will take to
clean up beaches and waterways for
shellfish harvesting;
• Create a long-term funding plan with
increased technical and financial
assistance to clean up contaminated
stormwater; and
• offers little to enhance the protection
of the state’s fisheries; and
• Require enforceable management
measures to reduce nonpoint source
pollution.
• lacks any new measures to curb coastal
development.
Additionally, it does not reflect the
main conclusion of both commission
reports—that states need to embrace
ecosystem protection as a primary
policy goal.
The current condition of New
Jersey’s ocean ecosystems and the
services they provide to the state’s
residents demand stronger protection
and restoration. Bolder policy actions
than those found in the Plan need to
be taken (by both the administration
and the legislature in Trenton) to
effectively protect the “natural capital
of the shore’s economy.”4
The next governor of New Jersey has
a unique opportunity to make this state
one of the country’s leaders in state laws
and policies that protect ocean resources
to meet that demand.
Ocean Protection in New Jersey: A
Blueprint for State-Level Action outlines the value and benefits of New
Jersey’s ocean resources. It then identifies the recommendations made by
the two national ocean commissions
that New Jersey should implement
to ensure clean coastal waters and
Restore fisheries:
• Adopt an ecosystem-based approach
to fisheries management;
• Broaden representation on fishery
advisory bodies; and
• Require harvest limits based on
ecosystem-level considerations that do
not exceed scientific recommendations.
Curb coastal sprawl:
• Amend (and strengthen enforcement
of ) state laws to require improved
land use planning and decisionmaking; and
• Reduce the individual and cumulative
impacts of development on water
supply and water quality, including the
effects of stormwater runoff on ocean
and bay resources.
Strengthen ocean management:
• Adopt as state policy the need to
protect, maintain, and restore healthy
coastal and ocean ecosystems; and
vi
• Develop an ocean management
policy that requires agency coordination, and incorporates ocean
zoning, environmental review, and
the principle of ecosystem-based
management.
Beach replenishment
Several issues that are pertinent to
New Jersey, but which were not directly
discussed in the commissions’ reports,
also demand attention by the next
administration and legislature:
• Reduce New Jersey’s contribution of
carbon dioxide emissions to global
warming.
Public access
• Require all nuclear and coal power
plants with a once-through cooling
system to retrofit plants with a closedcycle cooling system.
• Ensure that public tax dollars are not
used for private benefit in beach
replenishment projects.
Global warming
Sea life mortality caused by power
plants
• Ensure public access to the state’s
beaches by enforcement of the Public
Trust Doctrine.
The public and elected officials
should use this report as a blueprint for
how to improve the state’s ocean management and protection policies to meet
the challenges of the 21st century.
Privatization of federal facilities
• Protect the public’s interests when
federal facilities such as Sandy Hook
are proposed for privatization.
vii
CHAPTER 1
DON RIEPE
Introduction
White sandy beaches and rolling waves
off the Atlantic offer a spellbinding welcome to visitors of the famed Jersey shore.
Each summer, millions of tourists head to
New Jersey’s beaches and coastal waters
to feel the sand between their toes, cast
a hook in the water, build sandcastles, or
watch the sun rise above the horizon.
Although its nickname is the “Garden
State,” New Jersey has a decidedly seaworthy reputation. New Jersey boasts
454 square miles of open ocean waters,
and more than 800 square miles of tidal
estuarine rivers, shallow back bays and
larger bays (including Delaware Bay).5 Its
coastline is 127 miles long, while the Raritan and Delaware Bays have 87 miles of
coast. (See Figures 1 and 2.) New Jersey’s
waterways and wetlands are home to
1.5 million shorebirds and more than 50
different species of finfish and shellfish.6
The state’s coastal resources are critical
to its economy, and remain a vital part
of its heritage. Recreational and com-
mercial fishing revenues generate about
$2 billion per year.7 Tourism derived
from the Jersey shore adds approximately $16 billion annually to the state’s
FIGURE 1
New Jersey’s coastal waters
and tidal streams, including ocean
waters and estuaries
N
W
E
S
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection. Water Monitoring and Standards Element.
1
• 28 percent of the state’s growth in
urban land between 1995 and 2001
occurred in coastal counties—Monmouth, Ocean, Atlantic and Cape May.11
economy.8 The enjoyment and value
of all these activities depend on clean,
healthy marine ecosystems. These places
today are jeopardized by misplaced
beach and ocean management policies,
and by pollution from towns, businesses
and agriculture. High population density
and development in coastal areas also
place pressure on the oceans.
Consider the following:
• 168 beach closings (ocean and bay)
occurred in 2004, due to unsafe swimming conditions (caused by high
bacterial counts or floatables) or taken
for precautionary reasons.12
• 97 percent of New Jersey’s tidal rivers
and 24 percent of its bays are restricted
for shellfish harvesting because of
bacterial pollution.13
• 40 percent of the highly-prized fish
species pursued by commercial and
recreational fishermen experience
excessive fishing pressure.9
• Nearly five million pounds of trash
was picked up off New Jersey beaches
in 2004.14
River
• The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) rates 35 percent of the
coastal and ocean sites tested in New
Jersey for water quality “poor,” based
on an index of various indicators. It
rated 50 percent “fair” and only 15
percent “good.”10
FIGURE 2
NEW YORK
Walk
ill
New Jersey geography
ill
sK
NEWARK
co
n
Dela
et
on
g
ware
Ri
ve
r
River
Passaic River
us
#
Millstone River
M
Staten
Raritan Island
Raritan
River
Bay
#
Navesink River
#
TRENTON
Ranc
ocas
Atlantic Ocean
iver
R
sR
re
wa
Tom
r
ive
D
New Jersey’s citizens and policy makers
face the challenge of protecting, restoring and rebuilding our fisheries, beaches,
coastal habitats and marine waters to
ensure healthy, abundant oceans for
ourselves and future generations.
Newark Bay
Upper
New York Harbor
Lower
New York Harbor
#
PENNSYLVANIA
a
el
Hac
ken
sa
Hud ck Rive
son
r
Rive
r
lin
u
Pa
• Due to dangerous levels of contaminants, including mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins,
several fish species (including striped
bass, bluefish, eel and lobster) caught
in New Jersey waters are considered
unsafe for consumption by children
and women of childbearing age.
Limits have been recommended for
several other fish species as well.15
Cree
k
CAMDEN
M
Ha
Little Egg
Harbor
#
r
ve
gg
Ri
E
at
a
lic
ul
Gre
Over the past two years, two prominent blue-ribbon panels—the Pew
Oceans Commission (POC) and the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
(USCOP)—conducted a national
review of the state of our oceans, the
first such review in over 30 years. Though
working independently, the commissions’
reports both found that the oceans are
#
rR
rbo
Great Bay
r
ive
Maurice River
A sea change in ocean
management
Barnegat Bay
#
N
ATLANTIC CITY
#
W
Great Egg
Harbor
DELAWARE
E
S
Delaware
Bay
10
0
10
20
30 miles
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. New Jersey 2004 Integrated
Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report www.state.nj.us/dep/wmm/sgwqt/wat/
integratedlist/integratedlist2004.html.
2
• provide money for water quality projects;
in trouble. Both made similar, sweeping
recommendations at the national, state
and local levels. Their recommendations
represent an opportunity for New Jersey
to seize a leadership role among states
in protecting ocean resources, by rebuilding its fish populations and cleaning its coastal waters.
These landmark studies recommended
dramatic changes in the way we:
• strengthen coastal zone restrictions
regarding offshore oil and gas development, as well as pursue stronger
controls for on-shore development;
• preserve the shore’s landscape and
character; and
• restore Wreck Pond, among other sites.
Many of the recommendations were
directed toward the U.S. Congress and
federal agencies. However, many require
action at the state level. In fact, both
commissions stressed the importance
of state policies and actions in abating
threats and restoring fish populations,
habitats and waters. They also urged
states to take legislative and regulatory
steps to protect marine resources within
their three-mile jurisdiction.
New Jersey Coast 2005 is a good and
welcome first step for the state, and we
commend the governor for his initiative.
However, the Plan fails to advance many
of the necessary actions to protect New
Jersey’s valuable ocean resources.
We call on the governor, state agencies and the legislature to take bolder
actions to further protect New Jersey’s
valuable coastal and ocean resources
by implementing many of the recommendations of the U.S. Commission
on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans
Commission. Such actions are vital to
reverse the decline in the state’s valuable
ocean resources and make them vibrant
once again.
Charting a new course
A blueprint for state-level action
New Jersey’s Coast 2005 (or the Plan),
first announced by New Jersey Governor Richard Codey in April 2005, offers
measures aimed at improving ocean
conservation. The Plan recognizes that
New Jersey’s coast is a natural treasure.
It found the “natural capital” of the
ocean and coast to be critical to the
region’s economy, and that these assets
are under significant threat.
Among the Plan’s components are
pledges to:
The report Ocean Protection in New
Jersey, created by an alliance of 12
scientific and public policy organizations details the threats facing New
Jersey’s ocean environment; identifies
the gaps between the Plan and the
reports of the two national oceans
commissions; and provides recommendations on what actions to take to
benefit New Jersey’s ocean resources.
Residents and visitors want clean
beaches and bays, healthy seafood, abundant fisheries, effective management of
the coastal zone, and effective ocean
management, including adequate governance and funding. This report offers
recommendations on how New Jersey
could better meet those expectations.
• govern the nation’s oceans,
• sustain marine fisheries,
• clean coastal waters,
• control coastal sprawl; and
• protect marine ecosystems.
• more strongly protect coastal waters
from ocean discharges, to improve water
quality and safeguard habitat;
• activate the New Jersey Clean Marina
Program;
3
CHAPTER 2
JOSEPH REYNOLDS
Clean beaches, bays, and estuaries
closures per year.17 Beaches are closed
when fecal coliform levels in the water are
too high. Fecal coliform is a bacterium
that is only present in the fecal matter
of humans or animals. It is an important
measure of the safety level of waters for
swimming. This common water pollutant
gets flushed into waterways during
storms from “combined” sewer systems
(storm sewers and sanitary sewers that
are connected) or from street runoff.
The state monitors its waters for
recreational use in three categories: bays,
tidal rivers, and open ocean. One-half of
New Jersey’s monitored bays supported
recreational uses in 2004.18 However,
sufficient data did not exist to determine
if the other half (mostly waters of
Delaware Bay) supported recreational
uses. Furthermore, 30 percent of the
tidal rivers did not support recreational
uses, and 11 percent had insufficient
data available to make a determination.
All of New Jersey’s open ocean waters
Tourism in New Jersey’s coastal
counties contributes $16 billion to the
state’s economy and provides thousands
of jobs.16 Despite this economic value,
pollution continues to force closures for
beach use and shellfish harvesting. It is
clearly in the state’s economic interest
to continue to improve the quality of its
beaches and coastal waters. While there
has been some increase in coastal water
quality over the past 25 years, more
needs to be done in order to make
New Jersey’s shore and bays consistently
a first-rate public resource.
Swimmable beaches and bays
One measurement of the quality of
beaches and bays is whether they attain
the use they are designated to meet,
such as for recreation (swimming).
