estuarine study

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

WAPO RA, Inc. Environmental/ Energy Studies
6900 WISCONSIN AVENUE N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20015
PHONE - (301) 652-9520

#726 September 28, 1979

I
THE ESTUARINE STUDY
VOLUME 1
IMPACT AND MANAGEMENT REPORT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
3I~~~~~ ~~2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

i
Prepared for: New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
Division of Coastal Resources
Bureau of Coastal Planning and Development
Labor & Industry Building
PO Box 1889
Trenton, N.J. 08625
Contract A97146

3.4
This report was prepared in part with financial assistance from the
~~~~_ ~United States Department of Commerce
i National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management
- under the provisions of Section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management
~-- en Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-583, as amended).
Principal WAPORA authors: R. Bogardus, J. Schmid, and J. Andrea
Iaj:E

-z~~~~ ~Property of CSC Library

AIR SOLID WASTE WATER

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMlARY

PAGE
Executive Summary 1.
Summary Recommendations 3.
A. Procedural and Technical Measures 3.
1. General Recommendations 3.
2. EIS and Permit Review Procedures 3.
3. Wetlands 5.
4. Coastal Area Facility Review Act 6.
5. Waterfront Development Permits and the Natural 6.
Resource Council
6. Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission -6.
B. Substantive Policies 7.
C. Legislative Changes 10.
D. Surveillance and Enforcement 11.
E. Further Study Needs 12.

PART TWO: REPORT ON IMPTACTS

I. Introduction 13.
II. Characterization of the Study Area 14.
A. Water 14.
1. Surface Waters 14.
2. Groundwater 14.
3. Precipitation 15.
B. Land 15.
C. Edge 16.
D. Air 16.
III. Land and Water Sections of the Study Area 17.
A. Ocean Section 17.
B. Estuarine Section 18.
C. Shoreland Section 20.
IV. Environmental Issues and Problems 22.
A. Ocean Section 23.
B. Estuarine Section 25.
C. Shoreland Section 29.
D. Air Quality 31.
V. Ecological Goals and Objectives 32.
A. Environmental Goals 32.
B. General Ecological Objectives 32.
VI. Special Coastal Resources 33.
A. Shellfish Areas 36.
B. Prime Fishing Areas 37.
C. Submerged Vegetation 38.
D. Wetlands 39.
E. Critical Wildlife Habitat 43.
F. Endangered or Threatened Species Habitat 43.
G. Migratory Pathways and Spawning Areas 47.
H. Shipwrecks and Reefs 48.
I. Beaches 49.

PAGE
J. Dunes 50.
K. Coastal Bluffs 51.
L. Marine and Estuarine Sanctuaries 51.
M. Pinelands 52.
N. Open Space 53.
O. Farmland 54.
P. Central Barrier Island Corridor 55.
Q. Oak, Hickory, and Pine Forests 56.
VII. Relationship of Special Coastal Resources to Environmental
Goals and Objectives 56.
VIII. Impact Relationships in the Coastal Zone 59.
A. Expected Future Uses in the Study Area 59.
B. Impacting Activities 59.
C. Land and Water Types of the Study Area 65.
D. Impacting Activities/Environmental Changes 65.
E. Impact Analysis 74.
IX. Environmental Change Parameters Requiring Quantitative 89.
Thresholds
K. Use Constraints and Priority Use Recommendations 129.
for Water, Edge, and Land Types
A. Use Constraints 129.
B. Prioritization of Uses 157.
XI. Reclamation 175.
A. Priority I 175.
B. Priority II 180.
C. Priority III 182.

PART THREE: MANAGEMENT REPORT

XII. Institutional Framework for Coastal Zone Management by the 184.
State of New Jersey
A. Context of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 184.
as amended
B. Strategic Option Selected by New Jersey 186.
C. Bases for State Controls in the New Jersey Coastal Zone 186.
1. Department of Environmental Protection 188.
a. Division of Coastal Resources 188.
b. Division of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries 190.
c. Division of Parks and Forestry 192.
d. The Green Acres and Recreational Opportunities 193.
Program
e. Division of Water Resources 194.
(1) Appointed Councils 194.
(2) Water Resources Planning and Management 194.
Element
(a) Bureau of Water Supply Planning 194.
and Management
(b) Bureau of Water Quality Planning 196.
and Management
(c) Support Section 196.
(3) Public Wastewater Facilities Element 198.
(4) Water Pollution Control, Monitoring, 200
Surveillance, and Enforcement Element

PAGE

(5) Water Supply and Floodplain Management 201.
Element
(a) Bureau of Potable Water 201.
(b) Bureau of Water Facility Operation 202.
(c) Bureau of Floodplain Management 203.
[1] Stream Encroachment Section 203.
[2] Floodplain Study Section 203.
[3] Dam Analysis Section 204.
(6) Office of Sludge Management and Industrial 204.
Pretreatment
(7) Office of Environmental Assessment 204.
(8) Office of Program Development 204.
(9) Office of Regulatory Affairs 206.
f. Division of Environmental Quality 206.
g. Solid Waste Administration 207.
h. Office of the Commissioner 208.
2. State Mosquito Control Commission 209.
3. Department of Energy 211.
4. Department of Community Affairs 212.
5. Department of Agriculture 213.
6. Department of Labor and Industry 213.
7. Department of the Public Advocate 214.
8. Department of Transportation 214.
9. Intrastate Regional Agencies 214.
a. Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission 214.
b. Pinelands Environmental Council (Historic Note) 214.
c. Pinelands Planning Entity (Pinelands Planning 215.
Commission)
d. South Jersey Port Corporation 216.
e. Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission 218.
XIII. Other Governmental Agency Responsibilities 220.
A. Federal Agency Responsibility 220.
1. Direct Federal Actions 220.
2. Federally Licensed and Permitted Activities 222.
a. Army Corps of Engineers 222.
(1) Authorities and Policies 222.
(2) Enforcement 235.
(3) Transfer of Program Administration 235.
to States
b. Environmental Protection Agency 236.
c. Department of the Interior 238.
d. Department of Commerce (National Marine 241.
Fisheries Service)
e. Department of Transportation 241.
f. Department of Energy 242.
g. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 242.
h. Department of Housing and Urban Development 242.
3. Federal Assistance to State and Local Government 243.
Agencies
B. Interstate Agency Responsibilities 243.
1. Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) 247.
2. Interstate Sanitation Commission (ISC) 247.

iii

PAGE

3. Tri-State Regional Planning Commission 248.
4. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 248.
(DVRPC)
5. Palisades Interstate Park Commission 249.
6. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 249.
7. Delaware River and Bay Authority 249.
8. Delaware River Port Authority 250.
C. County Responsibilities 250.
D. Municipal Responsibilities 251.
XIV. Principal State Estuarine Regulatory Programs 253.
A. The Wetlands Act of 1970 253.
1. Provisions of the Act 253.
2. Administrative Delineation of Regulated Wetlands 256.
3. Regulation of Coastal Wetlands 266.
4. Enforcement 272.

B. Waterfront Development Permit Program 273.
C. Riparian Grants, Leases, and Licenses (Natural 278.
Resource Council)
D. Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) Permit Program 281.
1. Regulated Facilities 282.
2. Geographic Jurisdiction 282.
3. Regulatory Authority 282.
4. Permit Procedures 285.
5. Environmental Design Strategy 288.
6. Enforcement 288.
E. Stream Encroachment Permit Program 288.
F. Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (HMDC) 290.
1. New Construction Approvals 290.
a. Subdivision Procedures 292.
b. Specially Planned Area Procedures 293.
2. Building Permits, Inspections, and Certificates 295.
of Occupancy
3. Operations of HMDC 296.
4. HMDC Master Plan and Wetlands Protection 296.
5. HMDC Water Quality Standards 304.
6. Solid Waste Management 305.
XV. Coastal Resource Preservation 307.
A. Open Space Preservation Techniques 307.
1. Methods to Achieve Public Ownership 307.
2. Federal and State Assistance Programs 310.
3. Alternate Zoning 312.
B. Selected Legal Issues 312.
1. The Taking Issue 313.
2. Commentary on Cases 316.
a. Federal CZMA 316.
b. CAFRA 317.
c. Tidelands 317.
d. Stream Encroachment 317.
e. Water Quality 318.
f. Beach Access 318.

PAGE

g. Conservation Easements 319.
h. Scenic and Historic Preservation 319.
3. New Jersey Environmental Rights Act of 1974 319.
C. Public Participation and Public Education 320.
XVI. Recommended Measures to Protect the Coastal Zone Environment 322.
A. Procedural and Technical Guidelines 322.
1. General Recommendations 322.
2. EIS's and Permit Review Procedures 324.
3. Wetlands 327.
4. CAFRA 331.
5. Waterfront Development Permits and Natural 332.
Resource Council
6. MIDC 333.
B. Substantive Coastal Zone Policies 338.
C. Legislative Changes 360.
D. Surveillance and Enforcement 365.
E. Topics for Further Study 367.
XVII. Acknowledgments and Authorship 371.
XIV. Literature Cited 372.

APPENDICES

1. Excerpts from Kenai River Basin Review
2. Principal New Jersey Environmental Laws
I3. Federal Laws Most Frequently Encountered
4. Priority Contaminants for Study in the New York Bight

LIST OF TABLES
PAGE

1. General Objectives 34.
2. Endangered and Threatened Species 44.
3. Special Objectives (for Special Coastal Resources) 57.
4. Potential Land and Water Uses 60.
5. Definitions of Impacting Activities 62.
6. Land and Water Types 66.
7. Definitions of Land and Water Types 67.
8. Definitions of Environmental Changes 71.
9. Environmental Change Parameters - Estuarine Shellfish Beds 93.
10. Environmental Change Parameters - Shellfish Reefs 96.
11. Environmental Change Parameters - Ocean Shellfish Beds 99.
12. Environmental Change Parameters - Submerged Vegetation 101.
13. Environmental Change Parameters - Tidal Wetlands 103.
14. Environmental Change Parameters - Dunes 106.
15. Environmental Change Parameters - Central Barrier Island 108.
Corridor
16. Environmental Change Parameters - White Cedar Stands 109.
17. Environmental Change Parameters - Open Space 110.
18. Environmental Change Parameters - Prime Farmland and 111.
Specialty Soils
19. Environmental Change Parameters - Bogs and Non-Tidal Wetlands 112.
20. Environmental Change Parameters - Coastal Bluffs 114.
21. Environmental Change Parameters - Beaches 115.
22. Environmental Change Parameters - Migratory Pathways and 117.
Prime Spawning Areas
23. Environmental Change Parameters - Shipwrecks and Reefs 120.
24. Environmental Change Parameters - Prime Fishing Areas 123.
25. Environmental Change Parameters - Pine Barrens 126.
26. Environmental Change Parameters - Oak, Hickory, and Pine 128.
Forest
27. Use Constraint and Priority Use-Type Recommendations and 131.
Rationales
28. Prioritized Uses 158.
29. Direct Federal Activities in the Coastal Zone 221.

PAGE

30. Corps Permit Evaluation Policies 227.
31. Federal Assistance Programs 244.
32. Wetlands Map Categories 259.
33. Wetlands Permit Applications 274.
34. Waterfront Development Permit Applications 277.
35. New Development in Hackensack Meadowlands, 1970-1978 297.
36. Types of HMIDC Decisions 298.
37. HMDC Variance Decisions 299.
38. Tax Effects of Public Land Conservation Alternatives 311.

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Physiographic Regions in New Jersey 21.
2. Matrix Flow Chart 75.
3. Matrix Example Flow Chart 77.
4. Toxicity Threshold for Total Residual Oxidants Formed 92.
During Chlorination
5. Excluded Federal Facilities and the New Jersey Coastal Zone 187.
6. DEP Organization Chart 189.
7. Division of Coastal Resources Organization Chart 191.
8. DWR Organization Chart 195.
9. 208 Planning Areas 197.
10. Pine Barrens Critical Area 199.
11. Floodplains Delineated by DWR 205.
12. Pinelands National Reserve 217.
13. Pinelands Vegetation and Administrative Jurisdictions 219.
14. Corps Jurisdictions 223.
15. CAFRA Boundary 283.
16. HEMDC Review Process 291.
17. Growth Policies in the Coastal Zone 355.
18. Microclimatic Effects of Vegetation by Percent of Surface 357.
Area

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMThARY

This report presents an analysis of the New Jersey estuarine environ-
I tn~ent and the coastal zone management framework. It was commissioned by
the Office of Coastal Zone Management (now: Division of Coastal Resources,
Bureau of Coastal Planning and Development, BCPD) in the Department of
5 ~~Environmental Protection.

The report draws upon the accumulated experience of the consultant's
personnel who since about 1950 have studied, sought to protect, and advised
I ~ ~clients on how, sensitively, to develop the environment of New Jersey.
During the decade of the 1970's the consultant accomplished more than 100
contract environmental analyses throughout New Jersey for Federal, State,
and local governments and regulatory agencies, for large and small developers
from both the private and public sectors, and for an array of conservationist
groups. The consultant has been at the forefront in advising legislative
bodies on the need for new environmental regulatory authorities; in advising
regulatory agencies including NJ-DEP on the technical bases for the effec-
tive administration of new, environmentally protective laws and in commenting
on emerg-ing regulations; and in guiding applicants to satisfy fully the
changing regulatory requirements for increasingly comprehensive environmental
reviews of proposed projects.

5 ~~~The Estuarine Study was prepared during 1978 and 1979. The Impact
Management report constitutes Volume One. It consists of three principal
?arts. The introductory Executive Summary and Summary Recommendations make
up the first part of Volume One.

The second ?art of Volume One addresses environmental impacts. It
consists of eleven chapters which examine the basic environmental resources
I ~ ~of the coastal zone, the kinds of facilities and activities that may be
proposed in the future at various locations in the coastal zone, and the
probable compatibility between each kind of facility or activity and
each relevant environmental resource complex.

The third part of Volume One first addresses the institutional frame-
work for coastal zone management in New Jersey. Then, upon the basis of the
analysis of impacts and of management tools, the consultant presents recom-
mendations for strengthening estuarine protection in the coastal zone.

Volume Two of the Estuarine Study is a Use Appendix which describes
coastal uses by photographs and illustrations. A brief discussion of the
uses and their associated impacting activities also is included in Volume
3 ~~~Two.

Volume Three of the Estuarine Study presents the Environmental Impact
Matrices. These matrices are the basis for a method of evaluating proposed
I ~ ~coastal facilities that eventually is expected to be used by DEP when
considering permit applications and coastal planning efforts.

Volume Four of this report presents additional documentation. It
consists of the bibliography of about 2,000 references used by the consul-
tant when preparing the report and a documentation matrix keyed to the
matrixed intersections of land, edge, and water impacting activities and
their resultant environmental changes. The matrix documentation is intended
to be constantly updated by the BCPD and at this time has a number of inter-
section points which are not as yet documented.

The consultant began with the coastal administrative policies that
resulted from several years of work by the New Jersey Office of Coastal
Zone Management. Particular attention was paid to the management program
described in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment Final Environmental Impact
Statement (NJDEP/NOAA 1978) and implemented during October 1978 and to the
proposals made in Options for New Jersey's Developed Coast (NJDEP 1979).
The consultant recognizes the major accomplishment embodied in these documents,
which formalize State regulatory programs that affect the estuarine environ-
ment. This report looks ahead to the next generation of coastal zone
management policies that will direct coastal developments during the 1980's.

Socioeconomic conditions and needs are not included in this analysis.
Those aspects are of concern to the Department of Environmental Protection
and to other agencies that regulate facilities and activities in the coastal
zone. They will be addressed in another consultant report that is being
considered by the Bureau of Coastal Planning and Development.

The objectives of this report are to highlight potential impacts, to
I
focus on management aspects only partially addressed by existing DEP-0CZM,
documents, and to suggest ways that State policies protective of the
estuarine environment can be strengthened. Special attention is paid to
opportunities for enhanced interagency and intergovernmental coordination.

A number of suggestions are made for revision of text and for cross-
references in the proposed DEP regulations, and several measures are
recommended to consolidate or simplify the regulations and procedures without
diminution of environmental protection. Other recommendations point out
opportunities for DEP and other State agencies to support or propose new
legislation, to enhance the effectiveness of surveillance and enforcement,
and to continue the study of the coastal zone.

2
I

II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS

This Chapter summarizes recommendations discussed in Chapter XVI. It
addresses first technical and procedural measures for general permit
administration, followed by comments on key control regulatory programs.
Then substantive coastal policies are addressed. Following recommendations
on new legislation, ways of enhancing enforcement are suggested. The
recommendations conclude with suggestions for further study. The rationale
for the recommendations is presented in Chapter XVI.

A. Procedural and Technical Recommendations

1. General Recommendations

A-1. The Commissioner of DEP should assign a high priority to
coordination of permit review responsibilities among DEP agencies.

A-2. DEP should complete the inventory of coastal zone resources in
map series based on the USGS 1:24,000 topographic quadrangles or other
geographic data system (such as a computerized system).

A-3. DEP should use the parameters (environmental changes) of
potential concern for each type of special area or resource as identified in
this report to require that each applicant for a State coastal permit, a
State NPDES wastewater discharge permit, Section 201 certification, or
Section 208 water quality approval demonstrate through site-specific data
that his proposed project will avoid or minimize adverse effects on such
areas.

A-4. DEP should sponsor original research to provide the basis for
quantification of acceptable changes in parameters of environmental concern,
and it should provide the staff expertise and data storage resource to keep
abreast of new developments elsewhere, in order to avoid duplicative
research and to focus on the most significant issues. (See also
Recommendation E-3.)

A-5. DEP should establish a publications reference and retrieval
system that catalogs, curates, and provides copies of DEP-funded reports,
DEP-prepared reports, maps, EIS's, and other relevant reference information
needed by DEP and the public.

2. Environmental Impact Statements and Permit Review Procedures

A-6. DEP should authorize and encourage pre-application conferences to
be combined with the Federal pre-EIS scoping meetings authorized by the
Council on Environmental Quality at 40 CFR 1501.7 (43 FR 230:55993,
29 November 1978) and combined Federal-State, issue-oriented EIS preparation
to satisfy the needs of DEP as well as other Federal, State, and local
agencies.

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3

A-7. DEP should make certain that any EIS prepared for its review,
inventories and assesses potential impacts on all nearby wetlands, as well
as other significant resources.

A-8. DEP should promulgate all general ETS regulations in NJAC, and an
entry for EIS regulations should be added to the NJAC general index.

A-9. Any EIS prepared for a project that is likely to affect air
quality at the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge (a Class I PSD area)
should analyze fully the potential impact and demonstrate how all applicable
requirements will be met.

A-10. Every EIS prepared for a DEE permit should be circulated to the
applicable 208 Areawide Water Quality Planning Agency, if such agency is
capable of reviewing and commenting on aspects of the EIS within its
expertise or jurisdiction.

A-11. If any inland and/or coastal wetlands are to be filled as part
of any project that DEP regulates, the applicant should be required to
notify the appropriate office of the Army Corps of Engineers.

A-12. State permit approvals for projects that would involve filling
of wetlands should be effective conditional upon either approval from the
Corps of Engineers or a determination by the Corps that the project is
outside its regulatory jurisdiction.

A-13. DEP should make certain that every EIS prepared for a State
permit is made known and physically available to the concerned public.

A-14. DEP should direct applicants to be certain that EIS's are
prepared by responsible persons qualified by education and experience for
the topics they address, and should require that those persons responsible
for the preparation of each EIS be identified in any EIS document submitted
to the Department for review.

A-15. DEP should add (1) a list of other needed State, Federal, and
local regulatory permits beyond waterfront development permits, together
with the status of each, and (2) a documentation section, to all
departmental EIS requirements, such as those currently required in CAFRA
permit applications.

A-16. Any EIS submitted to DEP should identify and assess potential
impacts on any historic or other cultural site in the vicinity that is
potentially affected and that has been identified as significant by any
county agency or that is listed on the New Jersey Inventory of Historic
Sites.

A-17. DEP should retrieve systematically any original information
developed in permit or other EIS's in order to assure its maximum use in
ongoing management and regulatory undertakings.

3. Wetlands

A-18. DEP should promulgate immediately the 42 completed wetlands
photomaps which have not yet been promulgated.

A-19. DEP should complete and publish the mandated inventory of tidal
wetlands for the Hackensack Meadowlands, for the rest of the "Northern
Waterfront", and for other heretofore neglected coastal regions of New
Jersey and should promulgate the Wetlands Order for all coastal wetlands
except those administered by the Hackensack Meadowlands Development
Commission.

A-20. DEP should review past decisions defining narrowly the upper
inland wetland boundary of regulated wetlands, and should reinterpret the
boundary to include, in particular but not limited to, diked wetlands and
forested or shrub-covered coastal wetlands "now or formerly connected to
tidal waters whose surface is at or below an elevation of 1 foot above local
extreme high water".

A-21. DEP should update the entire statewide coastal wetlands mapping
at intervals no greater than ten years to reflect natural and man-made
changes in this resource.

A-22. DEP should establish criteria and procedures for correcting
wetlands maps during the intervals between map updates.

A-23. When a memorandum of record is prepared following a
pre-application conference prior to Type B wetlands permit application
submittal, DEP should send copies of the memorandum to the county, and
municipal environmental commissions (if any) and to the county, municipal,
and regional planning boards (if any) which subsequently may review the
project.

A-24. DEP should distribute any memorandum of record for a prospective
wetland permit application to the relevant District Offices of the Army
Corps of Engineers.

A-25. DEP should require the applicant to send municipal and county
environmental commissions (if any), municipal, county, and regional planning
commissions (if any), and the soil conservation district and Areawide 208
Water Quality Planning Agency (if appropriate) copies of each Type B
wetlands permit EIS.

A-26. Inland wetlands on or adjacent to each State-regulated project
site should be required to be shown on coastal wetlands permit application
maps, in addition to regulated coastal wetlands.

A-27. DEP should prepare two map series for use by coastal planners,
applicants for permits, and the interested public, one showing the upper

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5

inland wetland boundary at a scale of 1:24,000, and one showing the general
distribution of regulated wetlands at a scale of 1:250,000.

A-28. NJ-DEP should review current information and conduct original
research as appropriate for a review of the general Wetlands Order
prohibition against the disposal of treated sewage effluent into regulated
wetlands.

A-29. DEP should extend the Wetlands Order prohibition against
pesticides to all stands of Olney threesquare.

4. Coastal Area Facility Review Act

A-30. A copy of the memorandum of record following a pre-application
conference should be sent to the appropriate regional planning board, county
environmental commission, and municipal environmental commission (if any).

A-31. CAFRA review of any project concurrently with Federal review
explicitly should be authorized and specifically encouraged in the CAFRA
regulations.

5. Waterfront Development Permits and the Natural Resource Council

A-33. Procedural and jurisdictional aspects of the waterfront
development permit program should be reduced to written form.

A-34. Operational procedures and routine approval/disapproval criteria
used by the Natural Resource Council should be reduced to written form.

6. Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission

A-35. HIDC should revise its zoning regulations (NJAC 19:4-1.1 et
seq.) to eliminate typographical errors.

A-36. HMDC should provide for publicly available copies of its zoning
map, promptly reflecting the latest revisions, on a continuing basis.

A-37. HMDC should maintain and distribute a complete list of its
publications, and should provide for the sale of its publications at cost.

A-38. HMDC should define in its regulations the following terms which
are central to the implementation of the regulations: "tributary" and
"major water courses".

A-39. HFTDC explicitly should require identification of the extent and
type of wetlands (if any) affected by every development decision authorizing
construction in order to reduce Federal agency and applicant paperwork and
to insure consistency of intergovernmental decisionmaking.

A-40. HMDC should require that evidence of notification of appropriate
Federal agencies, if any Federal permits are likely to be necessary for a
proposed project, be supplied by applicants prior to HMDC approval of
preliminary subdivision plat, zoning certificate, or Implementation Plan,
and HIDC approvals should be conditioned on the receipt of necessary Federal
approvals.

A-41. HMIC should revise its Master Plan Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map,
and other regulations to conform with current Federal laws and policies.

A-42. The HMDC should request a general permit from the New York
District for its amended Master Plan under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act and Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act.

A-43. HM'DC should adopt and enforce soil erosion and sedimentation
control standards in consultation with the Soil Conservation Service and
other appropriate agencies, and incorporate such standards in NJAC 19:4
Subchapter 6.

A-44. HMC should revise the goals of its environmental performance
(discharge) standards to correspond in so far as practicable with the uses
designated by the DEP surface water designated uses and the goals of the
Clean Water Act.

A-45. HMDC should specify clearly the methods that should be utilized
in calculating waterway buffer strip and open space requirements.

A-46. HHDC should require source separation for all solid wastes
disposed in the District in order to reduce the need for landfills in the
immediate future as well as the long term.

A-47. HMDC should investigate the feasibility of generating and
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
marketing centralized steam and chilled water from refuse for use by
existing and anticipated new development in the Meadowland District, in
order to reduce the need for landfills in the long term.

B. Recommendations on Substantive Coastal Policies

B-1. The purposes of the coastal policies should be stated to include
coordination of State actions with Federal laws and regulations and with
local regulatory approvals (Section 1.1.).

B-2. The Governor's Executive Order 71 (1979) and the Pinelands
Protection Act of 1979 should be added to the list of authorities cited in
Section 1.2.

B-3. Statutes and regulations administered by the DEP Divisions of
Water Resources, Environmental Quality, and Fish, Game, and Shell Fisheries,

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7

by the DEP Solid Waste Administration, by the Hackensack Meadowlands
Development Commission, and by other relevant State agencies should be added
to the list of authorities cited in Section 1.2.

B-4. DEP should state that it intends voluntarily to subject its own
actions affecting regulated coastal wetlands to the established permit
procedures applicable to others as an example, and to urge in so far as
possible the same voluntary compliance upon the State and County Mosquito
Control Commissions.

B-5. All now or formerly tidal waterways (and their tidal tributaries)
should be included in the coastal zone, inland to the present or most
probable former limit of tide.

B-6. The coastal zone boundary should be drawn to include the tidal
wetlands now or formerly adjacent to all coastal waters, whether or not
these wetlands are regulated under the Wetlands Act of 1970.

B-7. The coastal zone boundary should be drawn to include all land
areas (now or) formerly flowed by the tides as soon as information becomes
available from the ongoing State tidelands mapping program.

B-8. A procedure for expanding the coastal zone boundary should be
developed for use if additional areas in the future are delineated as
tidelands or as regulated coastal wetlands pursuant to the Wetlands Act.

B-9. Federal lands should be deleted from DEP jurisdictional
boundaries on maps of the proposed coastal zone.

B-10. Section 1.3.4. should be revised to cite specifically Section
401 of the Clean Water Act and all actions noticed pursuant to OMB Circular
A-95 with relevance to the coastal zone.

B-11. DEP should revise Section 2.6. to indicate that its staff will
specify precisely the original information that an applicant is required to
collect and the exact methods that are to be used, if an EIS is mandated on
his project, following a voluntary pre-application conference.

B-12. DEP should rewrite the coastal location policies on special I
areas to indicate that it is the applicants burden to demonstrate that
projects which could affect such areas adversely in fact will avoid or
minimize adverse effects.

B-13. Section 3.1.3. should be revised to advise that applicants
simply may show the requisite information on an overlay to the appropriate
existing USGS 1:24,000 topographic map prior to the pre-application
conference with DEP.

B-14. Section 3.2.9. should be relabeled as "Designated Sanctuaries"
and should include both marine and estuarine sanctuaries, as they are
designated.

B-15. The text of Section 3.2.11 on wetlands should be revised to
incorporate Section 3.2.17 (whitecedar stands) and to protect other
wetlands.

S I

B-17. The text of Section 3.2.16. should be revised slightly to
enhance its precision.

B-18. The text of Section 3.2.18. should be revised to incorporate
Sections 3.2.5. and 3.2.19.

B-19. A new policy should be inserted at Section 3.2.19. to protect
scientific research sites.

B-20. A new interim policy on Pinelands should be inserted as Section
3.2.24.

B-21. Section 3.2.25. should cross reference the riverine and tidal
flood hazard areas policies in Section 5.23., and these areas should be
included in the special hazard area discussion.

B-22. Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4 should be revised to remove the 100
foot and first cultural feature limitations on the inland extent of retained
water's edge and filled water's edge, but policies favoring water-dependent
development within 100 feet of waterways (or within the first cultural
feature) should be retained.

B-23. DEP should -reexamine growth policies for those sections of the
Central (high), Western Ocean (moderate), Barnegat Corridor (moderate),
Absecon-Somers Point (high), and Southern (moderate) Coastal Regions which
overlap the Pinelands Management District and bring those policies into
consistency with the Governor's Executive Order 71 (1979) end the Pinelands
Protection Act of 1979.

B-24. The first criterion of low sensitivity in Section 3.4.4.4 should
be revised to reflect more clearly how sections of project sites are
identified that, because of onsite paving or structures, qualify as low in
sensitivity.

B-25. Section 3.5.6.2 should be revised either to require an ultimate
minimum of 30% vegetation or to drop aquifer recharge and microclimate
control as objectives of the policy.

B-26. Section 4.5.3. should be revised (or another section should be
inserted) to encourage also the conversion of abandoned railway or other
rights of way to public pathways in the coastal zone wherever possible.

5-27. The Section 4.6.3. policy should be revised to indicate that any
sanitary landfill with a potential for release of toxic materials which is

proposed for development in an aquifer recharge area ordinarily will be �
denied.

B-28. The Section 4.6.3. policy on landfills should indicate that,
whenever any active or inactive coastal zone landfill is reopened or
disturbed as part of any proposed construction, surface water runoff and
groundwater shall be tested periodically to determine the potential for
environmental or human contamination, and the policy should inform
prospective applicants that precautionary measures will be required as
necessary to prevent contamination.
I
B.29. The Section 4.6.3. policy should specify that the extent and
nature of all existing active or inactive landfill areas on sites proposed
for uses that require a State coastal permit be identified as part of the
permit application.

B-30. Section 4.10.6 should be revised to insure that inactive spoil
piles that become revegetated by wetland species receive full protection
under the Wetlands Act of 1970.

B-31. Section 5.8. should be revised to eliminate dogwood as a native
Pinelands species and to encourage the planting of native ground-layer
species as well as native trees.

C. Legislative Changes

C-1. In order to specify how the DEP proposal for a consolidated
coastal law might operate, DEP should provide a series of topographic maps
similar to maps in Appendix B (DEP-OCZM 1979) indicating where the three
proposed tiers are to be situated.

C-2. DEP should state clearly that it would retain veto and
conditioning powers over individual permits and that it would review every
variance proposed for issuance by municipalities that elect to administer
the program.

C-3. DEP should state approximately how many of the 237 municipalities
in the coastal zone now have policies consistent with the proposed coastal
policies, and should estimate the number of municipalities and of counties
that probably would seek to acquire coast program delegation.

C-4. DEP should detail a mechanism for providing technical assistance
to municipalities, if it pursues the notion of permit delegation.

C-5. DEP should explain how local-Federal policy coordination can be
achieved most effectively if the coastal permit program should be
delegated.

10~~~~~~~

C-6. DEP should continue to support a strong State dune management act
to protect this resource and to develop technical information that will
facilitate the implementation of new legislation.

C-7. If an initiative for new legislation is decided by DEP to be
worthwhile, serious consideration should be given to a comprehensive
shoreland (inland) wetlands act to provide the same degree of protection for
these wetlands as provided for coastal wetlands by the Wetlands Act of
1970.

C-8. Should an inland wetland permit program be established, its
administration should be combined with that of the present coastal wetlands
permit program.

C-9. DEP should sponsor new legislation to require the labeling and
registration of fertilizers sold for non-commercial use and to provide the
environmentally sensitive use of such materials expecially in the coastal
zone.

C-10. DEP should support Assembly Bill 480 (1978 Session) or
equivalent legislation to strengthen the legal status of conservation
easements in New Jersey and to enact enabling legislation for historic
preservation restrictions.

C-11. DEP should sponsor a New Jersey trails system act to authorize
establishment of scenic and recreational trails.

C-12. DEP should consider the establishment of a Coastal Conservancy
along the lines of the California agency established by the State Coastal
Conservancy Act of 1976.

C-13. DEP should work with DOT to develop legislation that would
authorize the control of highway advertising in the coastal zone.

D. Surveillance and Enforcement

D-1. DEP should foster surveillance for coastal laws by local law
enforcement personnel; it should enhance the potential for a concerned
public to help bring about compliance by undertaking public education
campaigns, and it should inspect and inform interested persons on the
enforcement measures taken on alleged violations.

D-2. DEP-OCZM should act as an intermediary between educators and
surveillance and enforcement units in DEP to encourage internship and
work-study programs whereby students can assist in surveillance activities.

D-3. DEP should continue its efforts to secure interagency reviews of
coastal permits, and should enhance the review process by insuring feedback
to reviewers.

D-4. DEP should request the New York District of the Army Corps of
Engineers to increase its surveillance of filling operations in the
Hackensack River basin, and to require full compliance with Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act within the jurisdiction of the New York District in New
Jersey.

D-5. DEP should insure that there are sufficient personnel for
surveillance that each inspector knows his geographical region of
responsibility intimately.

E. Further Study Needs

E-1. The resources of the coastal zone should be identified on a map
series of uniform scale (such as 1:24,000), and the inventoried data should
form a basic underpinning of the coastal permit review process.

E-2. DEP should encourage the collection of original resource data in
the coastal zone so that additional currently unprotected resources are
identified, and should publicize the availability of Federal assistance for
such inventories.

E-3. DEP should foster and encourage the development of a formal,
coordinated natural resources inventory and research effort in the New
Jersey coastal zone.

E-4. DEP should assist the Hackensack Meadowlands Development
Commission to designate valuable public and private wetlands in the District
as part of the State Natural Areas System.

E-5. DEP-BCPD should assist the Division of Fish, Game and Shell
Fisheries to identify public and private wetlands elsewhere in the coastal
zone that merit listing as parts of the State Natural Areas System and
should expedite their designation.

E-6. DEP should identify and publicize known and potential polluted
areas and sources of pollution that affect the coastal zone in order to
focus public and regulatory attention on such problems.

E-7. The boundary of the coastal zone should be expanded to include
those watersheds from which runoff is known to cause direct and significant
adverse impacts on the estuarine environment.

PART TWO
REPORT ON IYIPACTS

U E~~. INTRODUCTI ON
This investigation, which is entitled the "Estuarine Study," is addressed
I ~ ~to the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment of the coastal zone of the State of New
Jersey and to the urban waterfront areas along the Delaware River and in
northeastern New Jersey that are expected to be included in the next segment
I ~ ~of the coastal zone pursuant to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972. This Study Area includes the Atlantic Ocean, to the limit of State
jurisdiction, and those portions of the New Jersey Section of the Atlantic
I ~ ~Coastal Plain physiographic province in which activities could have a direct
and significant effect on the coastal waters. A direct impact is a change
in the natural environment that is either the immediate result of an impac-
ting activity or is linked to the impacting activity through an identified
I ~ ~chain of cause and effect without further human intervention. A significant
impact is a measureable change in the natural environment. In reality, most
if not all of the New Jersey coastal plain is included by definition in the
I ~ ~Study Area, because direct and significant impacts may be transferred widely
due to the extensive connections of surface and groundwaters in the coastal
plains. The Study Area also encompasses those'sections of the Piedmont
province, in northeastern New Jersey, that are located within 2,000 feet
of Newark Bay, Upper New York Bay, Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, Raritan
Bay, and their tidal tributaries. These tributaries consist principally of
the Hudson River, the Hackensack River, the Passaic River, and the Raritan
I ~ ~River. The entire Hackensack Meadowland District and the Palisades east-ward
from the ridge line to the Hudson River and westward downslope approximately
to the 250 foot contour also are included by direction of DEP.

This investigation is composed of two principal and interrelated sub-
projects. The first part is the Report on Impacts. It consists of an
examination of the basic resources of the coastal zone, a consideration of
the kinds of facilities and activities that may be proposed in the future at
locations in the coastal zone, and an analysis of the environmental compati-
bility between each kind of facility or activity and each relevant resource
I ~ ~complex. Socioeconomic conditions and needs and development siting criteria
are not included in the analysis. Those aspects, however, will be considered
by the Department of Environmental Protection in a future phase of planning.

The second part of the "Estuarine Study"t is the Management Report. It
consists of a review of the activities of the relevant Divisions and Bureaus
of the Department of Environmental Protection, and of the interrelations of
I ~ ~their responsibilities and authorities in the coastal zone; a review of the
responsibilities and authorities of other State agencies in the coastal zone
and the degree to which they are coordinated with the activities and goals
I ~ ~of the Department; and a similar review of local, regional, and federal
agencies and the degree to which they do, or may be able to, coordinate with
the Department. The Management Report concludes with reconmmendations for
improvements in administrative arrangements and for legislation that will
enhance the ability of the State to manage the coastal zone.

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~13

II. CHARACTERIZATION OF THE STUDY AREA

A basic understanding of the principal physical and biological resources
of the Study Area is necessary before the problems, issues, impacts, and re-
source constraints to future uses can be assessed. The basic physical resources
of the Study Area are water, land, and air. The basic biological resources are
plants and animals. These physical and biological resources are interrelated
intimately with one another in organizations that commonly are termed "eco-
systems." An ecosystem consists of populations of organisms, pathways
of cycling chemical elements, flows of energyjand various other organizational
mechanisms which cause the parts to be interrelated. The physical components
of these systems are described briefly in the following subsections to produce
a basis for the subsequent characterization of the Study Area.

A. WATER

Water is the most prominent physical feature of the coastal zone segment
of the Study Area. Three principal types of water; surface water, groundwater,
and precipitation, are recognized in the Study Area. These types are cyclically
related. For example, a particular molecule of water may be part of the surface
water at one moment; it then may move into the air by evaporation and subse-
quently fall back to earth as precipitation; if it seeps into the soil it next
can appear as groundwater; and, ultimately, it can seep back again into the
surface water.

1. Surface Waters

Surface waters are defined as permanent, exposed bodies of water.-
In the Study Area, surface waters vary from saline (>30 ppt) to fresh (<.5 ppt),
from tidal to nontidal, and from deep to shallow. Surface waters are usually
contained within the part of the basin or channel that is at or below the mean
high water line (tidal waters) or normal water level (nontidal waters). Al-
though generally this statement adequately describes the extent of surface
waters in the Study Area, "abnormal" weather conditions that characterize
New Jersey's Coast often cause widespread inundation. Generalizations are
not useful in characterizing surface waters under these conditions.

2. Groundwater

Groundwater is the water that moves between the grains of the
unconsolidated sediments and through pores and/or crevices in consolidated
rocks that lie beneath the surface of the land or below surface water bodies.
The principal source of groundwater in the Study Area is precipitation that
reaches the land surface and seeps into the soil.

Sediments and rocks that are porous enough to contain relatively large
volumes of water and in which the water is able to move relatively rapidly
are termed aquifers. Beds of clay and massive, poorly fractured hard rocks,
such as basalt, hold relatively little water and they are not porous enough
to allow rapid movement of the water they contain. These are known as aqui-
cludes if the layers of material are effective in preventing groundwater move-
ment and aquitards if these materials are less effective and only retard
groundwater movement.

Groundwater is found in both an unconfined and confined state in the
Study Area. Tae unconfined aquifer is formed by precipitation percolating
downward until it reaches the zone of saturation. Here the water is stored
in an unconfined state, rising in times of abundant precipitation or falling
during drought.

The second type of groundwater, and the most important source of water
in the Study Area, is in confined aquifers. These confined aquifers are
formed by a series of alternating porous sands and clay layers. The porous
sands hold water that is prevented from rising by an overlying layer of more
impervious clay forming an aquitard. These aquifers are wedge shaped formations
dipping eastward. The important water bearing sands include the Raritan-Magothy
formation, Englishtown sand, Wenonah sand, Vincetown sand, Kirkwood formation,
and the Cohansey sand (Nieswand 1970).

3. Precipitation

Precipitation, which may appear in the form of rain, sleet, hail,
or snow, is the third principal type of water. It is of major concern as a
source for surface waters and groundwaters, and is an important factor in
regard to erosion, flooding, and other aspects of environmental assessment
and management.

From a national perspective, New Jersey is a well-watered state with the
average annual rate of precipitation ranging from less than 40 to over 48
inches. Within the Study Area, the Cape May area receives the least precipi-
tation (<40 inches annually) and the Ocean County area the greatest (>48
inches annually; Cape May County Planning Board 1975).

B. LAND

The land is that part of the Study Area that normally is not affected
directly by surface waters. Most of the activities of man that are conducted
on specific sites in the Study Area are located on the land, and, therefore,
most human impacts originate from the land. The contour of the land varies
from virtually level, to rolling, to hilly in the Study Area. The uncon-
solidated surface material, or soil, ranges from sandy, throughout much of
the Coastal Plain, to loamy, clayey, or stoney. The soils in some places are

highly suited for agricultural uses; in other places they are dry, infertile,
or otherwise poorly suited for the growth of crops. In the major metropolitan
areas, the preparation of sites for housing, industries, commercial facilities,
transportation facilities, and other developments has altered the structure
and composition of the soil, and much of the surficial material is composed
of rubble and imported mineral fill.

Land on the barrier islands is contained within the area known as the
"central barrier island corridor" (NJDEP/NOAA 1978). Except for such pre-
served areas as Island Beach State Park, much of the land that is included
in the central corridor type has been developed for seasonal and permanent
residences, for recreation uses, and for associated commercial uses.

C. EDGE

Transition and intertidal areas, such as salt marshes, wetlands, and
beaches, occur between land and surface waters. These areas are important
physical landforms that both are uniquely affected by the activities upon
the land and influenced by the surface waters. In this study, the physical
resources that lie adjacent to the coastal waters and shoreland waters and
which are functionally related to the waters are considered to compose the
"edge" type. The edge type also is defined to include coastal dunes and
certain shoreland wetlands that cover soils with a seasonally high water
table. Floodplains are a major part of the edge whether they are coastal
or streamside and forested or covered by herbaceous vegetation. In particular,
the numerous semicircular depressions on the Coastal Plain, which locally
are known as dry ponds or bogs, and areas covered by forests of the pitch
pine lowland vegetation type (McCormick and Jones 1973) are considered to
be components of the edge.

The more familiar components of the edge are the beaches and the exten-
sive coastal wetlands. The edge, thus, is a transitional component. It is
partly land and partly water, and is developed best where the -ground slopes
gently from the boundary of the surface water to an area that is considered
to be land.

D. AIR

The air resource, or atmosphere, is the gaseous mass that extends upward
from the surfaces of the shoreland, water, and edge. Owing principally to
variations in pressure over the face of the earth, solar heating, and the
earth's rotation, the air constantly moves. The fluid state of the air also
facilitates widespread mixing of its natural constituents as well as the
pollutants which arise from human activities. The quality of the air
generally is evaluated by measurements of the pollutants that are present,
and the graduations in the scale of the air quality are interpretations of
the relative potential for adverse effects on human beings as well as on
other organisms.

III. LA~ND ANID WATER SECTIONS OF THE STUDY AREA

The complexity of the relationships between the geographically distin-
guishable physical and biological resources of the Study Area begins to become
evident when the physical resources are described as distinct land or water
types.

The major lands and waters selected were derived from the Federal
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA). The Act recognized two major
subdivisions of the coastal zone [Section 304(a)]:

"Coastal zone" means the coastal waters (including the lands
therein and thereunder) and the adjacent shorelands (including
the waters therein and thereunder) ... The zone extends inland
from the shorelines only to the extent necessary to control
shorelands, the uses of which have direct and significant impact
on the coastal waters. [Emphasis added].

One of the two major subdivisions recognized by CZMA has been modified to more
fully describe the significance of New Jersey's major coastal resources. For
the purposes of the present investigation, the category of "coastal waters
(including the lands therein and thereunder)" is divided into two subcategories.
Three basic land and water sections of the Study Area, therefore, are recognized:

Ocean section: Ocean waters (saline, tidal surface waters),
associated bottoms, central barrier island corri-
dors, dune edges, and beach edges;

Estuarine section: Estuarine waters (brackish to fresh, tidal surface
waters), associated bottoms, and edge;

Shoreland section: Land, groundwater, inland waters (fresh, nontidal
surface waters), and edge.

A. OCEAN SECTION

The ocean section is the easternmost section of the New Jersey coastal
zone. It extends from the barrier islands approximately 3 nautical miles
seaward, to the limit of the jurisdiction of the State.

The complex of barrier islands effectively is a part of the ocean because
it was formed, and is nourished and reshaped, by the longshore drift of sedi-
ments and by the forces of the ocean surf. This complex consists of an
elongate spit that extends from Sandy Hook to Long Branch, where it joins a
section of the mainland that fronts directly on the ocean. To the south,
another spit and a series of barrier islands stretch from Manasquan to Cape
May (Lewis and Kummel 1940).

The beaches that front on the ocean throughout the length of the coast
are important as a recreational resource. As a natural resource, they absorb I
the energy of the waves and provide an intensively used wildlife habitat.
The sediment of the upper beach, which is above the level of mean high water,
also is the primary source of the wind transported materials that form the
dunes that parallel the beach in undeveloped areas. The dunes are enbankments
that serve as sand storage areas and can protect the areas to the landward
against damage by storm waves. Eowever, during severe storms, dunes may be
overwashed by storm waves and, therefore, the barrier islands are considered
to be a flood hazard area. They also provide grassy habitats that are
utilized by birds and other terrestrial wildlife. In areas that have been
protected from intensive human activities, the dunes also support shrub v
thickets and woodlands (Robichaud and Buell 1973).

The ocean section is important as a migratory pathway, as a breeding area,
and as a feeding area for marine animals. The shallow nearshore waters, in
particular, function as a mixing zone for nutrients and other constituents
that flow from the estuaries.

The most important biological resources of the ocean, from a commercial
point of vie, are fish and shellfish. At least 132 species of fish appear
in commercial catches with many of these and additional species sought
by sport fishermen. The larval stages of nearly all fish and shellfish feed I
on plankton, which is composed of minute animals and plants, and/or on detritus.
The adults of many species of fish prey on smaller fish. and many 'kinds of L
fish are opportunistic feeders. They will consume almost any type of suitable
food that is available (Darnell 1961).

Mineral resources of potential commercial value in the ocean section of |
the coastal zone include sand and gravel in the bottom and various salts in
the water. Sand from the ocean bottom has been dredged for use in beach
replenishment along the barrier islands, but little other mining has been
conducted in the ocean section. One industrial plant in New Jersey, located
at Cape May ?oint, is known to extract magnesium from seawater.

Exploration for oil and gas now is being conducted on the Outer Continental I
Shelf, approximately 56 miles east from the limit of State jurisdiction in the
Atlantic Ocean. Oil and gas are not expected to occur in the State's coastal
zone, but facilities may be proposed for construction within the coastal zone
to support drilling and production should exploitable energy sources be found
on the nearby Outer Continental Shelf.

B. ESTUARINE SECTION

Estuaries are the open bays, backbays and parts of river systems in which
saline waters from the Atlantic Ocean mix with freshwaters from the land and
throughout which the level of the water rises and falls as a result of the
oceanic tides. The estuarine waters and the associated edges form the most I
characteristic and the most productive section of the coastal zone. The
estuarine section also includes numerous islands, causeways, and other natural
and man-made features.

The New Jersey estuaries range in size from the large expanse of Delaware
Bay, to the small backbays between the barrier islands and the shoreland. Owing
to electrochemical gradients related to salinity, the patterns of circulation,
and the tidal nature of the estuaries, the fine-grained sediments that are eroded
from the land and transported by freshwater streams tend to settle rapidly when
they reach the brackish zone of an estuary. These sediments accumulate in areas
where the currents are minimal, and this deposition raises the elevation of the
bottom in those areas. Ultimately, the areas may become shallow enough to support
emergent plants, and they develop into coastal wetlands.

Inlets, which are narrow gaps between barrier islands through which the
ocean is linked to the backbays, are vital passageways for fish and other aquatic
organisms that move between the ocean and the estuaries to spawn, to grow, and
to feed. As the water flows into and out of an estuary, the net movement is sea-
ward, and the net discharge is approximately equal to the volume of freshwater
that enters the estuary.

The waters within an estuary are mixed by winds, tidal flow, freshwater
influx, and the consequent rate of movement of the fresh and saline waters.
The rate of mixing also varies with the size and configuration of the estuary.
The salinity of the water largely is dependent on the quantity of freshwater
that enters the estuary and distance from an inlet.

The biological importance of estuarine waters is due, in part, to the
diverse physical environment that is produced by spatial and temporal varia-
tions in salinity, turbidity, nutrients, and temperature. The estuarine system
also provides a wide range of habitats in the form of submerged aquatic vegeta-
tion, beach edge, wetland edge, flats, bars, channels, and basins. In addition
to their biological significance, these features also serve to dissipate the
energy of storm waves, trap and retain sediment, and maintain water circulation
patterns.

The populations of fish and shellfish that thrive in unpolluted estuaries