The method for determining whether
ocean or bay waters attain the recreational
“designated use” is the number of beach
4
FIGURE 3
Number of ocean beach closings since 1992
Number of ocean beaches closed
90
I
80
For bacteria
Precautionary
I For floatables
I Total
I
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Data: NJDEP Division of Watershed Management, Southern Planning Bureau, Cooperative Coastal Monitoring
Program: Summary Report for 2002, 2003 and 2004. www.njbeaches.org/docs/CCMPupdate.pdf
• 15 municipal sewage treatment plants
that discharge directly into the ocean;
and
supported recreational uses in 2004.
(See Figure 1 for a map of New Jersey’s
tidal rivers and coastal waters.)
The 2004 Integrated Water Quality
and Assessment Report, which the state
submitted to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), identifies the
main culprits that contribute fecal coliform to coastal waters:
• flow from contaminated non-tidal
rivers and lakes.
In 2004, 59 ocean beach and 109 bay
beach closings occurred.19 They were
closed either due to high fecal coliform
concentrations or floatables (such as
needles or other debris), or for precautionary reasons. (“Pre-cautionary”
• 7,000 storm drains that discharge into
rivers and bays;
FIGURE 4
Number of bay beach closings since 1992
Number of bay beaches closed
180
I
160
For bacteria
Precautionary
I For floatables
I Total
I
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Data: NJDEP Division of Watershed Management, Southern Planning Bureau, Cooperative Coastal Monitoring
Program: Summary Report for 2002, 2003 and 2004. www.njbeaches.org/docs/CCMPupdate.pdf
5
2004
Shellfish harvesting
beach closings are those done by health
agencies at their discretion for public
health concerns.) New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) cited that a majority of the
closings in 2004 and in previous years
were related to contaminated stormwater20 and discharges from Wreck
Pond during rain events. Beach closings
were higher in 2001, 2003 and 2004
than in previous years. (See Figures 3
and 4 for charts of ocean beach and bay
beach closings since 1992.)
The levels of total coliform21 in water
dictate whether shellfish can be directly
harvested and consumed. Although
New Jersey has made improvements
over the years, there are still significant
portions of the state’s waters that do not
support shellfish harvesting. In 2004,
New Jersey reported to the EPA that
97 percent of its tidal rivers, 24 percent
of its bay waters, and eight percent of
its ocean waters did not support shellfish consumption.22
NJDEP prefers to say that 90 percent
of New Jersey’s waters “support shellfish
harvesting.” But the actual picture is more
nuanced, as NJDEP’s definition includes
waters where shellfish can be harvested
only conditionally. The 90 percent of
waters that New Jersey claims support
shellfish harvesting can be broken down
in three categories: 78 percent can be
harvested year-round with no restrictions, 3.5 percent can only be harvested
seasonally, and eight percent only on the
condition that the shellfish is further
purified by being relayed to “approved”
waters or a depuration plant prior to
being sold.23 Adding together the ten
percent of waters where harvesting is
completely prohibited with the 12 percent where harvesting is conditional,
means slightly more than 20 percent
of New Jersey’s shellfish waters are
closed or restricted. (See Figure 5 for
the most recent map of how New Jersey’s
waters are classified for shellfish harvesting and a breakdown of New Jersey’s
shellfish water classifications.)
The areas where shellfish harvesting
is prohibited include parts of Raritan
Bay, a section of the northern shore, and
back bays and rivers. NJDEP cites
marinas, boating, urban runoff and
stormwater as major factors impacting
shellfish.24 In Raritan Bay, the main
culprit for shellfish closures is the
Middlesex County Utility Authority
FIGURE 5
2004 shellfish water
classifications
Approved
Prohibited
Seasonal (Nov–Apr)
Seasonal (Jan–Apr)
Special restricted
Classification
Description
Approved
Seasonal
(November-April)
or (January-April)
Special restricted
No restrictions on licensed harvesters
Water open for harvest seasonally
from November-April or January-April
each year
Harvest only by special permit. Shell- 8 percent
fish harvested must be further purified
by relay to approved waters or processing in a depuration plan prior to being
sold
No harvest under any condition
10 percent
Prohibited
Percentage of all
shellfish waters
78 percent
3.5 percent
Source: NJDEP’s Bureau of Marine Water Monitoring (map, classifications), Robert
Connell, personal communication (percentages).
6
Overall coastal water quality
(a sewage treatment plant), which is
permitted to discharge up to 147 million
gallons of wastewater into the Bay daily.25
Improving the quality of that effluent
flow and eliminating breakdowns that
result in the discharge of untreated sewage would enable more shellfish beds
to be upgraded. Just this past spring,
NJDEP proposed to downgrade 633
acres of shellfish beds in coastal waters
around Atlantic City (257 acres), the
Navesink River (152 acres), and Maurice
River Cove (224 acres).26
In its National Coastal Condition
Report II,29 EPA calculated a water
quality index for sampling sites that is
based on a combination of dissolved
inorganic nitrogen (DIN), dissolved
inorganic phosphorous (DIP), chlorophyll a, water clarity and dissolved oxygen. EPA developed a separate index to
rate water quality in different regions of
the country. Its report found that many
of New Jersey’s sampling sites were rated
as “poor” because of high nitrogen and
low water clarity levels, especially in Delaware, Raritan and Newark Bays. Overall, EPA rated New Jersey’s water as
being “fair” (as opposed to “good”) based
on nitrogen and water clarity levels.30
Dissolved oxygen
“Substantial
enhancement
of coastal water
quality will require
significant reductions in nonpoint
source pollution—
a technical and
political challenge.”
U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy (p. 155)
Aquatic life needs sufficient levels of
oxygen in coastal waters to survive. Dissolved oxygen is a measure of whether
waters can support aquatic life. Low
dissolved oxygen occurs when excess
nutrients in coastal waters cause phytoplankton blooms. Significant nonpoint
sources of nutrients include surface runoff from agricultural and developed
lands that is transported via stormwater,
and wet and dry atmospheric deposition
of nitrogen oxide emissions (a significant
source of nitrogen to Barnegat Bay).
In 2004, all of New Jersey’s open
ocean surface waters had satisfactory
levels of dissolved oxygen, but 100 percent of open ocean bottom waters did
not.27 Fifty percent of New Jersey’s estuaries and 12 percent of its tidal rivers
had dissolved oxygen levels too low to
support aquatic life.
Currently, New Jersey does not have
a marine water quality criteria or standard for nitrogen and thus does not
regulate the amount of nitrogen that
sewage treatment plants discharge into
ocean or bay waters.28 The New YorkNew Jersey Harbor Estuary Program is
developing total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs) for nutrients, which may
result in better controls of nutrients
being discharged into Raritan Bay.
Beach trash
Marine debris such as plastics and other
waste lost at sea or deposited by stormwater runoff often wash up on beaches.
NJDEP’s Clean Shores Program conducts
shoreline cleanups year-round. In 2004,
the program removed 4.8 million pounds
of debris from 131.3 miles of shoreline
for an average of 36,558 pounds per mile.
(These figures do not include the 90,000
pounds of debris picked up by Clean
Ocean Action and other volunteer cleanup programs that same year.31) Since
2001, the “pounds per mile figure” has
jumped nearly 10,000 pounds per mile.32
What is New Jersey doing to make
beaches and bays cleaner?
Contaminated stormwater, urban runoff
and sewage discharges are the chief
culprits in contributing fecal bacteria,
nitrogen compounds and debris to
New Jersey’s open ocean, estuarine and
tidal river waters and beaches. Although
New Jersey has enacted laws (such as
the Water Quality Planning Act, the
Water Pollution Control Act, and the
7
“The nation needs
to revise, strengthen
and redirect pollution laws to focus
on nonpoint source
pollution on a
watershed basis.”
Pew Oceans Commission
(p. 9)
protect water quality in the New York
Bight. These types of regulatory actions
are positive and very much needed, but
more needs to be done.
What the Plan is lacking:
Coastal Area Facility Review Act) and
implemented regulations (such as the
2004 stormwater rules) to reduce and
clean up contaminated stormwater and
sewage discharges, these actions have
not yet achieved their potential to make
all of the state’s waters safe places to
swim or fish.
Recently, NJDEP announced total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for
fecal coliform and phosphorous for
several waterways.33 Furthermore,
Governor Codey’s New Jersey’s Coast
2005 commits $30 million in grants for
infrastructure projects and to make
ocean discharge standards stronger; to
restore Wreck Pond (a major source of
contaminated water that has triggered
Spring Lake beach closings); to restore
water quality impairments affecting
shellfishing areas; and to work toward
establishing a “Clean Ocean Zone” to
• A long-term funding and financing
strategy for stormwater abatement.
Thirty million dollars in grants will
undoubtedly aid towns working to
meet the state’s new stormwater rules.
But this money is being committed on
a one-time basis and does not represent an annual increase in what the
state currently appropriates for water
quality improvement projects. In 2004,
the state’s Revolving Loan Fund
appropriated $93 million34 for clean
water projects. Long term stormwater
abatement needs must be fully evaluated to determine existing funding
gaps that impede municipalities’ ability
Commissions’ recommendations on clean beaches and bays that
New Jersey should implement
1. Increase technical and financial assistance to help communities improve the
permitting, design, installation, operation and maintenance of septic systems
and other on-site treatment facilities.35 Develop a plan for long-term funding
for projects that will reduce the input of contaminated stormwater into bays,
tidal rivers, estuaries and ocean waters.36
2. Amend state water quality law to require enforceable management measures
to reduce nonpoint source pollution.37
3. Develop state water quality standards for nitrogen and phosphorous and
total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for nutrients in all rivers and other nonattainment bay and estuarine waters throughout the entire state. Use the
TMDLs as a blueprint for action to address nutrient contaminated stormwater
runoff and wastewater sewage at the watershed level.38
4. Set nutrient limits in NJDEP permits for sewage treatment plants that
discharge into nutrient-impaired waters, and require enhanced nutrient
removal for sewage treatment plant discharges that contribute to nutrientimpaired waters in order to meet water quality standards.39
5. Ensure that air emissions of nitrogen compounds and mercury are reduced
to levels that will result in a substantial reduction of their impact on marine
ecosystems.40
6. Advance active management of debris, such as screens and netting, from
combined sewer overflows and stormwater runoff to be implemented by
coastal towns.41
8
on how the state will reduce nitrogen
loading from sewage treatment plant
discharges or air emissions of nitrogen
compounds. While the Plan says it will
make ocean discharge standards
“stronger,” it neither says which
standards nor defines “stronger.”
to further improve coastal water
quality, and identify what could be
done to fill the funding gaps.
• Specific actions to make estuarine
and tidal rivers safe for shellfish
harvesting. Unfortunately, the Plan
does not detail what exactly the state
will do about polluted stormwater or
sewage treatment plant effluent in
order to improve the coastal, estuarine
or tidal-river areas that are not fully
approved for shellfish harvesting.
• A beach debris reduction plan. The
Plan is silent on beach debris, even
though the amount of debris picked up
off beaches has risen significantly over
the past few years. Sewer trap and
other stormwater abatement technologies are needed to prevent debris
from entering waterways.
• Steps the state will take to reduce
nitrogen loadings. The Plan is silent
9
CHAPTER 3
JOÃO M. GONÇALVES
Healthy seafood and abundant fisheries
267 major fish stocks (accounting for
99 percent of landings), roughly 20 percent are either already overfished, experiencing overfishing, or approaching an
overfished condition.45 And New Jersey
is in the same boat. The state’s fisheries
are plagued with outdated management
objectives, unregulated bycatch, disregarded scientific information, unbalanced representation on management
bodies, and contaminated seafood.
Fishermen have plied the coastal waters
of New Jersey since colonial times. Commercial fishing and recreational angling
continue to be an important part of New
Jersey’s culture, character, and economy.
In 2004, 1400 commercial fishermen
received permits or licenses to fish in
state waters, and an estimated 1.3 million recreational anglers visited New
Jersey’s marine waters to try their luck.42
In 2003, over 170 million pounds of
seafood was landed at New Jersey’s six
thriving commercial ports: Cape May,
Atlantic City, Belford, Point Pleasant,
Port Norris and Barnegat Light.43 Recreational and commercial fishing revenues
generate about $2 billion per year.44
However, the picture is far from rosy.
Commercial and recreational fisheries
across the United States struggle with
poor management, overfishing, pollution, habitat loss and invasive species.
The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) reports that of the nation’s
Status of fisheries important
to New Jersey
New Jersey holds seats on two regional
fishery management bodies: the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council
(MAFMC), which manages fisheries
in federal waters; and the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission
(ASMFC), which manages migratory
fisheries in state waters. Between them,
these two bodies manage 30 different
10
TABLE 1
Highly prized fish for New Jersey
Species
HIGHLY PRIZED SPECIES*
Recreational Commercial Shellfish
American lobster
Atlantic croaker
•
Atlantic herring
Black sea bass
•
•
Yes
Unknown
•
No
No
•
No
No
•
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Unknown
No
Yes
No
No
No
Blue crab
Bluefish
STATUS
Overfishing Overfished
•
•
•
Hard clam
•
Ocean quahog
•
Scup
•
Sea scallop
•
Striped bass
•
Summer flounder
•
•
Surf clam
•
Weakfish
•
Unknown
Unknown
Winter flounder
•
Yes
Yes
*These species rank in the top five ranking for pounds landed and landed value, and in addition for the recreational
species include species in the top five ranking for numbers of fishing trips taken.
Information on status from: National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004. Annual Report to Congress on the Status of
U.S. Fisheries—2003. Silver Spring, MD and the 2004 FMP reviews for each species from the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission. www.asmfc.org
Outdated objectives for fishery
management
fisheries that are important to New
Jersey. According to the NMFS and
ASMFC, 12 of those 30 species (or
40 percent) are overfished46 or are experiencing overfishing,47 and the status
of seven species is unknown.48,49 Of
the 15 species that New Jersey considers
“highly prized,”50 five are either overfished or experiencing overfishing
(American lobster, bluefish, scup,
summer flounder, and winter flounder)
while information is lacking for two
others (striped bass and weakfish). It is
imperative that the state be a strong
advocate for fisheries management that
will protect the species that are most
heavily fished and landed in New Jersey.
(See Table 1 for a table of highly prized
species and their status.)
New Jersey adopted the Marine Fisheries Management and Commercial
Fisheries Act in 1979. Since that time,
the legislature has not amended the
“state’s policy and objectives for fisheries” (N.J.S.A. 23:2B-2). The policy
and objectives fit with the need in the
late 1970s to grow and develop the U.S.
commercial fishing industry. But that
orientation is outdated. Today, there is
adequate documentation that fishing
impacts the marine environment in a
variety of ways that in turn threaten the
sustainability of fish resources. In order
to provide for sustainable fisheries over
the long-term, fishery policy must protect marine ecosystems as well as fish
11
stocks.51 A focus on ecosystems directs
attention to the need for critical habitat,
good water quality, available prey species,
and minimizing the unintentional consequences of fishing such as bycatch and
habitat degradation.
caused by a lack of adequate scientific
information.54 In 2001, the Mid-Atlantic
and New England Fishery Management
Councils were responsible for 14 of the
33 stocks experiencing overfishing. The
nation’s independent scientific assessment body, the National Research
Council (NRC), found that many cases
of overfishing were caused by fishery
councils disregarding or downplaying
the scientific information available when
setting catch limits.55
The regional fishery councils have
two major responsibilities that are in
conflict: they must limit the number of
fish that can be caught to ensure conservation of the resource, while also
allocating the allowable harvest among
members of the industry.56 Rather than
making tough allocation decisions, the
regional councils have at times increased
the allowable harvest, against the
recommendation of scientific advisors.
Unregulated and unreported
bycatch
“The last thirty years
have witnessed
overexploitation of
many fish stocks,
degradation of
habitats, and negative consequences
for too many ecosystems and fishing
communities.”
U.S. Commission on
Experts say bycatch—the incidental
capture of other marine life along with
the target species—is one of the most
significant environmental and economic
problems affecting marine fisheries
today. Fishermen catch, injure, and kill
marine life they do not intend or want
to capture to alarming levels; scientists
estimate that fishermen discard 25 percent of what they catch worldwide.52
The problem is confounded because for
many fisheries there are no or poor data
on bycatch. While the monitoring of
bycatch has increased in recent years,
it covers less than one-third of the fisheries in the United States.53
Similar to other Atlantic coastal
states, New Jersey does not comprehensively address fishery bycatch, but
instead takes a fishery-by-fishery
approach. This is driven largely by the
required elements of management plans
at ASMFC or the MAFMC. However,
even the species-specific plans at the
regional level do little to address bycatch, with few observers and little data.
At the moment, New Jersey does not
have a comprehensive requirement for
state-managed fisheries to report bycatch.
Unbalanced membership on
regional fishery management
bodies
Regional fishery bodies, which include
representatives from New Jersey, manage
most of the state’s fishery resources. In
addition to the state agency representative,
the governor nominates voting members
who overwhelmingly have been individuals representing the commercial or
recreational fishing industry. Conservationists, academic scientists, economists,
consumer advocates, and other members
of the public without ties to the regulated
industry are occasionally, but not typically,
nominated. (This is true for other states as
well.) As a result, the appointed members
of the Mid-Atlantic Council and the
ASMFC have been and are currently
dominated by members of the commercial
and recreational fishing industries or their
representatives. New Jersey should seek to
rectify the current imbalance by providing
Disregarding science in fishery
management
Successful fisheries management depends
on accurate, reliable science. While data
collection programs and analytical tools
and models can and must be improved,
many cases of overfishing have not been
12
a slate of nominees that reflects the
balance of all constituencies.57
In addition, New Jersey has a statelevel Marine Fisheries Council, which
provides advice to the NJDEP Commissioner on policies of the department
and in the planning, development and
implementation of all departmental programs related to marine fish and shellfish.58 Council members must include
four sportsmen, two active commercial
fin-fishermen, one active fish processor,
two members of the general public, and
the chairman of the two sections of the
Shellfisheries Council.59 The general
public seats are greatly out-numbered by
individuals with direct financial connections to fisheries.
Aquaculture
Aquaculture is presently a minor industry in the coastal waters of New Jersey
compared to the magnitude of other
activities (e.g., transportation, tourism,
and commercial and recreational fishing). Marine aquaculture in the state is
currently comprised of only shellfish
farms, but the state has expressed interest in expanding shellfish aquaculture.60
Commissions’ recommendations on seafood and fisheries that
1. Declare the objective of the state’s marine fishery policy is to protect,
maintain and restore marine ecosystems in state waters, and adopt an
ecosystem-based approach to marine fisheries policy and management.
• Fishery management and advisory bodies should have balanced memberships between representatives of the public and fishing interests. The
governor should nominate a broad slate of candidates from the commercial
fishing industry, the recreational fishing sector, and the general public for
seat vacancies to the MAFMC.61 The general public nominees should have no
financial ties to the fishing industry and should include scientists and
conservationists. The governor should appoint a commissioner to ASMFC
that will represent the broad public interest, after considering a broad slate
of candidates. In addition, NJDEP should ensure that the two general public
seats on its Marine Fisheries Council are filled by persons with no direct
financial interest in any fish-related business.
• Advocate that the MAFMC and ASMFC use science-based fisheries
management, ensuring, for example, that annual quotas do not exceed the
levels recommended by qualified scientists.62
• Require bycatch monitoring and bycatch management plans for both
commercial and recreational fisheries.63 Fishing should be conditional on the
presence of an approved bycatch plan.64
2. Develop an aquaculture policy for finfish and shellfish that requires the
industry to use ecologically sustainable practices. Establish a moratorium
on the use of genetically modified organisms and any proposals for new
marine finfish farms until standards for ecologically sustainable practices
are in place.65
3. Protect human health from contaminated seafood and coastal waters by
incorporating new findings and technologies into monitoring and prevention
programs; increasing coordination of interagency public education and
outreach efforts;66 and cleaning up contaminated sediments through water
pollution abatement.
13
Fish consumption advisories
There are many different kinds of
aquaculture. Onshore aquaculture in
closed systems can be viewed as a
solution to the increasing demand for
fish and the decline of wild populations
by providing a stable source of food.
Shellfish aquaculture is generally much
more benign and may actually
contribute to cleaner water (through the
filtering mechanism of the shellfish).
However, there are significant risks
associated with marine aquaculture, in
particular finfish aquaculture.
Open ocean and nearshore aquaculture pose the following hazards:67
“Do not eat.” That’s the warning to
infants, children, pregnant women,
nursing mothers, and women of childbearing age about consuming striped
bass, bluefish, American eel and lobster
tomalley (the soft, green substance
found in the lobster’s cavity) caught in
New Jersey’s waters. The state releases
fish consumption advisories each year
that recommend a limited number
of meals of certain species.68 For the
general population, consumption
advisories are in effect for striped bass,
bluefish, American eel, and lobster
tomalley. In addition, there are areaspecific warnings (such as advisories for
the consumption of blue crab from the
Hudson/Newark/Raritan Bay complex)
that are more restrictive than the
advisories mentioned above. (See
Table 2 for the recommended consumption ranges from one serving per
month to one meal per year.)
• High-density stocking conditions can
promote diseases, which can spread to
wild populations.
• Escapement of cultured organisms can
dilute the natural gene pool with genes
that have not been subjected to the
rigors of natural selection.
• Securing food for cultured organisms
often increases fishing pressure on wild
populations.
What is New Jersey doing to
protect its fisheries?
• Wastewater from aquaculture facilities
can increase levels of nutrients and
toxins in coastal ecosystems.
Acting Governor Codey’s Plan,
New Jersey’s Coast 2005, does little
TABLE 2
Fish consumption advisories for New Jersey’s estuarine and marine waters
2004 PCB/dioxin statewide advisories (all coastal waters except those under Water Body Specific Advisories)
GENERAL POPULATION
LIFETIME CANCER RISK
1 in 10,000
1 in 100,000
HIGH RISK INDIVIDUALS
BASED ON A
NON-CANCER RISK
D O N OT E AT M O R E T H A N :
Striped bass
Bluefish
(greater than 6 lbs/ 24 inches)
Bluefish
(less than 6 lbs/24 inches)
American eel
American lobster
One meal per month
Four meals per year
One meal per year
Do not eat
Do not eat
Do not eat
One meal per month
One meal per year
Do not eat
Four meals per year
One meal per year
Do not eat
Do not eat the green gland (i.e. Tomalley or Hepatopancreas)
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services. A Guide to Health Advisories for
Eating Fish and Crabs Caught in New Jersey Waters. 2004. www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/fishadvisorybrochure-final.pdf
14
“The multidimensional uses of our
marine wildlife
reveal a national
public interest in
maintaining healthy
marine ecosystems.