are highly valuable resources. At least 90 percent of the commercially important
species spend all or critical portions of their life cycles in the estuaries.
Early life stages of these animals feed principally on zooplankton and phyto-
plankton in the water and on the plants of the estuary or on plant fragments, or
detritus, that are. flushed from the wetlands and seagrass beds and moved
about by tidal currents.

The coastal, or tidal, wetlands of the estuaries occupy transitional
sites called water's edge between the land and the water. These areas
often serve an important function as floodplains during periods of extreme
high tides and storms. In addition, during the seasonal peak of the vege-
tation, there is an average of 5 tons of plant material per acre in the
coastal wetlands (Whigham et al. 1978; McCormick and Somes 1979). This
high. production reflects the ample supply of water that is available to the
plants, and it also may indicate the frequent renewal of nutrients by tidal
floodings. In any event, 20 percent or less of the plant material is
consumed by herbivores, principally insects and seed-eating birds. Some
plant material decomposes in place, but as much as 50 percent is transported
by the tides into the adjacent waters. Dissolved organic matter from the

plants is absorbed rapidly by other organisms and is an important nutritional
source. Much of the plant material, however, becomes fragmented into small
particles. This detritus becomes coated with colonies of bacteria and
protozoans and is another important item of food in the diets of many aquatic
organisms.

Birds are the predominant wildlife of the coastal wetlands. Muskrats
are abundant in many areas, particularly in the brackish and freshwater tidal
wetlands. Except for the diamondback terrapin, reptiles and amphibians generally
utilize only the uppermost parts of the saline wetlands. They are more frequent
in the brackish and freshwater coastal wetlands, but seldom are as abundant as
in inland wetlands.

Many of the large bays, backbays, rivers, and other areas of open water in
the estuarine section are important feeding and resting habitats for migratory
and wintering water birds. Typically the "bay ducks" or diving ducks, utilize
these open water areas most intensively, numbering more than 100,000 annually.

C. SHORELAND SECTION

The shoreland section includes those areas of the Piedmont Province of
northeastern New Jersey that are within 2,000 feet horizontally from the
estuarine waters, are within the Hackensack Meadowland District, or are on
the east-facing slope and upper west-facing slope of the Palisades Ridge
(Figure 1). In the Coastal Plain Province, the shoreland section includes those
areas of the mainland adjacent to or near the estuaries on which activities do
or could have a direct and significant impact on the coastal (tidal) waters.

The shoreland is linked environmentally to the estuaries and the ocean
most effectively by runoff. The term "runoff" is used here to include water
that flows overland or as groundwater from a tract of land to a body of sur-
face water. Runoff from shoreland tracts that are adjacent to the estuaries
or to the ocean flows directly to tidal waters. Other shoreland tracts drain
to nontidal freshwater streams, lakes, or ponds that discharge to tidal waters
within a short distance downstream. The potential for direct and significant
effects on coastal waters as a result of any particular activity in the shore-
land section is correlated positively with the efficiency of its connection
to the surface water system, with its stream-mile distance from coastal waters,
and with the proportion of precipitation that leaves the site as runoff.

Runoff from the shoreland section of the coastal zone and from mainland
areas farther inland is the principal source of the freshwater influx to the
estuaries. The freshwater maintains the net seaward movement of water in an
estuary and, thus, facilitates flushing. The mixing of saline water that moves
into the estuary from the ocean with the freshwater that flows from the land
results in a vertical and horizontal gradient of salinity in the estuary.

4 0 4 8 12 MILES
c� '

21
Figure 1. Physiographic regions of New Jersey.
V',c
*~~~~~~~~\

I~~~~

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~�?
czLAITN A

Inland, or nontidal wetlands, in the Coastal Plain section of the Study
Area include such swamp forest trees as southern or Atlantic whitecedar, red
maple sweetbay, blackgum, pin oak, and sweetgum. Marshes, or herbaceous
wetlands, are more restricted. Within the Study Area, there are few non-
tidal wetlands in the Piedmont region. The largest acreage is represented
by diked marshes in the Hackensack Meadowland District. These formerly
were tidal wetlands and, if the control structures were to fail, would
return to that condition. The nontidal wetlands and swamp forests of the
shoreland section make up for the most part the floodplains within this
section. During periods of high rainfall these areas are inundated by
runoff from uplands and store water until it can be drained off by streams
or absorbed into the groundwater.

The mature upland forests of the Study Area are characterized by pitch
pine and oaks on the Outer Coastal Plain (the Pine Barrens) and by oaks and
hickories on the Inner Coastal Plain and Piedmont. Extensive clearing for
agriculture and for development has eliminated forests from much of the Inner
Coastal Plain and most of the Piedmont within the Study Area. Such clearing
also has deforested extensive tracts on the Outer Coastal Plain, but forests
still cover a large proportion of the land in that region.

Groundwater is an important resource of the shoreland. Particularly in
the Coastal Plain, where aquifers of large volume lie beneath the surface,
groundwater is the major source of stream flow and it is drawn upon as the
principal source of potable and industrial supplies for human uses. Owing to
the shallow depth to bedrock and the indurate nature of the bedrock, the sup-
ply of groundwater in the Piedmont is limited and varies significantly from
one location to another. Groundwater discharge is important as the base
(minimum) flow of streams in the Piedmont region, but surface water is the
principal source of potable and industrial supplies.

Mining in the shoreland section is focused principally on the extraction
of sand and gravel from pits in the Coastal Plain. Rock quarrying in the
coastal zone currently is conducted only on a small outcrop of diabase in the
southeastern part of the Hackensack Meadowland District.

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND PROBLEMS

The major environmental issues in the Study Area focus on the types of
activities that can be accommodated in the coastal zone, the intensity of use
that is acceptable, and the density of population that can be supported with-
out significant degradation of the resources. The amount of vacant land on
the barrier islands that is environmentally suitable for development, for
example, is limited. The demand for developable land, however, is great. If
these demands are justifiable, the needs they represent might be accommodated
by conversions of existing uses that will result in an intensification of the
use or a change from one type of use to another. The needs also might be
accommodated by the creation of new sites by filling estuarine waters or coastal
or inland wetlands. There are proponents and opponents for each of the alter-
native actions, and thus, each is an issue.

As discussed in the following subsections, many environmental problems
now exist in the Study Area. Water pollution is widespread, and there is a
general recognition and agreement that this problem must be solved. In response
to Federal law, most coastal communities have developed, or are developing
plans for extensive regional sewage treatment systems. Such systems doubtlessly
will abate many local sources of contamination. They also represent new infra-
structures that may induce more intensive development (Bassett 1974). The
designs of the systems, which require outfalls, result in the relocation of
potential pollution problems from many small discharges to one or a few
large ones. These systems also reduce the reclycling of nutrients which
occurred when small streams received treated effluents and then emptied into
estuarines with adjacent nutrient utilizing wetlands. Regulatory inertia,
engineering reluctance to innovation, and estimated higher capital costs
have resulted in general disregard for the need to conserve and reuse the
limited volumes of freshwater that are available on the barrier islands
and elsewhere in the coastal zone. The new sewage systems, therefore, are
designed to collect wastewater, expose it to relatively expensive treatment
to improve its quality to meet stringent regulations, and then discharge the
treated water to the ocean or to the larger brackish estuaries from which it
cannot be reclaimed.

A. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN THE OCEAN SECTION

Water pollution, depletion of the stocks of commercial and sport fish
and shellfish, dredging, the construction of barriers to littoral drift, and
alterations to the barrier islands represent the major environmental problems
in the ocean section of the coastal zone. Future activities, such as those
that may be required to support development of oil and gas on the Outer Continen-
tal Shelf, have the potential to intensify some or all of these problems.

Ocean water is subject to pollution from several sources. Discharges of
solid and liquid wastes from sewage treatment plants and other facilities on
the barrier islands directly affect the nearshore waters. Waters that flow from
the estuaries may be entrained by longshore currents and their pollutant loads
are added to nearshore waters. The relative importance of this estuarine source
is greatest near inlets that drain heavily industrialized and/or intensively
developed areas of the land. For example, a major source of organic loading
is the New York City sewage treatment system. This system is set up with
combined stormwater and sewage sewers and during high intensity or prolonged
rainfall periods large amounts of untreated or poorly treated sewage enter
the Hudson River estuary. Discharges from ships probably represent a minor
.source of pollutants, except that unauthorized discharges of ballast water
!or washwater may result in potentially damaging spills of oil. A more
,substantial source of pollutants is represented by dumping areas that have
been designated for the disposal of sewage sludge and other wastes. Ocean
disposal of sludge is scheduled to terminate by the end of 1981, so that
source soon should be abated. Some municipal sewage districts, however, have
not shown progress toward the 1981 cessation date. These include the
Middaesex County Sewerage Authority and the Joint Meeting of Essex and Union
Counties (USEPA 1979). Chemical pollutants that should receive the most
attention were prioritized by a NOAA panel (Appendix 4).

The commercial harvesting of shellfish is prohibited in areas
that surround known sewage discharges and dumping sites. These closings reduce
the potential harvest, and adverse environmental conditions in the areas, par-
ticularly the low concentrations of dissolved oxygen, remove productive habitat
and may result in actual loss of commercial stock. The overharvesting of shell-
fish and of some species of commercial fish also has depleted their populations.
The regulation of commercial fishing within 200 miles from the coast is ex-
pected to allow the replenishment of most species of commercial and sport fish
so that future harvesting may be directed toward sustained yields. Surf clams,
which have supported major commercial activity along the New Jersey coast,
generally occur in the nearshore waters or in the adjacent offshore waters
within the State jurisdiction. The construction of long discharge lines from
new regional sewage treatment plants will conflict with commercial shellfishing
because areas around these outfalls will be closed. Knowledge of the life
history and physiology of the surf clam is too limited to predict whether or
not chronic low-levels of such toxic materials as heavy metals will accumulate
in the tissues of the shellfish and affect their reproductive abilities or
other physiological processes.

Dredging activities in the ocean section of the coastal zone principally
have been conducted to create channels for navigation, to obtain sand and
gravel for beach restoration, or to create trenches for pipelines and similar
underwater facilities. Dredging activities produce short-term adverse condi-
tions by the disruption of bottom habitats, by the destruction of macroscopic
nonmotile organisms in the disrupted bottom, and by the resuspension of sedi-
ments which increase the turbidity-of the water and generally settle in signi-
ficant quantities on the bottom in areas within about 1,000 feet downcurrent
from the dredge site. Nonmotile organisms in this depositional area may be
smothered by the covering of sediment, but recolonization usually is rapid.
Except where the contour 6f the bottom has been altered in a manner that creates
deep pockets in which the water circulates poorly, and may become anaerobic,
dredged areas commonly are recolonized within a few months (Ketchum 1972: 72-74).

Shore protection structures that have been installed at many places along
the edge of the ocean have disrupted shoreline processes. The natural shore-
line is a dynamic feature that continually is reshaped by the sea. The barrier
islands, which form most of the shoreline, are moving, at least in terms of
centuries, westward toward the mainland (Lewis and Kummel 1940). The early
human activities along the shoreline, which were nomadic, were compatible with
the dynamic, changing landscape. About a century ago, large scale development began
along the shoreline. Houses, businesses, and recreational facilities were con-
structed; highways, roads, and streets were established; and water lines, sewers,
and other utilities were installed. The natural changes in the shoreline became
threats to human life and property, and thus, a continuing effort was begun to
maintain a static condition in a resource that naturally is characterized by
change.

Between Long Branch and Manasquan, where the mainland extends to the
ocean edge as a headland, seawalls and groins were constructed to reduce ero-
sion that was cutting back into the upland area (Lewis and Kummel 1940).
This headland area, however, is the principal source of sand that is carried
by the littoral currents northward to Sandy Hook and southward to Bay Head
and beyond (McMaster 1954). Shore protection structures in the headland
region, thus, have reduced the supply of sand that ultimately nourishes the
beaches along the northern part of the Atlantic shore.

Along the complex of barrier islands, jetties and groins were constructed
to stabilize inlets and to protect particular oceanfront properties from erosion.
These structures project perpendicularly into the longshore current. At least
fora time after they are installed, the structures trap sediment from the long-
shore drift on their upcurrent sides. More importantly, the structures deflect
the current seaward and it may not return to its natural pathway for some dis-
tance in a downcurrent direction. Structural protection of an inlet or beach
at one location, therefore, may "starve" beaches at locations downcurrent by
trapping and deflecting the sediment that ordinarily would replenish them.

The development of the complex of barrier islands also destroyed or
degraded thousands of acres of dune vegetation and maritime woodlands. Small
remnants of these habitats are preserved on Sandy Hook, in Island Beach State
Park, and at a few other locations. The intensive recreational use of the
beaches and other areas of bare sand also has degraded their value as habitat
for birds and other wildlife. Terns, for example, normally nest on bare sand.
Recently, however, they have been observed to utilize sites that are covered
by vegetation (Kane and Farrar 1976).

B. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN THE ESTUARINE SECTION

The principal environmental problems in the estuarine section of the
coastal zone are water pollution and activities, particularly widespread
dredging and filling, that alter the rates and patterns of the movement of
water. These problems have been addressed by recent State and Federal legis-
lation, and significant progress has been made toward their solution.

The waters in estuaries that are poorly flushed are particularly suscep-
tible to degradation by pollutants. The freshwater influx to many of the
backbays, for example, is small in proportion to their volumes, the circulation
is restricted, and the residence time of pollutants can be long. Newark Bay
and the estuarine sections of the Passaic River and Hackensack River have
restricted connections to the sea through Kill Van Kull and Arthur Kill, and
their freshwater influx is limited by substantial withdrawals of potable water
from reservoirs above the head of tide. The net seaward movement of water in
the Newark Bay system, therefore, is slow and very susceptible to degradation
by pollutants.

e
The management of the backbays is complicated by the fact that most of
their tributaries originate in the Outer Coastal Plain. These streams are
small in volume, highly acid, and poorly buffered. The capacity of the I
streams to dilute or assimilate pollutants, therefore, is limited. The dis-
charge of pollutants to these streams can alter their quality significantly and
degrade the estuaries. Furthermore, the biota of the streams is adapted to the |
acid nature and nutrient-poor condition of the water. Even small changes in
the quality of the shoreland waters can result in population shifts (NJ-DEP
1977f, McCormick 1970) and may jeopardize the survival of species, such as
the Pine Barrens treefrog, that are considered to be endangered or threatened
in the State.

Pollutants often originate from specific point-sources. These are dis-
charges through pipes or other structures, and they generally represent treated
effluents from public wastewater treatment plants or industries. Each discharger I
now is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit from the United States Environmental Protection Agency. A
particular permit can include quality standards which must be satisfied by
the discharge. The information that is required from applicants who discharge I
to a particular estuary serves as a comprehensive catalog of the kinds and amounts
of pollutants that are known to enter the water-ay. A new permit must be obtained
every 5 years, so the Agency will be able to adjust the limitations for all or
any combination of the discharges to correct or reduce any problem with water
quality that does not require immediate action. I

Pollutants that enter waterways other than by discharges from point sources
are considered to originate from nonpoint sources. This last category includes
such activities as farmingpavement runoff, onsite septic tanks, solid waste
landfills, suburban yard maintenance, and many others which may appear to
be innocuous when they are considered individually. Cumulatively, however,
the loadings of many types of pollutants from nonpoint sources that drain I
to an urbanized estuary may equal or exceed those from point sources. Non-
point sources, of course, are the major contributors of pollutants to
estuaries or sections of estuaries that receive few or no point discharges. |

The quality of the water of an estuary also is affected by intensified I
stratification of saline and freshwaters, by increased salinity and/or altered
patterns of salinity, and by changes in the distribution, dilution, and reten-
tion of pollutants. These shifts of water quality commonly result from altera-
tions in the configuration of inlets, which may result in a poor mixing regime
for an estuarine bay, from changes in the configuration of estuaries or changes
in the contour of the bottoms of estuaries,or from reductions in the volumes
or rates of freshwater influx.

Extensive dredging has been conducted in the estuaries to create and main-
tain channels for commerce and for pleasure boating, to obtain fill, and to I
obtain sand and gravel for concrete aggregate. important, but poorly docu-
mented changes that have resulted from these activities are those associated
with the construction of large channels in the Delaware River and other tide-
water rivers to facilitate marine commerce. I

The deepening of a natural channel allows saline water, which is more
dense than freshwater and, therefore, flows along the bottom, to move farther
upstream. Channel enlargement also increases the hydraulic efficiency of the
channel, which results in a larger range of tides in the upstream section of
the estuary, with lower low tides and higher high tides. These effects have
been superimposed on the longterm, worldwide, progressive increase in the
elevation of mean sea level. In combination, the environmental changes appear
to have been responsible, in large part, for the elimination of southern white-
cedar from swamp forests along the outer edge section of some estuaries and for
the replacement of swamp forests by herbaceous marshes in the section of the
edge nearest to the estuary.

The most drastic and permanent alteration of the estuarine environment
is the result of the emplacement of fill to raise the elevation of the bottom
or the elevation of a coastal wetland above the range of the tides. Such
filling obliterates estuarine and edge habitats and transforms the areas they
occupied to uplands. The surrounding estuarine and edge habitats also are
affected to a greater or lesser degree by alterations in the pattern of cir-
culation of the water, by sedimentation, and/or by intensified erosion.

A residential design that generally is known as "lagoon development" has
been used to create 30,000 or more small building lots on at least 10,000
acres along the enclosed bays between Sandy Hook and Cape May Point (Nieswand,
Stillman, and Esser 1972). The design minimizes the volume of imported
fill required for construction, and it maximizes the number of lots with ac-
cess to the water. In this plan a series of canals, or lagoons, is excavated,
and the dredged material is placed on peninsulas, or "keys", between the
canals to raise the elevation of the surface above the level of the tides.
The wetlands, thus, are destroyed by dredging in the canal areas and by fill-
ing in the areas of the keys. A completed development features short sections
of bulkheaded waterfront adjacent to most of the lots and an extensive system
of dead-end canals. To obtain adequate supplies of fill, the developers generally
dredged the canals to depths greater than the adjacent bottom of the estuary.
As a result, circulation in the canals generally is poor; the deeper water is
anaerobic; and the canals are poor habitats for most kinds of fish and other
aquatic biota.

More stringent environmental:regulations and increased charges for materials
mined from State-owned riparian lands were imposed during the early 1970's, and
these measures have reduced substantially the rate of loss of estuarine areas
as a result of dredging and/or filling. Extraction of sand and gravel from the
estuarine zone now is limited almost entirely to areas designated as navigation
channels, turning basins, or anchorages. Moderate supplies of sand and
gravel are available from inland ~ources at prices that generally are equi-
valent to, or less than, those now charged for materials from estuarine
sources. However, very large volumes of sand are not readily available
from inland resources.

The biological effects of the various physical alterations to the estuaries
and their edges, particularly filling, generally have been adverse, and
most have produced longterm or permanent changes in the kinds of organisms
and/or the density of aquatic organisms in the affected areas. The most sig-
nificant biological aspects of filling, dredging, and other activities are
those that substantially alter or eliminate estuarine habitats and/or result
in longterm reductions in water quality. In addition, sediments used for
fill may contain potentially hazardous contaminants to which humans or
the local fauna may be exposed.

Oxygen depletion is the most widespread type of water quality degradation
that has a direct and measurable adverse effect on the aquatic biota. Most
fish, shellfish, and benthic macroinvertebrates cannot survive in areas in
which the concentration of dissolved oxygen is less than 3 or 4 ppm (parts
per million) for prolonged periods. In the Hackensack River estuary, for
example, the levels of dissolved oxygen frequently are less than 3 ppm, and no
measurable dissolved oxygen is present in some places for hours or for days
at a time. Mummichogs, or killifish, which can breathe at the surface, com-
pose 99 percent or more of the total population of fish in the estuary, and
edible shellfish were eliminated decades ago (Jack McCormick & Associates 1978b).

Bacteriological contamination that originates from the discharge of untreated
or inadequately treated sanitary wastes also is widespread in the estuaries. Mi-
croorganisms that are associated with these discharges can have direct adverse
effects on aquatic biota, such as causing fin-rot in fish. They are, however,
of greater concern in regard to human health. Due to this concern, areas
contaminated with fecal coliform bacteria are closed to shellfishing and to
such water-contact recreation as swimming.

In the Piedmont section of the study area, discharges of heavy metals and
persistent organic compounds have resulted in potentially hazardous accumulations
of toxic materials in the estuarine sediment. Recent investigations led to the
banning of fishing in parts of the Hudson River in New York State owing to severe
contamination of the sediment by an organic compound known as PCB. Other inves-
tigations indicate that the sediment in Newark Bay, Kill Van Kull, Arthur Kill,
and in parts of the Hackensack River estuary is grossly contaminated with mer-
cury and that mercury is moving through the aquatic food chain (Cheng, Koepp,
and McCormick 1978; Jack McCormick & Associates 1976, 1977, 1978a). The
surficial sediment in at least one small section of the Hackensack River estuary
recently was found to contain concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, nickel, and zinc that were 50 to 250 times as great as normal.
Toxic concentrations of cyanide also were found in the water column in parts of
the same area (Jack McCormick & Associates 1978b). Several major sources of these
toxic materials have been eliminated, and others will be abated as they are iden-
tified. The material that already is contained in the sediment, however, poses
a substantial, but still unquantified, threat to the environmental health of the
estuaries for the present and the future.

C. ENVIRONMENTALPROBLEMS IN THE SHORELAND SECTION
Most of the problems in the shoreland section that have a direct and sig-
nificant effect on coastal waters were described, at least peripherally, in the
preceding subsections. They are related principally to the release of pollu-
tants directly into the coastal waters or into shoreland waters near the points
at which they enter the estuaries.

The degradation of the quality of the water and sediment by activities on
the land has been produced by pollutants from various sources. These include
point discharges from industries; point discharges from sanitary sewers and
sewage treatment plants; leachates and runoff from industrial waste heaps and
solid waste or garbage dumps; leachates and runoff from developed areas, particularly
from large urban complexes; runoff from agricultural lands, suburban yards,
and other areas that are managed intensively with fertilizers, herbicides,
pesticides, and other chemicals; and silt-laden runoff from construction sites
and other barren, unpaved tracts. Erosion of the land degrades the quality
of the water by increasing turbidity and the concentrations of constituents
that adsorb to the particulate matter. Where the particles ultimately settle
out, sedimentation is a problem, and may adversely affect benthic organisms
and increase the cost of maintenance dredging.

State and Federal legislation during the last decade and a half has led
to the establishment and strengthening of regulatory controls that have eli-
minated most indiscriminate discharges of pollutants from land-based activities.
Certain discharges that still do not comply with the regulations, particularly
publicly-owned facilities for the collection and treatment of sanitary wastes,
currently are being redesigned and should be in compliance by 1983.

Strong controls over the disposal of solid wastes also have been established
recently. Disposal sites now are subject to approval by the Department of
Environmental Protection; the types of wastes that can be accepted by a par-
ticular operation are limited; and methods are prescribed to insure the proper
placement and covering of wastes and to minimize the production and escape of
leachates.

Construction sites on which more than about 0.1 acre of land is to be
cleared now require the preparation and implementation of a plan to control
erosion and the escape of sediments, debris, and related pollutants. The
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission also requires the applicant to
monitor the effectiveness of the control measures and to take corrective actions
to improve them if the discharge fails to satisfy stringent standards. If these
monitoring and corrective techniques were utilized throughout the coastal zone,
the adverse effects on coastal waters of discharge~ from construction sites would
be minimized.

Several municipalities require applicants for subdivisions and other
authorizations to include plans for water quality management during the
operation of proposed facilities. These plans commonly incorporate on-site
sedimentation basins, natural or landscaped buffers adjacent to surface

water features, floodplain open space, stormwater systems which maximize
the use of infiltration ditches, and condominium agreements that place
the responsibility for landscape management in a community association
that will seek advice from extension specialists to minimize the use of
fertilizers and other chemicals.

The extensive development of structures, paving, and other impervious
surfaces and the installation of large systems for stormwater drainage have
greatly altered the hydrologic conditions in the urbanized areas that line the
estuaries. Much of the water that falls as precipitation now flows over the
surface and into storm sewers which lead directly to the estuaries or to streams
that drain to the estuary. These alterations have increased substantially the
volume and rate of surface runoff and have decreased the volume of water that
percolates to the water table.

The increased velocity and volume of surface runoff has expedited the
movement of urban pollutants to the coastal waters. Where the runoff is
directed into tributary streams, it has resulted in the erosion of their chan-
nels and banks and, thus, in the release of sediment that may be carried to
the coastal waters. The increased volume of freshwater during storm periods
alters the natural gradient of salinity by blocking the upstream movement of
saline water and by diluting the saline and brackish waters to a greater degree.

The reduction of recharge of aquifers results in smaller discharges of
groundwater to the coastal waters and their tributaries throughout the year.
As a result, the freshwater influx to the estuaries is reduced. This effect
is most critical during periods of drought, when brackish water moves up-
stream in an estuary and flushing is at a minimum. Because the base flow of
nontidal streams originates from groundwater discharges, the flow in these
streams is reduced, and some that once were perennial now are dry during
summer drought periods.

The construction of dams for water supply, flood control, or aesthetics
on many of the major rivers and smaller streams in the estuarine section,
shoreland section, or inland from the coastal zone study area has blocked
access to spawning and nursery areas that formerly were used by shad,
perch, striped bass, and other migratory fish (Power and Peck 1971). The
impoundment of water behind these dams also results in higher temperatures of
the freshwater influx to the estuaries. The flow of water through an impound-
ment is slower than that in a free-flowing stream. It is exposed, therefore,
to solar radiation for a longer time and, as a result, is heated more.

Many water purveyors in the Piedmont region obtain at least part of
their supplies from reservoirs on shoreland streams near the places where
they enter the estuaries. The City of Philadelphia draws water from an im-
pounded section of the Schuylkill River, in Pennsylvania, as well as from
the freshwater section of the estuary of the Delaware River. These withdrawals
reduce the freshwater influx to the estuaries, and, as indicated above, this
is most critical during periods of seasonal or long-term droughts. The most
drastic reduction of freshwater influx as a result of withdrawals for potable
use occurs in the Hackensack River estuary. Long-term records indicate that
little or no freshwater is released from a potable water reservoir near the
head of tide for periods of several days during most years.

D. PROBLEMS WITH AIR QUALITY

Concentrations of ozone exceed the Federal primary and secondary air
quality standards throughout the coastal zone. This condition reflects remote,
upwind emissions of hydrocarbons that undergo reactions in the atmosphere to
form ozone. The problem is common throughout the State and throughout most
of the northeastern United States, and could best be solved by areawide control.

The Federal standards for the maximum concentrations of hydrocarbons, lead
and of carbon monoxide (8 hour average) are exceeded at some locations in the
larger coastal settlements and in the metropolitan regions. These pollutants
are related principally to emissions from vehicles, and excessive concentra-
tions of them commonly are produced by dense traffic. Emission controls that
are required for all new automobiles and trucks are expected to reduce the
concentrations of these pollutants. At locations where excessive concentrations
are expected to occur in the future, they may be avoided by highway improvements
and/or by various techniques for traffic management.

The Camden-Philadelphia-Wilmington metropolitan region and the Northeastern
New Jersey-New York metropolitan region, which include parts of the coastal zone
Study Area, include densely urbanized areas with numerous large, industrial
sources of air pollutants. In parts of these areas, the levels of sulfur dioxide
and total suspended particulates, in addition to ozone, exceed the relevant
Federal standards.

Over most of the section of the coastal zone that extends along and includes
the Atlantic Ocean, the quality of the air, except for ozone, satisfies the
Federal standards. This section contains few large, stationary sources.

Chemical reactions between water vapor and oxides of sulfur and
nitrogen produce acids in the atmosphere. The emissions of acid-forming
pollutants have increased during the past several decades, and precipitation
throughout most of the northeastern United States now is acidic (pH 4.0;
Phram, Halverson, and Heisler 1978). Some shoreland streams, lakes, and
ponds in the Northeast have become more acid, and no longer are suitable as
habitats for certain kinds of fish and other aquatic organisms that once
flourished in them. Seawater is well buffered, so acid rain would not
appear to have a significant potential for chemical or biological effect
on the ocean or on the brackish sections of the estuaries. The shoreland
streams of the Outer Coastal Plain naturally are acidic, so they should not
be degraded by acid rainfall, nor should there be any adverse effect on
the freshwater sections of estuaries to which they drain. The potettial
for changes in water quality is greatest in the streams that drain the
inner Coastal Plain and the Piedmont. No noticeable effect of acidlpre-
cipitation, however, has been reported from those areas.

Although the potential for significant adverse effects from acid rain-
fall appears to be small, the possible effects of other airborne contaminants
such as heavy metals, PCB's, and other hydrocarbon residues on coastal waters
is unknown at present.

The Clean Air Act amendments of 1977 have established prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) increments to be met by growth in areas
where the particulate and SO2 ambient air quality standards are being met.
The increments to be met in most of New Jersey are Class LT, basically
consistent with moderate growth, but at the Brigantine Wildlife Refuge
wilderness area the stringent Class I increments must be met. In addition,
limits of emissions with respect to visibility will be developed for the
wilderness area. It is unknown at present the degree of problems inherent
in this Class I designation or the development of visibility requirements.

V. ECOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

A. ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The Congress of the United States declared through Section 303 of the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 that it is the national policy "to preserve,
protect, develop, and where possible to restore or enhance, the resources of
the Nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations" CPL 92-583 as
amended by PL 94-370).

The Governor of New Jersey and the Comissioner of the Department of En-
vironmental Protection have declared that the principal coastal zone management
goal of the State of New Jersey is to "protect the state's coastal resources
while accommodating needed future development" (NJDEP and NOAA 1978).

The -difficulty with the New Jersey goal is the stated desire to accommo-
date future needed development. The definition of "needed" development and
the resolution of the many conflicts inherent in the stated goal obviously
have the potential for creating political fluidity. In order to "protect the
state's coastal resources" it is necessary to establish a set of objectives
which are grounded on firm ecological principles and supported by sound data.
It is also necessary to gain the understanding and support of the public
through clearly definedresource-oriented decision making.

B. GENERAL ECOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES

A part of this study involved a review of the natural ecological objectives
contained in a variety of documents prepared by the New Jersey Office of
Coastal Zone Management. Some 44 stated objectives were identified which en-
compassed management, legislative, administrative, and locational purposes.
We have refined and synthesized these into 23 general objectives based on
natural environmental parameters which, if met, would ensure the attainment

of the stated overall goals for the coastal zone. These are listed in Table
1.

These objectives are largely tied to the maintenance, enhancement, or
restoration of basic natural resources which are essential to the healthy
functioning of the coastal ecosystem. It must always be remembered that
natural resource objectives are not simply designed to protect the plants
and animals, but rather to ensure that man's use of those resources is
assured for the future. This point is particularly appropriate in the
coastal zone setting where much of man's activities are recreational in
nature and centered on natural resources. It is difficult to conceive of a
future coastal zone meeting the basic recreational needs of society if the
land is congested, the wetlands filled and developed, and the waters pollu-
ted and devoid of fish and shellfish. Uses and activities which singularly
or cumulatively impinge on the objectives listed in Table 1 must be regarded
as conflicts with a serious potential for impairment of urban society's basic
need for open space and recreation. They should not be compromised piecemeal
or through political expediency, but rather such conflicts and their conse-
quences should be conveyed to the public in such a manner that the potential
losses in societal values are clearly defined.

VT. SPECIAL COASTAL RESOURCES

Although natural scientists and government decisionmakers recognize that
all the natural ecological resources of the coast are inseparably related to
one another through a system of energy pathways (Odum et al. 1974), it
is possible to identify special resources that are critical to goals and ob-
jectives. Thresholds for environmental changes could then be based on the
protection, enhancement, or restoration of these special resources.

New Jersey initiated an attempt to identify special coastal resource
areas during 1976 and 1977. Initially, the Department of Environmental
Protection invited the public to identify areas with particular natural, cul-
tural, or scenic importance, including depressed urban areas and urban infitl/
extension areas.

Replies that were received by the Department identified 176 specific sites,
specific regions, or such general features as beaches. These were termed
"Nominated Areas of Public Concern" (NJDEP 1977d). A more general listing
of "Specially Valued Resources" was developed concurrently by the Department
(NJDEP l978a), and categories of "Environmentally Sensitive Lands" were
recognized by several counties that include parts of the coastal zone (Conserva-
tion and Environmental Studies Center, Inc., and Burlington County Planning
Board Staff 1978; Cumberland County Planning Board 1978; Gloucester County
Planning Department 1978; Hudson County Office of Planning 1977; Lennon 1978;
Middlesex County Planning Board 1978; Ocean County Planning Department 1978).

The initial compilations of nominated areas and specially valued resources
were considered in the formulation of lists of 27 generic types of "Special
Areas" and 11 "Geographic Areas of Particular Concern" in the Federally approved
Final Environmental Impact Statement on the New Jersey Coastal Management Program.
(NJDEP and NOAA 1978).

Table 1. General Objectives

* Maintain, or where necessary enhance, aquifer recharge rates on land and in
wetlands.

* Regulate groundwater discharge to maintain or restore groundwater levels.

* Maintain and where needed restore the quality of water entering aquifers.

* Maintain gradients of salinity in coastal waters.

* Maintain or where possible restore surface water temperatures to their
ambient range for each season.

* Control the turbidity of coastal waters where acceptable and restore to
acceptable levels where excessive.

* Regulate the discharge of acutely toxic substances in water and air, and on
land and edge. Eliminate the discharge of chronic toxicants which bio-
accumulate.

� Maintain or where appropriate restore the natural nutrient gradients in
land, edge, and water types.

* Control the discharge of pathogens in land, edge,and water types.

* Maintain or where appropriate restore the natural pH levels in fresh waters.

* Maintain adequate levels of dissolved oxygen (for faunal reproduction and
survival) in all coastal waters.
* Preserve natural dissolved solids concentrations.
* Preserve, protect, and where possible restore or enhance the physical
aquatic habitats of the coastal zone through regulation of changes in
substrate particle size, bathymetry, water depth, sedimentation, and
sediment chemis try.

* Preserve, protect, and where appropriate,restore or enhance the abundance
and diversity of aquatic and/or terrestrial flora within the coastal zone.

* Preserve, protect, and where appropriate, restore or enhance the abundance
and diversity of aquatic and/or terrestrial fauna within the coastal zone,

* Preserve, protect,and where appropriate, restore the natural levels of
primary productivity for the coastal environment.

* Maintain or enhance the soil assimilative capacity of the coastal zone.

* Preserve, protectsand where appropriate, enhance or restore the natural shore
protection capacity or the coast.

a Maintain, and where appropriate, restore the natural processes affecting the
geomorphology of coastal land, edgeand water areas.

Table 1. General Objectives (concluded),

* Preserve, protect, and where appropriate, restore the natural volume, rate,
and timing of flow of fresh waters.

* Preserve, protect, and where appropriate, restore the natural estuarine
processes, including circulation, mixingsand tidal flushing.

* Regulate the quantity of noise within the natural environment so as not to
disturb the fish and wildlife species present nor the enjoyment aspects
of public recreation.

* Preserve, protect, and where possible, restore or enhance special resource
areas.

In that program document, special areas were defined as areas which "merit
focused attention and special management policies". The latest description
of "Special Areas" appears in Options for New Jersey's Developed Coast,
Appendix H (NJDEP 1979) which modified slightly the earlier lists.

As a part of this study, we reviewed the descriptions, policies,
and rationale for "Special Coastal Resources" in an attempt to identify those
physical and biological functions, processes, and resources which are critical
to the achievement of the goals and objectives of New Jersey. The result of
this evaluation is the following descriptions of special coastal
resources. This list represents a further modification of the descriptions
that appeared in Appendix H (NJDEP 1979).

Each special resource area listed is considered to be of a parti-
cular significance in maintaining the natural ecological goals and objectives
of the State. Included in the following paragraphs is a description of each
of the special coastal resources, a discussion of their functions, and an
explanation of their importance to coastal New Jersey.

A. SHELLFISH AREAS

Definition: Shellfish areas are tidal bottom lands of the ocean,
estuarine bays, or rivers, and shellfish reefs supporting commercially,
recreationally or ecologically valuable quantities of ocean quahogs, sea
scallops, hard clams, soft clams, surf clams, blue mussels, or oysters.
In this report we have separated shellfish areas into ocean shellfish beds,
estuarine shellfish beds, and shellfish reefs. Shellfish areas include
areas for transplanting (relay) programs and deputation processing, as
well as natural or artificial oyster seed (spot) setting beds. Maps of
shellfish beds in the vicinity of the intracoastal waterway were published
by USDOI (1963). A large scale map indicating more recent estuarine and
ocean shellfish beds was prepared by NJDEP and the Bureau of Geology and
Topography (1976), entitled the "Environmental Map of New Jersey".

Natural functions:

Shellfish are primary consumers that perform a valuable function
in the food chain.

* Oyster and blue mussel reefs alter water circulation patterns
and current velocities resulting in diversified habitats for marine
animals (Chestnut 1974).

* Shellfish reefs function as sediment and nutrient traps
(Grave 1901).

. Shellfish reefs modify substrate particle size and create
distinct reef and benthic communities (Laird 1961).

* Shellfish beds and flats support infaunal burrowing species
that rework boCtoms and, thereby, oxygenate sediments (Gray 1974).

* inhe reworking and oxygenation of shellfish beds recIcles nutrients to
the water and sediments (Gray 1974).

* Shellfish are a food source for many important species including:
blue crabs, eels, striped bass, black seabass, sea trout, drum,
winter and summer flounder, scup, and many species of waterfowl.

Value of Shellfish Areas:

Shellfish are harvested by both commercial and recreational fishermen.
The sport group concentrates on hard clams. Surf clams, oysters, bay scallops,
blue mussels, and soft clams are harzested principally by commercial shell
fishermen. Commercial dockside landing values (wholesale) in NTew Jersev
during 1976 were S3.17 million for estuarine species, and S10.8 million
for surf clams. The commercial harvest is estimated to support employment
of 3,000 persons in fishing, distribution, processing, and retail. SporT_
clammers numbered 17,000 in 1976. The above discussion only illustrates the
direct commercial value of the shellfish resources. Their overall economic
value and their natural ecological value are collectively much greater.
The natural values of shellfish areas are their important place in the
food web utilizing phytoplankton and detritus. In addition they filter
large volumes of water removing and depositing suspended solids. Shellfish
reefs also provide valuable habitats for ocean and estuarine fauna.

3. PRIME FISHING AREAS

Definition: Prime Fishing Areas within the Study Area include coastal
waters and edge areas which have a demonstrable history of supporting a
significant local quantity of recreational fishing activity within the State
of New Jersey's 3 mile limit. The category includes jetties and groins and
public fishing piers or docks, some of which structures may produce adverse
effects on longshore sediment transport that outweigh their values as
fishing sites. Many of the prime Fishing Areas in the Atlantic Ocean are
shown by Freeman and Walford (1974).

Natural functions:

a Prime fishing areas represent congregating spots for fish
where predator-prey relationships are actively performed.
Therefore, the natural function of a prime fishing area
is energy transfer within the food chain.

Value of prime fishing areas:

* Natural bathymetric features, such as the Shrewsbury Rocks,
important sand ridges, and artificial structures act as
concentration areas for many species of finfish, shellfish,
and a diversity of invertebrate species which are essential
to marine ecosystem functioning. These areas are heavily
utilized by recreational and commercial fishermen. Over
2.7 million people annually participate in marine sport fish-
ing and shellfishing in New Jersey. This represents the
highest number of participants in any state from Maine to
Maryland. Of that total, 1.6 million reside in New Jersey,
with the remaining number coming mostly from Pennsylvania and
New York (792,000 and 300,000 respectively). The Mid-Atlantic
* Regional Fisheries Management Council manages fishing activities
seaward of the State coastal zone.

C. SUBMERGED VEGETATION

Definition: This special area includes estuarine water areas supporting
rooted vascular seagrasses such as widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) and eel-
grass (Zostera marina). Eelgrass beds are limited to shallow portions of
Sandy Hook Bay, Shrewsbury River, lower Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor.
Widgeon grass is for the most part limited to shallow areas of upper
Barnegat Bay. Generalized maps of the distribution of the above species
for the entire New Jersey Coast will be completed by Earth Satellite
Corporation of Washington, D.C. for DEP-BCPD by October 1979.

Natural functions: 3

Rooted aquatics such as eelgrasses are one of the chief
contributors of detritus to the estuary (Carriker 1967).

* Submerged vegetation, as a primary producer, is an important
base of the estuarine food chain (Phillips 1974). The plants
serve as a food source to periwinkles, some crabs, fishes, and
waterfowl (Day 1967).

D Submerged vegetation forms a distinct community, that includes:
bacteria, epiphytic plants, molluscs, crustaceans, and small
fish (Wood 1969).

* Submerged rooted aquatics stabilize unconsolidated muddy bottoms
and provide organisms with quiet, silt-free water environments
(Phillips 1974).

The vegetation assimilates available nutrients and converts I
inorganic compounds to usable biomass (McRoy 1966; Boysen-Jensen
1914; Phillips 1974).

38 I

Value of submerged vegetation:

The estuarine waters of New Jersey are relatively shallow, rich in
nutrients, and highly productive. The submerged vegetation of these shallow
waters serves important functions as important winter forage for migratory
waterfowl, nursery areas for juvenile finfish, bay scallops, and blue-claw
crabs, and by producing food that is consumed either directly or as detritus
by many species of fish and other aquatic organisms. The value of seagrasses
was dramatically illustrated during the 1930's when a disease epidemic vir-
tually eliminated eelgrass from the coastline of the Atlantic Ocean. The
number of finfish, shellfish, and waterfowl drastically decreased. The bay
scallop industry of the New Jersey coast was ruined. Bays became choked
with silt, and new mud flats were formed (NJDEP 1977b).

D. WETLANDS

Wetlands are areas in which the substrate is "inundated or saturated by
surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (Corps of
Engineers 1977). This vegetation of wetlands is highly productive and wet-
land habitats may be utilized intensively by various species of waterfowl,
shorebirds, songbirds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and other forms
of animal life. Tidal wetlands and nontidal wetlands are recognized.

Tidal Wetlands

Definition: Tidal wetlands are low-lying areas of relatively flat
land that may be known as marshes, meadows, swamps, or by some other local
name. Some herbaceous tidal wetlands is that part of the coastal zone from
the south shore of Raritan Bay to Cape May Point and, hence, to Trenton have
been delineated by NJ-DEP on-official maps at a scale of 1:2,400 (1 inch =
200 feet, as listed at N.J.A.C. 7:7A-1.13). Forested wetlands extend landward
from the herbaceous tidal wetlands at many locations, and are included in this
category. Both herbaceous and forested tidal wetlands also occur in areas that
have not been mapped officially. These areas are included in this category
of special resources.

Extensive herbaceous coastal wetlands are a characteristic feature of the
landscape in the Hackensack Meadowland District in Bergen and Hudson Counties.
Although the District was excluded from the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Act
of 1970, it is included in the coastal zone. The Hackensack Meadowlands
Development Commission has promulgated a Wetland Open Space Plan and Wetland
Order that are intended to preserve certain areas of the coastal wetlands in
the District (HMDC 1972a, 1972b).

Coastal wetlands that are enclosed by banks or dikes that exclude the
tides and may be drained by tide flaps, sluices, pumps or other devices, are
included in the category of special resources. Impounded wetlands of this
kind are distributed throughout the estuarine section of the coastal zone,
and are most conspicuous along the edge of Delaware Bay and in the Hackensack
Meadowland District.

Natural functions:

� Tidal marshes are efficient converters of sunlight energy into
carbohydrates, amino acids, and proteins (Daiber 1974).

* Tidal marshes export considerable amounts of usuable biomass in
the form of detritus (Massman 1971; Odum and de la Cruz 1967).

* Tidal marshes are effective in assimilating inorganic nutrients
(Clark 1974).

* Rooted emergent vegetation of the marsh slow water currents and
cause sediments to be trapped.

� Tidal wetlands trap sediment and bind the substrate with rhizomes
and roots to form a erosion buffer for the shorelands.

* Tidal marshes provide food and protection for many juvenile fish,
shellfish (Cooper 1974) and migratory waterfowl.

Value of tidal wetlands:

* Fish harvests from estuarine waters have been estimated as high as
125 lbs/acre for Atlantic estuaries--(McHugh 1967). Approximately
two-thirds of the commercial fisheries landed on the Atlantic Coast
are made up of species believed to be estuarine dependent (McHugh
1966). Tidal wetlands are an important source of available food to
these estuarine dependent species. The primary biological productivity
of New Jersey's coastal wetlands is greater than that of terrestrial
corn and wheat fields on a per acre basis. The principal direct
dietary beneficiaries of organic wetland detritus are bacteria and
protozoans, which are in turn fed upon by larger invertebrates.
Important finfish, shellfish, and waterfowl and other resources feed
upon these invertebrates. New Jersey's coastal wetlands are annually
prime wintering habitat for hundreds ot thousands of migratory waterfowl.
A major recent summary of wetlands values was prepared by McCormick
and Somes (1979).

Nontidal Wetlands, Bogs, and White-Cedar Stands

Definition: Nontidal wetlands occupy areas adjacent to or near
shoreland rivers and streams that are not affected by the diurnal rise and fall
of tides and areas not associated closely with streams, but in which the water
table is at or near the surface at least for several days during most years.
The vegetation of most nontidal wetlands is characterized by trees and/or
shrubs, but some wetlands are covered by herbaceous vegetation. These areas
are known as swamps, spungs, cripples, bogs, marshes, savannahs, and by other
local names. The general distribution of nontidal wetlands in the Pine Barrens,
which includes parts of the bay and ocean shore segment of the coastal zone is
shown on a map by McCormick (1978). The locations of white cedar swamp forests,
hardwood swamp forests, pitch pine lowland forests, fresh marshes, and bogs in
the Pine Barrens shown in more detailed maps prepared by McCormick and
Jones (1973). Forest type maps available at the Bureau of Forestry in NJDEP
also indicate the distribution of southern white cedar swamp forests and other
wetland forest types.

Natural functions:

Nontidal wetlands are separated into bogs and herbaceous marshes, and
white cedar stands and lowland wet forests.

Bogs and herbaceous marshes contribute the following natural values and
functions:

0 Support a distinct community of plants and animals. Bogs are
the habitat for many threatened and endangered animal species
(marsh hawk, vesper sparrow, short eared owl, upland plover,
Henslow's sparrow, and short billed marsh wren, bog turtle,
Pine Barren's treefrog, and the Eastern tiger salamander among
other species). Endangered or threatened plant species, al-
though not officially listed, are also found here.

Removes inorganic nutrients from the water environment and con-
verts material to useful biomass.

0 Recharges groundwater aquifers in periods of low stream flow and
rainfall.

Marshes bordering flowing waters reduce the velocity of flood
waters and provide areas for dispersion of high water.

* Nontidal marshes contribute organic material to the bordering
streams and rivers which, in turn, transport the material to