Many of those ecosystems and the
fishing heritage they
support are now
at risk.”
(p. 35)
recommend monitoring and better
coordination of seafood consumption
advisories—critical steps forward to
protect human health.
The commission’s reports raised the
issue of regional fisheries management
bodies’ membership being skewed toward
the commercial and recreational industries. The Plan does not address this
issue. In order to reflect the broad, longterm view of the public’s interest, the
MAFMC and ASMFC need a voice for
the public through a balanced membership that includes conservationists,
academics, and other members of the
public who have no financial stake in
the fisheries being managed. Governors
drive the composition of these groups by
their nominations for membership.
Additionally, while two seats on the
NJDEP Marine Fisheries Council are
allocated to the general public, they are
outnumbered by the five seats allocated
to representatives of the commercial,
recreational and fish processing sectors.
to enhance protection of the state’s
valuable fishery resources. While it
does promote shore-side infrastructure
for the commercial and recreational
fishing industries (such as marinas,
boat slips and artificial reefs), and
commits to restoring shellfish areas,
the Plan does not touch upon any of
the fishery recommendations of the
ocean commissions.
Both commissions emphasize the
importance of protecting marine
ecosystems. NJDEP did demonstrate
that principle when it recently delayed
the horseshoe crab fishery for two weeks
to protect the red knot, a migratory
shorebird.69 But that action was the
exception rather than the rule. The
principle is absent from the current state
fishery law and implementing policies.
New Jersey should support the best use
of scientific information in regional
fishery management bodies to ensure
the long-term sustainability of its
fishery resources. The commissions also
15
CHAPTER 4
Effectively managing the coastal zone
New Jersey is the nation’s most densely
populated state and is projected to be
“built out” (the point at which all available land is developed) between 2030 and
2050.70 In 2000, eight out of 10 New
Jersey voters felt the state is running out
of land, and more than three-quarters
said the state should give spending
priority to existing communities over
new development.71
Land use and land cover are two
measurements of remote sensing imagery
that can indicate land use change. Land
use measures how humans use a piece of
land (residential, agricultural, etc.). Land
cover measures the physical material on
the surface of a piece of land (developed,
forest, wetland, etc.).
Based on land use measurements, new
urban, transitional and barren land grew
statewide by 89,880 acres (+/–16,530)
between 1995 and 2000.72 Combined,
New Jersey’s four coastal counties (Monmouth, Ocean, Atlantic and Cape May)
accounted for 28 percent of the state’s
growth in urban land during this time
period. Of all 21 counties, Ocean County
had the greatest number of new acres of
new urban and barren land during this
time period (10,625), followed closely
by Monmouth (9,703).73 Ocean County
is also the state’s fastest growing county
in terms of population.74
Another way to understand the
extent to which an area has become
developed is to look at how much of
a watershed has become covered by
impervious surfaces (materials that
prevent water from infiltrating into
soil),75 an easily-measured proxy for the
extent of development. An abundance
of evidence shows that when more than
10 percent of a watershed is composed
of impervious surfaces, rivers and
streams become seriously degraded.76
When the impervious surface within
a watershed increases, the concomitant
results are many. First, there are the
16
open fields, etc., are lost to suburban
sprawl, the amount of area that can soak
up rainfall and snowmelt shrinks. Consequently, aquifers that rely on rainfall
receive less water, causing groundwater
levels to drop. When this occurs in
coastal areas, along with increases in
groundwater withdrawals due to growth
in development, saltwater is more likely
to intrude into the fresh aquifer system,
rendering drinking water unpotable.
Saltwater intrusion due to development has already occurred in southern
New Jersey; chloride contamination
from saltwater intrusion has been documented in each of the five aquifers of
Cape May County, and is the biggest
threat to the county’s water supply.77
Cape May County has abandoned
120 supply wells since 1940.78
The most recent analysis on impervious surfaces found that such surfaces
grew by 4,200 acres a year in New Jersey
from 1986 to 1995.79 Also as of 1995,
more than 450,000 acres (or 9.2 percent
of the state) were covered with impervious surfaces.80 As of 1995, six out of
14 watersheds draining into the Atlantic
were more than 10 percent impervious
and three were five to 9.9 percent impervious.81 All of the watersheds draining into Raritan Bay had greater than
10 percent impervious surfaces (four of
which have 30-50 percent impervious
surfaces). Eight of 23 Delaware River
and Bay’s watersheds had greater than
10 percent impervious surfaces. Combined, 20 out of 43 coastal watersheds
(or 46 percent) had greater than 10 percent impervious surfaces. (See Figure 6
for a map of impacted and degraded
watersheds in New Jersey.)
water quality impacts. Rainfall moves
quickly across impervious surfaces,
picking up contaminants from road
surfaces, parking lots and lawns. In the
case of localities that have combined
sewer systems, the rush of water is
shunted into sewer systems, which cause
wastewater sewer systems to reach their
intake capacity, in many cases triggering
the discharge of all incoming sewage
directly into waterways without treatment. When a locality has separated
sewer systems, the polluted rainwater is
also directed into waterways without
receiving any treatment.
Secondly, there is a significant impact
on the groundwater that supplies drinking water. When forests, small streams,
FIGURE 6
Impacted and degraded watersheds,
indicated by impervious cover
(based on 1995 data)
Watersheds (HUC-11)
0–4.9 Low
5–9.9 Moderate
10–29.9 Impacted
30–50 Degraded
protect the coastal zone?
Unfortunately, well-intentioned laws are
failing to protect the coastal zone. The
Source: Hasse, John E. and Lathrop, Richard, G. 2001. Measuring Urban Growth in New
Jersey. Grant F. Walton Center for Remote Sensing & Spatial Analysis, Rutgers University,
New Brunswick, NJ.
17
“All levels of government should
institute effective
mechanisms to
manage development and minimize
its impact on coastal
ecosystems and
their watershed.”
safeguards for the construction of any
developments in the coastal area.”84
In reality, CAFRA is broken. It
suffers from loopholes and enforcement
problems that impede its effectiveness
in protecting groundwater from saltwater intrusion, controlling the growth
of impervious surfaces (an indicator
of development), and controlling the
increase in septic systems and sewer
hookups. While the drafters of
CAFRA had noble intentions, the
act has not resulted in protection of
the coast’s forests, beaches and wetlands
from over-development.
CAFRA falls short in how it has
been interpreted and enforced. In addition, further weakening of CAFRA
recently has been proposed. CAFRA
(in conjunction with the State Plan85)
was supposed to concentrate development in designated areas or “Centers.”
The intent was for municipalities within
these areas to undergo planning within
five years to channel growth appropriately away from sensitive areas. Unfortunately, the CAFRA Centers were not
legislature approved the Coastal Area
Facility Review Act (CAFRA) in
1973 to control development along
the coast.82 CAFRA, along with the
Wetlands Act of 1970, the Waterfront
Development Law and the Public Trust
Doctrine, has been integrated through
a set of policies that guide the implementation of the state’s Coastal Zone
Management Program, which meets the
requirements of the federal Coastal
Zone Management Act.83
CAFRA recognizes that New Jersey’s
coastal areas constitute “an exceptional,
unique, irreplaceable, and delicately balanced physical, chemical, and biologically
acting and interacting natural environmental resource.” Through this law, the
legislature wishes “to encourage the development of compatible land uses in order
to improve the overall economic position
of the inhabitants of that area within the
framework of a comprehensive environmental design strategy which preserves
the most ecologically sensitive and fragile
area from inappropriate development
and provides adequate environmental
(p. 26)
Commissions’ recommendations on the coastal zone that
1. Amend state law to require land use planning and decision-making to
consider the individual and cumulative impacts of development on water
quality, including effects on stormwater runoff.86
2. Improve the state’s Coastal Zone Management program to ensure that it
incorporates a coastal watershed focus and more effectively manages
growth.87
3. Promote compact growth in areas where it is desirable by encouraging
municipalities and counties to change their zoning and subdivision codes to
discourage growth in relatively undeveloped areas and reduce impervious
surface cover where possible.88
4. Develop a consensus on growth management, encouraging urban growth
boundaries to protect agriculture and environmentally sensitive lands, and
restricting state development funding to designated growth areas.89
5. Have in place a comprehensive habitat-protection plan to ensure that federal,
state and local funds provide the maximum benefit in protecting habitat and
water quality.90
18
Centers’ boundaries.92 If enacted, this
amendment to CAFRA will (in combination with the potential impacts of
the 2004 “Fast-Track” law93) weaken
the state’s ability to concentrate growth
around existing developments instead
of encroaching on forest or wetland
areas along the New Jersey coast.
CAFRA needs a substantial overhaul
to overcome its deficiencies. For example,
it needs:
FIGURE 7
Areas of New Jersey covered by
the “Fast Track” law
Over 1.5 million acres
State Plan Areas 1 & 2
State Plan Centers
Urban Enterprise Zones
Pinelands Regional Growth Areas
Hackensack Meadowlands
SUSSEX
PASSAIC
BERGEN
WARREN
MORRIS
ESSEX
HUDSON
UNION
HUNTERDON
Counties
Major highways
SOMERSET
MIDDLESEX
MERCER
“Areas determined to be in need of
redevelopment” and designated growth
centers in endorsed muncipal plans
are also in the law but not
shown. Additional unmapped
BURLINGTON
Urban Enterprise Zones
CAMDEN
may also exist.
• Lower impervious cover limits to
better restrict development;
MONMOUTH
• Better enforcement requirements that
restrict saltwater intrusion;
OCEAN
• Closure of septic management loopholes; and
GLOUCESTER
• Retooling of the process that designates where development should be
concentrated and permitted with less
restrictive requirements.
SALEM
N
W
ATLANTIC
E
S
CUMBERLAND
CAPE MAY
0
10
Fast-Track provides for automatic
approval of NJDEP, Department of
Community Affairs, and Department
of Transportation permits for development in areas designated as “growth
zones”94 by the State Plan.95 If these
three agencies do not act upon the
permit applications within 45 days, the
permits are automatically approved.
Because Fast-Track applies to much of
the coastal zone (see Figure 7 showing
which areas of the state would be eligible), this law exacerbates the problem
of sprawl in New Jersey’s coastal zone.96
NOAA, the federal agency that oversees
the state’s coastal zone management
program, wrote to the state in August
2004 warning that Fast-Track may
threaten some of the federal funds
that are provided to the state for coastal
zone management.97 Currently, although
the law was passed in the 2004–2005
session, a moratorium on its effective
date (which was recently extended by
20
Miles
Cartography: The GIS Center at Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association
(www.giscenter,org) for Save NJ, 7/23/04. Data sources: NJ Office of Smart Growth, NJ
Department of Commerce, NJ Meadowlands Commission, NJ Pinelands Commission,
NJDEP, NJDOT. This secondary map product has not been verified or authorized by those
agencies.
well-designed and included thousands
of acres of sensitive lands. Ultimately,
most towns did not conduct the mandated planning, and in February 2005,
NJDEP Commissioner Bradley M.
Campbell allowed the regulation
authorizing the Centers to expire.
Unfortunately, because of political
pressures and a proposed piece of legislation91 that would have overturned the
expiration, NJDEP has proposed a new
rule to re-establish the boundaries of
Coastal Centers until March 2007 to
allow municipalities to take advantage
of weaker permitting rules within the
19
“To more effectively
manage coasts,
states need a
stronger capacity to
plan for and guide
growth—one that
incorporates a
watershed approach
to govern coastal
and ocean
resources.”
U.S. Commission on
was unwilling to take any stronger
policy action that would protect the
coastal zone from overdevelopment.
Coastal watersheds in New Jersey are
under tremendous pressure from new
growth and the challenge of meeting
the demands of maintaining existing
municipal stormwater and wastewater
infrastructures. New Jersey’s Coast
2005 offered no new ideas or policies
that embrace the recommendations
of the two ocean commissions to
more effectively manage development
and its impact on the state’s coastal
watersheds.
Governor Codey until conflicts with
federal laws can be sorted out) has
prevented its implementation.98 Many
environmental groups have joined
together in a large coalition, “SaveNJ,”
calling for the law’s repeal.99
Given the mood of the legislature,
and the recent controversy over the
Fast-Track law, it is perhaps not surprising that little was said in New
Jersey’s Coast 2005 about coastal
development. However, given the
role that development plays in encroaching on open space and wildlife habitat,
it is disappointing that Governor Codey
20
CHAPTER 5
ISTOCKPHOTO/YANA DOWNING
Governing ocean resources for the 21st century
could take a leadership position in
getting regional ecosystem-based
management efforts underway.
Although an overarching mandate does
not exist, New Jersey’s protection of horseshoe crabs represents a management decision based on ecosystem considerations.
Horseshoe crab eggs are the primary and
essential food item for migratory birds,
especially the red knot, that stop to rest
and refuel on the shores of the Delaware
Bay. (All available research indicates
that the red knot population will be at
or near extinction by 2010,100 the most
dramatic decline among shorebirds
globally.101) Recent studies find the
primary reason for the decline is the
overfishing of horseshoe crabs in the
Delaware Bay.102 Based on this scientific
information, New Jersey recently took
action to delay horseshoe crab harvesting until after migratory shorebirds
migrated through Delaware Bay.103 This
action demonstrates that considering
How states govern their ocean resources
is inextricably linked to how well their
resources are managed and protected.
A review of New Jersey’s laws, policies,
and agencies indicates that there is much
the state could do to update and improve
upon its current array of statutes and
policies that pertain to ocean governance.
Lack of ecosystem-based
management
The state lacks both an overarching principle of ecosystem-based management
to guide its various programs affecting
the coastal ecosystem environment, and
an oceans policy that is based on the
protection, maintenance and restoration
of healthy coastal ecosystems. Such a
program will require assistance and
coordination with the federal government and neighboring states, as well as
increasing research and data collection
on ecosystem components. New Jersey
21
ocean and bay waters. Activities ranging
from energy exploration and development of offshore energy facilities, underwater cables, and the siting of liquid
natural gas facilities, to fishing and
aquaculture would all benefit from an
overarching state policy and objectives
for ocean management. At the heart of
this debate is which activities are appropriate for the state’s coastal and ocean
waters. Zoning spatially segregates
incompatible uses, provides predictability for acceptable uses, and preserves
wilderness areas for the benefit of nature
as well as future generations.105
the impact of human activities on
marine ecosystems is critical to ensuring
healthy and viable oceans for the future.
Lack of inter-agency and
institutional coordination
“Congress should
[enact legislation]
requiring federal,
state, and territorial
agencies to protect,
maintain, and
restore marine and
coastal ecosystems,
and reorienting
national and regional
decision-making
bodies to these
ends.”
(p. 33)
NJDEP manages New Jersey’s coastal
and ocean ecosystems in a much less
centrally-organized manner than are the
state’s forests and other managed lands.
Responsibility for the management and
protection of coastal waters, resources,
habitats and wildlife are spread throughout a web of agencies and administrative
units—five divisions, two programs, one
bureau, two offices, one element and four
councils. Together they are housed within
five of the eight NJDEP programs: Environmental Regulation; Land Use Management; Natural and Historic Resources;
Policy, Planning and Science; and Site
Remediation. In addition, the Department of Community Affairs houses the
Office of Smart Growth, which guides
the state’s policies on land development.
Comparable functions (such as monitoring) are spread among several programs. For example, the program that
monitors coastal water quality for shellfish harvesting (Bureau of Marine
Water Monitoring) is housed in Water
Monitoring and Standards, while the
program that monitors water quality at
beaches (Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program) is housed in the Division
of Watershed Management. The Coastal
Management Office,104 which oversees the
network of offices that manage the state’s
ocean and coastal resources, is concerned
largely with land management, but not
so much with water quality, pollution
control or wildlife management.
Lack of funding mechanisms
Identifying and securing adequate
sources of funding for ocean conservation and management are critically
important. This includes ensuring that
general funds are available for an
ecosystem-based approach to coastal
and ocean protection, as well as specific
funding sources for sustaining marine
fisheries and improving water quality.
Currently, low-cost financing for
stormwater and nonpoint management
infrastructure projects (among others) is
provided by New Jersey’s Clean Water
State Revolving Fund. This fund is included in the Environmental Infrastructure Financing Program and is
managed by the NJDEP and the NJ
Environmental Infrastructure Trust.
Although the fund has provided two
billion dollars in financing to communities for clean water and drinking water
projects since 1987 (a little over $100
million a year), only a portion of this
amount is allotted to coastal municipalities.106 More funding is necessary to
help local communities accelerate their
stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) abatement projects.
Additionally, there are no funding
mechanisms to develop more selective
Conflicting uses of the ocean zone
The state lacks a policy for managing
resources or activities that occur in
22
fishing gear; to study the impact of
destructive fishing practices; to ascertain
landings and trip data for different
recreational and commercial fishing
sectors; to study the establishment of
marine protected areas (including fully
protected areas) and other ocean management zones; and to establish scientific monitoring plans.
management, and does not address
the need for an oceans policy that
sets priorities for its resource agencies
and institutions. The Plan also ignores
the use of ocean zoning as a way to
protect New Jersey’s ocean ecosystems.
It does state that NJDEP will use
funding to acquire sensitive coastal
areas and work to ensure that development along the shore steers clear
of threatened and endangered species.
But these statements do not reflect
new proposals that embrace comprehensive management or ecosystem
protection.
As of now, New Jersey does not
have a comprehensive program to
protect ocean habitats that are
improve the management and
governance of its ocean zone?
New Jersey’s Coast 2005 is silent with
regard to incorporating an ecosystembased management principle into its
overall approach to ocean and coastal
Commissions’ recommendations on managing ocean resources
that New Jersey should implement
1. Declare a new state policy to protect, maintain, and restore healthy coastal
and ocean ecosystems, and adopt an ecosystem-based approach to ocean
management.107
2. Create an Ocean Protection Council to integrate and coordinate the activities
of NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Consumer Affairs (NJDCA), and Board
of Public Utilities (BPU) programs and to establish priorities for coastal and
ocean resource protection, enhancement and restoration.108
3. Study the feasibility for marine protected areas to be used as tools for ocean
ecosystem-based management, and develop goals and guidelines leading to a
uniform process for the effective design, implementation and evaluation of
marine protected areas.109
4. Develop an ocean management policy that incorporates ocean zoning and
environmental review.
• Address the zoning, permitting and siting of all offshore energy facilities
(windmills, LNG terminals, wave buoys, etc.) and other ocean resource
management issues, such as gravel mining, beach nourishment, artificial
reef development, fisheries management, and protection of ocean habitats.110
• Incorporate ocean zoning into the state’s fisheries management policies in
order to protect habitat, define areas where certain types of fishing or gear
are (or are not) allowed, and reduce conflict among user groups.111
5. Establish a Coastal and Ocean Protection Trust Fund in order to:
• Supplement the state’s Revolving Loan Fund so that coastal municipalities
can more effectively develop on-site treatment systems for stormwater runoff.112
• Conduct activities necessary to fulfill a policy that prioritizes the protection,
maintenance and restoration of healthy coastal and ocean ecosystems, and
adopts the principle of ecosystem-based management.
• Conduct activities that will improve fishery research, data collection,
management, enforcement and habitat restoration.113
23
“The nation should
“adopt the principle
of ecosystem-based
management,” and
agencies “should
move toward an
ecosystem-based
management
approach.”
U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy
ment and provide insurance against
uncertainties in fisheries science.
By publicly recognizing the role MPAs
can play in protecting and restoring ocean
ecosystems within state waters (as California,119 Oregon120 and Massachusetts121
have done), New Jersey has the opportunity to become a leader in state-level
management of ocean resources, and
benefit the state’s economy, environment
and quality of life.
Unfortunately, New Jersey’s Coast 2005
falls short in reconciling conflicting uses
in coastal waters. It limits its scope to the
issue of wind facilities and oil and natural
gas exploration and does not address all
the uses that may emerge in the near
future. The Plan points to the state’s
Blue Ribbon Panel on Development
of Wind Turbine Facilities in Coastal
Waters, which is charged with resolving
whether offshore wind development is
appropriate for New Jersey. This panel,
which is limited to wind turbines, will
not deal with other potential offshore
energy uses such as underwater cables,
wave energy buoys, and liquid natural
gas terminals. The Plan also declares that
it will strengthen restrictions regarding
offshore oil and gas development. While
strengthening such restrictions may be
helpful, it is not clear that such actions
would necessarily address the siting or
management of energy development
projects, which is also important. The
state needs a mechanism for reviewing
the environmental impacts and siting
concerns of all potential uses (conflicting
and compatible) of its ocean resources,
not a piece-meal review that is largely
driven crisis-by-crisis.
ecologically unique or are important
habitats for fish and ocean wildlife, and
appears to lack all intentions of beginning one. The state has created one
“marine conservation zone,” a 1,600acre area around the Sedge Islands
located in the Island Beach State Park
in Barnegat Bay.114 Personal watercrafts
are restricted from knee-deep waters
within 300 feet of the Sedge Islands and
back bay area. This zone is the only one
of its kind created by the Tidelands
Resource Council, the Natural Areas
Council and the NJDEP.115 New Jersey
does have a system of 40 Natural Areas
that cover 40,000 acres throughout the
state (ten of which are coastal in nature,
protecting sensitive dunes, salt marshes
and tidelands).116 The state also has a
system of Wildlife Management Areas
that cover nearly 300,000 acres.117 However, these two area protection programs do not extend to ocean habitats,
such as reefs, cobble bottoms or seagrass beds.
Protecting ocean resources and habitats can be accomplished by creating
marine protected areas (MPAs), important tools for ecosystem-based
management that can be designed to
serve multiple purposes. The National
Research Council (NRC) found that
MPAs can be effective in maintaining
biological diversity and protecting habitats, and have the potential to provide a
flexible, spatially-based management
framework for addressing multiple ecological and socioeconomic objectives.118
In addition, the NRC stated that
closing certain areas to fishing can
advance sustainable fisheries manage-
24
CHAPTER 6
JOHN H. McSHANE
Other coastal issues requiring proactive state-level action
This report has outlined recommendations from the ocean commissions that
apply to state waters and New Jersey in
particular. While the oceans commissions
took a comprehensive look at national
ocean policy, several issues important to
New Jersey were absent from these reports. The following section briefly identifies some additional coastal issues that
also require proactive state-level action.