the estuary as detritus.

Uhitc cedar stands and lowland wet forests function in the following wa-:

� Lowland wet forests serve as important escape cover for deer
and as forage and nesting areas for numerous small animals
including squirrels, rabbits, ruffed grouse, and several
species of waterfowl.

* White cedar is the most valuable timber tree in New Jersey.
which Rrows in natural (distinct) single-species stands.

* Lowland swamps disperse flood waters and, consequently, slow
water velocity, reduce maximum flood height downstream, and
allow deposition of sediments in the slow moving waters (NJDEP 1977f).

* White cedar and other swamp trees bind the soil with roots-and
absorb water energy while minimizing shoreland erosion.

* Seasonally flooded swamps slow water currents and allow sus-
pended solids to precipitatelforming alluvial soils.

� Swamps contain a unique community of plants and animals adapted
to survival in a swamp environment; including bog turtles, Pine
Barren's treefrog, carpenter frog, bald eagle, osprey, and yellow
crowned night heron, each of which are endangered or threatened
in New Jersey (NJDEP 1977b).

Value of nontidal wetlands, bogs, and white-cedar swamps:

Accumultions of peat that develop due to the decomposition of organic
matter in freshwater wetlands are often mined as a fertilizer and soil
conditioner. Nontidal wetlands provide usable organic material to the estuary
in the form of detritus. Wetlands have been used to purify domestic waste-
water. White-cedar swamps represent an important timber resource to the
State. Finally, wildlife depends on the cover and food available in marshes,
swamps and bogs for survival. Finally, nontidal wetlands can provide tertiary
nutrient removal from treated sewage effluent and benefit surface and ground-
water quality (Johnson et al. 1978, USEPA 1978, USEPA et al. 1977).

E. CRITICAL WILDLIFE HABITAT

I ~~~Definition: Habitats are considered to be critical when they are
essential co the survival of species of animals or plants that are endangered
or threatened, when they are essential to regular and/or the seasonal move-
I ~ ~ments of aquatic or terrestrial animals from one habitat to another, when
they are utilized intensively as areas for reproductive activities, as
areas for the congregation of animals on a seasonal basis, or when they
are of a type that is present in the coastal zone in relatively limited
supply. The degradation or destruction of critical habitats could
result in decreases in the populations of the species that utilize them,
and could result in the extinction of species whose existence in the State
already is in jeopardy. Reductions in the populations of waterfowl and
upland game will affect the success of hunters, birders, and other natural-
ists. Critical wildlife habitats are found in the Fine Barrens, oak, hickory,
I ~ ~and pine forests, wetlands and many of the other special resource areas.

Natural functions:

0 Critical Wildlife Habitats provide some of the State's present
wildlife populations with food, cover and breeding sites to allow
for effective population maintenance and their management is
instrumental in increasing present populations of selected species.

U .~~~ Critical Wildlife Habitats are important hunting, fishing, wildlife
observing, and other -nonintensive outdoor recreation areas.
I *~~~ The areas provide an outdoor laboratory for the scientific inves-
tigation of wildlife and for natural resource management.

I ~~~Value of critical wildlife habitats:

The State of New Jersey, as custodian of a particular portion of the
national wildlife heritage, has the obligation of stewardship on behalf of
the people of the State and nation to perpetuate species of wildlife within
~its borders for use, education, research, and enjoyment by future generations.

F. ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES HABITAT

I ~~~Definition: Any area of land, edge, or water that is designated as offi-.
cial "critical habitat" for any species of animal or plant that has been des-
ignated as 'tendangered"t or "threatened" by the Secretary of the Interior or
I ~ ~by NJDEP or habitats of species that merit consideration for inclusion on
the official listings, is considered to be a critical area. The definition
also includes a sufficient buffer area to insure continued survival of
I ~ ~the species. Dissemination of data that identify specific areas inhabited
by endangered or threatened animals or plants should be restricted in order
to protect the species. State of New Jersey endangered or threatened species
as defined by NJDEP are presented in Table 2.

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~43

Table 2. ENDANGERED A'TD THREATENED SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY
-ENDANGERED-

FISH

Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum

AMPHIB IsS

Tremblay's Salamander Ambystoma tremblayi
Blue-spotted Salamander Ambystoma laterale
Eastern Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum
Pine Barrens Treefrog Hyla andersoni
Southern Gray Treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis

REPTILES

Bog Turtle Clemmys muhlenbergi
Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus horridus

BIRDS

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
Osprey Pandion haliaetus
Cooper's Hawk Accipter cooperii
Least Tern Sterna albifrons
Black Skimmer Rynchops niger

MAZMMALS

Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis

SPECIAL CASE:
MARINE REPTILES

Atlantic Hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata
Atlantic Loggerhead Caretta caretta
Atlantic Ridley Lepidochelys kempi
Atlantic Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea

MARINE MAMMALS

Sperm Whale Physeter catodon
Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus
Finback Whale Balaenoptera physalus
Sei TWhale Balaenoptera borealis
Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae
Atlantic Right Whale Eubalaena glacialis

Table 2. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY (Contd.)
-THREATENED-

FISH

Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus
American Shad Alosa sapidissima
Brook Trout (native) Salvelinus fontinalis
Atlantic Tomcod Microgadus tomcod

AMPHIBIANS

Long-tailed Salamander Eurycea longicauda
Eastern Mud Salamander Pseudotriton montanus

REPTILES

Wood Turtle Clemmys insculpta
Corn Snake Elaphe guttata
Northern Pine Snake Pituophis melanoleucus

BIRDS

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias
Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus
Marsh Hawk Circus cyaneus
Merlin Falco columbarius
Upland Sandpiper (Plover) Bartramia longicauda
Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii
Barred Owl Strix varia
Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Short-billed Marsh Wren Cistothorus platensis
Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus
Savannah Spar-row Passerculus sandwichensis
Ipswich Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis
princeps
Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum
Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus

SPECIAL CASE: I

MARINE REPTILES

Atlantic Green Turtle Chelonia mydas

Source: Taken from "Endangered, Threatened, Peripheral, Undetermined,
Declining and Extirpated Wildlife Species in New Jersey", Official list
prepared by Endangered and Non-game Species Project, NJDEP Division of Fish
Game and Shellfisheries, Russel A. Cookingham, Director, 'March 29, 1979.
45

Natural functions:

* Each species of animal and plant is composed of a unique genetic
mixture. Endangered and threatened species provide the natural
world with a rare combination of genes that are of particular value
as an adaption to environmental conditions. If lost through extinc-
tion, the natural world loses the diversity-of genetic material
which promotes the stability and the survival of the natural system.

Scientific investigation of endangered and threatened species provides
the citizens of New Jersey with a better understanding of the natural
world and its potential opportunities for utilization by man.

The observation of endangered and threatened species provides an
educational insight into the past condition of the natural environ-
ment and the challenge of the future in resource management.

* Endangered species are often found in relatively undisturbed or
high quality habitats. Therefore, in addition to the intrinsic
value of the species, endangered species serve as indicators of
high quality habitats.

Value of endangered and threatened species habitat:

Endangered species are organisms which face possible extinction in the
immediate future due to loss of suitable habitat, and past over-exploitation
through human activities or natural causes. Threatened species are not in
jeopardy of immediate extinction, but they could become endangered if condi-
tions were to worsen. Extinction is an irreversible event and represents
a loss; to future human use, and educational research; to the interrelationships
of all living creatures with the ecosystem; and of irreplaceable genetic material.

The current (1979) official list of endangered species of animals in
New Jersey (NJAC 7:25-11.1) includes the following species: Shortnose sturgeon,
blue-spotted salamander, eastern tiger salamander, bog turtle, bald eagle,
peregrine falcon, osprey, Cooper's hawk, and Indiana bat, as well as various
marine mammals and marine reptiles. Additional species are designated as
threatened. Currently, no official list exists of species of plants that may
be endangered or threatened in New Jersey. Fairbrothers and Hough (1975),
however, compiled an unofficial list, and 15 species of plants that occur in
New Jersey were recommended by the Smithsonian Institution to the US Fish and
Wildlife Service for addition to the Federal lists (40 FR 27863-27864, 1 July
1975).

G. NL9GRATORY PATHWAYS AND SPAWNING AREAS

Definition: Waters which serve as passageways for migratory fish,
crustaceans, and shellfish larvae to or from seasonal spawning areas, nursery
areas, or feeding areas are critical habitats. Pathways of anadromous fish
through rivers, streams, bays and inlets, as identified by NJDEP(1977a)
are a major component of this type of critical habitat. Also included
are ocean waters within the 3 mile territorial limit of New Jersey, through
which a large number of species migrate.

Natural functions:

I . Migratory pathways function as transportation routes for fish
populations moving from one coastal system to another. Migration is
necesary for spawning, juvenile development, and the survival of
many important fisheries (Harry 1963; McHugh et al. 1959; Nichols
1967; and Merriman 1937).

* Migratory pathways distribute the fisheries throughout the
coastal water sections in response to the energy pulses in each
of the sections. In this way, the fisheries utilize the available
energy sources of the coastal waters most efficiently (Copeland 1965).

* The migratory pathways serves as channels to distribute detritus from
nontidal and tidal sources to the fisheries. The detritus forms the
base for the food chain that supports the migrating fish populations.

Value of migratory pathways and spawning areas:

Striped bass are one of New Jersey's most prized sport fish and are
actively sought wherever they occur in New Jersey. This species spawns in
the Delaware, Hudsonand Maurice Rivers. American shad, once much more numerous
and formerly an important commercial species, continue to make an annual spawn-
ing run in the Delaware and Hudsdn Rivers, where there is an active sport
fishery. A much reduced commercial fishery exists in the Delaware Bay and River.
Herrings are important forage species and spawn annually in many of New Jersey's
tidal tributaries including the Raritan and Hackensack Rivers. Herrings are
fished during spring runs, for direct human consumption, garden fertilizer and
for use as bait. Shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon spawn primarily in the Hudson
River and utilize various portio4s of the coastal zone during various life stages.

1 4~~~~~~~~~7

H. SHIPWECKS AND REEFS

Definition: This special resource includes all permanently submerged or
abandoned remains of vessels [lying] which serve as a special marine habitat
and are within the ocean waters of the State of New Jersey three mile terri-
torial sea, but outside of navigation channels [whether sunk intentionally
or unintentionally]. Known sites include those shown either on National
Ocean Survey (N.O.S.) charts or listed in: W. Krotee and R. Krotee Shipwrecks
Off rhe New Jersey Coast (1966). Also included in this category are artificial
fishing reefs which serve the same natural function as a habitat for living
marine resources.

Natural functions:

Shipwrecks and reefs rapidly develop communities of attached
organisms because of fast current renewal resulting from the
the protrusion of the structure above the main friction layers
of the bottom. The community that develops is adapted to the
physical and biological conditions present.

0 The structures serve as important cover to many fishes and crustaceans
in an environment that naturally is devoid of such protection.

* Reefs concentrate marine life and are important as a prime
fishing area- (lobster, bluefish, striped bass and other species).

Shipwrecks and reefs alter natural water currents and provide
a variety of niches for species requiring modified water velocities
and circulation patterns.

Value of shipwrecks and reefs:

Shipwrecks and other natural or artificial materials serve as habitat
for benthic finfish and lobsters, and other invertebrates which prefer
shelter in hard substrates otherwise uncommon in New Jersey's marine
waters. These areas function as congregation areas for migratory species
and support extensive recreational fishing by private boats, commercial
party boats, and commercial lobstering. Shipwrecks are also fragile
historic and cultural resources. Scuba diving club members from New Jersey
and other states visit these resources.

I. BEACHES
Definition: Beaches are gently sloping areas of unconsolidated material,
typically sand, that extend landward from the water to the area where a
definite change takes place either in material or physiographic form, or to
the line of vegetation. The upland limit of beaches is typically defined by
the vegetation line or the first cultural feature, such as a road, seawall,
or boardwalk. Beaches are divided into the "wet beach", the area at and
below the mean high water line, and the "dry beach", the area above the
mean high water line. The wet beach area is impressed with the Public
Trust Doctrine and, therefore, available as public space.

Natural functions:

Beaches develop a unique association of very specialized biota,
the sand dwellers or psammon (Riedl and McMahon 1974).

* * Beaches respond to wave energies and absorb much of the wave
force of the ocean and bays.

0 Beaches are both a source and sink for unconsolidated sediments
moving in the littoral currents.
a Beaches are an important feeding, resting,and nesting area for
thousands of shore birds and marine reptiles including least
and common-terns, black skimmers, piping plovers, Atlantic
loggerhead turtle, and other species.

Value of beaches:
Undeveloped beaches are vital to the New Jersey resort economy. Un-
restricted access for recreational purposes is desirable so that the beaches
can be enjoyed by all residents and visitors of the state. Beaches

are subject to coastal storms and erosion from offshore currents.

Public health and safety considerations require that structures
be excluded from beaches to prevent or minimize loss of life or property
from storms and floods, except for some shore protection structures and linear
facilities, such as pipelines, when nonbeach locations are not prudent or
feasible. Beaches perform, in conjunction with dunes, a valuable protective
function to coastal development by absorbing the energy of the waves. Wet
sand beaches have been designated a Geographic Area of Particular Concern
(GAPC) under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.

J. DUNES I

Definition: Dunes are formations of partially stabilized, vegetated,
drifting sand roughly paralleling and upland from the beaches on ocean and bay
shores. The inland limit of dunes is defined topographically. Typically,
the land surface rises above a beach as a fore-dune, flattens on a ridge line,
and then falls as a back dune. This is the primary dune. Sometimes the sur-
face rises and falls again one or more times, creating secondary or tertiary
dunes. The term dune includes all areas between the inland limit of the dry,
sandy beach and the foot of the most inland dune slope. Two types of dune
I
areas exist along the New Jersey shoreline: natural dunes and developed
dunes. Natural dunes modified, but not totally destroyed by man, are defined
as "developed dunes".

Natural functions:

a Dunes absorb much of the energy generated by abnormal wave
climates by supplying the beach with unconsolidated material.
The material is drawn offshore by the eroding waves and is
returned to the beach and eventually the dunes in calmer wave
periods.

a Dunes form a moderately effective barrier to flood waters
depending upon the continuity and configuration of the dunes.

* Dunes deflect salt laden offshore winds and therefore protect
the vegetation of the central barrier island corridor.

* Dunes provide a unique high energy and dynamic environment
that is colonized by a distinct community of plants and
animals.

Dunes function as storage and recharge areas for freshwater
that is held by osmotic pressure within the dune. 1f the
groundwater is lowered drastically, the dune will become
dessicated and severely eroded by coastal winds.
I
Value of dunes:

Dunes serve as valuable physical storm wave protection, groundwater
recharge area, wildlife habitat, aesthetic and educational resources. The
number and extent of dunes and barrier beach vegetation have diminished along

New Jersey's Atlantic coastline, due largely to extensive and intensive de-
velopment on barrier islands. Most of New Jersey's dunes are located either
in publicly-owned areas such as Sandy Hook (Gateway National Recreation Area),
Island Beach State Park, Little Beach in the Brigantine National Wildlife Re-
fuge, and Higbee Beach in Cape May County (proposed for state acquisition),
as well as adjacent to the developed parts of barrier islands. Additional
small but significant remaining dune areas are in public ownership at Sea
Girt at the State Police Academy, Ocean Crest State Park (undeveloped) at
Ocean City, Strathmere Natural Area at Corson's Inlet, and Cape May Point
State Park. Avalon has a 10 block stretch of primary and secondary dunes
with thick, mature barrier island vegetation (Photograph 22, Volume 3).

K. COASTAL BLUFFS

Definition: A coastal bluff is the seaward face or side of any elevated
land form, other than a coastal dune, which lies at the landward edge of a
coastal beach whose land is subject to tidal action, or other water-wave
actions. The seaward limit of the bluff is the toe of the bluff slope. The
landward limit of the bluff is the first major break in the face of the bluff.
A bluff may be a steep or gently sloping surface composed of various fairly
loose sediment. Coastal bluffs, exist primarily in Middlesex, Monmouth,
Burlington, and Gloucester Counties.

Natural function:

Coastal bluffs protect the upland from storm waves and flooding.

Coastal bluffs provide a source of sediment for ocean and
estuarine beaches.

* Coastal bluffs, because of the large amount of material present,
retard horizontal erosion of the upland.

Value of coastal bluffs:

Coastal bluffs play an important role in storm damage protection.
Bluffs also afford scenic vistas of coastal water and landscapes. For
both reasons, coastal bluffs are preferred by many as homesites.

L. MARINE AND ESTUARINE SAICTUARIES

Marine Sanctuary

Definition: A marine sanctuary is a specific geographic urea lo-
cated within tidal waters, from the highest extent of tidal action seaward
to the outer edge of the Continental Shelf. Under Title III of the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-532), a marine
sanctuary can be established for the purpose of preserving or restoring
marine areas for various values. To date, there are no designated marine
sanctuaries within New Jersey.

DEP-BCPD submitted six recommendations to NOAA in 1977, including the Hudson
Canyon, Shrewsbury Rocks, Great Bay estuary, shipwrecks, inlets, and off-
shore sand ridges (Carlson 1979). Designation of one or more of these areas
as marine sanctuaries in New Jersey's nearshore and offshore areas requires
joint actions by the Governor of New Jersey and the US Secretary of Commerce,
and could take place during 1980.

Estuarine Sanctuary

Definition: An Estuarine Sanctuary is a research area, or
natural field laboratory, established pursuant to Section 312 of the Federal
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. Such an area may include
all or any part of an estuary and adjoining edge and shoreland areas in a
manner so as to constitute, to the extent feasible, a natural unit. The
Secretary of Commerce is authorized to provide grants of up to 50 percent of
the costs of acquisition, development, and operation of an estuarine sanctuary,
or of up to two million dollars, whichever is less.

Natural functions:

Marine and estuarine sanctuaries are assembledges of landscapes
and associated plants and animals. As such, the natural
function of a sanctuary varies with the area and environment
designated. Additional discussion about these areas can be
found in Chapter XVTI-B, 3.2.9 of this volume.

Value of estuarine and marine sanctuaries:

Certain portions of the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent estuaries are of
special national and regional value in the production and maintenance of
valued marine animals, and could be adversely impacted by development likely
to take place in the future, especially activities related to offshore oil
and gas development. It is in the long-term interest of the people of the
nation to identify, protect, and manage these sanctuaries.

M. PINELANDS

Definition: Boundaries for the Pinelands have been recommended by
the Governor's Pinelands Review Committee (1978). Subareas within these
boundaries include a "Pinelands Protection Area" and a "Pinelands Preser-
vation Area". These areas are regulated by the Pinelands Protection Act of 1979.

Natural functions:

* The Pinelands contain many natural environments that are critical
to the continued existence of unique or endangered plants and
animals.

* The Pinelands are an important groundwater recharge area.

0 The Pinelands are an extensive wildlife habitat for animals
requiring extensive range.

* The Pinelands contain a distinct group of vegetation types which
occupy large areas as distinct vegetational communities only
within its boundaries.

Value of the Pinelands

The Pinelands is a large area, greater than 1 million acres in extent,
of essentially natural landscape in close proximity to the highly modified,
man-dominated landscape of megalopolis. The Pinelands thus has particular
value as a scientific educational, and recreational resource for the citi-
zens of New Jersey. This value consists principally of diverse plant and
animal species present, including many endangered and threatened animal
species, and a great number of non-game species. The Pinelands vegetation
provides the habitats upon which the animals depend for food, cover, nesting,
resting, and breeding. The plant communities range from bogs, freshwater
marshes, and Atlantic white cedar stands to upland pitch pine, black jack
and scrub oak forests. Streams are also an important part of the Pinelands.
Because of their low nutrient concentrations and high acidity, their fauna
are especially sensitive to minor changes in water quality. The value of
the Pinelands is maintained and increased by the hunters, fishermen, bird-
watchers, scientists, teachers and others who use the Pinelands without
abusing them. The continued maintenance of the Pinelands will ensure that
a significant part of the natural history of the State will be available to
future citizens of New Jersey in the form of the plants, animals, and land-
scapes.

N. OPEN SPACE

Definition: Privately-owned open space and recreation facilities
include all golf courses, campgrounds, parks and other facilities not owned
by Federal, state, county or local governments. Publicly-owned open space
constitutes land areas owned and maintained by Federal, state, county, and
municipal agencies and dedicated to the conservation of natural resources,
public recreation, or wildlife protection or management. Publicly owned
open space includes State Forests, State Parks, and State Fish and Wildlife
Management Areas and designated Natural Areas (NJSA 13:lB-15.12a et seq.)
within DEP-owned and managed lands.

Natural functions:

* Open space provides a buffer between the natural elements of the
environment and the man-made elements. This buffer is necessary
for the survival of many sensitive natural elements of the
environment.

Open space provides, in degrees of value related to its charac-
teristics, wildlife habitat, mitigation of pollutants, surface
water quality protection, air quality protection and mitigation,
and other important functions.

Value of open space:

As the rapid urbanization of New Jersey continues and leisure time
increases, open space will play an increasingly important role in maintaining
a desirable living environment for the residents of New Jersey. Even though
the supply of open space has decreased under the growing pressure for develop-
ment, the State s expanding population will require more public open space to
satisfy its needs.

Not only is open space the basic resource for recreation facility develop-
ment, it also performs other worthwhile functions. Open space can create
public spaces in densely settled areas, shape urban growth, provide buffers
for incompatible uses, retain contiguous farmland, insure the preservation
of wildlife corridors, increase the economic value of adjacent land, and
preserve distinct architectural, historic, and geologic sites.

The distribution of open space should not only be centered around the
preservation of unique areas, but must also respond to the needs of people.
WThere possible, open spaces should be contiguous both visually and physically
to promote a sense of continuity and to afford users continued uninterrupted
movement.

0. FARMLAND CONSERVATION AREAS

Definition: Large, contiguous areas of 20 acres or more (in single
or multiple tracts) with soils of classifications in the Capability Classes
I, II, and III as mapped by the US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conser-
vation Service, in National Cooperative Soil Surveys, and Special Soils for
Blueberries and Cranberries, which are actively farmed, suitable for farming,
or forested, and located in Cape May, Cumberland or Salem Counties are defined
as Farmland Conservation Areas. The Farmland Conservation Areas should not
be confused with the Farmland Preservation Demonstration Project in Burlington
County which has been discontinued.

Natural function:

a Farmland Conservation Areas provide New Jersey with a productive
land base to support the food and fiber demands of the population.

Value of farmland conservation areas:

Farmland Conservation Areas are an irreplaceable natural resource essen-
tial to the production of food and fiber. Conservation of large, contiguous
areas of these lands for farming serves both private and public interests,
particularly in terms of ready access to locally-grown food, jobs and open
space preservation. At the same time, the policy here recognizes the desir-
ability of minimizing conflicts between farm and urban areas.

Only the three southern counties within the Bay and Ocean Shore Region
have significant Farmland Conservation Areas located in a manner generally
compatible with present or future farming. In Cape May County, approximately
39.8 percent of the soils qualify as Capability Classes I and IT
(including areas outside of the coastal zone boundary). Some of these irre-
placeable soil resources have already been converted to urban uses. Other
areas which are of a sufficiently large scale to make farming feasible should
be reserved for farming purposes.

P. CENTRAL BARRIER ISLAND CORRIDOR

Definition: The central barrier island corridor is that portion of
barrier islands and spits or peninsulas (narrow land areas surrounded by
both bay and ocean waters and connected to the mainland) that lies upland
and between the coastal wetlands, beaches, and edge areas that line the ocean
and bay sides of a barrier island or spit. The central barrier island
corridor excludes dunes and begins at the foot of the most inland slope of
dunes. The central barrier island corridor also excludes wash-over areas.
Central barrier island corridor does not apply to the headlands of northern
Ocean County, Monmouth County, and the tip of Cape May County, which are part
of the mainland.

Natural functions:

� The Central Barrier Island Corridor contains a freshwater lens
available as a potable source of water.

* The Central Barrier Island Corridor provides an environment
for the formation of a distinct maritime community of plants
and animals.

* The barrier island as a whole provides protection to the
mainland from the damaging forces of the Atlantic.

Value of the Central Barrier Island corridor:

All of New Jersey's barrier islands and spits, except for Pullen
Island in the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge, are developed to varying
degrees, largely as a result of incremental decisions made beginning more
than 100 years ago. Because the public facilities (road and utilities)
necessary to support urban and resort development exist, and because develop-
ment pressure is intense, the main value of the Central Barrier Island Corridor
is the provision of land for coastal development. The Central Barrier Island
Corridor has been prized as an ideal site for second homes and residences by
many citizens of the State. Many of the recent residents fail to recognize
the sensitivity of the maritime environment and the hazardous nature of the
coastal islands.

Q. OAK, HICKORY, AND PINE FORESTS

Definition: Forests are vegetated areas of varying age, species compo-
sition, and density where woody trees are dominant. In the Atlantic Coastal
Plain landscape, upland and lowland forested sites are not distinguished
sharply by topography but rather by the water tables. The oak, hickory,
and pine forests of the New Jersey coastal zone include both lowland and upland
forests and occupy areas in which the winter water table generally remains at
least 1.5 feet below the ground surface (McCormick and Jones, 1973).

Natural functions:

* Forests provide cover, food. and other basic habitat
requirements for a large variety of terrestrial wildlife.

Forests serve as aesthetic, noise, and air pollution
buffer zones for people and wildlife.

Upland forests stabilize soils, retain surface precipitation,
reduce surface runoff, and maintain aquafer recharge.

* Forests absorb air pollutants and produce large
quantities of atmospheric oxygen.

Value of Oak, Hickory, and Pine Forests

The world's forests are being depleted at an alarming rate, and indi-
cations are that global climate could be adversely affected as a result.
New Jersey's forests are, of course, a part of this global resource
and contribute to a degree to this global atmospheric gaseous balance.
Therefore, the clearing of forests should be done only after careful consider-
ation of non-destructive alternatives. New Jersey's oak, hickory, and pine
forests also provide important and diminishing habitat for a large variety
of plants and animals, including a number of game species. They also serve
an important function as buffers between competing land uses, and are impor-
tant in reducing soil loss and maintaining groundwater flows.

VII. RELATIONSHIP OF SPECIAL COASTAL RESOURCES TO ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS A-D
OBJECTIVES

Special coastal resources are of particular significance to the State of
New Jersey. These resources and their associated functions and processes are
critical to the achievement of the natural ecological goals and objectives of
the State. We have examined the relationship ot the resources described in
the previous section and the goals and objectives listed above. From
this examination, it is obvious that alterations in the identified resources
or their functions affects the ability of New Jersey to achieve or maintain
the objectives of the coastal management program. In order to clearly define
the objectives for special coastal resouces, a series of special objectives
was developed (Table 3).

Table 3. Special Objectives (for Special Coastal Resources)

* Preserve, protect, and where possible, restore or enhance oyster and blue
mussel reefs.

* Preserve, protect, and where possible, restore or enhance estuarine shell-
fish beds.

* Preserve, protect, and where possible, restore or enhance ocean shellfish
beds.

� Preserve, protect, and where possible, restore or enhance prime fishing
areas.

* Preserve, protect, and where possible, restore or enhance submerged vege-
tation.

* Preserve, protect, and where possible, restore or enhance tidal wetlands.

* Preserve, protect, and where possible, restore or enhance bogs and nontidal
wetlands.

* Preserve, protect, and where possible, restore or enhance white cedar stands.

* Preserve, protect, and where possible, restore or enhance migratory pathways
and spawning areas.

* Preserve, protect, and where possible enhance shipwrecks and reefs.

* Preserve, protect, and where possible, restore or enhance beaches.

* Preserve, protect, and where possible, restore or enhance dunes.

* Preserve, and protect coastal bluffs.

* Preserve, and protect the Pine Barrens.

* Preserve, protect, and where possible, expand and enhance open space.

c Preserve and protect large contiguous areas of prime farmland and
specialty crop soils.

* Preserve, protect, and where possible restore or enhance the central barrier
island corridor.

* Preserve, protect, and where possible restore or enhance upland oak, hickory,
and pine forests.

The definition of the relationships between Special Coastal Resources
and objectives provides a framework within which the implications of land or
water use decisions can be evaluated. Future uses in the study area willI
modify, directly or indirectly, the natural functions of the Special Coastal
Resources, thereby directly affecting the viability of the stated natural
ecological objectives. Therefore, New Jersey should comtemplate this causal3
relationship of land and water use decisions to objectives when conducting
an evaluation of proposed uses in the coastal zone. It is possible, through
the use of cause and effect matrices, to translate these environmental changes 3
into actions affecting the ability of the State to achieve natural ecologicalU
objectives. This complex relationship is established in the following
sections of this report.

58~~~~~~~

VIII. ITMPACT RELATIONSHIPS IN THE COASTAL ZONE

A. EXPECTED FUTURE USES IN TEE STUDY AREA

The initial step that is necessary to examine the consequences of land
and water uses occurring in the Study Area is the assemblage of a listing
of the land uses and water uses that exist or are likely to be proposed in
the Study Area. Such a list was developed by combining the types of facilities
that are regulated pursuant to the Coastal Area Facility Review Act of 1972
(CAFRA), the types of uses that were compiled previously in reports issued
by the Office of Coastal Zone Management (NJDEP 1978a. 1978b) and from lists
compiled by others (Battelle 1966; RFF 1967; Cosrel 1968; Ipon 1968; Teeters
1968; Ketchum 1969, 1972; USDOI 1969, 1970b; Lill 1970, Anon. 1972; Ellis 1973;
Clark 1974; USEPA 1975; Cronin 1977). These entries were revised, supple-
mented, and regrouped for the present report.

The listing in Table 4 is intended to be comprehensive. This will insure,
insofar as possible, that all existing and potential uses are considered in
the development of the management plan. It also constitutes a record of the
uses that were considered. When these uses were utilized in determining
Impacting Activities which could occur in a given land, edge or water type,
a standard size of each use was determined in order to evaluate comparable
magnitudes of impacts. The chosen standard impact plot was 100 acres. If a
use was considered whose lot size was normally smaller than 100 acres, such
as rural housing, then the cumulative impact of as many rural houses that
would normally occur on a 100 acre plot was considered. For uses covering
areas larger than 100 acres, such as power plants, a representative 100 acre
portion of the power plant site was considered. The water demand, waste
production, etc. of the 100 acre site was considered the same proportion
of the whole facilities water demand, etc., as 100 acres/total site size.
For pipelines, transmission lines, roads and other linear uses, a 1 mile
portion of their right-of-way was considered. For some uses such as those
over water professional judgement was utilized to determine the magnitude
of impacts.
B. IMPACTING ACTIVITIES

The potential land and water uses of the Study Area have impacting
activities associated with the construction and operation of the uses. To
understand the effects and environmental changes that may occur from land
and water uses, it is necessary to examine the associated impacting activities
and the environmental changes that may result from these activities.

The potential land and water uses were examined, and a comprehensive
list of impacting activities resulting from the uses was prepared. Table 5
contains the impacting activities and associated definitions.

To understand the potential impacts that might result from a specific
land or water use, the impacting activities were correlated with the
selected uses (Matrix #/1). A mark occurring within a specific use row iden-
tifies a particular impacting activity as normally occurring as a part of
that use.

Table 4. ptential Land and Water Wsee.

HOUS ING & Primiary HI~kals
iron andi steel ManufaCturing
a Rtural ferraalloy (involves silver. arsenic,. cadmifuml. lead,
� sing~le Famlily Dachied nickel, Chromium)
� Single Family Attached alumin11um1 and a lumunillu alloys
* Urban Iligh Density copper. lead. zinc, and mlagneslium salle3 ing anid
Processing
metal plating
COtMMUCCI AL
* Stolle, clay, anid glass products
0 Itetall and service glass manufacturing and pruducts
* wholesale and diatVIbutilon c ementc
clay products
cue atone
I Nl'IU~iNALPltl~SIONI.FACI LITIES (of fice build lngs,_ libraries) Concreite, gypsum 1, "and P laster products

I NDUISTRIIAL 4~ Food and food b~yproducts
meat and poultry products (sagtrnblanching.
* Fabricationl and asselmbiy cooking, curing, pickling," packing of mleats)
electrical equipment anid supplies dairy products
metal Products preserved fnites and vegetables
transportation equipment grainl millls producta
machinery except el ectrical flab anid Shellfish processing
O~~~~~Nstaarunment and related products bakeries
C) fortlitare sugar refineries and confectioners
face and oils
* Ch~emicals and allied products alcoholic beverages
industrial inorganic chemficals (gases, acid, anti sales) soft drinks
IIO.aulia potassiulm and sodiumaf compounds. 110
or~ganilc industrial chemicals (fluorocarbons, chlor- * Printing and publishilig
alkalies, activated carbon, and petrochemilcals)
plastics and synthetics a Paper and allied products
pliarmacouticals and cosmetics pulp HIMSll
soaps and dctergeiits paper and building board plants
Paints codl allied prOducts
agricultural chmicals 0 Extractive
hard rock quarry lug
* 'Textiles unconsolidated
Apparel anid other textile products
Weaving andi kn~itLing likillls 0 Luglber and Wood Products
TeXtile- ffinlalsine saw mlkaI I and planine
1.c-atlier and. leather p~roducts ml 1 Iworks
wood containlera
Wood Preservaiiton

a Bulk storage, handling andi transfer facilities
piplelines anti pumpking stations
astorage tanks (hazardous, non-hazardous)
transfer facilities (Hazardous, nion-hazardous)
aerial tratismIssion lines
buried tr~alnsmilssion cables

'rabic 4. iotential L~aud and Water Uties (concluded).

0 Pettle0lLJll and petruieumi pr:oducti a Shilp
pe-troteumI reflining HurL (large)
facility far recovery Of spent pLrOleuilk products Marlina (liediu.m1)
oiJs and greases dock (small)
phenols, creoLsotes, and tars
syntei~c~l gasi liiautfaCtorIIig 0 Hav Igation31
lt'julictd nlatural gas
Vgdh piOceSallIg * Aircraft:
airport

EiNERGY ENELRAT ION Stuart lauding field

* Nuclear electrical gelkllration NATUKAI. IWISOURCE UTI1LIZATION
Cooling tower
olhce-rlkrougll cooling intake and disclkargte structures Sbullfl.shiug
cooling ponds/lakea Colimlercial.
recreational

RL IEkATI ON
I-.-. *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Aquaculture
� Latge crowd gatherling facility
outduor (amusement park) * F~orestry
indoor (fleldhouk;Us. casinlos)
* Agriculture
� Small crowd gathering facility row craps
out-door (tennis couirts, gulf, skeet range) salt hay
indoor (gymnasium, arcade) nurseries
orchards

PUBLIC F'ACILITIIS livestock
lot

* C.01trali~ed Wate: SUpplty, treatm~ent, and distribUtionl rauge

* Centraiz~ed Sewage collect Ion, Lre"Llment, and disipsal * Hosqolato control ditchinig

* olid wasteu manlagemlent
luclinc raltol:
landfill/overboard dumping
culipos

TRANS PORTAlTION

*Auto transportation
Oxpro:Liawy
collector
local road

*Rol

Table 5. Definitions of Impacting Activities.

Air Waste Disposal: The exhausting of superfluous diffused matter or gases
in the atmosphere.

* Particulates: Finely divided solid or liquid particles. These in-
clude dust, smoke particles, sprays, and mists.

* Gases: The vapor component of air waste emissions including CO2, NO2,
CO, so2, and other compounds.

Compaction: Physical compression of soil.

Channelization: Containment of waterways within man-made troughs to re-
strict and direct streamflow.

Clearing: Removal or elimination of vegetation from the land surface.

Culverting: Containment of waterways within man-made pipes.

Diking: Creation of an earthen embankment for the retention or exclusion of
water, on or from an edge or land area.

Drainage: Removal of water from the land surface by gravity flow.

Dredging: Mechanical removal of unconsolidated materials from beneath the
water.

Excavation: Mechanical removal of unconsolidated materials from the land.

Fertilizing: Application of nutrient materials to the soil to increase vege-
tation growth.

Filling - Consolidated: Placement of solid materials, the units of which
are generally greater than 10 centimeters in diameter, upon or in land,
edge, or substrate below water in site preparation.

Filling- Unconsolidated: Placement of solid materials, the units of which
are generally smaller than 10 centimeters in diameter, upon or in land,
edge or substrate below water in site preparation.

Hazards - Catastrophic: The potential for causing an unplanned action which
would pose a severe threat to the survival of a natural coastal commu-
nity.

Hazards - Limited - The potential for causing an unplanned action which would
be detrimental to the productivity or expansion but not the existence
of a natural community.

Herbiciding: Application of chemicals that are toxic to selected or all
forms of vegetation.

Table 5. Definitions of Impacting Activities (continued),

Impervious Surfacing: Placement of an impermeable layer on the surface of
the land.

Insecticiding: Application of chemicals that are toxic to selected or all
forms of insects.

Inundation: Covering of the land or earth surface with water.

Irrigating: Application of water for use by or to increase vegetation growth.

Landscaping/Right of Way Management: Modification of vegetation by quantita-
tive or qualitative alteration of plant cover.

Liquid Waste Disposal: The disposal of superfluous non-gaseous fluid material
usually produced during the operational aspects of a use.

* Pesticides: Waste products from the manufacture or use of insecticides
and herbicides.

I Heavy Metals: Any metal with a density at least five times greater
than water.

� Nutrients: Nitrogen and phosphorus; the major causes of water eutro-
phication.

*.Thermal Effluent: Water used for the dissipation or provision of heat.

* Organic: Compounds natural or synthesized which contain carbon atoms.

Pedestrian Traffic: The movement of people off pavement.

Plowing/Discing: Physical disturbance of the soil.

Solid Waste Disposal: The disposal of superfluous semisolid or solid waste
usually produced during the operational aspects of a use.

I Hazardous: Materials which would pose a severe or limited threat to
the survival or productivity of a natural coastal community.

� Non-Hazardous Unconsolidated: Materials, the units of which are gener-
ally smaller than 10 cm in diameter, and which do not pose a threat
to the productivity of a natural coastal community.

* Non-Hazardous Consolidated: Materials, the units of which are gener-
ally greater than 10 cm in diameter, and which do not pose a threat
to the productivity of a natural community.

Structural Support: Vertical columns and walls that may elevate or bear a
structure such as a building or a road.

Table D5. 'Definitions of Impacting Activities (concluded),

Vehicular Traffic: Movement of motor vehicles.

Water Demand: Use or consumption of water.

* Surface: Water obtained from surface water bodies.

* Subsurface: Water obtained from an aquifer.I

Water Transfer/Diversion: Geographical relocation of surface water, in-
cluding pumping.I

64~~~~~~~

C. LAND AND WATER TYPES OF THE STUDY AREA

Impacts cannot be evaluated for uses abstracted from their environment.
Therefore, the study area's land and waterscapes were classified into a
variety of land and water types that represent logical geographic categories
based on a sensitivity to disturbance and inherent natural functions. Pre-
liminary analysis of land and water types resulted in a large number of
disaggregated types. This preliminary list was then consolidated into a
useable and logical assemblage in order to more succinctly deal with the
large magnitude of required impact analyses. This consolidated list of
land and water types is presented in Table 6. Definitions for the respec-
tive land and water types are presented in Table 7.

The water types were defined by evaluation of floral and faunal
assemblages, water quality, and waste assimilative capacity characteristics.
The basic separation into tidal and nontidal waters generally recognizes
the inherent differences in saline and fresh waters, although portions of the
tidal sections of major coastal rivers are freshwater. A tidal separation
basis also makes biological sense in that several important coastal fishes,
such as striped bass and American shad, utilize basically freshwater tidal
river reaches for spawning, while juvenile and adult life stages place primary
habitat resource demands on estuarine and marine waters.

The subtypes within the tidal and nontidal categories are based primarily
on waste assimilative capacity differences. For example, the discharge of
a given volume of treated wastewater into a well-flushed open bay would
have a lower potential impact on living resources, such as hard clam beds,
than the discharge of the same volume of wastewater to a poorly-flushed
semi-enclosed bay or back bay area. This latter situation has occurred
throughout much of the coastal zone and has resulted in the closure of many
shellfishing areas.

The water's edge types were defined by geographical association with
major water types and by vegetation. Land types were defined primarily
by examination of the differences in groundwater and surface water secondary
impacts which would result from development on the land surface. For
example, certain sand and gravel soils serve as recharge areas for ground-
water. The paving of these areas in addition to the removal of plant cover
and animal habitats would result in a lowering of surface water percolation
to the groundwater and a higher rate of surface water runoff. Decreased
percolation could result in a reduction in drinking water supply during
drought years and increased runoff could result in increased suspended
solids and fluctuations in water levels in nearby surface whters.

D. IxFACTING ACTITVTIES/ENVIRONIETAL CHANGES

The identification of land and water uses and the associated impacting
activities establish a basis for analyzing the environmental changes that
may result from each use. To accomplish the assessment of environmental
changes resulting from uses, environmental changes that may result from
impacting activities were identified in each land and water type. A list
of descriptions of possible environmental changes and their associated
definitions are found in Table 8. Most of the listed environmental changes
could represent either an increase or decrease in the stated parameter.

Table 6. Land and Water Types

WATER

� Tidal

Ocean
nearshore MLW to average annual wave base depth " 18 feet
offshore AAWB to 3 mile limit

Open bay

Semi-enclosed and back bay

Guts, inlets, and canals

Tidal rivers

* Non-tidal

Inland basins

Rivers

WATER'." EDGE

* Ocean beaches and foredunes

* Estuarine beaches and bars

�Tidal wetlands

* Non-tidal wetlands

* Wet forest - o to I' to seasonal high water (maple and white cedar)

LAND TYPES

� Central barrier island corridor

* Lowland - 1 to 3 feet to seasonal high water table

Coarse texture soils (basically sands and gravels)

Medium texture soils (basically loams)

Fine texture soils (basically silts, clays, and organic sediments)

* Upland - >3 feet to seasonal high water table

Coarse texture soils

Medium texture soils

Fine texture soils

Table 7. Definitions of Land, Edge and Water Types

This classification was developed by initially revie-,ing the pro-
posed land and water type classification contained in Appendix 2 of the
1 June 1977, request for proposals issued by and documents prepared by OCZM
-- particularly the final EIS on the coastal management program for the
bay and ocean shore segment (August 1978) and the pilot study of Lower
Cape May County - a method for coastal resource management (June 1978).
We also reviewed classification systems and definitions developed by
other authors and agencies -- particularly the functional classification
of coastal ecological systems of the United States by Odum and Copeland
(1972; in Environmental Framework of Coastal Plain Estuaries, Geological
Society of America memoir 133, B. W. Nelson-editor), the classification
of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States by the US Fish
and Wildlife Service (1977, operational draft), and the glossary of geo-
logy by the American Geological Institute (1972; M. Gary, R. Mc-fee, Jr.,
and C. L. Wolf - editors). Topographic quadrangles of the US Geological
Surrey, nautical charts of the National Ocean Survey, and topographic
series atlas sheets., the geological map, and the drainage basin map of
the NJ Bureau of Geology and Topography also were inspected.

After lengthy internal staff discussions, and informal reviews with
the BC2D staff, a three-part classification system was developed.

The three principal components of this system are defined as follows:

Water types - water areas and submerged lands and associated features which
are below the elevation of mean low water as calculated on an annual
basis.

Water/Land Edge t-oes - submerged lands, lands, and associated features
that are at or between the elevations of mean low water and extreme
high water as calculated on an annual basis, (excluding surface waters),
or lands which have a seasonal high water table within one foot of the
surface. (Includes foredunes as an exception to this definition).

Land types - land and associated features that are above the elevation of
extreme high water as calculated on an annual basis and with a
seasonal high water table more than one foot below the ground surface.

Additional definitions of land and water subtypes are as follows:

Table 7. Definitions (Cont.)

Water

TIDAL - Surface waters subject to an alternate rising and falling
surface elevation due to the gravitational forces of the sun and |
moon.

Ocean: large body of salt water which covers 3/4 of
the earth's surface.

Nearshore: Ocean waters extending from the beach or
inlet mouths toward the open ocean to the line of aver-
age wave base (-18 feet) on an annual basis, and the
submerged lands from the mean low water line to the
average annual wave base.

Offshore: Ocean waters and submerged lands extending
from the line of average annual wave base ~-18 feet) to
the state 3 mile limit.

Open Bay: Tidal water body and submerged bottom (below j
mean low waterline) around which land is more or less
continuous and which has a direct open inlet connection
to the ocean. (Lower New York Bay/Raritan Bay and
Delaware Bay).

Semi-Enclosed and Back Bay: Tidal water body and submerged
bottom (below MLW line) around which land is more or less
continuous and which has either a confined direct connection
(Great Bay) or indirect connection to the ocean through
guts or other bays. |

Guts, Inlets, Canals: Tidal waterways and their substrates
(below the LUW line) which connect two bodies of water
such as; ocean-bay, bay-river, bay-bay (not found in
rivers).

Tidal Rivers: Waterway of considerable volume, having
permanent or seasonal flow, and moving in or having a derfni4e,
continuous channel to the ocean.

Table 7. Definitions (Cont.)

NONTIDAL - Surface waters not subject to the alternate rising and
falling surface elevation due to the gravitational forces of the
sun and moon.

Inland Basins: Nontidal surface waters of considerable
volume whose greater part is non-flowing (lakes, ponds,
and impoundments).

Rivers: Montidal surface waters moving in a definite
continuous channel to the ocean.

WATER/LT-ND EDGE - Soils and substrate from the mean low water line to
the extreme high water line or having a seasonal high water table
within one foot of the surface, or being a foredune.

Ocean Beaches and Foredunes: Soils and substratea from the .ML',
line to the extreme high water line and wind blown mounds
of sand adjacent from the first landward peak
downslope co the nearshore ocean waters.

Estuarine Beaches and Bars: Soils and substrate from the
L'LW line to the extreme high water line which are non-
vegetated and adjacent to the tidal non-oceanic waters.

Tidal Wetlands: Fully or partially vegetated soils and
substrate which extend from the ?LW line to the extreme
high water line adjacent to tidal water.

Non-Tidal Wetlands: Fully or partially vegetated soils and
substrate which; extend from the LdW line to the extreme
high water line or have a seasonal high water table within one foot
of the surface; and are not flowed by tidal waters nor
dominated by forest.

Wet Forest: Fully or partially vegetated soils and substrate
which; extend from the EL'W line to the extreme high water line
or have a seasonal high water table within one foot of the
surface; and are dominated by forest and not flowed by :idai
waters.

Table 7. Definitions (Concluded).

LAND - Soils and substrate with a seasonal high water table more :han one
foot below the earth's surface and which compose the area above the extreme
high waater line.

Central Barrier island Corridor: Land Located on sands which are
essentially protected from wave action by dunes and separated from
the headlands by wetlands: or cidalbays: includes backdunes.

Lowland: Lands apart from the Central Barrier Island Corridor
which have a seasonal high water table from I to 3 feet below
the surface.

Coarse Soils: Soils having high infiltration rates even
when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of deep,
well to excessively drained sands or gravels. These
soils have a high rate of water transmission.

Medium Soils: Soils having moderate to slow infiltration
rates when wetted thoroughly and consisting of a range of
soils from well-drained to those with a layer that impedes
downward movement of water. These soils r-ange from moder-
ately coarse to fine textures and have moderate to slow
rates of water transmission.

Fine Soils: Soils having very slow infiltration rates
when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of clay I
soils with a high swelling potential, soils wNith a claypan
or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils
over nearly impervious material. These soils have a ver
slow rate of water transmission.

U!land: Lands asart from the Central Barrier Island Corridor which
have a seasonal high water table more than 3 feet below the surface.

Medium Soils: Soils having moderate to slow infiltration I
rates when wetted thoroughly and consisting of a range of
soils from well-drained to those with a layer that impedes
downward movement of water. These soils range from moder-
ately coarse to fine textures and have moderate to slow
rates of water transmission.

Fine Soils: Soils having very slow infiltration rates
when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefl! of clay
soils with a high swelling potential, soils :with a clarpan I
over nearly imperTious material. These soils have a verV
slow race of water transmission.

Table 8. Environmental Changes - Definitions

Aquifer Recharge: Change in the rate of infiltration of precipitation or
surface water into an aquifer.

Bathymetry Variability: Change in the bottom depth and contours beneath
surface water.

Circulation/1,ixing: Change in the rate of interaction of water masses and
the rate of diffusion of molecules in surface waters.

I ~~Dissolved Oxygen: Reduction in the concentration of gaseous oxygen within
surface water.

I ~~Dissolved Solids: Change in the concentration of no-n-gaseous substances
within fresh water which are not filterable.

Erosion Scouring: Change in the rate whereby earth materials are dissolved
or loosened from the land or substrate of surface water and carried
away by the action of water or wind.

I ~~Faunal Abundance: Change in the number of animals present within a community
or area.

I ~~Faunal Diversity: Change in the number of animal species or groups of species
within a community or area.

Faunal Reproductive Potential: Change in the intrinsic ability of an animal
population to reproduce.

Flora Abundance: Change in the number of-plants present within a community
I ~ ~~~or area.

Flora Diversity: Change in the number of plant species or groups of species
I ~ ~~within a community or area.

Flood Frequency: Change in the annual number of times extreme high stream
* ~~~f low occurs.

Flood Intensity: Change in the height and duration of extreme high stream-
* ~~~~flow.

Flow Regime: Change in the movement of water through or over the land, edge
* ~~~or bottom.

Groundwater Discharge: Change in the rate of flow of groundwater from an
aquifer into surface water. May also include pumping for consumption.

I ~~Groundwater Salinity: Change in the concentration of dissolved sea salts in
groundwat er.

Table S. Environmental Changes - Definitions ,continued)

Littoral Drift: Change in the speed, quantity, or direction of movement of
unconsolidated materials (e.g. sand, gravel, shell) in estuarine and
nearshore marine water by wave-direction currents.I
Noise: Acoustical disturbance of the natural environment due to man's activities.

Nutrients: Change in the concentration of nitrogen or phosphorus compounds,U
which are directly available for plant growth.

Pathogens (increase): Greater'number of disease-causing organisms (i.e.,I
viruses, bacteria, and fungi).

pHj: Change in the measured value of hydrogen ion concentration in water;
measured values less than 7 are acid, greater than 7 are alkaline, and
equal to 7 is neutral.

Primary Productivity: Change in the rate of production of organic matter byI
plants.

Runoff: Change in the volume of precipitation that flows overland beforeI
entering surface water.

Sedimentation: Change in the rate of deposition of earth materials onto the
substrate of surface water.

Sediment Chemistry: Change in the chemical make-up of substrate.

Shoreline Changes: Change in the size or configuration of the waters edge.

Shore Protection Capacity (increase or decrease); Change in the intrinsic
ability of the substrate in the water/land edge to dissipate wave or
cur-rent energy, and to resist erosion.

Soil Assimilative Capacity: Change in the ability of soil to absorb waterI
and filter and dispose of organic matter.

Substrate Particle Size: Change in the size of particles that constituteI
the substrate in surface water.

Sunlight Penetration: Change in the irradiation of a water mass by sunlight.

Surface Water Salinity: Change in the concentration of dissolved sea salts
in the entire water column.

Suspended Solids: Change in the concentration of substances within water
which are filterable and increase turbidity.

Toxic Substances (increase): Greater concentration of substances that are
poisonous to plants or animals.

7 2

I
I Table 8. Environmental Changes - Definitions (concluded)
I
Water Depth: Change in the elevation of the substrate of surface water.
I Water Temperature: Change in the temperature of surface water.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
73
I

E. IPACT ANALYSIS

A major part of the estuarine study was the identification of impact
relationships in the New Jersey coastal zone. There is a state-of-the-art
limitation on the extent to which these relationships are understood,
and the quantification of such relationships is only possible for a limited
number of impacting activities. Despite the limited technical basis, a
contractural agreement was made to lay a broad based conceptual framework
and to begin an evolutionary process of impact identification and impact
management. The matrix method was selected as the most logical format for
impact relationship identification. The matrix format is also easily
computerized, and it is the eventual goal of the Bureau of Coastal Planning
and Development to computerize at least a portion of the impact review and
regulatory management process. A matrix flow chart is provided in Figure 2.

Eighty separate complex matrices were developed to identify impacts
in the coastal zone. A few of these are presented as illustrative examples
of the method of analysis possible through the use of the matrix system.
A complete set of the matrices is contained in Volume 3 of this report along with
a discussion of resource uses, impacting activities, environmental changes,
objectives, assumptions, and notes concerning the use of the matrices.
It must be remembered when reviewing the examples that these matrices
represent the system prototype. As in any prototype, changes and refinements
through use and study are expected and are desirable. The matrices will be
used repeatedly as permit applications for various uses are received by
BCPD and changes will be incorporated by the system users over time. In
addition, it is hoped that the use of this matrix system will lead to an
orderly prioritization of study needs in the coastal zone, and that through
additional basic and applied research the quantification of impact relation-
ships can become more definitive.

MATRIX FLOW CHART

I USER IN-PUT

STEP i: Specify Study Use and Location
Use Class
General Land, Edge, or Water Type
Vegetation Present
Special Types Present
Adjacent Types (General and Special)

STEP 2: Identify Impacting Activities

SET I. Matrix use/impacting activity
land, edges, and water

STEP 3: Identify Primary Environmental Impacts Within Land or Water Type

TEP 4: SET II. Matrix impacting activities/primary changes
'entif7 Type Specific with
F entify \ vegetation and special resources
Major

-T viron S= 7: Ideantfy CausaL.y Relaced zvimrreneal
ental 5: tdencify Causally Related Environental Impacts in Adjacent Land or Wacer -ypes
pacts of IZacas Wichin Land or wacer 1ype
Concern
SET III. Intra-type SET IV. Inter-type
*ithin S IV. Intrype
-ithn recycling matrix recycling matrix
and or primary - secondary primary - secondary
Water Type ch Type Type specific change. Land, edges, and
*: tdent~~~fv water

STEP 6: identity Causally Related
Enirotnencal Impacts of
Concern 'wich�n Land or Wacer
Type STP 3: Iden.v Csausally Reiaced
Lm acts of C eura.-~ ei:
SET V. Matrix change/Objectives ImDacn: :f Concern a:
general and then specific if present 7.rpes
Type Specific

Figure 2.

MATRIX FLOW CHART

I
75

Step 1: The impact identification process begins with the listing of
input data specifying the proposed use, its site, and adjacent sites. Step 2:
Impacting activities which are associated with a proposed use are identified.
Matrix 1 opposes uses and impacting activities and is an example of the 4
matrices in Matrix Set I (Volume 3). The impacting activities are des-
cribed as major (X), variable (V), or minor (O). The time sequence of
impacting activities is divided into preparation (PR), construction (CO),
and operation (OP) phases. The example which has been chosen is the
proposed siting of a fossil fuel electric generation facility (power plant)
in a lowland , coarse soil area adjacent to a back bay which contains a
commercially valuable shellfish bed. The following discussion demonstrates
through the sequential application of differing matrices how a proposed
use such as a power plant can potentially impact an objective for a special
coastal resource (estuarine shellfish bed) This is further illustrated in
Figure 3, a Flow Chart specifically highlighted for this example.

In Step 2 }Matrix 1 is entered from the use (top) side by first locating the I
use category "Fossil Fuel Electrical Generation". This use category is
further subdivided into the subcategories "cooling tower", "cooling
ponds/lakes", and "once through cooling". For this example the category
"once through cooling" will be used. The use category was subdivided to
take into account the differing potential water effects caused by the I
application of differing cooling water treatment technology. Proceeding
down the page from the entry point, we find that the following major (X)
impacting activities are likely to occur as a result of building and
operating a once through cooling fossil fuel electrical generating facility: I

PREPARATION CONSTRUCTION OPERATION

Diking Diking Diking
Water Transfer/ Water Transfer/ Water Transfer/Diversion
Diversion Diversion Landscaping/ROW Management I
Drainage
Surface Water Demand
Subsurface Water Demand
Culverting Culverting
Channelization Channelization
Thermal Effluent
Unconsolidated Non- (Liquid waste disposal)
Hazardous Unconsolidated Non-Hazardous
(Solid waste (Solid waste disposal)
disposal) Particulates
(Air waste disposal)

(Air waste disposal)

lEXAHVICl HA IRIl ) L.OU (:IIA111-

STIEF NV I IU

Ijae claw.j: (Inn,! (Ibno~gl. c~onled. votoall G-.lej electfic gnntnertfixi faclilly

sit. aIype: I~owl and C-an ac "aoll

Site V~st-ant on,: Fe. ti tea witis anee lletlbace'lua vegetation.

:ijwc. Ilot I ypea; Openk Bapae

Adliacesat I ypea; Fatnnailike beach, and acinnl nc~oloed back bay

Adjac..'f at-tiA altylea: shnelif lal. Lead (wi thll nnalin-encludeh back bay)
1~
SrEP 2: SET I (11AllUlX I)

(Alktitil LI

STEP J.. St".I II (wl"IXih 2)
l~------- ap.: ( igAct lvi LIent/l' meary Ialsasie"
ILow1lannd (no-tu a Soil a
(Eno~ lou/oot I~ng ceeanne) STEP I: STE

sTEP 5: SET III (fIAFItX 3) SET IV (iIAIRIX 5) SE1T IV (IIAflIIX 6)
lo..t a, -i ypne In lnoylbe,:,nnoaay cba-anse- Innten-tylpe pt i".4riy/setoidary Clnaskaea Ins~te-type pif-cnay/secoskjaz pch-se.ge
lnlaniCoatu atsol Ia (l.annl/Edge lion-vegetated)(Lndtner
(Flvial Illejsalty Ieo.gaae)
STEit 4:

-4 I ~~~~~~~~~~(EIIOS EOt/SCOURINth IIICIEASF) (EiSION/S:~~OIICREASE)

JFROHo DIAlGIOtAII 1FRIOM DJACOHiALI
(Ft inn a I Al J-doncst lecn eas) (Supainsden Solid. Isncrease)

STEP 6:. SE[ V (11AlIRIX 4) STEP 8: SET v (IIArlux 1)

~~--~ Lowland Coarac Soila Fitne 111- D at a
(fgunett Openl Space) 4- Violated SpecIal ObIj~tcLive Adljacennt Water 'Iyl,4- In
Stn~nI-E.,cloned & Back Baya
(Lrennerve Eatoaf Iste sh~e~lllaln Beds) 4- vi"1111aIt-
Spec I al I Ok, ec I I

Figure 3. fea .i thatIx fito. ChANXt

SET I . STEP 2.
MATRIX #I. USE VERSUS ID2ACTWN

I. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ACTIVITIES ON LANDl

m ! g g 7 S qiTg. q 2 ilzA.i,5-1 F-Z I~ LAO

gi~ ;r,~ ~i 1 "VV~ffi

* -. -. -, -. -. ~..... .. . . ..,., .*.,- . .Izsu::

-, -. -. -. -, -. -. -. . . -. -, -. ... -. -. -unZA- zz.L. ..Q -4

* -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. -. - . . . -. ..- . . . - . -,! -. ZiLAL

-, -.-. ,-. -. -, -, -, -. ....,. -.,~~~~~~~.... , -. -. a". . 5k. ?i 6j..

L;Z ------ F.
-. -. -, ~~. -. -, , -, .. -, -, -,.., 1 , -. x..donualiiC

it ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ia I.. .(94 ....4s.

~~~~~~~,......g. IOA '-rz
-. - ., ., . . * - . .,. 40... . 'jQ0U -WtO ?Lafl;-.

-, . , . ,... - .-, , ... . ..- LrV If

-, -. -, . -, -. -, --'-A ~ ~ ~ ~ -. ,u ,d~AW-..anflCa..

Rc" ltzF EN Lic IQ %ALg.Ae
* ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' 'R -.-Z, - , - ., , - .- ,.,.s . . ,.,6. tl40

-, -~~~~~~.,.*.-,.. -. wzow-iAADsa s,~;:;

* ... -. - . , .. .. .. .. . - .... - .. -,~ -. - -'N

~~~~~i .43..... IO......I
-, * -. -. 'I -. -. -. -,-,-, .-,.-,-.*-, -. -, ~ - .54M7 g. ~l

-.~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *... - *.. . .,., . 0 8ClLc.ssann .00. 20~;

In addition to this checklist, some potential major impacting acti-
vities are listed as variable, such as woody clearing, which could be
major if, the proposed site were heavily forested. In any case,
for the sake or simplicity of example,. only major impacting activities
� ill be followed through the matrix sequencing.