The scope of the Public Trust Doctrine has been the subject of many
lawsuits in New Jersey, dating back to
1972.123 The New Jersey Supreme
Court recently decided a beach access
case that raised the question of the
public’s right to use the upland sand
portion of the beach owned and operated by a private beach club.124,125 The
Court held that the Public Trust Doctrine requires the beach club’s property
to be open to the general public at a
reasonable fee for services provided
by the owner and approved by the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
Public access
Because so many private properties line
New Jersey’s beaches, the public is
forced to find municipally sanctioned
access points or traverse private property
in order to get onto a beach. But the
Public Trust Doctrine (under which
New Jersey holds title in submerged and
tidal lands in trust for the people of the
state) requires that tidal waters be
accessible to the general public for
navigation, fishing and recreation.122
Recommendation More aggressive
enforcement of the Public Trust Doctrine by the state’s Attorney General
and Department of Environmental
Protection is needed to better protect
the public’s rightful access to beach and
ocean waters.
25
Privatization of Sandy Hook
Recommendation Public tax dollars
should not be used for beach replenishment projects that only benefit private
property owners. The full environmental
impact of beach replenishment should
be evaluated by the state to ensure proper
mitigation of habitat disturbance.
Sandy Hook, a 1,665-acre barrier
beach protruding into Raritan Bay, is
the northern-most peninsula of New
Jersey’s shore. Because it was a military
outpost until the 1970s, Sandy Hook
is a largely undeveloped barrier island
with a variety of habitats: beach and
dunes, mudflats, holly forest, deciduous
woods, freshwater ponds, salt marshes,
coastal scrub/shrub and successional
fields.126 Recently, the National Park
Service has proposed leasing 24 buildings to private developers.
Global warming
Global warming threatens New Jersey’s
coastal ecosystems by decreasing water
flow in streams and rivers; threatening
coastal wetlands and the forested Pine
Barrens; and causing sea level to rise,
which could damage New Jersey’s
beaches and valuable coastal real estate.
Emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)
contribute to global warming. The
major sources of CO2 emissions in New
Jersey are from transportation and
electricity generation.131 Together, these
two sectors contributed 70 percent of
the CO2 emissions in 2001 (the latest
year for which data is available).
Recommendation The state should
intervene to make sure that the public’s interests are well represented in
this case.
Beach replenishment
On an annual basis, sand and sediment
are moved—at great public expense—
to accommodate navigation, beach
nourishment and construction. From
the 1930s through 2003, 65.5 million
cubic yards of sand has been placed
on New Jersey beaches.127 On its own,
New Jersey spends $25 million a year
to replace sand lost to erosion on
shore beaches.128
But the cost of maintaining New
Jersey’s beaches is far greater. The
Army Corps of Engineers is conducting
the world’s largest beach replenishment
project to provide 100-foot wide
beaches along the entire Jersey shore,
which experts believe will cost $9 billion129 (65 percent of which is funded
by federal taxpayers) over a 50-year
period. The process of scooping up
offshore sand and dumping it on
beaches disturbs valuable offshore
habitats for shellfish and fish. Most
of the sand that has been placed on
beaches washes out to sea in as little
as a year after “replenishment.”130
Recommendation New Jersey should
take steps to reduce its share of CO2
emissions, including: developing a
strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled;
ensuring that the “Regional Greenhouse
Gas Initiative” (a regional cap-and-trade
program covering global warming emissions from power plants) results in a
10 percent reduction in emissions below
current levels by 2010; and adopting a
standard by which 20 percent of electricity sold in the state in 2020 will
come from renewable sources.132
Sea life mortality caused by
power plants
Power plants kill billions of fish annually, as well as sea turtles and other
marine life, when using the outdated
technology of a once-through cooling
26
captures and kills eggs and larvae that
pass through the intake grates (also
know as entrainment). Finally, thermal
pollution or elevated water temperatures
caused by warm water returned to the
river or bay can affect the natural feeding and reproductive behavior of sea life.
A closed-cycle cooling system with
cooling towers is the most effective way
to reduce these environmental impacts
by reducing the amount of water needed
to cool a plant by 95 percent or more.134
system. The once-through cooling
design takes water on a daily basis from
the adjacent river or bay to cool reactors
then discharges the hot water. This is
especially of concern at the Oyster
Creek Power Plant on Barnegat Bay and
the Salem Nuclear Power Plant on the
Delaware Bay, where the plants draw
1.2 billion and three billion gallons of
water, respectively, each day.133
The once-through cooling design
leads to three types of mortality for sea
life. A sudden discharge of hot water
causes occasional fish kill events. The
suction of drawing large volumes of
water causes adult fish to be killed
against the cooling intake grate (also
know as impingement). The intake also
Recommendation New Jersey should
require all nuclear and coal power plants
with a once-through cooling system to
retrofit plants with a closed-cycle
cooling system.
27
CHAPTER 7
ISTOCKPHOTO/ANDREA GINGERIRCH
Conclusion
Blueprint for state-level action
mendations of the oceans commissions, the state can demonstrate its
leadership by implementing progressive
ocean policies to reverse the decline
in its valuable ocean resources and
make them once again vibrant, selfsustaining and available for future
generations.
We call upon New Jersey decision
makers to act immediately to:
New Jersey’s prized and economically
valuable shoreline and coastal waters
are in trouble. Residents and visitors
expect clean waters and beaches,
healthy seafood, abundant fisheries,
effective management of the coastal
zone, and sensible ocean governance
and funding.
Public policy based on sound science
is the best route to protecting and
nurturing our ocean resources. It
requires leadership to set reasonable
goals, and commitment to meet those
targets. New Jersey has an opportunity
to demonstrate to its citizens and the
nation such leadership and commitment. Given the tremendous capacity of
ocean ecosystems to recover from
degradation, it is not too late to act.
New Jersey Coast 2005 is an important first step in addressing these
problems. However, New Jersey needs
to go further. By adopting the recom-
Protect coastal and bay waters
• Develop water quality criteria and
sewage treatment plant permit limits
for nutrients to ensure safe swimming,
shellfish and fish harvesting;
• Create a long-term funding plan with
increased technical and financial
assistance to clean up contaminated
stormwater; and
• Require enforceable management
measures to reduce nonpoint source
pollution.
28
also demand attention by the next
administration and legislature:
Restore fisheries:
• Adopt an ecosystem-based approach
to fisheries management;
Public access
• Ensure public access to the state’s
beaches by enforcement of the Public
Trust Doctrine.
• Broaden representation on fishery
advisory bodies; and
• Require harvest limits be based on
ecosystem-level considerations that do
not exceed scientific recommendations.
Privatization of federal facilities
• Protect the public’s interests when
federal facilities are proposed for
privatization.
Curb coastal sprawl:
• Amend (and strengthen enforcement
of ) state laws to require improved
land use planning and decisionmaking; and
Beach replenishment
• Ensure that public monies are not used
for private benefit in beach replenishment projects.
• Reduce the individual and cumulative
impacts of development on water
supply and water quality, including
the effects of stormwater runoff on
ocean and bay resources.
Global warming
• Reduce New Jersey’s contribution of
carbon dioxide emissions to global
warming.
Strengthen ocean management:
Sea life mortality caused by power
plants
• Adopt as state policy the need to
protect, maintain, and restore healthy
coastal and ocean ecosystems; and
• Require all nuclear and coal power
plants with a once-through cooling
system to retrofit plants with a closedcycle cooling system.
• Develop an ocean management policy
that requires agency coordination,
incorporates ocean zoning, environmental review, and the principle of
ecosystem-based management.
We hope that concerned citizens and
New Jersey decision makers will use this
report as a blueprint for how to improve
the state’s ocean management and
protection policies so that they meet
the challenges of the 21st century.
Several issues that are pertinent to
New Jersey, but which were not directly
discussed in the commissions’ reports,
29
About the authors
Amy Schick Kenney is an independent consultant for ocean and fishery policy, working with Environmental Defense on an ecosystem-based approach to fishery management, the Coastal Ocean Coalition on progressive ocean policy in New Jersey, and
the Marine Aquaculture Task Force on national standards for aquaculture. Kenney
recently served as the director for marine conservation policy at the Pew Oceans
Commission and a fishery management coordinator at the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission. Kenney received a B.S. in Biology and Environmental
Science & Policy from Duke University and continued her studies at Duke for a
Master’s in coastal environmental management.
Sarah Clark Stuart is an ocean conservation policy expert with over 15 years experience on marine fisheries, marine protected areas and water quality issues. Most
recently, she worked for the Coastal Ocean Coalition, a national coalition dedicated
to promoting proactive state-level policies that protect ocean resources. She spent
three years working with the Conservation Law Foundation on a project to identify
and map important areas of the Gulf of Maine for consideration as marine protected
areas. Prior to that Stuart spent seven years each with the Pew Charitable Trusts’
Environment Program and Environmental Defense working on ocean and coastal
issues. Stuart is a graduate of both Yale University’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and Pomona College.
30
About the Coastal Ocean Coalition
Coastal Ocean Coalition
The Coastal Ocean Coalition is a network of environmental organizations working
to conserve, protect and restore some of the nation’s most vital marine environments:
state waters. COC provides policy makers and community groups with the tools they
need to help coastal states take the bold steps necessary to protect their ocean
resources. COC is a project of the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental
Defense, the Marine Conservation Biology Institute and the Natural Resources
Defense Council. P.O. Box 73, Atlantic Highlands, NJ 07716. 732-291-2163.
www.coastaloceancoalition.org.
The oldest regional environmental advocacy organization in the nation, with offices
throughout New England, the Conservation Law Foundation advocates innovative
strategies to conserve natural resources, protect public health and promote vital
communities throughout the region. 62 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02110.
617-350-0990. www.clf.org.
Environmental Defense is a leading national nonprofit organization using science,
economics and the law to evaluate environmental problems and to create and
advocate solutions that win lasting political, economic and social support because
they are nonpartisan, cost-efficient and fair. Website: www.environmentaldefense.org
MCBI is a nonprofit, tax-exempt scientific and conservation advocacy organization.
From headquarters in Redmond WA and offices in Washington DC and Glen Ellen
CA, MCBI works to protect and restore marine life on the West Coast, around the
United States and beyond, by: encouraging research and training in marine conservation biology; bringing scientists together to examine crucial marine conservation
issues; doing policy research to frame the marine conservation agenda; lecturing,
producing books and other publications to educate scientists, the public and decision
makers on key issues; building partnerships to solve problems affecting marine life
and people. MCBI works to provide a strong scientific foundation in theory, data and
insightful analysis that is necessary for effective marine stewardship. 600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, SE, Suite 210, Washington DC 20003. 202-546-5346. www.mcbi.org.
The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, non-profit organization of
scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public
health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has more than 1 million
members and e-activists nationwide, served from offices in New York, Washington,
Southern California and San Francisco. 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011.