Matrix 2 is an example of the matrices in Set II (Volume 3)
which for Step 3 lists the primary environmental changes projected to occur
as a result of the identified impacting activities (IA). In normal usage,
all of the impacting activities which may occur in a major or variable capa-
city as a consequence of a use, would be checked through the matrices to
determine their primary and secondary environmental changes. However, for this
example we shall address only a minimal number of the impacting activities
and resultant environmental changes. If we take the IA '"channelization"
and enter the matrix from the top, we find listed the following major
(X) primary environmental changes projected to occur:

Increase in groundwater discharge
Increase in erosion/scouring
* Major change in flow regime

Next, we proceed to Step 5, which is to identify the secondary changes
which may occur on the land (lowland coarse soils) as a result of the
primary environmental changes. Matrix 3 is labeled "Intra-Type Environmental
Change Linkages - Lowland Coarse Soils" and is an example of the matrices
in Set III (Volume 3). By entering this matrix from the primary change
(left) side for the primary change "erosion/scouring (I)", we develop a
list of the following secondary changes projected to occur on the land:

* Decrease in Faunal Abundance
* Decrease in Faunal Reproductive Potential
� Decrease in Faunal Diversity
* Decrease in Floral Diversity
* Decrease in Floral Abundance
* Decrease in Primary Productivity

Matrix 3 is a recycling matrix and tertiary changes may be identified by
re-entering the primary change side again--this time using the above
secondary changes. In this manner, if we re-enter the matrix at "Decrease
in Floral Diversity," we find the following additional potential environ-
mental changes:

* Decrease in Faunal Abundance
* Decrease in Faunal Reproductive Potential
� Decrease in Faunal Diversity

So, channelization can cause an increase in scouring/erosion which can
directly alter the types and numbers of animals present or it can indirectlv
affect the animals by altering the vegetation of the site. By re-entering

SET 1I. STEP 3.
',1ATRIX 'k2. TNPACTING ACTIVTI'TIS -
VERSUS MMVRONMETAL CH~ANGES ," AI=
LOWLAND COARSE SOILS

VERSUS~~~
Z'MR0N',M'r,6s,"

AlQQ:-E?. ?z'~c I I Ii I I I III '41 i11 I cl 2$2$2$l2$
AOU::_-'.R R-CUARGE - a . :I I :2' I IA:1I I 4 Ic.l'2V .4 .12 2$
MWA:=2 DICLAG II I I
~ZUNDAM DICUC ~ I I I III I

SUIUAC-7 -;~. SAZ D II I I III I i I I II I I I i 4I I I
,~ZZ _MS2$ UR I :I II II I I I I l I I I 1 I

SUSUDEZ ~ ~ ~ ~ 12 SOID aII I:~~$ I IIIII I I I 1I Ii II I I I 1 1 1

I 2$a I.1 -I I I Ii 1 1 1 I I' I I I I1 ' A C4 I
I 2 I I A .3 a III I i cI I I I I 1 1 I i I '. i I I

2$ZSSCLVEDSOL~~~~~flS IAII II 111 1 1 1 I I I4

DISSOL'oMD D.VZGZ_'i :IIII 1 1111iI I I I I II I I I I I I I I ii

SZDLXM ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 II I II I I I II I I

:.1 AL I A2$1D N= : I 1 1 I1 I I I I 2$l I I I I I I III

..kLNAL R.. Q0E~OUC- 17 -Ni P : .A�. I I CI I I I IIII 2

:A-4A )Iz'r3.s:=r12 I : III I IIII II I I iI I 2 I I I I I I
.LC.AJINL AUDIV.SI'cAL'cC 2$ A 0 AICI2I 2$ I I Ii :I I2 Ii I 12 .:$ I
FL2 "A.AUNDAN'LC1 cl III i IUI:$ 2$$$
2$ I a A 13Q. I AII I' .I 1 :I liii C Ii i i I

DI7Zr.Rz:=~~~ii2112 I i I
FLOR. AS.iL DZVE. :7! 7' .!.C:z I I I 2I cl 4 I.A 1I I I .I '.I XIJI I ii I ;3

3R~Any~YA ..! . I.. 12a$ I clII III II :1 a I I a ,0
?RW.AXXP ?R031=117 2II9Iq IA:Ii'9 IIIII'I :9II I lI IllIlli. II
SzOILE PCrA::i 2$.A41M,: 2$ : cI :I 0AIII I . I II II I i I ~
3~iA=YuE?-.CTZ::2NZAAC I2$IIIIlIIIlIlI 1 1 1p'IliI,, lip
WdA2.~1 DE217-1 I I I IIIIII I i I i 11 i I I I I

SHORE ?ROT__c:::0,4 C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_Ikc= I "I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iI iIII II I 1 i I I i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I i I l i I I p1I
SaOREINF ZA2i1z 1 2$ iI IIIli;III:IpII1

F7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c :11 iI I AIi'Q I I ii I I 'QI I 4a

ill iii~~I I I I I ,1 I3

7_-NCZAS SS~C:AL 3-250URCZ AaZAS MI 'M'?E

mm~ aauloNs
0?- OPN 7ACZ=

80I

SET Ul TIT .
M4ATRIX #3. INTRA-TYPE ENVRONMENTAL
I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CHANGE LINKAGES -LOWIAND
COARSE SOI~LS

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

.hW.~~~~~~~~~wUC.2ARSZ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OtJJ~~~i2

R5 112ml '4aI(5 4 taOC

'RouNowkrzR 3A,"14-11 . Fi1!:l FI I.411I44.II4I FFF

i43F4 !I!NFIG!IF IF FFQUF=F

~LSIOI;Z 'X~c I4IIIIIIII iII IiIIFIiI IIFIFFFIFIIF II F F'I 'FIF'IIiIIII

.AUNl. L414 "liz : I I I I-II3 1 3 1 FI I 1 ; I I 31 I F, I

FANA. dVOACE.I~i I F Ii I I I II I F I 1I I I I P I . F ' F
'.I~lAu .. RE O( 7 ?2tMIM~ALJ 4 1 ~ I , I j I I I 4 I .4 I '' F

-.W" kduND~vcz 1 aIFFFI IFI FI IFFIFI4F F.1 la4jj14II F'' .4 I. '
-uL,;aAA. L I iI II I I I I4 :3 I 'I C i 3 I I 3 i

iOLL AZ3i.1ML Z' F %VJ~ .1 3F , ,I4 4F1 IFI I !I i F iFIiI F

i41kz-1.t~~44?C 4''l FFIFUT1 , 'F -F

I *.~~~'4aA.LONI. :;L it LN A~ F jII I f II Fi ',' F
RZ14~ ~~~' Q F ,FN

2OO2ITZ4Z~~~~~ '2-CUAVS -OML -1,.F, TT% . C,, I.FMG1,I'O W 4FI N 2: . - '
4oD2I~4~:t 4' '~ii ', ' F'F ~ 44F41 ,2. F
4W~~ ~~~~~~ v~i 4A44 . FF I F F' 4 1 4'412 ''.44 4

the matrix again and again at each appropriate entry line it is possible to
identify complex causal impact chains thoroughly and sequentially. This is
how the matrices are intended to be used following their placement in a
computer data bank.

The next step (Step 6) in this simplified example is an evaluation of
the effects of the projected environmental changes on both general and
special coastal resource objectives. Matrix Set V (Volume 3) was
prepared for this purpose. This step is illustrated by Matrix 4. We also
could have arrived at Step 6 utilizing Step 4 which would bypass Step 5
(Figures 2 and 3) and give us only the primary environmental changes caused
by the use. In Step 6 all the environmental changes (primary, secondary,
and tertiary) which have been identified are used to enter the matrix from
the top. If, by way of example, we enter at "Floral Abundance - D" the
following 'objectives would be potentially violated:

General Objec!ives

* Regulate groundwater discharge and Levels
Preserre faunal abundance and diversity
* Preserve floral abundance and diversity
* Preserve natural primar-y productivity
* Ma intain natural geomorphological profille
* Preserve freshwater flows

Soecial Objectives
(Objectives for Special Coastal Resources)

* Preserve Pine Barrens
=- Preserve open space
� Preserve oak, hickory, and pine forests

Obviously, one has to know where the site is located in relation to
special coastal resour=es. Because our input informat-on in Figure 2
indicates the site is not located in the Pine Barrens or in a forest, then
those special objectives will not be violated. A nocation at the bottom
of Matrix 2 indicates that the potential for all three of the above special
coastal resources to occur in the lowland coarse soil land t-pe, and it
would be up to the matr-i system user to identify such areas at the input
stage.

The central point to make about the matrix process is that it ties each
use to coastal objectives through the identification of Lmpacting activities
and their directly or indirectly associated environmental changes.
The matrix- process does not guarantee that each of the identified changes
will occur, but i: does identify causally related evan: sequences 'hich
have a high probability of occurrence. The DE? and the applicant can
then examine the adentified potenra�l _paccs in an org anized and ogcai
-ashion and arrive at a management scheme to avoid or mitigate pocenial!
environmental problems.

82
I

ul~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i

U) I)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l .

h~~~~~~ll~~~~~ J 1 A441:1
la tj :a -3 :1 "! M~~I. I., ..1. n 1 ) W
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~i .,q Wqis-
[-~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 4 4)1111. l

14(4~~~~~~~.4 I1 4. -1: 'D, In ,11 rn 'o E L 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ *IJ, S
Ih~~~~~~l~~~l-ICIEVES ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~V 1441114 4' hi Cl 7 C) -.':j,.4 n I

C) ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*.,'A4:. m~.IC 1141j'

RN- -~ h- -;I~A - - .- - - --

~~ hi~~~h1.Aif- -~ -41 - 44114 �2]~j.-1< - - - - - -1~:!~2I -

HIElff.iW AIllAF.AHlllllAII(:E QlIl, J~ll C J2~ 1 *i - - -14--

l'llI2EIIV~lIIIIIIAL1l11lAllIR(IIJOUCTIVITV P A N- 2 * 4
RiAIR01II So1i. ASS 11:i.IVE CA- - --

11IBiU irVE1 R IAI. SII6IIIIE 110 EW. UKl

FHHHiiE IllIS-IF-WATE FLOWS f

i.fli;Il.A 4 h)ISF. S-

IICAI I UAIIAVS AIDIIAI II AREAS
.~IIPIAC KSII 1(11 Atli III ES III

E-xvri- jEl IAIT Ihf I N~~h

lIAKlIHICKORY Ati AI IIIAY! FO1 SAII REAST)IN)

E;(1r~~~~~~~~~~ 4-I 0111 SA

The above example is a simple sequence which related changes on the
land to land-based objectives. The matrix process can also be used to
identify impacts to water areas, and, hence, to water-based objectives I
Matrix 3 shows the degree of potential for impact transmission from the low-
land coarse soil type to the next adjacent land and water type. This potential
intertype linkage is shown on the diagonal. For example, if an entry is I
made on Matrix 3 on the left at "erosion/scouring - I" and if one follows
that horizontal column over to the matrix diagonal, an "X" is found in the
vertical column "erosion-souring - V'. This means that there is a high
potential for the effects of erosion/scouring to pass from the land to an I
adjacent edge or water type. If we now assume that our hypothetical power
plant is separated from the back bay by a "nonvegetated-high load" edge
type (estuarine beach), then for Step 7 we can utilize Matrix 5 to evaluate
impacts passed through the lowland type to the edge. Matrix 5 is an example
of the matrices in Set IV (Volume 3) which indicate general intertype
environmental change linkages. I

If we now enter Matrix 5 at the left at "erosion/scouring - I", the
impacts of which we have just determined could be easily transmitted from
the land to the edge, the following secondary environmental changes projected
to occur in the edge are indicated as major:

* Increase in suspended solids
* Increase in toxic substances
Increase in nutrients
* Increase in sedimentation
* Increase in littoral drift

We also note that on the diagonal an "X" appears again in the column I
"erosion-scouring - I". This "X" in the diagonal indicates that a high
potential remains that the effects of erosion/scouring will not stop at
the edge but could be passed through to the adjacent water body.

We consequently do not stop at the edge for identification of potential I
objectives violations, but proceed on the diagonal indication that erosion/
scouring effects will be passed through to the adjacent back bay, we then
arrive at Matrix 6 and repeat Step 7. This matrix shows the secondary
changes which occur in water as a result of erosion/scouring effects on the
land. The reader should remember at this point that we have started with
the impacting activity "channelization" and proceeded through the change
"erosion/scouring" to identify changes on the lowland coarse soil land
type which were subsequentially passed to the estuarine beach (as indicated
on the diagonals of Matrices 3 and 5) and now finally passed to the back I
bay water type (as indicated on Matrix 6's diagonal). We will now demon-
strate that the changes associated with erosion/scouring in the back bay
potentially violate several general and special coastal resource objectives.

I
84

S'ET IV.- STEPD 7.
MATRIX 05 LAN'D VERSUS EDGE, INTEER-TYPE

ETTVRON1=NAL CHiANGE LINIKAGES

N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Pza IF.- ''i F --

U ncd u.JAD '~~~~~~~~~~~~~j~~ ~~~ Foj~~~~~ ~~- - ----
I~~~~~~ CIO M !4; -R!4
A-2LAc4 I i rIIiI , FI~;F I.4 I WI i I;ih' I I~z I
t~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 'CHze' -li 3 II f

sk~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ai:Ac~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A"aF Ar.~ r'~.asj - -.

'M~~~~~~ JIC II CI*k II~ I~atatrlH.4 1CI i *IZCMCI

I *iaiofl ccI.-1,!3III
3ST szzz 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 0.4*
ON ~ ~ ~ ~ FFI 1F F i F IF FFI F' F i F

I ZflUIOW~~~~rZ12~tiC1411M . FFFI iFJIF:FIFFFIIFFF

3 ~~~~~~~~~.AZlT1aflk . 'Eensc., I S
FA'rt:L�PUw la . iFIFI IiFFFFFFF ii II
L1J"t~j MRS kV.2 Z I F I I I. ,;.I'IIFIFF F F F
FwxcsaizA.c.1 3bE7 :3 I jI I Fi.JIF.FFIIFI
-uML4GUT~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ F!kT-!t I IF IF iF F i F I '1 F
is L . ,AFFF IFIiI I F FI iIFIFI I lI~ Fl fl ,
AS LML"'-: z ~~~~2111 l I A! AF I I tIi FFii i

iUSi ta.4 ?sI~.. IF, I F F . F FFFF I FIF I F
i~flL~.i~itAZ'2 4 F F F Is II I FI II I I FIIII' I IFFF , F IF FI

.47-MHL 3Iair-. 1 i l I FIl F ii FFI ' FF F i F FFF
ItIJN.AL..FP0UC..IOCI II ;:U i A'IIFFFFIFIFFIIFIFFFFI I IIlIFIFI IF
:ROSLONFJI FIFI IIF F F IAI F I

-Ujua ZN S L -.7 F2IF! FFFII~IIIiFI I .i:FIFF
.UL.Uow .%~i1 iFIIFFFIFFIFFII

L-mx:s mvuo.F Fm-r~i Fr; IF.I ONlIII 3l L=SAI
FF IF IF F FF IF F FF FF J
I ~~~~~~~ 2 FF~~~~~a.qiIFFFJOl2IFFR~FF~~i FFFFiF

ioc~sLML.~:'zc.~pc:7 .FFFIFFFFAOUA4 FIF1FlF

SET IV.- ST=E 7.
MfAT-.IX #/6. LAND VERsus rwATE_-R, INTE-TYPEU
E-NVTRONI'DJTAL CHAGE LINKAGES

It~~~~~~

S~~~~~~~~~~~IM

Z~~~IAi LL I . iI -~ I
SULFAC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,-.iI4" lAC2: ,4.4.4 'r Ii
iU.~LACZ AC-a311 ~I I . t

j-4 pa 'nI's .&;t I Iri I II i I I I

!n~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~rn~~~~~~~~~nL'1fl4. 'AJCZ ..,C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tU ftai-,i-.4j, j 1C�'n ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - al~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~i4.,a..-4,t.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~o4.I4. -~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~
U-OI-0 a :.it.2;:L.Lc~"l ;~~1 .
U33131.~~~~~~~~ it a'ie�t:- ..ni.wisc1JZaSr.~tLzf:,
.34~~~=1
S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~aa-~ *it 1 k#I6 M' zi-9"" LZ j

2RiJCL ~ Z23Zl 1 1. I 1 t I I II II-

ml, :; Vi Z 'd tIiiiiIliIIifii ii'ttt'ii~ i
FaLu"oAZzan:2zL1A~i '2' I 1A I ttfI
Stv A d~5I.) & A . a ill

.R~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i i.' ii I If W

sual0 r LJL t 4' 1-I -i f f'.Ii " i Il!li
2, 'if 2i ii lltIIli'i' i'I 'il f1

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I r il I liii If i I~ I i
S~tr..OTu 44�t
p.~~II~~IAL,..a~~jia.C2'2 ' i i
ILN~. ?2.0Iat/ ~'t:tAhj' I t s II I II jI I I ff i II IiIII -i iI1
-_LUNCi il i- i 11 Iiil fl 11 'iiIi

2ti(~FAI~1f~I.f hu IfJ ILAll~ uh, --f IltRTff ifAG SHW NIAG
D-OCCREASE~ ~ ~ ~~~

7t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~0M. ~ S~IN O RI II II III I III

?R..'.j.2?SL~J'7-2I If ' i~~' I if fI f iI ii II t rI 8'6

tf we now enter '-fatrix 6 on the left at the column titled "erosion/
scouring - I",the following g major potential secondary changes are identi-
fied:

* Increase in suspended solids
a Increase in nutrients
� Increase in dissolved solids
* Increase in littoral drift

Matrix 7 shows the relationship of environmental changes in semi-
enclosed and back bays to general and special coastal resource objectives.
If we now enter this matrix at the top at the column entitled "suspended
solids - i" we find (Ste? 8) that a high potential exists to violate the
following objectives:

General Objectives

* Maintain ambient water temperatures
* Control turbidity
* Maintain natural nutrient gradients
M� aintain dissolved oxygen levels
o Preserve faunal abundance and diversity
0 Preserve floral abundance and diversity
� Preserve natural primary productivity
Maintain natural geomornhological processes

Special Objectives

� Preserve shellfish reefs
� Preserve estuarine shellfish beds
* Preserve prime fishing areas
� Preserve submerged vegetation
Preserve migratory pathways and spawning areas

Again, the matrix system user needs to utilize the input information to
determine the presence of a special coastal resource in the affected water-
body. The reader will recall that our example input information (Step 1) indicated
the presence of an estuarine shellfish bed in the adjacent back bay. There-
fore, the environmental change of increased suspended solids violates the
special objective to preserve estuarine shellfish beds (Step 8).

In summary, the matrix system has linked the building of a new cower
plant to the potential for adversely affecting a special coastal resource.
The BCD should require, based on the identified impact relationship, that
the applicant break that particular causal chain through the use of appro-
priate mitigation measure(s), in order to avoid violating a coastal objective
and destroying a valued resource, i.e., a productive hard clam bed. Numerous
other possible specific impacts of the proposed plant could be identified
through the use of this matrix system and an overall management and miti-
gation scheme developed for the proposed project. The proper and thoughtful
application of this process could insure use compatibility with natural
resource coastal objectives.

mi -m mi m m; r- -rI - - -- --

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~In,!

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ E:l %J
fil1.A I 1'rA 11 hI. WJAl.m EAJl 0

DIAI~~~~~~~~~~~~iIAIIJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ;;Iih I IJIIIlyYc I-
0~~ ~ ~ El - -q---* - I - -. -

Itl~~~~~~~~~ilIII~~~~~~~~~~~~~l~W WA1141,tlhF I. -71 111,1

I 1112,1 B~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~b A'VIAIII IIANIIAIS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-- -EIcI-
P~~~ills~v IAnAI AIIIIAILAlIVISI 'I1~~yi~. la _ ty

IllAlm~l RIII GUFS'litl

I thAI. W~~ll A~lI)S -I --- -15 E- ---- ----- ----- -
I 111 A II 11011 AI.U WE U1 ll.Al l i yIfli

A1111 1111~AlIl II E RAIS
iiiihi~ ~~~~~~~Aiu - - _ -- -- 53Y iiT YNI.
i;F VFF RL WFAIA IV ;It , I Al 111 I

IFI~~~~~~~~tI,~~~~ _AIi- AlAl? iii iij--- -- - ----_ - 1 - -N

FTIT5 ii )WR

IX. ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE PARAIETERS REQUIRING QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS

The acceptable level of change in an environmental parameter should
ultimately be related to an important coastal resource. Important coastal
resources represent a high degree of placed societal value, and many of
these resources are very sensitive to environmental change. Therefore,
change thresholds which are based on the maintenance and enhancement of
important coastal resources will be an effective method of meeting the
stated goals and objectives. In addition, management which is basically
oriented to important coastal resources will meet with higher scientific
and public community support and, hence, less legislative and political
inertia. The strict regulation of a use and its associated impacting
activities which has been shown to have the non-mitigated potential to
reduce shellfish production, reduce fishing success in a prime fishing
area, or render a beach unsuitable for swimming will likely have a high
level of public support. Vague, amorphous planning dictates take on a
readily perceived meaning when they are directly related to coastal resources
which are valued by the general public.

A few examples should serve to illustrate the value of such an approach.
Table 9 lists the conceptual parameter boundaries for estuarine shellfish
beds, a highly valuable special coastal resource with substantial commer-
cial, recreational and ecological value in New Jersey.

The first conceptual parameter boundary is "a parameter level or value
or a rate of change in a parameter level or value which lowers direct shell-
fish survival rates within various age groups or which reduces the expected
average longevity of individuals within a specified commercially, recrea-
tionally or ecologically valuable population". Table 9 also lists for each
conceptual parameter boundary those environmental parameters which have a
direct potential to adversely affect the maintenance of the stated concep-
tual boundary and for which quantitative thresholds need to be established.
A proposed new power plant which proposed in a permit application to dis-
charge heated effluent of over lO100�F to a major shallow water estuarine
shellfish bed would violate the threshold by exceeding an acceptable level
for water temperature (86OF - 920F depending on size and life stage) for
several life stages of the hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria). This portion
of the permit application would then be objected to on the basis that a
special objective, i.e., the maintenance of estuarine shellfish beds, would
be violated by an exceedance of one of the established thresholds (i.e.,
water temperature).

In order for the utility company to gain approval for the thermal
effluent portion of the permit application it would be necessary to mitigate
the exceedance to levels below the established threshold. This could be
done by the application of a treatment technology such as cooling towers
or by simply moving the effluent offshore in deeper oceanic waters where
proper mixing by diffuser would rapidly lower temperatures to acceptable
levels. This latter proposed new discharge location would, of course, be
located by study to minimize locational impacts on oceanic special coastal
resources and designed to meet established thresholds for such oceanic
resources where location could not completely avoid the resource.

Another conceptual parameter boundary which has been established for
estuarine shellfish beds is "a parameter level or value which adversely
affects the edible quality of marketable shellfish". Therefore, an appli-
cant which proposed to discharge inadequately treated sewage into an estuar-
ine shellfish bed would be rejected on the basis that pathogens or other I
toxins would accummulate in the tissue of marketable shellfish such that
the health and welfare of human shellfish consumers would be threatened
and the waters "closed" to shellfishing. The development of quantitative
thresholds might involve designating numerical limits for fecal coliforms
and potentially a variety of heavy metals and chlororganic compounds. The
exceedence of one or more of these quantitative thresholds would result in
a violation of the conceptual parameter boundary and a permit application |
for such a discharge would either have to be modified to improve the
effluent characteristics to below threshold level or moved to a less sensi-
tive lcoation where the thresholds might be less stringent. |

Table 22 is a list of parameters requiring quantitative thresholds for
migratory pathways and prime spawning areas. The first conceptual parameter
boundary in this table deals with the survival rates within various age
groups of important recreational or commercial finfish or motile crustacean
species. Listed among the parameters for this conceptual boundary are
toxic substances. One such substance exhibiting toxic effects at certain
concentrations is chlorine. Chlorine is widely used as a disinfectant
for treated sewage effluents and as an antifouling agent for once-through
power plant cooling systems. The following discussion will illustrate the
complexities inherent in the development of thresholds.

When chlorine is introduced into sea water it undergoes decay by means
of a two-phase process. Much of the initial fast decay involves the simple I
conversion of hypochlorite to hypobromite without loss of oxidizing capacity.
The ultimate product of the second phase of decay depends on pH, salinity,
ammonia nitrogen concentration, temperature, and chlorine dose. In normal I
sea water (i.e., high salinity, high concentrations of bromide, and low
concentrations of ammonia nitrogen) the conversion of hypochlorite to hypo-
bromite precludes the formation of chloramines. In dilute sea water (low
concentrations of bromide) or in ammonia enriched waters, amine formation
becomes more important. In-addition, halogenated hydrocarbons will be
formed in small quantities to the extent dissolved organic material is
present (Envirosphere 1978). 3

Very limited information is available on chlorine-induced reactions
in estuaries. However, because sea water is diluted in such areas, and
because organic inputs from autochthonous production and allochthonous
terrestrial sources could be expected, some differences are predicted.
Increased concentrations of organic compounds and associated ammonia would
be expected to favor the formation of haloamines and halogenated hydrocarbons. I
The fewer competing anions will result in a decreased dissociation of hypo-
chlorous acid. Dilution of the bromide ion will reduce the chlorine demand
of the water, reduce the formation of bromine, and lessen the importance of I
bromine reactions (Envirosphere 1978).

As a result of the chemistry of chlorine in fresh water and the differ-
ent categories of chlorine compounds which can be detected by typical chlor-
ine test procedures, a certain terminology has developed. The term free
residual chlorine (also known as free available chlorine) is used to refer
to molecular chlorine, hypochlorous acid, and/or the hypochlorite ion.
The term combined residual chlorine is used to refer to the three forms of
chlorinated amines (NH2C1, iC1?, and NC1 ). Total residual chlorine is
used to refer to the summed concentrations of combined and free residual
chlorine (Envirosphere 1978).

In sea water bromine compounds analogous to these chlorine compounds
are also formed. Standard methods for the measurement of chlorine-induced
oxidants cannot clearly differentiate the various categories of halogen
compounds formed in marine systems. Only the terms total residual oxidants
and chlorine induced oxidants are appropriate for use in describing measured
halogen concentrations resulting from chlorination of sea water (Envirosphere
1978).

A toxicity graph (Figure 4) was developed by Envirosphere using data
points representing lethal responses. A factor to convert median population
responses to no effect responses was calculated from data on marine species.
The slope of the acute lines was derived by determining the regression
equation for all data points. Location of the acute line was based on the
average distance from the regression line of data points representing the
most sensitive species. The resulting acute effects line extending,
approximately, through 0.12 ppm total residual oxidant (TRO) for 100 minutes
and 0.09 ppm TRO for 1000 minutes was determined to represent the threshold
of lethal effects (Envirosphere 1978).

A review of the toxicity data used to develop this toxicity threshold
line indicated a large variation among species in sensitivity to chlorine-
induced oxidants. A more accurate threshold could be made by considering
only the important species found at a given location. However, the number
of species for which data are available are too small at present for this.
Any thresholds which are developed, however, should permit such site-specific
evaluations as an alternative to the application of the generalized graph
when sufficient data become available in the future (Envirosphere 1978).

The above discussion indicates some of the complexities and details
which must be involved in the development of quantitative thresholds for the
parameters listed in Tables 9 through 26. In very few cases will it become
possible to list a single number which will be adequate to protect all
resources in all habitats at all times. Tables 9 through 26 should serve
as a conceptual mold for incorporating and integrated new data as they
become available. The development of meaningful quantitative thresholds
will be a challenging and continually evolving process with a high potential
for successful results if properly managed.

CONCENTRATION TOTAL RESIDUAL OXIDANTS (PPM)

rI
I c

Or ~
Z
I

O
C _ 9

5
m

O Z
z

Total Residual Oxidants Formed
During Chlorination
Source: Envirosphere Company, 1978.

L I

92
m m $~~~~~~~~~~~

Table 9.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE PARAMETERS
REQUIRING QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS
ESTUARINE SHELLFISH BEDS

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which lowers direct shellfish survival
rates within various age groups or which reduces the expected average
longevity of individuals within a specified commercially or recreationally
valuable population.

Parameters (environmental changes) of potential concern requiring
quantitative thresholds:

* surface water salinity
* water temperature
* suspended solids
* toxic substances
* dissolved oxygen
* substrate particle size
* sedimentation
* sediment chemistry
* erosion/scouring
* flood frequency
* flood intensity
* flow regime
circulation/mixing
faunal abundance
* primary productivity
* bathymetry variability
I shoreline changes
* floral abundance
* floral diversity
* shore protection capacity
* pathogens
CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the primary
food supply of the various life stages of the shellfish species of interest.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* surface water salinity
* water temperature
* suspended solids
* toxic substances
E nutrients
* dissolved oxygen
* floral abundance
* floral diversity
E light penetration

* primary productivity
* flood frequency
* flow intensity
* flow regime
* circulation/mixing
* sedimentation

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value which adversely
affects the edible quality of marketable shellfish.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

� toxic substances
* human pathogens
* sediment chemistry

CONCEPTUAL PARAMTER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which increases the rate of predation
on shellfish adults, larvae, or early "seed" stages.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

� salinity
* temperature
dissolved oxygen
� substrate particle size
� sedimentation
� faunal abundance
� faunal diversity
* floral abundance
� floral diversity
* primary productivity
* flood frequency
* flood intensity
* flow regime
* circulation/mixing
* bathymetry variability
* water depth
� erosion/scouring

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely affects public access
or the public enjoyment aspects of recreational resource use.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* noise
* shoreline changes
* water depth
* faunal abundance
� floral abundance
* toxic substances

* pathogens
� substrate particle size
� bathymetry variability
* sediment chemistry
* suspended solids
I shore protection capacity
* flood frequency
* flood intensity
a circulation/mixing

Table 10.

ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE PARAMETERS
REQUIRING QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS
SEELLFISH REEFS

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which lowers direct shellfish survival
rates within various age groups or which reduces the expected average longe-
vity of individuals within a specified commercially valuable population.

Parameters (environmental changes) of potential concern requiring
quantitative thresholds:

* surface water salinity
* water temperature
* suspended solids
* toxic substances
* dissolved oxygen
* substrate particle size
* sedimentation
* sediment chemistry
* erosion/scouring
* flood frequency
* flood intensity
* flow regime
* circulation/mixing
* faunal abundance
* primary productivity
* floral abundance
* shoreline changes
* shore protection capacity
* pathogens
CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the primary
food supply of the various shellfish life stages.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* surface water salinity
* water temperature
* suspended solids
* toxic substances
* nutrients
* dissolved oxygen
* floral abundance
* floral diversity
* sunlight penetration
* primary productivity
* flood frequency
* flood intensity
* flow regime
* circulation/mixing
* sedimentation 96

CONCEPTUAL PARA�ETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value which adversely
affects the edible quality of marketable shellfish.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* toxic substances
* pathogens
* sediment chemistry

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which increases the rate of predation
on shellfish adults, larvae, or spat.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* salinity
* temperature
* dissolved oxygen
� substrate particle size
* faunal abundance
� faunal diversity
� floral abundance
floral diversity
primary productivity
� flood frequency
* flood intensity
� flow regime
* circulation/mixing
� bathymetry variability
a water depth

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely alters the community
of plants and animals characteristically associated with shellfish reefs.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* surface water salinity
� water temperature
suspended solids
toxic substances
� nutrients
� dissolved oxygen
* substrate particle size
* sedimentation
* sediment chemistry
* faunal reporductive potential
* faunal/floral abundance/diversity
* sunlight penetration
I primary productivity
* bathymetry variability
* water depth
� shoreline changes

erosion/scouring
flood intensity/frequency
flow regime
circulation/mixing
pathogens
shore protection capacity
littoral drift

* * *8
98~~~~~~~

Table 11.

ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE PARAMETERS
REQUIRING QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS
OCEAN SHELLFISH BEDS

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which lowers direct shellfish survival
rates within various age groups or which reduces the expected average longe-
vity of individuals within a specified commercially valuable population.

Parameters (environmental changes) of potential concern requiring
quantitative thresholds:

� water temperature
� suspended solids
* toxic substances
I dissolved oxygen
� substrate particle size
* sedimentation
I sediment chemistry
e water depth
erosion/scouring
* circulation/mixing
bathymetry variability
faunal abundance
a floral abundance
I floral diversity
* primary productivity
� shore protection capacity
I pathogens
CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the primary
food supply of the various life stages of the shellfish species of interest.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* water temperature
� suspended solids
* toxic substances
� nutrients
� dissolved oxygen
* floral abundance
a floral diversity
I light penetration
* primary productivity
� circulation/mixing
* sedimentation

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value which adversely
affects the edible quality of marketable shellfish.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

� toxic substances
* pathogens
a sediment chemistry

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which increases the rate of predation
on shellfish adults, larvae, or early "seed" stages.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* water temperature
� dissolved oxygen
substrate particle size
sedimentation
* faunal abundance
* faunal diversity
* circulation/mixing
� erosion/scouring
� bathymetry variability

100

Table 12.

ENVIRON=NTAL CHANGE PARAMETERS
REQUIRING QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS
SUBMERGED VEGETATION

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which lowers the growth rate of sub-
merged vegetation and consequently the contribution of detritus to the
estuarine and ocean ecosystems.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

� surface water salinity
I water temperature
� suspended solids
* toxic substances
I nutrients
* dissolved solids
� substrate particle size
* sedimentation
� sediment chemistry
faunal/floral abundance/diversity
* sunlight penetration
� bathymetry variability
water depth
* shoreline changes
I erosion/scouring
flood frequency
flood intensity
* flow regime
* circulation/mixing
* pH
* primary productivity
� shore protection capacity

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely alters the character-
istic epiphytic community resident on the surfaces of the submerged vege-
tation.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

� surface water salinity
I water temperature
* suspended solids
* toxic substances
* nutrients
� dissolved oxygen
� dissolved solids
* substrate particle size

* sedimentation
* sediment chemistry
* faunal/floral abundance/diversity
� sunlight penetration
bathymetry variability
* water depth
* shoreline changes
* pathogens
* pH
* faunal reproductive potential
* primary productivity
* shore protection capacity
* flood frequency
* flood intensity
* erosion/scouring
* flow regime
* circulation/mixing

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely alters the sediment
stabilization, sedimentation, and nutrient cycling functions of submerged
vegetation beds.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* surface water salinity
* water temperature
* suspended solids
* toxic substances
* nutrients
* dissolved oxygen
* dissolved solids
* substrate particle size
* sedimentation
* sediment chemistry
* faunal/floral abundance/diversity
* sunlight penetration
* bathymetry variability
* water depth
* shoreline changes
* littoral drift
* erosion/scouring
* flood frequency
* flood intensity
* flow regime
* circulation/mixing
* pH

102

Table 13
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE PARAMETERS
REQUIRING QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS
TIDAL WETLANDS

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which alters the species composition
or lowers the growth rate of the existing species assemblage such that
the contribution of detritus to the estuarine and ocean ecosystems is lowered.

Parameters (environmental changes) of potential concern requiring
quantitative thresholds:

* surface water salinity
* water temperature
� suspended solids
* toxic substances
* nutrients
* substrate particle size
* sedimentation
* sediment chemistry
* faunal/floral abundance/diversity
* sunlight penetration
* bathymetry variability
I water depth
* shoreline changes
* littoral drift
* erosion/scouring
* flood frequency
* flood intensity
* flow regime
* circulation/mixing
* groundwater discharge
* shore protection capacity

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of change
in a parameter level or value which adversely alters the sediment stabiliza-
tion, sedimentation, storm buffering capacity, and nutrient cycling functions
of tidal wetlands.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* surface water salinity
* water temperature
* suspended solids
* toxic substances
* nutrients
* dissolved oxygen
* substrate particle size
* sedimentation
* sediment chemistry
faunal/floral abundance/diversity
* light penetration

103

� bathymetry variability
� water depth
* shore protection capacity
�primary productivity
soil assimilative capacity
* shoreline changes
� littoral drift
* erosion/scouring
* flood frequency
� flood intensity
� flow regime
� circulation/mixing
* aquifer recharge
* groundwater discharge
* runoff

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of change
in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the community of animals
characteristically associated with tidal wetlands.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* surface water salinity
* water temperature
suspended solids
toxic substances
* nutrients
dissolved oxygen
* dissolved solids
� substrate particle size
* sedimentation
* sediment chemistry
� faunal/floral abundance/diversity
� bathymetry variability
* water depth
* shoreline changes
� littoral drift
* erosion/scouring
* flood frequency
� flood intensity
� flow regime
* circulation/mixing
* groundwater discharge
* faunal reproductive potential
� shore protection capacity
* primary productivity
� runoff
� noise

104

CONCEPTUAL PARAPUTER BOU1NDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of change
in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the public enjoyment
aspects of recreation and study.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

� noise
� shore protection capacity
� faunal/floral abundance/diveristy
* flood frequency/intensity
* toxic substances
I pathogens
* erosion/scouring

105

Table 14.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE PARAMETERS
REQUIRING QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS
DUNES

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of change
in a parameter level or value which adversely alters the vegetation charact-
eristic of dunes such that the stability, and hence, the shore protection
capacity, is reduced.

Parameters (Environmental Changes) of ootential concern reauirin2
quantitative thresholds:

* dissolved solids
* groundwater salinity
* toxic substances
* substrate particle size
* sedimentation
* floral/abundance/diversity
* sediment chemistry
* primary productivity
* shoreline changes
* littoral drift
* runoff
* erosion/scouring
� flow regime (adjacent waters)
* shore protection capacity
* flood frequency/intensity

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of change
in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the public enjoyment
aspects of recreation and study.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

shore protection capacity
* noise
* faunal/floral abundance/diversity
* flood frequency/intensity
toxic substances
� pathogens
* erosion/scouring

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of change
in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the aquifer recharge
or groundwater discharge functions of dunes.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* runoff
* aquifer recharge
* groundwater discharge

106

I
I
I * floral abundance
* soil assimilacive capacity
I3~ .* flow regime

I
I
I * * * *

I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~107

Table 15.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE PARAMETERS
REQUIRING QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS
CENTRAL BARRIER ISLAND CORRIDORS

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of change
in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the remaining areas
which support maritime forest vegetation and its associated characteristic
wildlife.

Parameters (environmental changes) of potential concern requiring
quantitative thresholds:

* dissolved solids
* groundwater discharge
* groundwater salinity
* toxic substances
* nutrients
* floral/faunal abundance/diversity
* runoff
* erosion/scouring
� flood frequency/intensity
* noise
* flow regime
* pathogens -
* faunal reproductive potential
* primary productivity
CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of change
in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the quanitity or quality
of groundwater.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* groundwater discharge
� aquifer recharge
* groundwater salinity
* toxic substances
* pathogens
i runoff
* nutrients
� dissolved solids
* floral abundance
* soil assimilative capacity
a flood frequency/intensity
* flow regime

108

Table 16.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE PARAMETERS
REQUIRING QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS
WHITE CEDAR STANDS

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the vegetation,
its associated characteristic wildlife, and its functions in retarding run-
off and in purifying water in coastal streams.

Parameters (environmental changes) of potential concern requiring
quantitative thresholds:

* groundwater discharge
* toxic substances
* dissolved solids
* floral/faunal abundance/diversity
* primary productivity
flood frequency/intensity
* aquifer recharge
* flow regime
* pathogens
* erosion/scouring
� nutrients
sediment chemistry
* groundwater salinity
soil assimilative capacity
* shore protection capacity
shoreline changes
* runoff

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the public
enjoyment aspects of recreation in white cedar stands.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

a toxic substances
* pathogens
* faunal/floral/abundance/diversity
* noise

109

Table 17.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE PARAMETERS
REQUIRING QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS
OPEN SPACE

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the habitat
buffering and wildlife corridor functions of existing open space.

Parameters (environmental changes) of potential concern requiring
quantitative thresholds:

* pathogens
* floral/faunal abundance/diversity
* primary productivity
* noise
flood frequency/intensity
* flow regime
* groundwater salinity
toxic substances
� nutrients
* dissolved solids (groundwater)
* sediment chemistry
* shore protection capacity
* shoreline changes
* erosion/scouring
* runoff

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the public
enjoyment aspects of recreation on open space.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* toxic substances
* pathogens
* floral/faunal abundance/diversity
* noise
* shoreline changes
* flood frequency/intensity
* erosion/scouring
* shore protection capacity
* littoral drift

Table 18.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE PARAMETERS
REQUIRING QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS
PRIME FARMLANDS AND SPECIALTY SOILS

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the present
or future potential for production of essential food and fiber products.

Parameters (environmental changes) of potential concern requiring
quantitative thresholds:

* aquifer recharge
* groundwater discharge
� groundwater salinity
* toxic substances
I nutrients
pathogens
� floral/faunal abundance
* primary productivity
* soil assimilative capacity
� runoff
� erosion
I flood frequency/intensity
� noise
* dissolved solids
a flow regime

Table 19.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE PARAMETERS
REQUIRING QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS
BOGS AND NON-TIDAL WETLANDS

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the growth
or species composition of the vegetation in a particular bog or non-tidal
wetland.

Parameters (environmental changes) of potential concern requiring
quantitative thresholds:

* aquifer recharge
� groundwater discharge/flow
* suspended solids
* toxic substances
* nutrients
pH
� substrate particle size
* sedimentation
* sediment chemistry
� primary productivity
� bathymetry variability
� water depth
� shoreline changes
runoff
flood frequency/intensity
flow regime
* groundwater salinity
dissolved solids
* faunal/floral abundance/diversity
* shore protection capacity
� erosion/scouring

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the aquatic
and terrestrial plants and animals characteristically associated with bogs
and non-tidal wetlands.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

� groundwater discharge/flow
� suspended solids
� toxic substances
� nutrients
* pH
� substrate particle size
* sedimentation
* sediment chemistry
* noise

112

primary productivity
bathymetry variability
water depth
shoreline changes
runoff
flood frequency/intensity
flow regime
groundwater salinity
dissolved solids
floral/faunal abundance
shore protection capacity
erosion/scouring
faunal reproductive potential

* * * *113
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

Table 20.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE PARAMETERS
REQUIRING QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS
COASTAL BLUFFS

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which accelerates the natural erosion
rates, reduces sediment stability, or alters natural beach sediment contri-
butions.

Parameters (environmental changes) of potential concern requiring
quantitative thresholds:

* toxic substances (direct effect on floral abundance/diversity)
* floral abundance/diversity
* runoff
* erosion/scouring
* flood frequency/intensity
* flow regime

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the terrestrial
plants and animals characteristically associated with coastal bluffs.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* toxic substances
� nutrients
* pathogens
* faunal/floral abundance/diversity
* faunal reproductive potential
* runoff
* erosion/scouring
* flood frequency/intensity
* flow regime

114

Table 21.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE PARAMETERS
REQUIRING QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS
BEACHES

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the survival
rates within the psammo-littoral community and of nearshore recreational
and commercial fish and motile crustacean species.

Parameters (environmental changes) of potential concern requiring
quantitative thresholds:

* shore protection capacity
surface water salinity
M water temperature
* suspended solids
* toxic substances
* pH
* dissolved oxygen
* substrate particle size
* sedimentation
M sediment chemistry
* water depth
I shoreline changes
* littoral drift
* erosion/scouring
* flood frequency
* flood intensity
flow regime
* circulation/mixing
* pathogens
dissolved solids

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the primary
food supply of the psammo-littoral community and of nearshore recreational
and commercial fish and motile crustacean species.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* surface water salinity
� water temperature
* suspended solids
M toxic substances
* nutrients
* dissolved oxygen
a dissolved solids
* faunal abundance/diversity
shoreline changes
� littoral drift

115

� primary productivity
* flood frequency (estuarine beaches only)
� flood intensity (estuarine beaches only)
* flow regime
� circulation/mixing
� floral abundance/diversity (algae and adjacent rooted flora)
� faunal reproductive potential
* erosion/scouring

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value which adversely
affects the edible quality of nearshore fish and motile crustaceans.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* toxic substances
* pathogens
� sediment chemistry

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* toxic substances
* noise
* suspended solids
� substrate particle size
sedimentation
bathymetry variability
water depth
shoreline changes
pathogens
* sediment chemistry
* shore protection capacity
* floral/faunal abundance/diversity
* faunal reproductive potential
� erosion/scouring
a flood frequency/intensity

116

Table 22.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE PARAMETERS
REQUIRING QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS
MIGRATORY PATHWAYS AND PRIME SPAWNING AREAS

CONCEPTUAL PARALETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which lowers the survival rate within
various age groups of important recreational or commercial finfish or
motile crustacean species.

Parameters (environmental changes) of potential concern requiring
quantitative thresholds:

* surface water salinity
* water temperature
* suspended solids
* toxic substances
* pH
* dissolved oxygen
* substrate particle size
* sedimentation
* sediment chemistry
water depth
* erosion/scouring
* flood frequency
* flood intensity
* flow regime
* circulation/mixing
* pathogens
dissolved solids
* floral/faunal abundance/diversity
� primary productivity
bathymetry variability
* shore protection capacity
* groundwater discharge

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the primary
food supply of the larvae and juveniles of important finfish and motile
crustaceans which utilize these areas as nurseries.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* surface water salinity
* water temperature
* suspended solids
m toxic substances
nutrients
* dissolved oxygen
* dissolved solids
* floral/faunal abundance/diversity

117

*sunlight penetration
*primary productivityI
*flood frequency
*flood intensity
*flow regimeI
*circulation/mixing
*pH
*pathogensI
*shoreline changes
*erosion/scouring
*shore protection capacity
� water depth
� groundwater discharge
*substrate particle size
*sedimentationI
*sediment chemistry
*faunal reproductive potential

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which increases the rate of predation
on the eggs, larvae, or juveniles of important finfish or motile shellfish
species.
Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:3

*salinity
*water temperature
*dissolved solids
*pH
*pathogens.
*toxic substancesI
*sediment chemistry
*water depth
*dissolved oxygenI
*substrate particle size
*sedimentation
' faunal/floral abundance/diversity
*bathymetry variabilityI
*primary productivity
*flood frequency
*flood intensity
*flow regime
*circulation/mixing

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate ofI
change in a parameter level or value which limits organisms access to
prime spawning areas.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

surface water salinity
e water temperature
e toxic substances (avoidance thresholds) interference with "homing"
* dissolved oxygen
e water depth
* shoreline changes
e erosion/scouring
* flood intensity/frequency
* flow regime
� circulation/mixing
* groundwater discharge
* suspended solids
* pathogens
* pH
e dissolved solids
* sediment chemistry
* floral abundance

11* * * *
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

Table 23
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE PARAMETERS
REQUIRING QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS
SHIPWRECKS AND REEFS

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which lowers the survival rate within
various age groups of important recreational finfish or motile crustacean
species characteristic of shipwrecks and reefs.

Parameters (environmental changes) of of potential concern requiring
quantitative thresholds:

� water temperature
* suspended solids
* toxic substances
� dissolved oxygen
substrate particle size
�sedimentation
sediment chemistry
* water depth
* erosion/scouring
� circulation/mixing
* pathogens
* floral/faunal abundance/diversity
faunal reproductive potential

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the primary
food supply of the various important finfish or motile crustacean species.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

� water temperature
* suspended solids
� toxic substances
* nutrients
* dissolved oxygen
� floral/faunal abundance/diversity
sunlight penetration
� primary productivity
� circulation/mixing
* faunal reproductive potential
� sediment chemistry
� bathymetry variability
water depth
erosion/scouring
* pathogens
* sedimentation

120

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter or value which increases the rate of predation on
the adults of juveniles of important finfish or motile crustacean species.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

� water temperature
* dissolved oxygen
� substrate particle size
� sedimentation
* faunal abundance
I faunal diversity
* primary productivity
* circulation/mixing
I erosion/scouring
� bathymetry variability

CONCEPTUAL PARANMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely alters the community
of plants and animals characteristically associated with shipwrecks and
reefs.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

� water temperature
�suspended solids
toxic substances
nutrients
dissolved oxygen
substrate particle size
sedimentation
sediment chemistry
faunal reproductive potential
� faunal/floral abundance/diversity
* sunlight penetration
* primary productivity
* bathymetry variability
� water depth
I shoreline changes
� littoral drift
� erosion/scouring
circulation/mixing
* pathogens

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the public
enjoyment aspects of recreational resource use.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* faunal abundance/diversity

121

suspended solids
toxic substances
pathogens
water depth
dissolved oxygen
substrate particle size
bathymetry variability
circulation/mixing

122

Table 24.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE PARAMETERS
REQUIRING QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS
PRIME FISHING AREAS

Parameters (environmental changes) of potential concern requiring
quantitative thresholds:

* surface water salinity
� water temperature
� suspended solids
� toxic substances
* pH
dissolved oxygen
� substrate particle size
I sedimentation
: sediment chemistry
� water depth
I erosion/scouring
flood frequency
flood intensity
� flow regime
I circulation/mixing
pathogens
* bathymetry variability
I faunal/floral abundance/diversity
* dissolved solids

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

� surface water salinity
I water temperature
* suspended solids
� toxic substances
� nutrients
I dissolved oxygen
* dissolved solids
* floral/faunal abundance/diversity
I sunlight penetration
� primary productivity
� flood frequency
* flood intensity

123

* flow regime
� circulation/mixing
� substrate particle size
� pathogens
� pH
� sedimentation
* sediment chemistry
a water depth

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value which adversely
affects the edible quality of the important finfish or motile crustacean
species.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* toxic substances
� pathogens
* sediment chemistry

CONCEPTUAL PARAMIETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which decreases the rate of production
of the adult eggs, larvae, or juveniles of important finfish or motile
crustacean species.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

surface water salinity
* water temperature
� dissolved oxygen
substrate particle size
* sedimentation
� faunal/floral abundance/diversity
� faunal reproductive potential
* primary productivity
* flood frequency
* flood intensity
* flow regime
* circula.tion/mixing
� pH
� dissolved solids
� toxic substances
� pathogens
* sediment chemistry

CONCEPTUAL PARjkvfETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely alters the favored
relative abundance of important finfish or motile crustacean species
characteristically or historically associated with a particular prime
fishing area.

124

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* surface water salinity
I water temperature
� suspended solids
* toxic substances
� nutrients
* dissolved oxygen
* dissolved solids
* substrate particle size
a sedimentation
* sediment chemistry
� faunal/floral abundance/diversity
primary productivity
bathymetry variability
* water depth
* shoreline changes
I littoral drift
* erosion/scouring
* flood intensity/frequency
I flow regime
* circulation/mixing
� pathogens
* pH
* shore protection capacity
* noise

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the public
enjoyment aspects of~or access to prime fishing areas.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* suspended solids
* pathogens
* noise
� air quality
* faunal abundance/diversity
� toxic substances
�dissolved oxygen
circulation/mixing
I bathymetry variability
� water depth
* shore protection capacity
I shoreline changes
� erosion/scouring
� flood frequency/intensity
I floral abundance

125

Table 25.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE PARAMETERS
REQUIRING QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS
PINE BARRENS

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which alters the acidic nature of the
waters characteristic of the Pine Barrens.

Parameters (environmental changes) of potential concern requiring
quantitative thresholds:

e water temperature
aquifer recharge
* groundwater discharge
* suspended solids
* nutrients
* pH
� dissolved solids
* sedimentation
* sediment chemistry
* primary productivity
* runoff
* flood frequency/intensity
* flow regime
* circulation/mixing
* dissolved oxygen
* toxic substances
* surface water and groundwater salinity
CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which alters the vegetation character-
istic of the Pine Barrens and associated wetlands and waters.

Parameters of potential concern requiring quantitative thresholds:

* frequency and intensity of fire
* aquifer recharge
* groundwater discharge
* toxic substances
* nutrients
* substrate particle size
* sediment chemistry
* floral abundance/diversi6y
* primary productivity
* flood frequency/intensity
* soil assimilative capacity
* flow regime
pH
* shore protection capacity
* groundwater salinity
* dissolved solids

126

I . ~~~sunlight penetration
*water depth
9 suspended solids
erosion/scouring
shoreline changes
* circulation/mixing

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2

Table 26.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE PARAMETERS
REQUIRING QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS
OAK, HICKORY, AND PINE FORESTS

CONCEPTUAL PARAMETER BOUNDARY: A parameter level or value or a rate of
change in a parameter level or value which adversely affects the forest
woody vegetation and its associated characteristic wildlife.

Parameters of (environmental changes) of potential concern requiring
quantitative thresholds:

* toxic substances
* nutrients
* floral/faunal abundance/diversity
* primary productivity
* runoff
* erosion/scouring
* flow regime
* groundwater salinity
* faunal reproductive potential
* soil assimilative capacity
* flood frequency/intensity
* noise

~~~~~~~~128~~~I
128~~~~~~~

X. USE CONSTRAINTS AND PRIORITY USE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WATER, EDGE, AND
LAND USE TYPES

A. USE CONSTRAINTS

The impact relationships of each land and water type were studied and
related to environmental changes and goals and objectives. Through this
process, carrying capacity constraint categories within each land and water
type for each use were prepared.

These are:

1. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources: Potential uses of the
land and water types having impacts and causal chains with an
insignificant effect on objectives. Uses with only these types
of impacts would be acceptable without special management
requirements.

2. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources with Appropriate Miti-
gation: Potential uses in the given type having impacts and
causal chains that adversely affect objectives but which may
be reduced to acceptable levels by including impact control
measures that either break the causal linkage of adverse
impact chains or reduce the level of impacting activities.
Use-location combinations generating this kind of impact, or
mixtures of this and the preceding type, are conditionally
advisable provided stated precautions are taken that contain
impacts within specified limits during construction and opera-
tion.

3. High Potential Risk to Natural Resources: Potential uses that
generate impacts or causal chains of impact adversely affecting
natural resource objectives in a way impossible to reduce to
low potential risk levels by impact control measures using
available technology.

The interrelated and sensitive nature of the special coastal resources
argues for the placement of stringent conditions on most coastal uses which
generate impacting activities. This general statement applies even to
such compatible water based activities as recreational fishing and shell-
fishing. Without some form of regulation, for example, most of the near-
shore coastal shellfisheries would soon be depleted through over harvesting
and the decimation of important reproductive stocks.

The only generally negative category, however, is the "high potential
risk to natural resources" classification. This category includes uses
which when placed in certain land or'water types produce impacts which
are adverse and which cannot be mitigated to low potential risk levels
through the application of currently available practical technology.

129

An example would be the placement of a sewage outfall on a public beach.
Since even with tertiary treatment no sewage treatment plant is without
the potential for equipment breakdown or human error and since the
potential exists for adverse human health effects directly from water
contact recreation or indirectly through shellfish contamination during
such a breakdown situation, the potential hazard is simply too great to
allow such a use under any present day practical circumstance. An appli-
cation for such a sewage outfall would thus place the use in the high
risk category, and the permit request would be denied on the grounds of
public health risk and natural resource impairment. An alternative appli-
cant might be the discharge of treated wastes in offshore tidal ocean
waters at such a location that rapid dilution would occur and pollution
of public recreation beaches averted.

The examples cited above can be found in Table 27 under "Tidal Ocean
Offshore" and "Ocean Beach". Table 27 also places all major uses into the
three basic categories of "low risk natural resource", "low risk to
natural resources with mitigation", and "high risk to natural resources".
The criteria for placement were primarily ecological, and the placement
was determined by a task force consisting of terrestrial and aquatic ecolo-
gists (R. Bogardus, J. Andrea, M. Black, and S. Bach). The maintenance
and enhancement of natural coastal resources and processes was the orien-
tation of the group and socio-economic/opportunity considerations were
specifically excluded in the decision-making. The purpose of this study
is to look at the coastal zone from the natural ecological perspective.
The opportunity and socio-economic analyses are being conducted by another
BCPD contractor. This dichotomous study design is set up to clearly
identify conflicts between ecological objectives and opportunity/socio-
economic considerations. These inherent conflicts will be identified by
BCPD and resolved through future public debate and policy refinement.
This report exclusively addresses the natural resources which are valued
in the coastal zone, and hence those uses which have been identified through
the professional evaluation process to adversely impact natural resource
objectives are placed in restrictive categories.

The placement procedure was not quantitative and did not involve a
formal summation and valuation of identified impacting activities and
environmental changes. Such an exercise would presently be practical for
only a handful of uses in a few well studied coastal habitats and clearly
is beyond the present day state of knowledge for most uses and for most
coastal habitats. Instead, the reasons for category inclusion generally
centered on a few key environmental change parameters. The above sewage
outfall example centered ultimately on the human health implications of a
beach outfall. Obviously, many other changes such as increased scouring/
erosion, increased nutrients, changes in water temperature, etc. are
possible when a sewage outfall is located on a beach, but these were hot
given equal weight in the final decision which placed the use in the "high
risk" category for the ocean beach land and water type. Brief rationales
for the use categorization decisions are also presented in Table 27.

130

Table 27. Use Constraint and Priority Use-Type Recommendations and Rationales

TYPE: TIDAL OCEAN NEARSHORE

Risk Categorization:

1. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources
Navigation

Ratiorale:
Navigation by all but very large ships with drafts approaching
the water depth of nearshore waters is an environmentally safe use
in the well-mixed nearshore ocean waters. Large ships with drafts
which could cause Scouring of the bottom substrate and adverse im-
pacts on benthic animal populations do not operate in this water
type due to significant navigational risk.

2. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources with Appropriate
Mitigation
Extraction - Unconsolidated
Bulk Storage, Handling and Transfer Facilities (BSHTF)
Pipelines
Buried Transmission Cables
Cooling/Process Water Intake
Thermal Discharges
Recreation
Large Crowd Gathering Facilities
Outdoor
Indoor
Small Crowd Gathering Facilities
Outdoor
Indoor
Stormwater Outfall
Overboard Dumping (Non Hazardous)
Shellfishing (Commercial, C)
Fishing (Commercial and Recreational, C&R)
Aquaculture
Dock
Rationale:
All of these uses have an aspect or aspects which would require
mitigation to prevent serious violation of the general and special
objectives for this water type. Any of these uses which require
filling may cause a reduction in faunal abundance for a prime fishing
area, or decrease faunal reproductive potential by increasing sus-
pended solids and eventually impacting a spawning area or ocean
shellfish bed.
Fishing and shellfishing to an extreme may reduce faunal abun-
dance below a self-sustaining level. Therefore, they should be
required to follow mitigative measures such as quotas and size
restrictions.

131

Table 27. (Contd.)

3. High Potential Risk to Natural Resources
Sewage Outfall
Industrial Outfall
Overboard Dumping (Hazardous)
Port
Marina
Rationale:
Sewage outfalls, industrial outfalls, and overboard dumping
of hazardous solid wastes are uses which are not feasible to
mitigate in nearshore ocean waters. These uses can contribute
large amounts of toxic wastes directly to waters which are impor-
tant nursery areas, migratory pathways, contain valuable shell-
fish beds, and which flow longshore in a manner which would spread
these wastes in a band along downdrift beaches. Additionally, these
nearshore waters are major water sport contact recreational areas,
and the potential presence of pathogens due to accident or storm
events involves an unacceptably high risk.
Ports and marinas are included as unacceptable because of their
need for the construction of extensive breakwaters for their pro-
tection. These breakwaters would severely alter the nearshore
environment from its natural state due to alterations in flow
patterns, longshore drift, and shoreline (dune) sand replacement.
In addition, non-point source pollutants from ocean going vessels
would accumulate at these sites, further degrading them. Extensive
dredging operations would also be required, further impairing the
environmental quality. Several violations of the general and
special objectives for this type would occur should these uses be
allowed.

TYPE: TIDAL OCEAN OFFSHORE

Risk Categorization:
1. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources
Navigation
Rationale:
Navigation by all but very large ships with drafts approaching
the water depth of offshore waters is an environmentally safe use
in the well-mixed offshore ocean waters. Large ships with drafts
which could cause scouring of the bottom substrate and adverse im-
pacts on benthic animal populations do not operate in this water
type due to significant navigational risk.

132

Table 27. (Contd.)

2. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources with Appropriate
Mitigation
Extraction - Unconsolidated
Bulk Storage, Handling and Transfer Facilities (BSHTF)
Pipelines
Transfer Facilities
Buried Transmission Cables
Cooling/Process Water Intake
Thermal Discharges
Fossil Fuel Electrical Facility
Sewage Outfall
Stormwater Outfall
Overboard Dumping (Non Hazardous)
Port
Marina
Shellfishing (Commercial)
Fishing (Commercial and Recreational)
Aquaculture
Rationale:
Mitigation for these uses may include avoiding known shell-
fish beds, using state-of-the-art methods when dredging or con-
structing offshore structures to prevent excessive turbidity,
requiring treatment of liquid wastes prior to disposal by outfall,
and specifying fishing gear types and catch quotas for recreational
and commercial fishing and commercial shellfishing.
Mitigation would be necessary to limit or prohibit violation of
general and special objectives for this type.

3. High Potential Risk to Natural Resources
Nuclear Electrical Facility
Overboard Dumping (Hazardous)
Industrial Outfall
Rationale:
Nuclear power plants, with their inherent potential for the
spread of radioactivity due to accidents or major storm events,
were felt to involve a high degree of damage potential to the
marine resources of the offshore zone. Although it may be true
that the risk of catastrophic accident is remote, the potential
for serious long-term damage is large, should such an accident
occur. This potential damage would severely violate general and
special objectives and is unfeasible to mitigate for this type.
Nuclear power plants should best be located in upland areas where
the water related impacts of accidental radioactive releases can
be better contained.

133

Table 27. (Contd.)

TYPE: TIDAL OPEN BAY

Risk Categorization:
1. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources
-No Uses

Rationale:
No uses. All potential uses should be subject to some degreed
mitigation within these important nursery, feeding, spawning, and
migration areas in order to prevent violation of general and speci-
fied objectives. Even excessive small boat traffic can result in
adverse impacts to benthic organisms and fish spawning substrates
due to prop washfscourand general disturbance.

2. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources with Appropriate
Mitigation
BSHTF
Pipelines
Transfer Facilities
Aerial Transmission Lines
Buried Transmission Cables
Cooling/Process Water Intake
Thermal Discharges
Recreation - Small Outdoor (Pier)
Sewage Outfall
Stormwater Outfall
Overboard Dumping (Non-Hazardous)
Expressway
Rail
Port
Marina
Dock
Navigation
Small Landing Field (Floating Pad)
Shellfishing (Commercial and Recreational, C&R)
Fishing (Commercial and Recreational, C&R)
Aquaculture
Rationale:
The rationale for placing the listed uses in this category
are the same as given for these uses in tidal ocean nearshore and
tidal ocean offshore waters. With the exception of navigation the
construction activities and siting of these uses must be controlled
to protect the general and special objectives of open bays. For
navigation, the dredging associated with it must be located so as not
to violate general and special open bay objectives.

134

Table 27. (Contd.)

3. High Potential Risk to Natural Resources
Housing
Commercial
Industry
Extraction Unconsolidated
Energy Generation Facilities (Nuclear and Fossil Fuel, N&FF)
Recreation - Large, and Small Indoor
Overboard Dumping (Hazardous)
Airports
Industrial Outfall
Rationale:
Housing, commercial, industry, energy generation facilities,
recreation (indoor facilities, large and small) and airports
have been placed in the high risk category, because their siting
in an open bay area would occupy space valuable to the estuarine
plant and animal community, their construction would be disruptive
and detrimental to the estuarine environment through such impacting
activities as dredging, filling, and water transfer/diversion, and
their operations would produce waste products which could adversely
affect the estuarine environment. Extraction of sand, overboard
dumping of hazardous wastes, and industrial outfalls are considered
high risk because of their potential large adverse impacts on estuar-
ine communities. All of these uses have a high potential for harming
estuarine shellfish beds and reefs, prime fishing areas, submerged
vegetation and intefering with migratory pathways and spawning areas.
These uses also have a high potential for violating many of the
established general objectives.

TYPE: TIDAL SEMI-ENCLOSED AND BACK BAYS

Risk Categorization:
1. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources
-No Uses
Rationale:
No uses. All potential uses should be subject to some degreed
mitigation within these important nursery, feeding, spawning, and
migration areas in order to prevent violation of general and speci-
fied objectives. Even excessive small boat traffic can result in
adverse impacts to benthic organisms and fish spawning substrates
due to prop wash scour and general disturbance.

135

Table 27. (Contd.)

2. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources with Appropriate
Mitigation
BSHTF
Pipelines
Aerial Transmission Lines
Buried Transmission Cables
Recreation - Small Outdoor (Pier)
Transportation
Auto
Rail
Marina
Dock
Navigation
Shellfishing (C&R)
Fishing (C&R)
Aquaculture
Rationale:
The rationale for the reduced number of uses identified as
low risk with mitigation for this type as compared with the tidal
open bay category is due to the increased sensitivity of these
waters to the various impacting activities. This increased sensi-
tivity is due to smaller water volumes available for dilution,
slower and less complete flushing, and their more extensive use as
spawning, nursery, and migratory areas.

3. High Potential Risk to Natural Resources
Housing
Commercial
Industry
Extraction - Unconsolidated
BSHTF -
Cooling/Process Water Intake
Thermal Discharges
Energy Generation Facilities (N&FF)
Recreation Large, and Small Indoor
Sewage
Industrial Outfall
Stormwater Outfall
Overboard Dumping (H&NH)
Port
Airport Facilities
Rationale:
The uses considered as high risk for siting in tidal open bays
are again listed as high risk in this water type for the same reasons.
The additional uses placed in this category; cooling process water,
intakes, thermal discharges, sewage and stormwater outfalls and
ports, have been placed here because their occurrence in semi-enclosed
and back bays was felt to be unfeasible to mitigate due to the limited

136

Table 27. (Contd.)

waste assimilation capacity of back bays as compared to open bays
and the extensive occurrence of special coastal resources such as
shellfish and prime spawning areas.

TYPE: TIDAL GUTS, INLETS AND CANALS

2. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources with Appropriate
Mitigation
BSHTF
Pipelines
Aerial Transmission Lines
Buried Transmission Cables
Recreation - Small Outdoor (Pier)
Transportation
Auto
Rail
Marina
Dock
Navigation
Shellfishing (C&R)
Fishing (C&R)
Aquaculture
Rationale:
The rationale for the reduced number of uses identified as able
to be feasibly mitigated for this water type is due to the limited
extent of these waters and their importance as migratory pathways
into estuarine waters or between estuarine water bodies.

3. High Potential Risk to Natural Resources
Housing
Commercial
Industry
Extraction Unconsolidated

137

Table 27. (Contd.)

BSHTF
Cooling/Process Water Intake
Thermal Discharge
Energy Generation Facilities (N&FF)
Recreation Large, and Small Indoor
Sewage Outfall
Industrial Outfall
Stormwater Outfall
Overboard Dumping (H&NH)
Port
Rationale:
The listed uses are considered as high risk for many of the
same reasons listed for tidal semi-enclosed and back bays. How-
ever, the main reason for their listing as high risk is the
essential use of these water types for migratory fauna, and the
likelihood of these uses interferring with the special objective
of preserving migratory pathways.

TYPE: TIDAL RIVERS

Risk Categorization:

1. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources
-No Uses
Rationale:
No uses. All potential uses should be subject to some degreed
mitigation within these important nursery, feeding, spawning, and
migration areas in order to prevent violation of general and speci-
fied objectives. Even excessive small boat traffic can result in
adverse impacts to benthic organisms and fish spawning substrates
due to prop washfscourand general disturbance.

138

Table 27. (Contd.)

Transportation
Auto
Rail
Port
Marina
Dock
Navigation
Shellfishing (C&R)
Fishing (C&R)
Aquaculture
Rationale:
Rationale is same as that for tidal bays, recognizing that
tidal rivers range in size from the Delaware River to small streams
and therefore thin-size may intensify the impacts of the uses within
this category over a smaller area than in an open bay, Mitigation
would, therefore, be required to prevent impacts associated with
these uses from violating general and special objectives for these
types of waters.

3. High Potential Risk to Natural Resources
Housing
Comnmercial
Industrial
Extraction - Unconsolidated
Energy Generation Facilities (N&FF)
Recreation Large, and Small Indoor
Industrial Outfall
Overboard Dumping (H&NH)
Airports
Rationale:
The listed uses were placed within this category for the same
reasons as listed for tidal open bays. Tidal rivers may also con-
tain centralized water supply intakes, since their upper tidal
reaches may be predominantly freshwater. This use would be condi-
tional on not reducing stream flow so as to impair the general
objectives concerning surface water salinity and freshwater flows,
and such special objectives of tidal rivers as migratory pathways,
shellfish beds and reefs, and spawning areas.

139

Table 27. (Contd.)

TYPE: NONTIDAL INLAND BASIN

Risk Categorization:

1. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources
-No Uses

2. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources with Appropriate
Mitigation
BSHTF
Pipeline
Aerial Transmission Lines
Buried Transmission Cables
Cooling/Process Water Intake
Thermal Discharge
Recreation Small Outdoor (Pier)
Centralized Water Supply Intake (Potable)
Stormwater Outfall
Marina
Dock
Navigation
Fishing (C&R)
Aquaculture

Rationale:
The listed uses for non-tidal inland basins under the mitigable
category were placed here for the same reasons as listed for tidal
open bays. Centralized water intakes would be low risk in this
water type provided that spawning areas, prime fishing areas, and
areas with submerged vegetation were avoided.

140

Table 27. (Contd.)

3. High Potential Risk to Natural Resources
Housing
Commercial
Industrial
Extraction - Unconsolidated
Energy Generation Facility (N&FF)
Recreation Large, and Small Indoor
Sewage Outfall
Industrial Outfall
Overboard Dumping (H&NH)
Transportation
Auto
Rail
Airport
Rationale:
The uses listed for this category were placed here for the same
reasons as those listed for semi-enclosed and back bays. Auto and
rail transportation would still require valuable aquatic habitat as
space for siting, and therefore, should be routed so as to avoid
these water types.

TYPE: NONTIDAL RIVERS

Risk Categorization:

2. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources with Appropriate
Mitigation
BSHTF
Pipeline
Aerial Transmission Lines
Buried Transmission Cables
Cooling/Process Water Intake
Thermal Discharge
Centralized Water Supply Intake
Sewage Outfall
Stormwater Outfall

141

Table 27. (Contd.)

Transportation
Auto
Rail
Marina
Dock
Navigation
Shellfishing (R)
Fishing (C&R)
Aquaculture
Rationale:
The rationale for placing the listed uses in this category
are the same as given for these uses in tidal ocean nearshore and
tidal ocean offshore waters. With the exception of navigation the
construction activities and siting of these uses must be controlled
to protect the general and special objectives of non-tidal rivers. For
navigation, the dredging associated with it must be located so not
to violate general and special non-tidal river objectives.

3. High Potential Risk to Natural Resources
Housing
Commercial
Industry
Extraction - Unconsolidated
BSHTF - Transfer Facilities
Energy Generation Facilities (N&FF)
Recreation (all Large & Small)
Industrial Outfall
Overboard Dumping (H&NH)
Port
Rationale:
Same as for tidal open bays with the addition of transfer faci-
lities and ports. These facilities would require extensive dredging
and present a serious threat of violation of such special objectives
as prime fishing areas, submerged vegetation, and migratory path-
ways and spawning areas. Many of the general objectives for non-tidal
rivers would also be violated by these uses.

142

Table 27. (Contd.)

TYPE: EDGE - OCEAN BEACH, FOREDUNES

Risk Categorization:

1. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources
-No Uses

Rationale:
No uses are allowed upon the ocean beaches without mitigation,
since these areas provide a nesting, resting, and feeding area for
many species of shorebirds, including the least tern and black
skimmer, both of which are endangered. These areas also provide
valuable open space for recreational use, and, therefore, pollution
of these areas could directly affect human well-being. These
areas are also subject to storm surges and continuous coastal
erosional forces. Beaches are simply not compatible with most
uses and are best left in a natural state.

2. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources with Appropriate
Mitigation
BSHTF
Pipelines and Pumping Stations
Buried Transmission Cables
Recreation - Large and Small Outdoor (Swirmning, Pier)
Overboard Dumping - Non-Hazardous
Shellfishing (R)
Fishing (C&R)
Rationale:
Uses which are listed here as low risk with mitigation are
those which are compatible with direct human and wildlife contact.
Pipelines and transmission cables would be required to be buried
so as not to impede access to or movement along beaches. Over-
board dumping could be low risk if the materials were found
suitable for beach nourishment, and the dumping activity occurred
during low beach use periods. Fishing, shellfishing, and outdoor
recreation should be the major uses of this edge area, and these
activities should be conditioned so as to allow important wildlife
species some areas which are restricted from direct human access.

143

Table 27. (Contd.)

3. High Potential Risk to Natural Resources
All Buildings (Housing, Commercial, Institutional, Industrial)
Extraction - Unconsolidated
BSHTF
Storage Tanks
Transfer Facilities
Aerial Transmission Lines
Energy Generation Facilities
Recreation Large, Small Indoor
Centralized Sewage Treatment Plant (STP)
Sewage Outfall
Stormwater Outfall
Industrial Outfall
Overboard Dumping - Hazardous
Port
Marina
Airport
Rationale:
The uses in this category are unfeasible to mitigate for beaches
because of the extensive areas which would be occupied by the uses,
the pollution potential involved with these uses, and the hazards
involved with storm surges, which would require that beach "protection"
devices such as seawalls, groins, and breakwaters be constructed.
Extraction was placed within this category, because it has a major
potential to decrease the natural shore protection capacity and
violates the special objectives of beaches and open spaces.

TYPE: FOREDUNES

Risk Categorization:

1. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources
-No Uses
Rationale:

The same rationale may be used for listing uses in this cate-
gory as was used for ocean beaches. Foredunes are very important
in providing protection for the central barrier island corridor,
and, therefore, structural or vegetational alteration of the
dunes may increase e osion and significantly harm natural shore
protection capacity.,

2. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources with Appopriate
Mitigation
BSHTF
Pipelines
Buried Transmission Cables
Recreation - Elevated Public Walkways

144

Table 27. (Contd.)

Rationale:
Two of the three uses listed as low risk with mitigation
pipelines and transmission lines, would be buried and the third
recreation along elevated walkways, would also not be a threat
to the extremely important shore protection capacity of the
foredunes. Additional reasons for listing uses in this category
are the same as for ocean beaches.

3. High Potential Risk to Natural Resources
All Buildings and Other Potential Uses

Rationale:
Other uses that could possibly locate on foredunes could
not be feasibly mitigated, because of the shifting erosional
nature of these areas.

TYPE: ESTUARINE BEACHES AND BARS

Risk Categorization:

1. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources
-No Uses
Rationale:
Estuarine beaches and bars contain a greater diversity of fauna
than do ocean beaches and bars, including valuable estuarine shell-
fish beds. These shellfish beds are the major reasons for the
exclusion of unmitigated uses from this type.

145

Table 27. (Contd.)

Rationale:
The uses listed for this type must be mitigated because of
their possible impacts on estuarine shellfish beds, their occu-
pation of open spaces and beaches, and, for some of these uses,
the potential to produce wastes which could degrade the environment.

3. High Potential Risk to Natural Resources
All Buildings
Extraction - Unconsolidated
BSHTF
Storage Tanks
Transfer Facilities
Thermal Discharge
Energy Generation Facilities (N&FF)
Recreation Large, Small Indoor
Centralized STP
Sewage Outfall
Stormwater Outfall
Industrial Outfall
Overboard Dumping (H&NH)
Port
Airport
Rationale:
The uses listed as high risk for this type would occupy large
areas of estuarine beach or bar, would disrupt shellfish beds and
shore bird nesting, resting, and feeding areas during construction,
and would also have a major potential to expose estuarine shellfish
beds to polluting wastes. Special objectives violated by these
uses would include the preservation and enhancement of estuarine
shellfish beds, open space, and beaches.

TYPE: TIDAL WETLANDS

Risk Categorization:

1. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources
-No Uses
Rationale:
No low risk uses are suggested forithis type due to its special
values for open space, wildlife habitat, nutrient assimilation, and
primary production.

146

Table 27. (Contd.)

Rationale:
The uses listed here could be mitigated by minimizing (a) the
area of tidal marshland disturbed, (b) the discharge of non-bio-
degradable wastes, and (c) the nutrients and organic wastes released
from these uses (including stormwater and sewage outfall).

3. High Potential Risk to Natural Resources
All Buildings
Extraction - Unconsolidated
BSHTF
Storage Facilities
Transfer Facilities
Thermal Discharges
Energy Generation Facilities (N&FF)
Recreation Large, Small Indoor
Industrial Outfall
Overboard Dumping (H&NH)
Port
Airport
Aquaculture
Agriculture - Salt Hay
Mosquito Ditching
Rationale:
The major values of tidal marshes include waste assimilative
capacity, primary productivity, and wildlife habitat. Dredging,
filling, and the disposal of industrial wastes are generally very
harmful to tidal wetlands and decrease these intrinsic values. All
of the uses listed as high risk for tidal wetlands would require a
large amount of dredging, filling, or site area.

147

Table 27. (Contd.)

TYPE: NONTIDAL WETLANDS

Risk Categorization:

1. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources
-No Uses

Rationale:
Same as for tidal wetlands.

2. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources with Appropriate
Mitigation
BSHTF
Pipelines and Pumping Stations
Aerial Transmission Lines
Buried Transmission Cables
Recreation - Small-Scale Outdoor (Walkways, Piers)
Stormwater Outfall
Transportation
Auto
Rail
Marina
Dock
Agriculture - Row Crops
Rationale:
Same as for tidal wetlands with the additional rationale that
row crops should be restricted to bogs and wetlands which have
previously been disturbed and excluded from forested wetlands and
stream side wetlands, where the environmental damage by the site
preparation for this use would be extensive.

148

Table 27. (Contd.)

Raticonale:
Same as for tidal wetlands.

TYPE: WET FOREST

Risk Categorization:

1. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources
-No Uses
Rationale:
Wet forests are valuable and sensitive environments and provide
a variety of animals with habitat. All uses locating in this land
type would require mitigation to be considered low risk.

2. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources with Appropriate
Mitigation
BSHTF
Pipelines and Pumping Stations
Aerial Transmission Lines
Buried Transmission Cables
Recreation Small Outdoor
Stormwater Outfall
Forestry
Rationale:
The uses listed here would be required to minimize the clearing
of vegetation, with the exception of forestry, which would be expec-
ted to maintain a self-sustaining wet forest through selected cutting.

3. High Potential Risk to Natural Resources
All Buildings
Extraction - Unconsolidated
BSHTF - Storage Tanks
Energy Generation Facilities
Recreation Large, Small Indoor
Centralized Water Supply Intake
Centralized STP
Sewage Outfall
Industrial Outfall
Transportation
Auto
Rail
Airport
Agriculture
Mosquito Ditching

149

Table 27. (Contd.)

Rationale:
Many of the listed uses would require extensive clearing, which
would be unmitigatable within the wet forest. Waste outfalls would
be undesirable because of the high water table and moderate assimi-
lative capacity of wet forest. Since wet forests are dependent upon
the high water table, any use which could lower the water table would
also be undesirable in this type.

TYPE: CENTRAL BARRIER ISLAND CORRIDOR

Risk Categorization:

1. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources
-No Uses
Rationale:
This type is an important natural feature of the New Jersey
coastal zone and serves as a natural barrier to storm surges.
It also supports an important and noteworthy plant and animal
community in undeveloped areas, therefore, no uses were considered
low risk in this setting without mitigation.

2. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources with Appropriate
Mitigation
Housing - Rural
Retail and Service (Small)
Institutional and Professional (Small)
Fish and Shellfish Processing (Small, Local)
BSHTF
Pipelines and Pumping Stations
Storage Tanks (Water, Propane)
Aerial Transmission Lines
Buried Transmission Cables
Recreation - Small, Indoor and Outdoor
Centralized Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution
Centralized STP
Transportation
Auto
Rail
Aquaculture
Rationale:
Uses in this setting must be carefully mitigated because of the
sensitivity of the dunes to erosion, the water table to salt water
intrusion, and the vegetation and fauna to disturbance. Uses,
therefore, should not increase erosion of the dunes or impede their
migration in response to natural erosional/depositional patterns.
Nor should uses which place demands on water supply cause ground-
water levels to be lowered so that saltwater intrusion occurs.
Siting of any of these uses must also consider valuable vegetation
and breeding, resting, and concentration areas for important species
of wildlife.
150

Table 27. (Contd.)

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3. High Potential Risk to Natural Resources
Housing
Single Family Detached
Single Family Attached
Urban High Density
Retail and Service (Large)
Institutional/Professional (Large)
Fish and Shellfish Processing (Large Distributional)
Extraction
BSHTF
Storage Tanks (Large Tank Farm)
Transfer Facilities
Petroleum and Petroleum Products
Energy Generation Facilities
Recreation Large Crowd Gathering Facilities (Indoor, Outdoor)
Solid Waste (All Types)
Airports
Rationale:
Considering the extensively developed state of New Jersey's
barrier islands at present, further development by uses with
large site requirements, such as single family detached and
attached housing, large retail and service buildings, airports,
and others is considered as a high risk for the natural environ-
ment. Since this type is in essence, a natural protective feature
of the coast, the extraction of sand would also be undesirable.
The disposal of solid waste would be high risk due to the probable
involvement with groundwater and the potential of dispersement due
to major storm events.

TYPE: LOWLAND FINE SOILS

Risk Categorization:

1. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources
None
Rationale:
Within this type there may be located such special resource
areas as prime farmland and specialty soils, open space, and oak,
hickory, and pine forests. Therefore all uses at a minimum must
be mitigated to avoid harm to these areas.

2. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources with Appropriate
iitigation
Housing
Commercial
Institutional/Professional Facility

151

Table 27. (Contd.)

*Industrial
Fossil Fuel Energy Generation
Recreation
*Public Facilities
Transportation
Natural Resource Utilization
*except as in (3) below

Rationale:
Mitigation is required in some form for any use sited within
this type. In particular this mitigation should prevent environ-
mental damage to special resource areas. However, uses should
also be designed so as not to decrease aquifer recharge, degrade
the quality of groundwaters, decrease groundwater flows, decrease
surface water flows, or contaminate water supplies with toxic
substances, excess nutrients, or pathogens.

3. High Potential Risk to Natural Resources
Chemicals and Allied Products
Inorganic Chemicals
Organic Chemicals
Agricultural Chemicals
Petroleum and Petroleum Products
Petroleum Refining
Nuclear Electric Generation
Solid Waste Landfill
Rationale:
The uses listed for this type as high risk are those which have
major potential hazards associated with their operations. Uses in
lowlands are by definition located in proximity to streams or
estuaries and are often constructed in areas with high water tables.
The potential for highly toxic materials to reach the very valuable
edge or water types due to major storm events or accidents is the
major reason for the high risk category placement.

TYPE: LOWLAND MEDIUM SOILS

Risk Categorization:

1. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources
None
Rationale:
Same as for lowland fine soils noting, however, the addition
of the Pine Barrens and the exclusion of prime farmlands and
specialty soils as special resource areas within this type.

152

Table 27. (Contd.)

2. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources with Appropriate
Mitigation
Housing
Commercial
Institutional/Professional Facility
*Industrial
Fossil Fuel Energy Generation
Recreation
*Public Facilities
Transportation
Natural Resource Utilization

*except as in (3) below

Rationale:
Same as for lowland fine soils with additional consideration
due because the special resource Pine Barrens area is partially
included within this type.

TYPE: LOWLAND COARSE SOILS

Risk Categorization:

1. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources
None
Rationale:
Same as for lowland fine soils noting, however, the addition of
the Pine Barrens and the exclusion of prime farmlands and specialty
soils as special resource areas within this type.

153

Table 27. (Contd.)

*except as in (3) below

Rationale:
Same as for lowland fine soils and the changes in special
resource areas as pointed out above for this type. In addition,
coarse soils will allow a greater transference of changes in
groundwater quality to adjacent types and must be more carefully
mitigated.

TYPE: UPLAND COARSE SOILS

Risk Categorization:

1. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources
None
Rationale:
Lands of this type may have special resource areas, such as
coastal bluffs, Pine Barrens, open space, and oak, hickory and
pine forests located within them. Therefore, to preserve these
special areas and other plant and animal communities, no uses
should be allowed to site within this type without mitigative
measures being taken.

154

Table 27. (Contd.)

2. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources with Appropriate
Mitigation
Housing
Commercial
Institutional/Professional Facility
Industrial
Energy Generation
Recreation
Public Facilities
Transportation
Natural Resource Utilization
Rationale:
All uses that can locate on uplands have been placed within this
category as mitigatable. Mitigation will again be similar to that
discussed for lowland fine soils, with the additional caution that
the coarse soils have a greater infiltration rate than do fine soils.
Uses with hazards are considered to be mitigatable within this type
because ground and surface waters are less accessible from this
type than from lowland types by definition. Mitigative measures
should, therefore, be able to protect adjacent types from hazards
if these measures are stringent enough.

3. High Potential Risk to Natural Resources
None
Rationale:
See above explanation.

TYPE: UPLAND MEDIUM SOILS

Risk Categorization:

1. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources
None
Rationale:
Same as upland coarse soils part 1 with the addition of prime
farmland and specialty soils in considering special resources.

2. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources with Appropriate
Mitigation
Housing
Commercial
Institutional/Professional Facility
Industrial
Energy Generation
Recreation
Public Facilities

155

Table 27; (Concluded)

Transportation
Natural Resource Utilization
Rationale:
Same as discussed for lowland fine soils with additional
rationale added for upland coarse soils.

3. High Potential Risk to Natural Resources
None
RationalZe:
See above explanation.

TYPE: UPLAND FINE SOILS

Risk Categorization:

1. Low Potential Risk to Natural Resources
None
Rationale:
Same as upland coarse soils with the exclusion of the Pine
Barrens and the addition of prime farmlands and specialty soils
to the special resources which were of major concern.

3. High Potential Risk to Natural Resources
None
Rationale:
See above explanation.

156

B. PRIORITIZATION OF USES

The use constraints as listed in Table 27 lead naturally to the
elimination of certain high risk uses from certain land' and water types
in the coastal zone. The task of ranking preferred or priority uses
within categories 1 and 2 involves deciding among a mixture of necessary
and optional uses. The process basically involved ranking the uses in
order of compatibility with the stated goals and objectives based on a
consideration of each use and its potential environmental impact on coastal
resources through the specified use's impacting activities. Also considered
in the ranking process was the preferred land-water type location for a
certain use. Such preferred locations were inherent in the use constraints
analysis. For example, sewage outfalls were relegated to the high risk
category in water types "tidal ocean nearshore", "tidal semi-enclosed and
back bay", "tidal guts, inlets and canals", and "nontidal inland basin" due
to low assimilative capacity and a high potential for adverse effects
for several coastal resources (shellfish beds, migratory pathways and
prime spawning areas). The prioritized uses are listed in Table 28. The
major prioritization categories are "Preferred" and "Acceptable with Miti-
gation". Brief rationales are presented following each categorical listing.

The prioritization of uses was developed by a task force of terrestrial
and aquatic ecologists. The orientation was decidedly towards the protection
and enhancement of natural resources, and the ecologists viewed the coast
of New Jersey as an ecological entity which best serves as a recreational
resource and producer of valued commercial food products.-

A scenario of impacts on the natural processes and functions associated
with each land and water type was then developed for each use. Those
uses with the least severe impacts on natural coastal objectives were then
ranked as "Pref erred". Those with more severe potential impacts on objectives
were placed in the "Acceptable (with mitigation)" category.

Again, no formal quantification or formal valuation of impacts was
attempted for each use in each land and water type in the ranking process.
Rather, those key impacts which could be identified from the matrix process
as having the highest potential for adversely affecting the natural resource
objectives weighed heavily in the final prioritization decisions.

157

Table 28. Prioritized Uses

TYPE: TIDAL OCEAN NEARSHORE

Categorization:

1. Preferred:
Navigation
Recreation
Small Crowd Gathering Facilities
Shellfishing (Commercial, C)
Fishing (Commercial and Recreation, C&R)
Aquaculture

Rationale:
This type best serves as a producer of valuable natural and
recreational resources and valued fish and shellfish stocks. The listed
uses, if properly managed, are compatible with this natural resource
enhancement, public enjoyment, and thoughtful utilization viewpoint.

2. Acceptable (with Mitigation):
Extraction - Unconsolidated
Bulk Storage, Handling and Transfer Facilities (BSHTF)
Recreation
Large Crowd Gathering Facilities
Stormwater Outfall
Overboard Dumping (Non-Hazardous)
Dock

Rationale:
The uses listed here could be acceptable in this type if proper
mitigation measures were incorporated into the planning process. The
listed uses have aspects to their location, construction, or operation
which would need to be carefully regulated in order to avoid damaging the
integrity of the habitats and resources present within this type.

TYPE: TIDAL OCEAN OFFSHORE

Categorization:

1. Preferred:
Navigation
BSHTF
Cooling/Process Water Intake
Thermal Discharges
Shellfishing (C)
Fishing (C&R)
Aquaculture

158

Table 28. (Contd.)

Rationale:
Same as for Tidal Ocean Nearshore, except that the recognized need
for cooling/process intake water and thermal discharges is also preferred
in this type over other potential locational choices. If properly sited
and engineered, these additional uses should have a minimal impact on the
habitats and resources present in this type.

2. Acceptable (with Mitigation):

Extraction - Unconsolidated
BSHTF
Pipelines
Transfer Facilities
Buried Transmission Cables
Fossil Fuel Electrical Facility
Sewage Outfall
Stormwater Outfall
Overboard Dumping (Non-Hazardous)
Port
Marina

TYPE: TIDAL OPEN BAY

Categorization:

1. Preferred:
Recreation
Small Outdoor (Pier)
Marina
Dock
Navigation
Shellfishing (C&R)
Fishing (C&R)
Aquaculture

Rationale:
The rationale is the same as for Tidal Ocean Nearshore. This type
best serves as a producer of valuable natural and recreational resources and
valued fish and shellfish stocks. The listed uses, if properly managed,
are compatible with this natural resource enhancement, public enjoyment,
and thoughtful utilization viewpoint. The reader should note that support
facilities for recreational pursuits are also preferred.

159

Table 28. (Contd.)

2. Acceptable (with Mitigation):
BSHTF
Pipelines
Transfer Facilities
Aerial Transmission Lines
Buried Transmission Cables
Cooling/Process Water Intake
Thermal Discharges
Sewage Outfall
Stormwater Outfall
Overboard Dumping (Non-Hazardous)
Expressway
Rail
Port
Small Landing Field (Floating Pad)

Rationale:

The uses listed here could be acceptable in this type if proper
mitigation measures were incorporated into the planning process. The
listed uses have aspects to their location, construction, or operation
which would need to be carefully regulated in order to avoid damaging the
integrity of the habitats and resources present within this type.

TYPE: TIDAL SEMIENCLOSED AND BACK BAY

Categorization:

1. Preferred:
Recreation
Small Outdoor (Pier)
Shellfishing (C&R)
Fishing (C&R)

Rationale:
The rationale is the same as for Tidal Ocean Nearshore. The reader
will note, however, that due to the shallow nature of this type, navigation
is not a preferred use. Excessive boat traffic and the maintenance of
navigation channels for oversized craft can have an adverse effect on the
plant and animal communities present in this type. In our view navigation
in these areas should be restricted to smaller, shallow-draft boats, and
the prevailing practice of providing for over-sized craft should be
re-examined.

160

Table 28. (Contd.)

2. Acceptable (with Mitigation):
BSHTF
Pipelines
Aerial Transmission Lines
Buried Transmission Cables
Transportation
Auto
Rail
Marina
Dock
Navigation
Aquaculture

RationaZe:

TYPE: TIDAL GUTS, INLETS AND CANALS

Categorization:

1. Preferred:
Recreation
Small Outdoor (Pier)
Marina
Navigation
Shellfishing (C&R)
Fishing (C&R)

Rationale:
The rationale is the same as for Tidal Open Bay. This type best
serves as a producer of valuable natural and recreational resources and
valued fish and shellfish stocks. The listed uses, if properly managed,
are compatible with this natural resource enhancement, public enjoyment,
and thoughtful utilization viewpoint. The reader should note that support
facilities for recreational pursuits are also preferred.

161

Table 28. (Contd.)
2. Acceptable (with Mitigation):
BSHTF
Pipelines
Aerial Transmission Lines
Buried Transmission Cables
Transportation
Auto
Rail
Dock
Aquaculture

Rationale:

TYPE: TIDAL RIVERS

Categorization:

1. Preferred:
Recreation
Small Outdoor (Pier)
Marina
Dock
Navigation
Shellfishing (C&R)
Fishing (C&R)
Aquaculture

2. Acceptable (with Mitigation):
BSHTF
Pipelines
Transfer Facilities
Aerial Transmission Lines
Buried Transmission Cables
Cooling/Process Water Intake
Thermal Discharges

162

Table 28. (Contd.)
Centralized Water Supply Intake (Potable)
Sewage Outfall
Stormwater Outfall
Transportation
Auto
Rail
Port

Rationale:

TYPE: NONTIDAL INLAND BASIN

Categorization:

1. Preferred:
Recreation
Small Outdoor (Pier)
Dock
Fishing (R)

Rationale:

The rationale is the same as for Tidal Ocean Nearshore. The reader
will note, however, that due to the shallow nature of this type, navigation
is not a preferred use. Excessive boat traffic and the maintenance of
navigation channels for oversized craft can have an adverse effect on the
plant and animal communities present in this type. In our view navigation
in these areas should be restricted to smaller, shallow-draft boats, and
the prevailing practice of providing for over-sized craft should be
re-examined.

2. Acceptable (with Mitigation):

BSHTF
Pipeline
Aerial Transmission Lines
Buried Transmission Cables
Cooling/Process Water Intake
Thermal Discharge
Centralized Water Supply Intake (Potable)
Stormwater Outfall
Marina
Navigation
Shellfishing (R)
Fishing (C)
Aquacult ure

163

Table 28. (Contd.)

Rationale:

TYPE: NONTIDAL RIVERS

Categorization:

1. Preferred:
Dock
Fishing (R)

RationalZe:
The rationale is the same as for Tidal Ocean Nearshore. The reader
will note, however, that due to the shallow nature of this type, navigation
is not a prefered use. Excessive boat traffic and the maintenance of
navigation channels for oversized craft can have an adverse effect on the
plant and animal communities present in this type. In our view navigation
in these areas should be restricted to smaller, shallow-draft boats, and
the prevailing practice of providing for over-sized craft should be
re-examined. In addition, small outdoor pier-based recreation facilities
are not compatible with fishing and small boating. Small docks which are
properly sized for the river width and which do not involve extensive shore-
line alteration are the preferred support facilities for fishing pursuits
on these rivers.

2. Acceptable (with Mitigation):
BSHTF
Pipeline
Aerial Transmission Lines
Buried Transmission Cables
Cooling/Process Water Intake
Thermal Discharge
Centralized Water Supply Intake
Sewage Outfall
Stormwater Outfall
Transportation
Auto
Rail
Marina
Navigation
Shellfishing (R)
Fishing (C)
Aquaculture

164

Table 28. (Contd.)

Rationale:

TYPE: EDGE - OCEAN BEACH, FOREDUNES

OCEAN BEACH

Categorization:

1. Preferred:
Shellfishing (R)
Fishing (C&R)

Rationale:
These are the only preferred uses, because they fit the basic
rationale as stated above in Tidal Ocean Nearshore and they do not involve
alteration of the beach or changes in the dynamic erosion/accretion beach
development process.

2. Acceptable (with Mitigation):
BSHTF
Pipelines and Pumping Stations
Buried Transmission Cables
Recreation
Small Outdoor (Pier)
Overboard Dumping - Non-Hazardous

Rationale:

FOREDUNES

1. Preferred:
None

Rationale:
Foredunes are best left in their natural state - free to advance or
retreat as a result of natural erosion/accretion processes.

165

Table 28. (Contd.)

2. Acceptable (with Mitigation):
BSHTF
Pipelines
Buried Transmission Cables
Recreation
Elevated Public Walkways

Rationale:

TYPE: ESTUARINE BEACHES AND BARS

Categorization:

1. Preferred:
Shellfishing (C&R)
Fishing (C&R)

Rationale:
Same as Ocean Beach. These are the only preferred uses, because
they fit the basic rationale as stated above in Tidal Ocean Nearshore and
they do not involve alteration of the beach or changes in the dynamic
erosion/accretion beach development process.

2. Acceptable (with Mitigation):
BSHTF
Pipelines and Pumping Stations
Aerial Transmission Lines
Buried Transmission Cables
Recreation
Small Outdoor (Pier)
Transportation
Auto
Rail
Marina
Dock
Aquaculture

Rationale:

166

Table 28. (Contd.)
TYPE: TIDAL WETLANDS

Categorization:

1. Preferred:
None

Rationa Be:
Tidal wetlands are best left in a natural state due to the impor-
tance of their functions in the estuary and the rapid decrease in wetland
acreage in New Jersey over the past several decades.

2. Acceptable (with Mitigation):
BSHTF
Pipelines and Pumping Stations
Aerial Transmission Lines
Buried Transmission Cables
Recreation
Small Scale Outdoor (Walkways, Piers)
Sewage Outfall
Stormwater Outfall
Transportation
Auto
Rail
Marina
Dock

Rationale:

TYPE: NONTIDAL WETLANDS

Categorization:

1. Preferred:
Agriculture (standard water based row crops where presently
practiced)

Rationa le:
The only use which is preferred is the continuation of water-based
row crops. Nontidal wetlands which are not currently in production or
which have not historically been in production should be maintained in the
natural state because of its value as wildlife habitat.

167

Table 28. (Contd.)

2. Acceptable (with Mitigation):
Agriculture (standard water based row crops - new development)
BSHTF
Pipelines and Pumping Stations
Aerial Transmission Lines
Buried Transmission Cables
Recreation
Small Scale Outdoor (Walkways, Piers)
Stormwater Outfall
Transportation
Auto
Rail
Marina
Dock

Rationale:

TYPE: WET FOREST

Categorization:

1. Preferred:
Forestry (where presently practiced and with good management)

Rationale:
The only use which is preferred is the harvesting of commercial
forestry products where such activity is presently practiced. Forestry
activities should be well managed and result in a continuation of wet forest
habitat. Otherwise, the wet forest is best left in a natural state, because
of its value as wildlife habitat.

2. Acceptable (with Mitigation):
Forestry (new development areas)
BSHTF
Pipelines and Pumping Stations
Aerial Transmission Lines
Buried Transmission Cables
Recreation
Small Outdoor
Stormwater Outfall

168

Table 28. (Contd.)

Rationa le:

TYPE: CENTRAL BARRIER ISLAND CORRIDOR

Categorization:

la. Preferred:
(Existing Developed Corridor)
Recreation
Small - Indoor and Outdoor
Fish and Shellfish Processing
Small, Local

Rationa le:

This type best serves as a producer of valuable natural and
recreational resources and valued fish and shellfish stocks. The listed
uses, if properly managed, are compatible with this natural resource
enhancement, public enjoyment, and thoughtful utilization viewpoint.

lb. Preferred:
(Undeveloped Corridor)
None

Rationale:
Undeveloped central barrier island corridors are best left in
their natural state because of the treacherous nature of major storm events
and because of its value for mainland shore protection and habitat for a
distinct maritime plant and animal community.

2. Acceptable (with Mitigation):
Housing - Single Family Detached
Retail and Service (Small)
Institutional and Professional (Small)
BSHTF
Pipelines and Pumping Stations
Storage Tanks (Water, Propane)
Aerial Transmission Lines
Buried Transmission Cables
Centralized Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution
Centralized STP

169

Table 28.. (Contd.)

Transportation
Auto
Rail
Aquaculture

RationaZe:

TYPE: LOWLAND COARSE SOILS

Categorization:

1. Preferred:
Recreation
Natural Resource Utilization
(Agriculture only where presently practiced)
Rural Housing

Rationale:
The coast of New Jersey is viewed from the natural ecological
perspective as an entity which best serves as a recreational resource and
producer of valued commercial food products. The preferred uses of recrea-
tion, agriculture where practiced, and rural housing are compatible with
this view and if properly managed would result in attainment of the general
and special objectives for the coast of New Jersey.

2. Acceptable (with Mitigation):
Housing (except Rural above)
Commercial
Institutional/Professional Facilities
Industrial (excluding those hazardous categories
constrained as unacceptable)
Fossil Fuel Generation
Public Facilities (except solid waste landfills)
Transportation

Rationale:

170

3 ~~Table 28. (Contd.)
TYPE: LOWLAND MEDIUM1 SOILS

3 ~~~Categorization:

I. Preferred:
Recreation
Natural Resource Utilization
(Agriculture only where presently practiced)
I ~~~~~Rural Housing

Rczticnale:
The coast of New Jersey is viewed from the natural ecological
perspective as an entity which best serves as a recreational resource and
producer of valued commercial food products. The preferred uses of recrea-
tion, agriculture where practiced, and rural housing are compatible with
this view and if properly managed would result in attainment of the general
and special objectives for the coast of New Jersey.