212-727-2700. www.nrdc.org.
31
About the partner organizations
Bayshore Regional Watershed Association
Since 2000, the Bayshore Regional Watershed Council (BRWC) has been working
to improve the physical environment in the Raritan Bay-Sandy Hook Bay region of
Middlesex and Monmouth counties through activism, education, and public water
quality improvement projects. The BRWC is made up of volunteers, including
citizens, scientists, environmental commissioners, and municipal officials. Its goal
has been and continues to be the restoration, conservation, and sustainable use of
Raritan and Sandy Hook bays, and their tributaries. P.O. Box 541, Navesink, NJ
07752. 732-872-2834.
The New Jersey Audubon Society (NJAS) is a privately supported, not-for-profit,
statewide membership organization. Founded in 1897, and one of the oldest
independent Audubon societies, NJAS has no connection with the National
Audubon Society. The New Jersey Audubon Society fosters environmental awareness and a conservation ethic among New Jersey’s citizens; protects New Jersey’s
birds, mammals, other animals, and plants, especially endangered and threatened
species; and promotes preservation of New Jersey’s valuable natural habitats.
9 Hardscrabble Road, P.O. Box 126, Bernardsville, NJ 07924. 908-204-8998.
www.njaudubon.org.
The Sierra Club is the nation’s oldest, largest and most influential member-supported
environmental organization, which seeks to influence public policy in both Washington
and the state capitals through public education and grass-roots political action. There
are 23,000 members in New Jersey. 139 West Hanover Street, Trenton, NJ 08618.
609-656-7612. www.newjersey.sierraclub.org.
The New Jersey Environmental Lobby has for three decades, been a voice in Trenton
on statewide environmental issues. It is statewide and focused primarily on New Jersey
issues. Its membership includes organizations of varying size and close to a thousand
individuals. Member dues and contributions are our major source of income. 204 West
State Street, Trenton, NJ 08608. 609-396-3774. www.njenvironment.org.
When consumers are cheated, or our natural environment is threatened, or the voices
of ordinary citizens are drowned out by special interest lobbyists, NJPIRG speaks
up and takes action. NJPIRG uncovers threats to public health and well-being
and fights to end them, using the time-tested tools of investigative research, media
exposés, grassroots organizing, advocacy and litigation. NJPIRG’s mission is to
deliver persistent, result-oriented public interest activism that protects our environment, encourages a fair, sustainable economy, and fosters responsive, democratic
government. NJPIRG has 26,000 members in New Jersey. 11 North Willow Street,
Trenton, NJ 08608. 609-394-8155. www.njpirg.org.
32
The Ocean Conservancy, as the oldest and largest organization exclusively dedicated
to marine conservation, strives to be the world's foremost advocate for the oceans
through the use of science-based research, public education and advocacy. The Ocean
Conservancy informs, inspires, and empowers people to speak and act on behalf of the
oceans. TOC envisions a world of wild, healthy oceans, where diverse ecosystems of
abundant marine wildlife, habitats and clean ocean waters are restored and conserved
for generations to come. 2029 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006. 202-429-5609.
www.oceanconservancy.org.
PEER is a national non-profit alliance of local, state and federal scientists, law
enforcement officers, land managers and other professionals dedicated to upholding
environmental laws and values. P.O. Box 1, Ringoes, NJ 08551. 609-397-8213.
www.peer.org
The Surfrider Foundation is a non-profit grassroots organization dedicated to the
protection and preservation of our world’s oceans, waves and beaches. Founded in
1984 by a handful of visionary surfers, the Surfrider Foundation now maintains
over 40,000 members and 60 chapters across the United States and Puerto Rico,
with international affiliates in Australia, Europe, Japan and Brazil. P.O. Box 6010,
San Clemente, CA 92674. 949-492-8170. www.surfrider.org.
33
Notes
1
2
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, An
Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century: Final
Report. Washington, D.C., 2004. www
.oceancommission.gov
3
New Jersey’s Coast 2005: A Plan to Strengthen
Protection of Our Valuable Coastal Resources .
www.nj.gov/dep/cmp/njcoast_2005.pdf
4
Ibid.
5
New Jersey’s 2004 Integrated Water Quality
Monitoring and Assessment Report, Section
3.3b, p.III-177. www.state.nj.us/dep/wmm/
sgwqt/wat/integratedlist/integratedlist2004.
html
6
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Engineering. www
.state.nj.us/dep/shoreprotection/
7
Protection, Division of Fish & Wildlife,
Bureau of Marine Fisheries. www.nj.gov/
dep/fgw/marfhome.htm.
8
9
10
11
Spatial Analysis, Cook College, Rutgers
University, 2004.
Pew Oceans Commission, America’s Living
Oceans: Charting A Course for Sea Change,
A Report to the Nation. Arlington, Va.,
May 2003. www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/
env_pew_oceans_final_report.pdf
Protection, Office of Coastal Planning. The
New Jersey Coastal Management Program:
Ocean Resource Management in New
Jersey. March 2002. www.nj.gov/dep/cmp/
fact3.pdf
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004.
Annual Report to Congress on the Status of
U.S. Fisheries—2003. Silver Spring, MD,
and the 2004 FMP reviews for each species
from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission.
“Poor” is defined as two or more indicators
registering in poor condition. “Fair” is
defined as one indicator rates poor or two or
more indicators rate fair. “Good” is defined
as four indicators being good, only one
indicator is fair and no indicators are poor.
See EPA’s 2004 National Coastal Condition
Report (NCRR II). EPA, 2005.
www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/2005/.
Lathrop, Richard G., Measuring Land Use
Change in New Jersey: Land Use Update to
Year 2000. A Report on Recent Development
Patterns 1995 to 2000. New Brunswick, NJ:
Walton Center for Remote Sensing and
34
12
NJDEP Division of Watershed Management, Southern Planning Bureau, Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program: Summary
Report for 2002, 2003 and 2004. www
.njbeaches.org/docs/CCMPupdate.pdf
13
Protection. New Jersey’s 2004 Integrated
Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment
Report, p. III-184.
14
NJDEP Division of Watershed Management, Southern Planning Bureau, Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program:
Summary Report for 2002, 2003 and 2004.
www.njbeaches.org/docs/CCMPupdate.pdf
15
Protection and New Jersey Department of
Health and Senior Services, A Guide to
Health Advisories for Eating Fish and Crabs
Caught in New Jersey Waters . 2001.
www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/fishadvisory05.pdf
16
The New Jersey Coastal Management
Program. Fact Sheet #3. March 2002.
www.nj.gov/dep/cmp/fact3.pdf
17
Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and
Assessment Methods. 2003. www.state.nj
.us/dep/wmm/sgwqt/wat/integratedlist/
04%20Methods%20Doc.pdf
18
New Jersey’s 2004 Integrated Water Quality
Monitoring and Assessment Report (which
includes the 305(b) report and 303(d) list),
p. III-180. www.state.nj.us/dep/wmm/
sgwqt/wat/integratedlist/integratedlist2004
.html
19
NJDEP Division of Watershed Management, Southern Planning Bureau, Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program: Summary
Report for 2002, 2003 and 2004. www
.njbeaches.org/docs/CCMPupdate.pdf
20
Ibid.
21
A measure of all forms of coliform bacteria
(Escherischia coli and variants) present in a
water sample.
22
2004 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring
and Assessment Report at p. III-184.
23
These percentages were accurate as of April
15, 2005. Robert Connell, NJDEP Bureau
of Marine Water Monitoring, personal
communication.
24
and Assessment Report at p. III-185.
38
Pew Oceans Commission, p. 26,
Recommendation #1 and p. 117.
25
Joseph Mannick, NJDEP, Bureau of Point
Source Permitting, Region 2, personal
communication.
39
USCOP #14-1.
40
USCOP #14-14 and POC, p. 27, Recommendation #1.
Atlantic City shellfish beds were downgraded from “Approved” to “Prohibited”; the
Navesink River shellfish beds from “Special
Restricted” to “Prohibited”; and the Maurice
River Cove beds from “Approved” to
“Special Restricted.” Proposed amendments
to NJAC 7:12-2.1, 3.2 and 4.1.
41
USCOP, p. 227.
42
Tom Baum, NJDEP Bureau of Marine
Fisheries. Personal communication.
43
Personal communication from the National
Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics
Division, Silver Spring, MD.
44
Protection, Division of Fish & Wildlife,
Bureau of Marine Fisheries. www.nj.gov/
dep/fgw/marfhome.htm
45
National Marine Fisheries Service, Annual
Report to Congress on the Status of U.S.
Fisheries 2003. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring,
MD, 2003.
46
“Overfished” means the amount of mature
fish in the population falls below the mandated limit for a healthy population. The
species include tilefish, spiny dogfish, bluefish, sturgeon, American shad, river herring
and winter flounder.
47
“Overfishing” means the mortality caused
by fishing exceeds the mandated limit for
healthy populations. It is occurring in the
monkfish, tilefish, scup, summer flounder,
lobster, American shad, river herring, tautog
and winter flounder fisheries.
26
27
and Assessment Report at p. III-170-171.
28
Debra Hammond, Bureau Chief, Water
Standards and Assessment, NJDEP,
personal communication.
29
National Coastal Condition Report II
(NCRR II). EPA, 2005. www.epa.gov/
owow/oceans/nccr/2005/
30
NCRR II results that pertain to New Jersey
were summarized by Bob Connell of DEP’s
Marine Water Monitoring Bureau in a
presentation to the DEP’s Water Monitoring Coordinating Council. According to
the NCRR II results, waters are characterized as “fair” either where 10–20% of coastal
waters are in poor condition or more than
50% of coastal waters are in combined fair
and poor condition.
31
Clean Ocean Action web site’s “Nonpoint
source or ‘pointless’ pollution” page. www
.cleanoceanaction.org/index.php?id=107.
48
32
NJDEP Division of Watershed Management, Southern Planning Bureau, Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program:
Summary Report for 2002, 2003 and 2004.
www.njbeaches.org/docs/CCMPupdate.pdf
The status of American eel, horseshoe crab,
red drum, spot, spotted seatrout, striped bass
and weakfish is unknown with respect to
either its overfished or overfishing status, or
in some cases both.
49
33
“DEP announces Tougher Pollution Limits
to Restore and Improve Water Quality in
New Jersey Waterways.” DEP Press Release,
June 24, 2005.
34
This is exclusive of a large one-time loan to
the Rahway Sewerage Authority. 2004 figure
from NJDEP’s Division of Water Quality’s
Bureau of Program Development and Technical Services.
National Marine Fisheries Service. Annual
Report to Congress on the Status of U.S.
Fisheries 2003. Silver Spring, MD, 2004, and
the 2004 FMP reviews for each species from
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission. www.asmfc.org
50
Species that rank in the top five for pounds
landed and landed value based on a five-year
average, or that rank in the top five for
number of recreational fishing trips taken.
Jeff Brust, NJDEP, Bureau of Marine
Fisheries, personal communication.
51
National Research Council, Sustaining
Marine Fisheries . National Academy of
Sciences, 1998.
35
Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP)
Recommendation #14-12.
36
USCOP #14-4.
37
Pew Oceans Commission, p. 25,
Recommendation #1.
35
52
69
NJDEP Press Release 05/74, “New Jersey
Imposes Emergency Moratorium on Horseshoe Crab Harvest.” June 9, 2005. www.state
.nj.us/dep/newsrel/2005/05_0074.htm.
70
Hasse, John and Richard Lathrop, Measuring Urban Growth in New Jersey . New
Brunswick, NJ: Walton Center for
Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis,
Cook College, Rutgers University, 2001.
www.crssa.rutgers.edu/projects/lc/
urbangrowth/index.html.
71
New Jersey Future. May 2000 Statewide
Voter Poll on Sprawl.
72
Lathrop, Richard G., Measuring Land Use
Change in New Jersey: Land Use Update to
Year 2000. A Report on Recent Development
Patterns 1995 to 2000. New Brunswick, NJ:
Walton Center for Remote Sensing and
Spatial Analysis, Cook College, Rutgers
University, 2004.
73
Ibid at p.9.
74
U.S. Census Bureau and ePodunk. www
.ePodunk.com/top10/countypop/copop31
.html
75
The Shellfisheries Council is a state-level
advisory council that provides advice to the
NJDEP Commissioner, and is also created
by the Marine Fisheries Management and
Commercial Fisheries Act.
NJDEP defines impervious surfaces to
include concrete, asphalt, driveways, basketball courts, concrete patios, swimming pools
and buildings. www.state.nj.us/dep/
watershedmgt/stormwaterfaqs.htm#land2.
76
NJ Dept. of Agriculture web site: Aquaculture
Development. www.nj.gov/agriculture/rural/
seafood/aquaculture.htm#aquadevelop
Beach, Dana, Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of
Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the
United States. Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans
Commission, 2002.
77
Lacombe, Pierre J. and Glen B. Carleton,
“Hydrogeologic Framework, Availability
of Water Supplies, and Saltwater Intrusion,
Cape May County, New Jersey.” US Geological Survey in cooperation with the New
Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Water-Resources Investigations
Report 01-4246. 2002.
53
Alverson 1998.
54
Over the past year, several stock assessments
(summer flounder, bluefish, and weakfish)
report concern with the status of the stock
(i.e. overfishing is occurring), however the
cause of overfishing is uncertain because the
fisheries have remained within their allowable harvest.
55
National Research Council, Science and Its
Role in the National Marine Fisheries Service .
National Academy of Sciences, 2002.
56
Eagle, Josh, Sarah Newkirk, and Barton
Thompson, Taking Stock of the Regional
Fisheries Management Councils. Washington,
DC: Island Press, 2003.
57
It is important to note that while the Governor nominates candidates to the regional
fishery management councils, the Secretary
of Commerce makes final appointments.
Therefore the council membership ultimately
rests with the Secretary of Commerce.
58
59
60
Caught in New Jersey Waters . 2001. www
.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/fishadvisory05.pdf
Alverson, D.L., Discarding practices and
unobserved fishing mortality in marine fisheries: An update. Seattle, WA: Washington
Sea Grant Program, 1998.
Created by the Marine Fisheries Management and Commercial Fisheries Act of 1979
(N.J.S.A.23:2B).
61
USCOP 19-12.
62
POC, p. 23, Recommendation #2.
63
USCOP 19-22.
64
65
POC, p. 28, Recommendation #1 and
USCOP 22-2.
78
66
USCOP 23-5.
USGS Fact Sheet 085-00. September 2000.
79
67
Goldburg, R.J., M. Elliot, and R. Naylor.
Marine Aquaculture in the United States:
Environmental Impacts and Policy Options.
Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans Commission,
2001.
An analysis of the 2000 dataset of impervious surfaces is expected in early 2006, per
personal communication from John Hasse,
Rowan University.
80
Hasse, John and Richard Lathrop, Measuring Growth in New Jersey: A report on Recent
Land Patterns Utilizing the 1986–1995
NJDEP Land Use/Land Cover Data Set.
CRSSA, 2001. www.crssa.rutgers.edu/
projects/lc/urbangrowth/index.html
68
Protection and New Jersey Department of
Health and Senior Services, A Guide to
Health Advisories for Eating Fish and Crabs
36
81
Ibid at p. 15, see Figure 14.
82
NJSA 13:19.
83
From NJDEP’s summary of Coastal Management Program History. www.nj.gov/dep/
cmp/czm_history.html.
84
NJSA 13:19-2 Legislative findings and
declaration.
85
State Planning Act (NJSA 52:18A-196).
86
USCOP 14-11.
87
USCOP 9-1.
88
89
90
91
Assembly 3742, introduced in February
2005 by Jeff Van Drew (D).
92
NJDEP Press Release, “DEP Proposes
Amendments to Coastal Center Rules: Proposal Would Reestablish Coastal Centers in
Towns Seeking Plan Endorsement.” June 7,
2005. www.state.nj.us/dep/newsreel/2005/
05_0071.htm
93
S1368/A3008 of the 211th Legislature
(2004-2005 Session).
94
Knots in South America. The Condor.
106:60-70.
All municipalities designated in areas Planning Area 1or 2, previously-designated
centers, Urban Enterprise Zones, and
Redevelopment Areas.
103
NJDEP Press Release 05/74. New Jersey
Imposes Emergency Moratorium on
Horseshoe Crab Harvest. June 9, 2005.
www.state.nj.us/dep/newsrel/2005/05_0074.
htm.
104
http://www.nj.gov/dep/cmp/czm_program
.html
105
National Research Council. Marine Protected
Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems.
National Academy of Sciences. 2001.
106
Since 2001, loans for Clean Water Projects
has gone from $193 million (34 projects) to
$159 million (32 projects) in 2002, to $99
million in 2003 (19 projects) to $93 million
(26 projects) in 2004 (the 2004 figure is
exclusive of a large loan to the Rahway
Sewerage Authority, excluded here for
comparison purposes). Information provided
by the NJDEP Division of Water Quality’s
Bureau of Program Development and
Technical Services.
107
POC and USCOP, Recommendation 4-3.
108
USCOP Recommendation 5-1 and 11-2.
109
USCOP Recommendation 6-3.
110
USCOP Recommendation 24-5.
111
95
State Planning Act (NJSA 52:18A-196).
112
USCOP, p. 168.
96
“Fast Track is Bad News for the Coast!”
American Littoral Society Action Alert.
www.littoralsociety.org/alerts.htm#Fast
113
POC.
114
See page 8 of the Island Beach State Park
Visitor’s Guide www.friendsofislandbeach
.com/vgpg8.htm and a write up of the Sedge
Island marine conservation zone in the New
Jersey section of the federal MPA website.
www.mpa.gov/mpa_programs/states/
new_jersey.html.
115
Don Wilkerson, NJDEP’s Division of Fish
and Wildlife, personal communication.
116
Natural Areas System Rules and Statutes
Effective 12/20/04 NJAC 7:5A-1.1 through
1.14.
117
New Jersey’s Wildlife Management Areas
page on NJDEP Division of Fish and Wildlife’s web site. www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/wmarticl
.htm.
97
NOAA letter by Bill O’Beirne, Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
to Jeanne Herb, Director, Office of Policy,
Planning and Science dated August 18,
2004.
98
Linkous, Jeff, “Codey Extends Order
Delaying Development Law from Taking
Effect.” Associated Press, July 12, 2005.
99
See www.savenj.net.
100
Baker, Allan J. et al., “Rapid population
declines in red knots: fitness consequences of
decreased refueling rates and later arrival in
the Delaware Bay.” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B
(2004). June 7, 2005.
101
Sitters, Humphrey and Clive Minton,
Congressional Briefing, June 2, 2005.
Washington, D.C.: 2005.
118
National Research Council. 2001. Marine
Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean
Ecosystems. National Academy of Sciences.
102
Baker et al., 2004 and Morrison, RI Guy, P.
Kenyon Ross and Lawrence J Niles. 2005.
Declines in wintering populations of Red
119
See the California Ocean Protection Act ,
Senate Bill 1318 and 1319 (passed in 2004).
www.e2.org/ext/document.jsp?docId=4641
37
120
121
122
123
124
Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council.
2002. Report and Recommendation to
the Governor: Oregon and Marine
Reserves. oregonocean.org/upload/
FinalApprovedReport.pdf.
See Massachusetts Senate Bill 529 (An
Act Relative to Comprehensive Ocean
Resources Management) Sponsored by:
Senator Robert O’Leary. www.mass.gov/
legis/bills/senate/st00/st00529.htm.
Kaspar, Karim and Christopher Hopkins.
February 2004. “Clarifying the Scope of
Public Interest in Private Beachfront
Property.” www.cianj.org
“N.J. Supreme Court Will Hear Important
Beach Access Case.” Garden State
EnviroNews 041224, Story #5. New
Jersey Law Journal, Dec. 20, 2004 by
Lewis Goldshore and Marsha Wolf.
www.gsenet.org/library/11gsn/2004/
gs041224.5.html and Simon, Jennifer. “Not
Just a Walk in the Park: Beach Access and
the Public Trust Doctrine in New Jersey.”
The National Sea Grant Law Center.
University of Mississippi. www.olemiss
.edu/orgs/SGLC/National/SandBar/
3.3beach.htm.
Raleigh Avenue Beach Association v.
Atlantis Beach Club, Inc., 370 N.J. Super.
171 (App. Div. 2004), cert. granted 181 N.J.
548 (2004). see
38
125
“NJ High court affirms public’s right to
access private beach.” Associated Press. July
26, 2005.
126
www.savesandyhook.org/history.php.
127
New Jersey Historical Beachfill Database
figures provided by J. Bailey Smith, ACOE,
Philadelphia District.
128
NJDEP Coastal Engineering-Beach
Nourishment web page (last updated March
2005). www.nj.gov/dep/shoreprotectioin/
nourishment.htm
129
“Troubled Waters Top Ten: New Jersey,”
from Taxpayers for Common Sense and
National Wildlife Federation. 2000.
Troubled Waters Report: 2000 .
130
Ibid at www.taxpayer.net/corpswatch/
troubledwaters/projects/newjersey.htm.
131
Algoso, Dave and Emily Rusch. 2005. Global
Warming Pollution in New Jersey: Key Steps to
Reduce Emissions from Electricity Generation
and Transportation. New Jersey Public Interest
Research Group Law & Policy Center.
njpirg.org/NJ.asp?id2=16952&id3=NJ&
132
Ibid at p. 6.
133
O’Malley, Doug. 2004. Oyster Creek’s
Environmental Record: A Checkered
History. NJPIRG http://njpirg.org/reports/
oystercreek.pdf
134
O’Malley, Doug. 2004. Oyster Creek’s
Environmental Record: A Checkered
History. NJPIRG http://njpirg.org/reports/
oystercreek.pdf.

Ocean Protection in New Jersey

Transcription

Similar documents

Township of Wall Regional Bike Path Central Section Map Map 3 of

MIS33-Skylight Ice Arena.qxp - The Ives Architecture Studio

cancellation of business name

Burlington County Times - Solar - color.indd

Listen for 3 to 5 minute siren

Jersey

Tree Top Ocean Views

Jersey, you`re no quitter! 5 tricks for keeping fitness resolutions in NJ

Metrovest Equities, Inc. - The RBA Group Is Now NV5

fora family?