* ~~~2. Acceptable (with Mitigation):
Housing (except Rural above)
Commercial
I ~ ~~~~Institutional/Professional Facilities
Industrial (excluding those hazardous categories constrained
as unacceptable)
I ~ ~~~~Fossil Fuel Generation
Public Facilities (except solid waste landfills)
Transportation

I R~~~~Ftionzale:

The uses listed here could be acceptable in this type if proper
I ~ ~mitigation measures were incorporated into the planning process. The
listed uses have aspects to their location, construction, or operation
which would need to be carefully regulated in order to avoid damaging the
I ~ ~integrity of the habitats and resources present within this type.

3 ~~TYPE: LOWLAND FINE SOILS

Categorization:

I ~~~1. Preferred:
Recreation
3 ~~~~~Natural Resource Utilization
(Agriculture only where presently practiced)
Rural Housing

3 ~~~Rat~ionale:
The coast of New Jersey is viewed from the natural ecological
3 ~~perspective as an entity which best serves as a recreational resource and

171

Table 28. (Contd.)

producer of valued commercial food products. The preferred uses of recrea-
tion, agriculture where practiced, and rural housing are compatible with
this view and if properly managed would result in attainment of the general
and special objectives for the coast of New Jersey.

Rationale:

TYPE: UPLAND COARSE SOILS

Categorization:

1. Preferred:
Recreation
Natural Resource Utilization
(Agriculture only where presently practiced)
Rural Housing

2. Acceptable (with Mitigation):
Housing (except Rural above)
Commercial
Institutional/Professional Facilities
Industrial
Energy Generation
Public Facilities
Transportation

172

Table 28. (Contd.)

IRcationale:

TYPE: UPLAND MEDIUM SOILS

Categorization:

1. Preferred:
Recreation
Natural Resource Utilization
(Agriculture only where presently practiced)
Rural Housing

2. Acceptable (with Mitigation):
Housing (except Rural above)
Commercial
Institutional/Professional Facilities
Industrial
Energy Generation
Public Facilities
Transportation

Rationale:

173

Table 28. (Concluded)

TYPE: 'UPLAND FTNE SO1LS

Categorization:

1. Preferred:
Recreation
Natural Resource Utilization
(Agriculture only where presently practiced)
Rural Housing

Ra t-'ona L :
The coast of New Jersey is viewed from the natural ecological
perspective as an entity which best serves as a recreational resource and
producer of valued commercial food products. The preferred uses of recrea-
tion, agriculture where practiced, and rural housing are compatible with
this view and if properly managed would result in attainment of the general
and special objectives for the coast of New Jersey.

2. Acceptable (with Mitigation):
Housing (except Rural above)
Commercial
Institutional/Professional Facilities
Industrial
Energy Generation
Public Facilities
Transportation

Ratio7naLe:

174

XI. RECLAMATION

New Jersey's coastal zone encompasses a variety of.highly sensitive and
valuable ecocystems including the dune, beach, barrier island; the estuarine
wetlands and the shoreland lakes and rivers. Portions of these and other
types within the coastal zone have been impacted by man's activities.
The following section will address these impacted areas, (citing specific
examples of each), potential mitigating measures, existing and potential values,
and the cost and feasibility of reclamation where possible. These sites
have been ranked into three groups by suitability for reclamation when
considering all the previously discussed parameters. These groups are;
priority I for most feasible and suitable, priority II for very suitable,
and priority III for moderately suitable for reclamation.

A. PRIORITY I

Beaches and Dunes:

New Jersey's dunes and beaches from Sandy Hook to Cape May have
suffered serious erosion due to man's construction activities. The dune
system normally provides a source of sand to the beach during erosional
periods and serves as a sand storage area during accretionary periods; this
means the dune line naturally shifts its position. Man's construction on
the dunes and behind them has halted this movement. Subsequent erosional
periods may severely erode the dunes or destroy them altogether. Examples
of these types of impacts have taken place at Avon-by-the-Sea and Sandy
Hook.

Beaches also follow erosion and accretion cycles, normally in a summer
accretion, winter erosion pattern. However man's construction of shore
protection structures such as groins, jetties, and breakwaters causes net
losses in the volume of littoral drift sands. Shore stabilization structures,
in particular seawalls; accentuate erosion of beaches on the oceanside of
the structures by increasing the turbulence of waves in that area. Examples
of areas with beaches impacted by these kinds of construction activities
include Monmouth Beach and Sandy Hook.

Mitigating measures for beach and dune degradation depend on the extent
of damage to the system. If dunes are not breached or entirely gone, snow
fencing or other types of fencing placed parallel to the shoreline on the
foreslope of the primary dunes and spaced fifty feet apart may help to restore
the sand reservoir of the dunes.

Dunes may also be stabilized and augmented through revegetation with
dune grass, Ammophila breviligulata. This operation is discussed in
detail by Jagschitz and Wakefield (1971), Woodhouse and Hanes, (1968) and
Simonds (1978) with costs per acre reaching $2,200.00 for plants alone or
$4,500.00 for plants and professional emplacement (1977 prices, verbal
communications Mr. Church, Church's Greenhouse and Nursery, Cape May, NJ;
and Mr. Raley, R and R Beachgrass, Lewes, Delaware, October 1977).

175

Additional measures that should be taken to restore and preserve damaged
dunes are restricted access, the use of elevated walkways, and a development
construction setback area either 50 feet from present dunes or at the predicted
50 year back edge of the dunes (Clark 1977). Dune restoration may also be
accomplished through nourishment with sand. Usually this involves finding a
source with acceptable grain size sand, transporting it to the site, grading
it into dunes and an expanded beach, and revegetating or fencing the dune
to help stabilize it.

The value of the beach-dune areas of the coastal zone is mainly to the
resort industry which generates over $2.6 billion annually in New Jersey
(Yasso and Hartman 1975). The loss of beach area invariably leads to a
reduction in resort use. Beach and dune restoration will not only benefit
the resort industry on restored sites but also those sites downdrift which
will receive an increased supply of sand through longshore transport. Dune
restoration will also help protect development that is properly placed
a moderate distance from the dunes. CCES (1978b) and Yasso and Hartman
(1975) have found this technique to be less expensive, and more beneficial
than structural (groin, seawall) solutions to beach and dune erosion. Beach
and dune restoration, therefore, should be considered a very feasible
and environmentally sound reclamation project for damaged areas.

Wetlands:

When the State Wetlands Act of 1970 virtually stopped the filling of
estuarine wetlands, many areas were left partially filled and covered with
dredge spoils, or partially dredged and diked for lagoon developments.

Several measures should be taken to restore these areas to wetland
status. Unfinished lagoon developments should have their channels filled
to just below 'natural' marsh elevation with materials from previously
filled areas thereby leveling them. The whole system then should be planted
with Spartina alterniflora or Spartina patens. Diked spoil areas and fill
areas should have their dikes breached in a number of places, spoil piles
leveled, tidal flushing of site restored where possible by creating shallow
canals. High elevation areas also should be planted with American holly,
red or white cedar, bayberry, beach plum and Ammophila sp.

The existing value of these sites in their degraded condition is
mainly as a possible roosting and nesting site for shorebirds. Often they
are covered with Phragmites communis which eliminates most of their wildlife
habitat value and provides good mosquito breeding grounds. Planting
Spartina after leveling will increase the waste and suspended solids
assimilative capacity of the wetlands, and contribute to the overall
productivity of the estuarine environment. Spartina would have a special
value to wildlife, shellfish, and finfish as a basic food source and habitat.

176

The feasibility of estuarine wetland reclamation is very good in a
total ecosystem analysis. However, as separate sites, the value of the
restored wetlands to the site owner is difficult to show. Increased fish,
shellfish, and wildlife numbers will generally benefit the recreational and
commercial users of the estuarine and ocean waters. Public funds would,
therefore, seem the most appropriate source for reclamation. In addition,
reclamation of these sites could be tied into conditionally acceptable
development projects in nearby areas as one of the permit conditions.

Surface Waters:

Water quality has been degraded in many surface waters due to man's
activities. These areas include the lower portions of the Hackensack, Hudson,
Raritan, Passaic and Delaware Rivers; Newark, Raritan, Shrewsbury and
Navesink bays, and at times such as during the fishkill of 1976, small
areas of the Atlantic Ocean.

Restoration of surface water quality in large part involves the en-
forcement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. Virtually
all point discharge sources are required to follow the regulations of this
act in which case they are not, or by 1985 should not be polluting.
In addition, all dredging projects must obtain a US Army Corps of
Engineers permit before they may proceed, which involves public discussion
and coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if the
project is essential and to minimize impacts on fish and wildlife.

An important source of pollution in the Hudson River, New York Bay,
and Raritan Bay is the discharge of untreated or poorly treated sewage.
A major source of this organic loading is the New York City sewage treatment
system. This system is set up with combined stormwater and sewage sewers
and during high intensity or prolonged rainfall periods large amounts of
untreated or poorly treated sewage enter the Hudson River estuary. The
State of New Jersey should continue to work with the State of New York to
solve this persistent and pervasive problem.

Another significant factor which needs to be controlled in order to
improve the water quality in degraded surface waters is runoff from nonpoint
pollution sources. The man-disturbed lands within the coastal zone
contribute large amounts of suspended solids, nutrients, biocides, BOD
(biological oxygen demand), acids, salts, petroleum products and at times
heavy metals (Clark 1977, NJDEP 1978c; Parnell 1976)

Clark (1977) and McKenzie (1978) suggest a variety of schemes which
should be followed to improve the quality of surface waters through runoff
reduction. These include: For agriculture, encourage the reduced use of
biocides, encourage moderate fertilizer use, encourage contour farming
of all sites where runoff occurs and strip cropping with close growing
crops such as alfalfa in areas of high erosion potential, use vegetated
buffers and grassed outlets to catch sediments in runoff that does occur,

177

use biological controls for pests such as sex attractants rather than
chemical controls, for lowland farming grow crops which do not require
drainage, locate feedlots on high ground and on impermeable surfaces and
I
treat effluent.

For developments the following policies should be incorporated;
detention basins should be utilized for catchment of watershed runoff
and be located as far horizontally and vertically from surface waters as
-.ossible, perferably in uplands; prevent excessive paving and reduce
amounts of existing paving particularly in recharge areas, prevent
alteration of natural configurations of shorelines, restrict the
excavation of canals in coastal floodplains and the margins of coastal
water basins, and conserve ground and surface waters to avoid saltwater
intrusion and the removal of suspended life.

Several other control measures should be incorporated in order to
improve the water quality of degraded surface waters. These are: the
minimization of accidental spills, the restoration of natural surface and
groundwater flow rates, the control of boat speeds in shallow or narrow
estuarine areas prone to erosion, sewering of outdated and poorly
functioning septic systems, prohibition of the offshore dumping of wastes,
and the control of thermal effluents in surface waters.

The existing value of the degraded coastal waters of New Jersey is in
terms of the plant and animal species diversity and abundance in spite
of the pollution, the large water areas accessable to millions of residents
for non-contact recreation, these same large water areas that protect the
lands from the force of the sea, and the capacity of these waters to
assimilate at least partially the immense waste loads they receive. The
potential value of these degraded areas is given perspective by noting the
economic losses incurred in the summer of 1976 due to the formation of a
thermocline and a man-induced algae bloom in the ocean waters off the New
I
Jersey coast (`UJDEP 1977c).
Estimated Cost of the 1976 Fishkill
Dollars inI
Millions

25.000 Loss in sport fishing revenues

1.445 Loss in commercial finfish stocks (over 4-year period)

2.070 Loss in commercial lobster catch (over 4-year period)

65.000 Loss in commercial sea clam stocks (over 7-year period*)

171.300 Loss in associated economy due to reduced commercial
landings 3

264.815 TOTAL
* based upon estimate that only 70% of lost stocks are harvestable.

178
U

In the absence of ocean dumping of solid waste and the release of
liquid wastes, this fishkill probably would not have occurred.

Improvements in the water quality of polluted surface waters would
benefit the fish and shellfish populations by increasing breeding, nursery
and feeding areas and food supplies, thereby increasing commercial and
sport harvests. It would also increase the recreational areas open to
primary contact water sports, and increase the resort industry in these
areas. Improved water quality may also allow the recovery of surrounding
wetlands which may increase water quality through waste assimilation.

Although no direct cost analyses are available for reclamation of
degraded surface water's quality through runoff control and other measures,
many of these measures could be inexpensively incorporated into
agricultural techniques, boating and shipping regulations and development
site runoff and drainage guidelines. Comparing these basically short-term
costs against the long-term benefits of improved surface water productivity
and recreational and resort revenues, the proposed improvements should be
a very cost effective reclamation project.

Submerged Vegetation:

Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is suggested by CCES (1978a) as the
most important submerged rooted aquatic plant in New Jersey's estuarine
waters. According to NJDEP (1977b), New Jersey's eelgrass beds were
virtually wiped out by an epidemic of a parasitic slime mold during the
1930's. Subsequent recovery of this submerged aquatic has re-established
it well only in Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor. In this instance
man's activities have not caused the decline in eelgrass but may be a
factor in impeding its recovery in New Jersey's estuaries by increasing
turbidity and salinity in many areas.

Reclamation for submerged eelgrass beds should take the form of
replanting shallow barren areas where light intensities, substrates,
salinities (10-40 0/oo), and wave actions are suitable for growth. Generally
only depths between 0.5 m and 1.6 m at low tide are suitable due to the
high turbidity of New Jersey's Bays while substrates may range from soft
mud to gravel or coarse sand (CCES 1978a). Areas where plantings
may be feasible include non-vegetated portions of estuarine bays which
fulfill the above environmental criteria. Specific examples include
the Shrewsbury River, Shark River, Manasoiuan River, Little Bay, Reed Bay,
and Absecon Bay in areas determined by on-site inspections. Additional
sites may include trenching sites for sewer and water lines or various
cables.

The existing value of shallow non-vegetated estuarine bottomlands is
for benthic habitat. Shellfish beds are'often located in these areas even
though heavy suspended solids loads absorb algae species and are commonly
associated with these barren shallows. Finfish and crabs may feed in these
areas but the lack of cover exposes them to predation and food supplies
are not normally plentiful.

179

The potential value of these areas is many times the existing value.
They could provide important breeding and/or nursery habitat for a large
variety of finfish and shellfish including eels, bluefish, spot, weakfish,
flounder, blue claw crabs, soft shelled clams, and bay scallops. Bay
scallops would particularly benefit from an eelgrass establishment
project, since eelgrass provides their major breeding and nursery habitat.
Waterfowl such as Brant and Black ducks are dependent upon eelgrass as
a food source. Eelgrass is also valuable as a substrate stabilizer, a
wave cushion, a contributor to the food chains of the ecosystem and as
a substrate for epiphytic algae and associated fauna.

Eelgrass is also viewed by some as an undesirable weed, washing up on
beaches in masses, fouling boat propellers, and interfering with some of
man's recreation activities. Commercial harvest of eelgrass has also
been conducted at times in New Jersey.

No cost data are available for planting eelgrass and the possible
returns,but increased finfish, shellfish, and waterfowl populations and
improved water quality should make large projects economically feasible.

B. PRIORITY II

Diked Wetlands:

Wetland areas in New Jersey which were diked and leveed between 1953
and 1973 were recorded by (NJDEP 1973). These man-made
alterations eliminated most of the fish and shellfish values and many of
the wildlife values of these areas totaling 11% of the total marshland
available in 1953 (NJDEP, 1973). The major alteration types and
the acreages involved were; salt hay, 10,679 acres, other agriculture, I
5,996 acres, muskrat impoundments 3,876 acres, mosquito control impound-
ments 2,481 acres, road embankments 2,991 acres and waterfowl impoundments 2,781 acreI
These areas are located in various regions of the coastal zone. In
general, salt hay farming is common in the central Delaware
Bay wetlands, agricultural and muskrat impoundments are found on the
upper Delaware area, mosquito control impounding is common in the lower
Delaware Bay area of Cape May County, while roads and waterfowl impound-
ments have impacted wetlands on many federal and state-owned
conservation lands.

Two basic reclamation techniques have been suggested by Ferrigno et ai.
(1969). These are: 1) to restore the periodic tidal flows over the marsh- I
lands by multiple breaching of dikes or culverting roadways or dikes; this
technique should be utilized where roadways block marsh circulation and
on diked low marshes (substrate level below mean high tide). 2) Emplace-
ment of spillways in high marsh areas flooded utilizing open water manage-
ment techniques for waterfowl and muskrat propagation.. These spillways
should allow spring tides to inundate marshes and maintain their tidal
productivity, provide killifish populations for mosquito control, and improve
wildlife food and habitat.

180~ ~I
180

The existing and potential values of the diked and leveed wetlands
mentioned here are: a) for salt hay and agricultural areas the existing
values are for the production of salt.hay while providing very poor
wildlife habitat and good mosquito breeding grounds; the potential values
when restored as recommended would be increased estuarine productivity,
good fish and wildlife habitat, and poor mosquito habitat; b) for
blocked narshes and those diked and pumped out for mosquito control, the
axisting values are moderate breeding habitat for fish and wildlife. The
potential value of these areas following the utilization of the above re-
clamation methods is as highly productive estuarine wetland providing good
fish and wildlife habitat and poor mosquito breeding habitat; c) for
waterfowl and muskrat impoundment areas, the existing values are the area's
good wildlife habitat, although Phragmites communis tends to dominate non-
flooded areas eliminating some food supplies, and the decreased estuarine
productivity. The potential value of these areas with lower dikes to
permit some spring tide inundation is good wildlife habitat and food
supplies (by keeping the Phragmites minimized) and improved estuarine
productivity by spring tide and storm flows to and from the marshes and the
estuaries (Ferrigno et al.. 1969).

The major problem of these reclamation schemes is that the majority of
the lands are under private ownership and the reclamation does little to
directly benefit the landowner with the exception of the waterfowl and
muskrat impoundment management techniques. State or federal purchase
of the impacted land then is usually a prerequisite for practicing the
restoration techniques and may be unfeasible in most cases.

Stream Flows:

The stream flow of many coastal streams has been altered by man
through excessive water withdrawal, decreased groundwater recharge and
increased runoff due to development, and increased evaporation by damming.
These impacting activities may increase floodflows or decrease low flows
especially during drought periods. Streams which have been impacted in
this way include Cedar Creek near Cedarville, the Cooper River in Camden,
and others.

Measures which should be taken for the restoration of these streams
are: the installation of street swales, retention basins and check dams
(in headwater swales), the removal of impervious surfaces where feasible,
revegetation of barren areas, elimination of existing obstacles to water
passage in stream channels, utilization of groundwater recharge in proper
soils for disposal of sewage effluents, control of groundwater withdrawals,
and conservation of water withdrawn from groundwaters, reservoirs, and
streams (USEPA, 1976 Clark 1977).

The existing value of streams where flows have become intermittant
due to damming, overuse, limited recharge or other factors, is minimal.
Their contribution to the tidal flushing of the estuaries is small except
during flood flows when they carry large silt and debris loads. Fauna in
these streams are not highly diverse nor unique because of the streams highly
variable flow regime. The potential value of these streams, with flows
regulated and augmented by comprehensive minimization of land runoff and
maximization of recharge, would be much greater than the existing values.
In the upper reaches freshwater fauna would be diverse and abundant and il
the lower tidal areas anadromous fish might spawn or migrate. Other
fish and shellfish would benefit from the constantly reduced salinities and
tidal flushing at the estuarine confluences of these streams.

Restoration of stream flows in highly developed areas would be
difficult and expensive as room for recharge areas may not exist or
would be considered prime real estate. However, restoration of dammed
streams or streams in moderately or sparsely populated areas would be much
less expensive and therefore much more feasible.

C. PRIORITY III

Dredge Holes:

Dredge holes in New Jersey's estuarine waters were studied extensively
by Murawski (1969), and found to often have anoxic (containing no dissolved
oxygen) waters in their lower levels. These waters prohibit benthic growth
and may cause H2S gas production. The locations of some of these holes
are in Great Thorofare near Atlantic City, in Collins Cove of the Mullica
River, in northwestern Absecon Bay, in Silver Bay (2), and in Barnegat
Bay near Harvey Cedars and near Mantoloking Estates.

The best measure to restore the lost benthic habitat and correct the
H,S and low dissolved oxygen concentrations would be to fill anoxic areas
flush to surrounding substrates, possibly using inexpensive, clean, coarse,
dredge spoils. The existing value of these areas is only during the
winter months when fish may congregate in the warmer waters found in the
hole while attempting to avoid the anoxic and H2S saturated areas. The
potential value of these areas would be as increased benthic habitat
providing additional yearround productive bottomlands for the estuary.
The loss of the marginally beneficial congregation areas should not
significantly affect the estuarine fish of these areas.

Since dredge spoil disposal areas are always in demand, a request
from the State of New Jersey to the US Army Corps of Engineers, asking to
have these holes filled flush to surrounding areas should not require any
financial contribution from the state. Therefore filling of anoxic or
H2S saturated dredge holes should be a very feasible reclamation project.
Also to be considered, is the cost of monitoring dredged spoil to insure
that water quality standards are met.

182

Land:

The lands of the coastal zone are exposed to a variety of uses
including agriculture, development, industry and recreation. Often during
I ~ ~the use of the land the natural plant species are destroyed and the anai~al
species are displaced. Favorable reclamation areas on the land may include
abandoned rail lines, agricultural lands, developments, industrial sites or
land fills. Two sites that have been filled which are examples of areas
I t~~hat could be reclaimed are the abandoned menhaden factorly on Seven
Island and the abandoned Coast Guard station near Little Beach,, both on
3 'n~ublic lands in Great Bay.

Reclamation should include grading to near natural contours and
planting with native species utilizing an integrated landscaping plan
I ~ ~(Clark 1977). The Green Acres program provides an excellent tool for
this type of reclamation.

I ~~~The existing value of these types of sites is based on their real estate values,
and in the case of abandoned farmlands in particular, on their wildlife
habitat value. Potentially these areas when reclaimed could enhance upland
wildlife diversity and abundance in depressed areas, provide movement
corridors through developed areas and increase recreational and aesthetic
values.

I ~~~Costs for renovation are important considerations in determining the
feasibility of this program. In many cases where real estate values
are high, this program may be promoted by making site restoration a
I ~ ~contingency for receiving a development permit (Clark 1977). The
restoration will also benefit the landowner by increasing the area's
appeal and real estate value. The direct purchase and reclamation for
wildlife habitat is likely to be feasible only in depressed areas of low
real estate value and when public funds such as the Green Acres program
funds, are used.

183

PART THREE'

MANAGEMENIT REPORT

XII. Institutional Framework for Coastal Zone Management by the State of
New Jersey

New Jersey for many years has been involved in the management of
selected environmental resources of the coastal area for the benefit of the
citizens of the State and of the Nation. This chapter outlines the bases
for and the extent of State regulatory and technical activities relating to
the environment of the coastal areas of New Jersey. These activities are
the foundation for future State actions pursuant to the New Jersey Coastal
Management Program in accordance with the Federal Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972.

A. Context of the Federal Legislation

The Coastal Zone Management Act (Public Law 92-583) was signed into law
by the President on 27 October 1972. In this Act Congress recognized the
important values and resources of the coastal zone of the Nation, and the
need for strengthening existing public controls over development that
threatens those resources. According to Section 302 (h) of the Act:

The key to more effective protection and use of the land
and water resources of the coastal zone is to encourage
the states to exercise their full authority over the
lands and waters ... in cooperation with Federal and local
governments ... for dealing with land and water use decisions of
more than local significance.

In order to assist the states in exercising their full authority, the
Coastal Zone Management Act authorized Federal cooperation, technical
assistance, and funding to the states. Section 305 authorized grants to
defray as much as 66% (later increased to 80%) of a coastal state's
expenditure to develop management programs over a four-year period.
Programs subsequently approved in accordance with Section 306 are eligible
for continuing Federal grants to offset as much as 80% of the costs of their
administration. Specific minimum requirements set by Congress in Sections
305 and 306 must be met before a state program can be funded with the
administrative grants under Section 306.

The Federal review and funding of state coastal zone management
programs is accomplished by the Office of Coastal Zone Management in the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a part of the United
States Department of Commerce. Detailed approval criteria, procedures, and
policies appear at 15 CFR 923 (43 FR 41:8378-8431, 1 March 1978). In
general, every state program eligible for funding must be demonstrated to
(1) offer comprehensive protection for the spectrum of coastal zone
resources threatened by development, (2) provide a clearly articulated and
predictable regulatory procedure, and (3) possess sufficient legal authority
to insure its enforceability.

184

A Section 308 was added to the Coastal Zone Management Act by Public
Law 94-370 on 26 July 1976. This section established additional mechanisms
for Federal assistance to state and local governments that must cope with
che impacts of outer continental shelf petroleum and other forms of energy
development by creating a Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP). Eligible
states are those already receiving development (Section 305) or
administration (Section 306) grants. Tne amendment also authorized grants
and Federal technical assistance for interstate planning (Section 309) and
for research on coastal zone problems (Section 310). Federal matching funds
were authorized for state estuarine sanctuaries, island preservation, and
beach access efforts (Section 315).

These several Federal assistance programs provide a major incentive for
coastal states to participate in coastal zone management. A second
important incentive for state development of a coastal management program is
that an approved program gives a state additional influence over Federal
actions and outer continental shelf lands. Both direct Federal actions on
Federal lands and elsewhere, and Federally licensed, approved, or funded
actions in the coastal zone, are to be consistent with the state program to
the maximum extent practicable, once the state plan has been approved
(Section 307(c)]. Hence the states can insure that a wide variety of
Federal actions is coordinated with state policies by implementing coastal
programs. This consistency provision gives a state an opportunity to have
its views considered by Federal agencies that regulate the development of
outer continental shelf (OCS) lands [Section 307(c)(3)(B)I, which otherwise
are not subject to state jurisdiction. The consistency provision also may
allow the state to recover some control over facilities otherwise subject to
Federal preemption, such as natural gas facilities. The state-managed
coastal zone, however, does not include Federal lands, that is, lands
subject solely to the discretion of the Federal Government because of lease
or ownership or held in trust by the Federal Government [Section 304(1)].
IMajor Federal lands excluded from the state-managed New Jersey coastal zone
include military bases, arsenals, and depots; National Recreation Areas; and
National Wildlife Refuges (Figure 5).

The President's environmental message of August 1979 announced three
initiatives to continue and enhance coastal resource protection. First, the
Administration will submit proposed legislation to extend Federal assistance
for continuing support of State management programs. Second, amendments are
to be recommended for the Coastal Zone Management Act to establish a
National coastal protection policy. The goals of the policy, to be
implemented by the States, are:

a to protect significant natural resources such as wetlands,
estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, coral reefs,
and fish and wildlife;

* to management coastal development to minimize loss of life
and property from floods, erosion, saltwater intrusion, and
subsidence;

� to provide predictable siting processes for major defense,
energy, recreation,and transportation facilities;

185

a to increase public access to the coast for recreation
purposes;

a to preserve and restore historic, cultural, and aesthetic
coastal resources; and

* to coordinate and simplify government decisionmaking to
ensure proper and expedited management of the coastal
zone.

Third, NOAA is to review Federal programs that affect the coastal zone and
propose any additional legislation needed to achieve the coastal goals.

B. Strategic Option Selected by New Jersey

The Coastal Zone Management Act offers states a choice among three
general techniques for the control of land and water uses in the coastal
zone (Section 306[e]). First, a state may establish criteria and standards
for local government implementation, subject to state administrative review
and backup enforcement of compliance. Second, a state may undertake land
and water use planning and regulation directly. Third, a state may review
individual proposals, development projects, land and water regulations, and
variances or exceptions to regulations on a case by case basis, with
approval or disapproval after public notice and opportunity for comment.

New Jersey has opted for direct State control under the existing State
laws which entrust the Department of Environmental Protection and other
Departments with control over selected areas and selected uses of coastal
resources of greater than local significance. The direct State control in
many situations is in addition to independent controls by local and by
Federal agencies. The State does not intend to regulate all development
activities in all parts of the coastal zone under its management program,
but only those of greater than local importance for which there is now or is
in future legislative authority.

The Bureau of Coastal Planning and Development has produced a number of
documents for public review as it developed its management program. Special
attention was given by the consultant to the 1978 Final Environmental Impact
Statement on the Bay and Shore Segment (NJ-DEP/NOAA 1978) and to revisions
proposed during March 1979 for adapting policies to the developed sections
of the New Jersey coastal zone (NJ-DEP 1979). This report dwells
particularly on those coastal management agencies and procedures which are
relatively briefly remarked or are neglected in existing BCPD documents in
an attempt to supplement those reports.

C. Bases for State Controls in the New Jersey Coastal Zone

The State of New Jersey regulates directly a number of specific
activities and specific locations within the coastal zone. Existing
statutes selectively give the State authority over new construction, land
and water uses, and State lands in the coastal zone.

186

:NN

0~~~~~~~~~~~.N

WAVORA I ~NC . . .. . '

* ~ ~ ~ icr .Fdrlfcltesta r ob xlddfo h NewJre

CD~~~~~~~~~--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~187

1. Department of Environmental Protection

The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) performs a host of
functions regulating land use and pollution control. It also is responsible
for implementing the New Jersey Coastal Management Program, and for
continued coastal planning. Created by the Legislature in 1970, the
Department was given broad authority to "formulate comprehensive policies
for the conservation of the natural resources of the State ..." (NJSA
i3:1D-9). The organizational structure of DEP is indicated in Figure 6.

The Division of Coastal Resources, which includes the key regulatory
and planning agencies for implementing the State Coastal Zone Management
Program, is one of four units of DEP which report to the Assistant
Commissioner for Natural Resources. The others are the Division of Fish,
Game, and Shell Fisheries; the Division of Parks and Forestry; and the Green
Acres and Recreation Program. These agencies are mentioned first in the
ensuing paragraphs. Then other regulatory and planning agencies are
described which are administered by the Assistant Commissioner for
Environmental Management and Control (Division of Water Resources, Division
of Environmental Quality, Solid Waste Administration) and the Assistant
Commissioner for Science and Research (Environmental and Historic Sites
Review, Environmental Analysis, Bureau of Geology and Topography,
Environmental Cancer Research and Toxic Substances, and Environmental
Disaster Response).

a. Division of Coastal Resources

Formerly, the Division of Marine Services, this unit includes five
offices that discharge coastal regulatory responsibilities. The Division is
specifically responsible for the development and implementation of the New
Jersey Coastal Management Program. Detailed analyses of key regulatory
programs of the Division, together with the activities of the Natural
Resource Council, are presented in Chapter XIV of this report. The
following paragraphs provide a brief overview of the activities of the
Division.

The Division of Coastal Resources replaced the former Division of
Marine Services (established during 1971) during June 1979 as a result of
Commissioner's Administrative Order 17. The names of its constituent
offices were changed at the same time, to reflect a reorganization of
functions that is expected to contribute to more effective and efficient
operations (Figure 7). The Office of the Director oversees administration
of the Division. The Office of Coastal Zone Management (DEP-OCZM) in the
Bureau of Planning and Development is the lead agency for coastal planning.

A new Bureau of Coastal Project Review consolidates the administration
of three major project review authorities. It administers the 1973 Coastal
Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) permit program (NJSA 13:19-1 at seq.).
CAFRA gives authority for regulating specified facilities, outside mapped
wetlands, that are proposed for construction within a defined coastal area.
It also administers the permit program for coastal wetlands pursuant to NJSA
13:9A-1 et seq. The 1970 Wetlands Act provides the authority to regulate
uses of coastal wetlands that have been formally mapped and made subject to
Wetlands Orders following public notice and hearings. Finally, this Bureau
now administers the waterfront development permit program (NJSA 12:5-3).
The Bureau of Tidelands provides staff to an appointed body, the Natural

138

m -m m m m -m - m m m mm-m-

DLI? ORGANIZATIONAl. STLRUJCT1URE

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I II -

~~~Diviinor W-etfIj~AEUA ANDIOJMN

DIVj5ION OF MkwINE SER ICES DIVISON OIc WATE j syogIIWNM IESUA 564aN
WASTAL ZO0NE A"ATQA PLAMMINGN 4 MMAtaAIfEIT IRO.JWARAL, M4MYSIS REGULATORY APFAIRS
pprII"JUAI IMS A"AEANAT fUc WATER BUPPL'V I PLCXoo- GEOLOGY ANO TOPOGIAPfI UER.VRNE4A
WETLANJDS NAftwmurMJt GQbCa PLAIN MANAGEMENT EIJVI"14MNJVTAL CAMCER COPGRATI
5.14ORE PRamrETION PubLIC WASUWATEIFARITE rhlklsAESEzAat.M A4o, -o.-AC LE41SLATIVE, REVIEW
MARIN4E PourFLIL1110 CEo N
ENFORCEMFN't EVRNETLDS~

DIVISION OF FISH CAME
MJL -qMKLL FlullEWiEs DIVISION OF~ FNVk~I4O
FiswERIEs MAANAGEMENT IME14TAL GUPALITY
WILDLIF1 AAAGrLEMET AIR PoLLuTIoNA
SIFLI.FiSMERIES 0M.ANGEAEI RADIATION
ENDAMUGRED AND NON- IPESTICIDES
.AmE SPECIES j OIst
LAW E"Pop"LMENT
EDCATiOWAL. SERVICES,

DIVISION OF PARKS ANDj
]FOR~ESTRY SOLID W'ASTE AUXIbJIS-
.STATE PfAAI4S 4 Fo~af-sr TWAIO94
FOREUTRY ~~~~~~~~PLAMN1IN& AND DE-5450
FOREST MAINAGRIAEPAT Tr"MI4ICAL SERtvICS
MARINAS j WPISTE
HIST-ORIC SITES

GPXL~t4 ALMES AND AECRE- DEPAIXTMfNT ADMINIVIRATION
ATiOM4AI OP9OCrIJNITIES PEP-SOHNNL AND AMNPOW11f
PP06AM PLANNING AND A&L"DMATED
LOCAL GRANTS SYSITEMS
LAUD ACOUI6SITION NEW JEftEv ak"Doo0 V
TAX EXEMPT IoN APR MAM MATEI" MAWA(EMI!NT
PIRY-~.ATIOtI PLANNINS CAPITAL IMPROVStMwJ~
LEASE$ FISCAL O1PERATIONS
LAGAL bEIWicES
Figure 6. DEP Organizational Structure, 1978.

Resource Council, which must approve the sale or lease from the State of
tidally flowed lands prior to development, and which hears appeals on
waterfront development permits. Implementation of the regulatory programs
of the Division and monitoring encroachments upon State-owned lands now are
the responsibility of the Bureau of Coastal Enforcement and Field Services.

Decisions made under CAFRA, wetlands, and waterfront development permit
programs are signed by the Director of the Division of Coastal Resources.
The "90-Day Construction Permit Regulations" (NJAC 7:1C-1 et seq.) apply to
all three permit programs, and they insure that coastal permit decisions
will be made in a timely manner. Real estate decisions of the Natural
Resource Council are reviewed by the Commissioner of DEP, who must sign the
minutes of the Council. Administrative appeals of CAFRA and wetlands permit
decisions are made to the Commissioner of DEP.

The Bureau of Coastal Engineering is in charge of the beach erosion
control program in cooperation with other Federal, State, and municipal
agencies. It controls the expenditure of bond monies for erosion control.
It is also responsible for cooperation with the Corps of Engineers in
dredging tributaries to the Intracoastal Waterway from Manasquan Inlet to
the Cape May Canal and for providing dredged spoil disposal sites.

The Bureau of Marine Law Enforcement administers and enforces
marine-oriented state laws, commercial and sport fishing laws, and laws
prohibiting shellfish harvesting from condemned waters. The Bureau also is
responsible for placing and maintaining navigational aids in the inland
water channels. A basic boatman's safety course is offered by this Office
to acquaint boaters with the fundamentals of safe boating practices.

The Office of the Assistant Director for Policy, Regulation, and
Management supervises the Bureaus of Coastal Planning and Development, of
Coastal Enforcement and Field Services, and of Coastal Project Review. The
Office of the Assistant Director for Engineering and Tidelands supervises
the Bureaus of Tidelands and of Coastal Engineering.

b. Division of Fish, Game, and Shell Fisheries

The Division of Fish, Game, and Shellfisheries is responsible for
managing the fish and wildlife resources of the State in accordance with
statutes collected into Title 23 of NJSA. This includes research and
educational programs as well as enforcement of State fish and game laws and
maintenance of State fish and wildlife management areas. The Division also
administers the 1973 Endangered and Nongame Species Conservation Act which
provides funds for the purchase or management of land for research and for
other activities to protect wildlife other than game species (NJSA 23:2A-1
et seq.).

The Division of Fish, Game, and Shellfisheries plays an important role
in commenting on the probable effects of actions regulated by other
divisions within the Department of Environmental Protection. When
environmental impact statements are prepared by other State agencies, or are
issued by Federal agencies, the Division comments on impacts within its
sphere of expertise and jurisdiction. Comments routinely are provided on
riparian grants or leases, waterfront development permits, and CAFRA

190

DIRECTOR

U I.~~~~~~~~~~~
BUREAU OF MARINE OFFICE OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT | | AI)MINISTRATION

i I
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR POLICY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ENGINEERING
REGCI.ATION, AND) MANAGEMENT | AND TIDELANDS

I I
i I I
BUREAU OF COASTAL BUREAU OF COASTAL BUREAU OF TII)ELANDS
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW Applications
Planning & Research Northern Waterfront Region Drafting
Governmental Affairs Northern Shore Region Clerical &
Southern Shore Region Accounting
Delaware Waterfront Region

BUREAU OF COASTAL ENFORCEMENT BUREAU OF COASTAL ENGINEERING
AND FIELD SERVICES Design
Northern Waterfront Region Surveying
Northern Shore Region Inland Waterway Maintenance
Southern Shore Region Monitoring
Delaware Waterfront Region

Figure 7. NJ-DEP Division of Coastal Resources organization, 22 June 1979.

permits; w~etlands, stream encroachment, solid waste landfill, and other
permit applications occasionally are commented upon by the Division whenI
requested. The Division also consults with the US Fish and Wildlife Service
and comments on proposed Federal permits and other actions through the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661 et seq.).
In the coastal zone the Bureau of Fisheries Management maintains seed
Ioyster beds from which oysters are transplanted to State-leased grounds byI
shellfishermen. In addition, hard clams are transported from condemned
waters to leased grounds in cleaner waters. The Bureau surveys and maps All
bay scallop, oyster, and clam lease grounds and issues licenses to harvest
hard and soft clams, mussels, and oysters. With regard to finfish, theI
Bureau conducts research on both the marine and freshwater fisheries. It
operates the State fish hatchery stocking program and issues all finfishing
and shellfish~ing licenses.I

.The Bureau of Wildlife Management coordinates a number of programs
designed to further the preservation and protection of wildlife in
New Jersey. The Bureau is involved with the continuing survey, propagation,
and stocking of game birds, game animals, surf clams, and fish; developing
land and water areas to be used for public hunting and fishing grounds; and
conducting basic research to determine fish and game seasons, limits, andI

The Bureau of Fish and Game Coordination and Law Enforcement is
responsible for enforcing State fish and game laws. It has identified the
current head of tide of many coastal streams for regulatory purposes.

The Nongame and Endangered Species program is assigned to the Office ofI
the Director. This program is charged with developing the State List of
Endangered and Threatened Species, and it has received DEP-OCZX funding for
a colonial bird survey.
c. Division of Parks and Forestry

The Division of Parks and Forestry manages State parks and forests. It
is responsible, also, for acquiring, operating, and maintaining historic
sites and marinas. The Division reviews CAFRA permit applications in
addition to coordinating with DEP-OCZM on park and recreation policies. It
comments on State and Federal environmental impact statements that affect
its jurisdiction.

The Office of Historic Preservation within the Division evaluates the
potential impact of CAFPRA permit applications on cultural resources. This
Office maintains the State Register of Historic Places and recommends to the
Commissioner nominations to the National Register of Historic Places for
transmittal to the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. The Office
also maintains a more extensive inventory of historic sites throughout New
Jersey, some of which have been evaluated professionally. This inventoryI
can be consulted in Trenton.

The Bureau of Parks is responsible for the management and
administration, as well as the protection and improvement of all the State
parks in New Jersey. There are six state parks within the coastal zone-

192

Liberty, Cheesequake, Island Beach, Barnegat Light, Double Trouble, and Cape
May Point. Other State parks are under development in the Hackensack
Meadowland District through the cooperative efforts of the DEP and the
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission. These include the Losen
Slote and the Richard DeKorte State Parks in Bergen County. The Marina
Section is responsible for maintaining and operating the three State marinas
which are located in Leonardo, Forked River, and Atlantic City.

The Bureau of Forestry is responsible for a number of conservation
activities including supervising forest management practices, operating
State forest tree seedling nurseries, and researching improved tree stocks.
The three State forests in the coastal zone are the Bass River, Wharton,
Belleplain Forests. The Bureau also is developing a coordinated multiple
use program for the State forests. The Bureau offers an examination once7:a.
year to arboriculturists who seek certification as tree experts.

The Forest Management Section within the Bureau provides a statewide
staff of professional foresters who offer technical assistance for both
private and State woodland management projects. This section offers (in
coordination with the United States Department of Agriculture and Soil
Conservation Service) a forest pest program, a rural environment program, a
forest incentive program, a forest products utilization program, assistance
with tree planting and reforestation, and watershed protection.

The main responsibility of the Forest Fire Service Section is to
protect the forests and salt marshes of New Jersey from fires. The section
also provides information about forest fire hazard control and offers
protection plans to woodland owners.

d. The Green Acres and Recreational Opportunities Program

This program determines where and how State funds should be spent for
park and open space acquisition, development, and maintenance. DEP can
purchase land under this program and through the Division of Parks and
Forestry, by condemnation if necessary. DEP-OCZM reviews for the coastal
zone proposed expenditures of Green Acres funds pursuant to NJSA 13:8A-19 et
seq. The New Jersey Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) developed
pursuant to the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (PL
94-422), addresses the adequacy of open space for existing and projected
demands, and the accessibility of recreation resources for all segments of
the population. The plan directs New Jersey expenditures of State Green
Acres bond funds and funds granted under the Federal Land and Water Use
Conservation Fund Program. It also includes inventories of Federal, State,
county, municipal, and private recreation resources. The major goals of
SCORP include open space in urban areas, recreation facility development,
increased public access to recreation resources through mass transit, and
additional barrier-free recreation facilities. The Green Acres Program also
administers the New Jersey Natural Areas System (heretofore confined to
State-owned lands), the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, a program for urban
waterfronts, a Heritage Program, and a Trails Master Plan.

193

e. Division of Water Resources

This Division has authority for planning and regulating water supplies,
water quality, wastewater treatment, and flood-plain land uses throughout New
Jersey. Its functions are diverse, and its statutory authorities areI
numerous. The organization of the Division is depicted in Figure 8. The
four major line elements are described first; then staff units are noted.
This account is based on the Division' s program for fiscal year 1977-78 (DWR
1977). Practices and procedures of the Division now are addressed at NJAC
7:8-1.1 et seq.

(1) Appointed CouncilsI

The Water Policy and Supply Council assists the Division of Water
Resources as a quasi-judicial body. Its members are appointed by theI
Cover-nor. The Council approve's applications for the diversion of surface
and groundwaters for. public and private use; serves as an appellate body in
hearing appeals to stream encroachment permit denials; holds hearings on
stream delineation; establishes reviews of water supply functions; andI
approves the use of eminent domain by holders of water diversion permnits.
The Water Policy and Supply Council meets at least monthly and participates
actively in the administration of Division responsibilities.
The Clean Water Council is an advisory body established by NJSA 26:2E-9
et seq. It holds public hearings on water quality at least annually, and itI
advises the Division concerning water pollution control programs. The
Council recommends ways of improving water quality, including more stringent
water quality standards, technological means of water pollution control, and
revised regulations for the Division of Water Resources.
(2) Water Resources Planning and Management Element

The Water Resources Planning and Management Element is responsible for
the planning and management of not only water supply development and
allocation but also water quality. The water supply, water quality, and
technical support sections of the Element are described in turn.

(a) Bureau of Water Supply Planning and Management

The Bureau of Water Supply Planning and Management is responsible for
developing water supplies. It controls the diversion of surface and
underground waters, and identifies water resource study needs for specificI
areas.

The Bureau of Water Supply Planning Management is involved in both the
technical and the intergovernmental aspects of water supply development. It
participates in preparation of the long-term Water Supply Master Plan, and
it is designing surface water facilities to meet short-term supply needs.
It cooperates with the US Geological Survey on groundwater modeling, and itI
provides staff assistance to the Water Policy and Supply Council. The Water
Allocation Unit processes applications for public and private diversions of
surface and groundwater, issues well drilling permits, inspects wells and
diversion facilities, and inspects abandoned wells to insure compliance with
sealing requirements. The Unit also maintains records of diversions and
computes excess diversion charges.

194

Figure 8. DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL CHART (DWR 1977).

CLEAN WATER COUNCIL DIRECTOR

IWATER POLICY & SUPPLY COUNCIL I EPUTY DIRCTOR

I | l l Project Director
State Water Supply
Assistant Directo r Assistant Di rector Assistant Director Assistaht Director Haster Plan
Pollution Control, Public Wastewater Water Resources Water Supply &
Mlonitoring, Surveill- Facilities Planning & Flood Plain
ance & Enforcement Management Management Chief, Office of
Envi ronmental
Assessment **
Atlantic Basin Atlantic Basin Bureau of Water Supply Bureau of Potable Water
Shellfish Control Unit Planning & Managemnent Poa ecto ffcc
Delaware Basin Bureau of Water of Sludge Ma Offai c
Delaware Basin Bureau of Water Quality Facilities Operations of Sludge Eanagtient
Passaic-Hackensack Planning & Management Industrial Pretreatment
Passaic-Hackensack Basin Basin (208) Bureau of Flood Plain

karitan & Interstate Raritan & Interstate Water Resources Planning Management Supervisor of
Basin Basin Support: Administration

Office of Special Construction Control -Data Acquisition
Services Unit -Biological Assistant Director
-Ground HWater Office of Regulatory
Grants Administration Affairs

Chief, Office of
Program Development

**Assignment from
Office of the Coaxmmissloi

(b) Bureau of Water Quality Planning and Management

The Bureau of Water Quality Planning and Management is responsible for
surface and groundwater monitoring, biological monitoring, and the revision
of water quality standards. The Office of Areawide Planning Statewide is
responsible for areawide water quality planning to achieve fishable and
swimmable waters in accordance with the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500, as
amended) and the New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act (NJSA 58: 10A-1 et
seq.). The Office is responsible for developing an overall water quality
management plan and regulation plan for the State.. Planning must identify
pollution problems to be resolved or prevented, prioritize the problems,
examine short-term and long-term options for problem resolution, and develop
needed regulation and legislation to implement these goals. The
effectiveness of historic efforts by the Water Resources Division is being
reviewed, including

* Wastewater construction grant programs to upgrade publicly owned
treatment works

� Federal-State permits to control point-source wastewater discharges

� Regulation of sewer extensions and sewer connection bans

� Spill prevention and cleanup requirements

* Shellfish harvesting regulations

* Water quality certification of activities requiring a Federal permit
pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act

e Sludge management plan review

a Septic tank review in critical areas or where 50 or more dwelling
units are proposed

The Office is responsible directly for Clean Water Act Section 208
areawide water quality management plans in five areas, and it provides
guidance to the counties and regional agencis that are preparing 208 plans
elsewhere (Figure 9). The 208 plans will evaluate alternatives and arrive
at a strategy for each area that will control point sources and non-point
sources of pollution by 1983. All construction grants for public wastewater
treatment facilities and State permits for construction that may affect
waterways must conform with approved 208 plans. As of the end of calendar
1978 the Middlesex County 208 Plan had been certified by the Governor; the
Mercer and Tri-County Plans were awaiting his certification; and draft plans
were being completed for the Lower Delaware and the Northeast planning
areas.

The Support Section of the Element engages in monthly monitoring to
collect original field data in cooperation with other agencies from a

196

I ~~~~~~~~~~~SUSSEX NRTET

UPPE
RARITAN

TR1 COUNTY

A~~' LOWER ATLANTIC i

WAPORA, i0.

Figure 9. Areawide water quality management (Section 208) planning areas in
NeJersey. Plans for stippled areas are being prepared directly by the
Division of ',later Resources in NJ-DEP.

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~197

primary baseline network of 250 stations.1 Additional parameters are
measured monthly at selected stations.2 These data form the basis of
biennial reports that update water quality assessments in accordance with
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. Ongoing surveys are made to identify
lakes exhibiting eutrophication (enrichment), and to analyze the causes and
controlability of the eutrophication process. A mobile bioassay capability
is being developed to assist in compliance monitoring of permitted
wastewater discharges. Moreover, biological monitoring is being conducted
at about 30 stations in selected freshwater and estuarine locations that are
part of the primary monitoring network. The biological monitoring aims to
determine the habitat suitability of the aquatic environments for aquatic
organisms. The baseline ambient data are to provide information adequate to
detect and characterize changes in aquatic communities, the effects of
effluents on receiving water communities, the presence and buildup of toxic
substances in the biota, and the current status of eutrophication. The New
Jersey program is part of the National Minimum Ambient Biomonitoring
Program, and it will use plankton chlorophyll as an index of productivity.
Data are being stored in the US-EPA STORET system, and a State Model
Information System is being developed through the Department of
Transportation computer facilities.

Water use classifications are being reexamined by personnel of the
Element to insure that water quality criteria assure that degradation of
existing high water quality will not occur. New, more stringent criteria
were established for a designated critical area in the Pine Barrens during
1977 (Figure 10). Water quality criteria are being supplemented by
including maximum limits on toxic substances. The remaining critical areas,
outside the Central Pine Barrens, have not been mapped.

Groundwater management support has been established in the Element by
transfer of the Geological Services Unit previously in the Office of
Hazardous Substances Control. Groundwater quality and water level
monitoring networks are maintained in cooperation with the US Geological
Survey, with special attention to areas with salt water intrusion and
suspected subsidence resulting from groundwater pumpage. Enforcement of
groundwater pollution control authority under the 1976 Spill Compensation
and Control Act (NJSA 58: 10-23.11 et seq.) and the 1977 Water Pollution
Control Act (NJSA 58: 10A-l et seq.) is accomplished by this unit. The
staff also reviews all proposals for land disposal of wastewater and for the
operation of landfills, and is assuming responsibility for the review of
septic tank systems for developments with 50 or more dwelling units.

(3) Public Wastewater Facilities Element

This Element is a key part of New Jersey water pollution control
efforts because it administers Federal funds for the design and construction
of public wastewater treatment facilities. The Office of the Division
Assistant Director for the Element prepares the annual list of priority for

1Parameters measured monthly (March-November): physical parameters,
microbiological parameters, residues, nutrients, and oxygen.

2Parameters include heavy metals, pesticides, and PCB's in bottom
sediments; heavy metals, cyanide, and phenols in the water column.
198

aLn~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~n-- ',,

WAPORA, C

199

1/%�%��:�.:

Federal construction grant funds. Operational units in the Element deal
with grants management, construction control, and project review. The
Grants Management Unit processes administrative paperwork to assure the
approval and flow of funds for both publicly funded and privately funded
wastewater treatment projects. The Construction Control Unit oversees
construction and startup operations at Federally funded treatment
facilities. It also insures that environmental restoration (erosion control
and landscaping) is accomplished after construction.

The Project Review and Management Unit provides oversight of the
detailed design of wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal facilities
eligible for Federal grants. Design must be in accordance with the
applicable Federal regulations, which currenty base sewer planning on
existing population and needs rather than on future growth expected to be
stimulated by the new infrastructure. The Unit is organized into four major
basins. Wastewater facilities not funded by Federal or State grants also
are reviewed technically, and permits for their construction are issued .as
warranted. Non-grant permits issued by the Element (except wastewater
treatment plant permits) are subject to the provisions of the 90-Day Act (C.
232, L. 1975) that limit administrative review periods for permit
applications.

(4) Water Pollution Control, Monitoring, Surveillance, and Enforcement
Element

This Element is responsible for administration and endorsement of
discharge permits in accordance with surface water quality regulations. It
is the agency which is taking over administration of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program (pursuant to Section 402
of the Clean Water Act) from US-EPA in accordance with the 1977 Water
Pollution Control Act (NJSA 58: 10-23 et seq.).1 The NPDES permit program
is to be taken over in stages from US-EPA Region II. US-EPA is to retain
NPDES enforcement responsibility for Federal facilities, but other NPDES
enforcement is to be assumed by the four units in the Element. During 1978
the Division proposed procedures and a schedule of penalties for violations
of water quality standards by dischargers. These regulations are to be
inserted at NJAC 7:14-8.1 (Docket No. DEP-051-78-11).

The four basic operating units in the Element are delineated in
accordance with major drainage basins. The basin units are responsible for
NPDES/NJPDES permit processing and for regulation of non-municipal
wastewater treatment plants. This responsibility includes compliance
evaluation, investigation of complaints, enforcement actions, and sewer
bans. The units also are responsible for:

'Along the northern part of the Salem County shoreline of the Delaware
River, the location of the State boundaries is such that facilities
located in New Jersey actually may discharge into the water of the State
of Delaware. In such situations, new US-EPA regulations will require
that Delaware issue the NPDES (Section 402) permits and provide the
Section 401 water quality certification for Federal permits (40 CFR
123.11, 43 FR 162:37106, 21 August 1978).

200

U .~~~~ Preliminary Facilities Approval for building, installing, or
modifying any factory, workshop, other place of manufacture,
industrial plant, utility, or warehouse used for the collection,
treatment, discharge, or storage of pollutants.
a Final Treatment Works Approval before building, installing,
modifying, or operating any treatment works to control or abate
water pollution.
a Water quality certifications for Federal permits for projects that
may result in a discharge to navigable waters of the United States
(except for Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, which are handled
by the Review Coordinator in the Division).

I *~~~~ State and Federal tax exemption certification for water pollution
abatement facilities, and assistance to the Division of
Environmental Quality for certifications of industrial pollution
control financing.
I ncorporation of discharge standards for toxic substances into
permits and assuring compliance with chose standards.
In addition, the Atlantic Coastal Basin Unit includes the Shellfish
I ~ ~Control Unit. This unit surveys, classifies, and monitors shellfish growing
areas in coastal bays, estuaries, and the Atlantic Ocean within the State
three-mile jurisdiction. Inspections and effluent sampling at wastewater
treatment plants are performed as part of pollution source evaluations
I ~ ~during shellfish sanitary surveys. These surveys are the basis for
approving or condemning waters where shellfish can be harvested. The Unit
also controls the commercial harvest of shellfish from condemned areas under
3 ~~special conditions whereby the shellfish are allowed to purge themselves of
contaminants prior to marketing.
(5) Water Supply and Floodplain Management Element

I ~~~~This Element includes the diverse functions accomplished by the three
bureaus responsible for potable water, water facilities operations, and
3 ~~floodplain management. The role of each bureau is highlighted in turn.

(a) Bureau of Potable Water

The basic objective of the Bureau of Potable Water is to assure safe
I ~ ~drinking water for the citizens of New Jersey and adequate water supply
systems to meet consumer needs. The Bureau's goal is to ensure that potable
water of the highest quality is delivered, and that adequate prime source,
?umpgestorage, transmission, and distribution facilities are provided to
Ipu~mpaintai sufficient volume and pressure to consumers.

3 ~~~~The Bureau will assume primary enforcement responsibility in accordance
with the provisions of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523) when
the appropriate requirements have been achieved. New regulations are being
I ~ ~~rafted to enable State takeover of the Safe Drinking Water Act
administration from US-EPA in accordance with the 1977 New Jersey Safe
Drinking Water Act (NJSA 58: 12A-1 at seq.). Initial priority will be given
3 ~~~to the inspection of the approximately 600 "community public water systems"

201

that serve approximately 87% of New Jersey residents. This will be extendedI
to supervising the numerous "non-community public water systems" on a
progressive basis. Such systems have not previously been subject to direct
State jurisdiction. Their numbers and locations are not yet known; there
are estimated to be more than 10,000 non-community public water systems in
New Jersey as defined in the Federal Act.

The Bureau is developing laboratory capability to support its
enforcement of safe drinking water requirements, and is developing an
emergency contingency plan for drinking water supply. Quarterly
bacteriological and annual chemical monitoring is being expanded to coverI
the non-community public systems. Special quarterly sampling to monitor
groundwater that may be contaminated by chemical waste landfills is ongoing
at 1.3 water supply systems. A data management system is being developed toU
handle the increasing, quantity of data and the additional data now required
from water purveyors under Federal regulations. The Bureau also certifies
commercial bacteriological and chemical analytical laboratories.5

Permits are processed by the Bureau for water supply facilities. New
community water supplies must meet Bureau specifications. Standards for
non-community water supplies are being revised and will be implemented byI
municipal boards of health. Every physical connection between an approved
public water supply and an unapproved supply must receive permit review
annually. The Bureau also licenses operators of public water supply systemsI
and public wastewater treatment plants.

The Bureau of Potable Water cooperates with other Bureaus and Sections
of the Department of Environmental Protection in the review of projects asI
they pertain to water supply: A-95 projects, realty development projects
submitted in accordance with the Realty Improvement Sewerage and Facilities
Act and the Coastal Area Facilities Review Act, projects submitted to theI
Bureau of Flood Plain Management with respect to stream crossings by water
supply mains, and projects submitted to the Water Pollution Control
Monitoring, Surveillance, and Enforcement Element with respect to wastewater3
treatment facilities for potable water treatment plants. The Bureau also
issues Water Potability Certificates as required by the US Department of
Agriculture and the Federal Housing Administration.3

(b) Bureau of Water Facility Operation

The Bureau of Water Facility Operations maintains and operates the5
State-owned raw water supply facilities under contract to customers, and to
supplement the niatural flows of the Raritan Basin. The facilities consist
of the Spruce Run and Round Valley Reservoirs, the Hamden Pumping Station5
which transfers water from the Raritan River into the Round Valley
Reservoir, the release pipeline from the Round Valley Reservoir, and the
Delaware and Raritan Canal. This Bureau administers contracts for the sale
of water from these facilities, and in coordination with the Department'sI
Land Management Section administers leases and special use permits involving
the reservoirs, State-owned lands purchased for future reservoir sites, and
canal lands and facilities.

2021

The Bureau of Flood Plain Management is charged with the responsibility
of minimizing potential damage to life and property caused by flooding. Its
general objectives include planning and coordinating the design and
construction of flood control works, regulating encroachments along streams,
delineating and regulating flood-prone areas, and regulating the
construction of dams. This Bureau coordinates implementation of the Federal
Flood Insurance Program, and also serves as the State flood disaster
coordinator during flood emergencies. The three sections of the Bureau deal
with stream encroachment, floodplain studies, and dam analysis.

[11 Stream Encroachment Section -- Under the Stream Encroachment Law (NJSA
58:1-26 et seq.) all projects along a stream within the 100-year flood
level, regardless of the drainage area involved, must be submitted for
review and approval. Drawings and plans must be prepared by a licensed
engineer. Review encompasses calculations of the 100-year flood flow and
the flow characteristics of the channel and structure.

Under the 1975 90-Day Law the Section administers stream encroachment
permits (instead of the Water Policy and Supply Council). The law allows a
fee to be charged for making a review, determined by the particular project
involved.

The Bureau also enforces the Stream Encroachment Law. The majority of
violations involve fill placed along a channel and/or within the floodplain
to expand usable land. If the area necessary for the passage of flood
waters and retention of flood waters is reduced, flood conditions may be
created or exacerbated in other areas upstream or downstream.

[2] Flood Plain Study Section -- This section generates data to be used for
the control of the use of the land adjacent to rivers and streams under the
authority of NJSA 58:16A-50 et seq. Flood plains are being delineated and
subdivided into floodways and flood fringe areas. The status of
delineations is indicated in Figure 11.

Major contracts have been initiated and implemented between the State
and the Federal Emergency Management Administration, wherein the Bureau
through outside consultants will delineate streams that satisfy the criteria
for both the implementation of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the
Statewide Flood Plain Management Program. Contracts will be let for restudy
of streams and communities where present studies are not satisfactory. The
Section also coordinates implementation of the Federal Flood Insurance
Program. The Bureau has assumed an active role in the review of
applications for municipal eligibility into the program and in technical
review of studies sponsored by the Federal Emergency Management
Administration. In the Passaic Basin an analysis by the Army Corps of
Engineers is underway to determine optimal measures to minimize future flood
damage.

The Section coordinates and reviews flood control programs and
facilities proposed by other agencies and assists in the administration of
other DEP programs such as CAFRA, Green Acres, Solid Waste, Wetlands, and
Riparian Lands in the review of applications that affect other agencies.

203

Section personnel serve as consultants to the Department of Civil Defense
during the time of flood emergencies, and coordinate damage inspections with
Federal personnel when a natural disaster is declared by the President.

[3] Dam Analysis Section -- Under the Dam Law (NJSA 58:4-1 et seq.) all
dams that raise the normal water level 5 feet or more, and where the
drainage area is larger than 0.5 square mile, must be reviewed by the State.
This review takes into account the capacity of the structure to pass the
100-year flood safely and insures that the dam is structurally sound so as
reasonably to preclude its failure. All dams are inspected by staff members
during construction; when completed, no dam may be placed in operation until
a final inspection is made and approval given. Drawings and other
information must be prepared and construction must be supervised by a
licensed professional engineer.

(6) Office of Sludge Management and Industrial Pretreatment

This staff unit was established during 1977 to develop a Statewide plan
for sludge and a Statewide strategy for pretreatment. The unit is
developing technical background for regulations that will implement these
plans. It also is responsible for reviewing sludge management plans for
municipal wastewater treatment plants.

(7) Office of Environmental Assessment

This staff unit was established during 1975 to assist the staff of the
Division in assessing the environmental effects of all activities. The
prime responsibilities of the unit include preparation of environmental
reviews and assessments on wastewater facility construction projects (the
Clean Water Act Section 201 projects), on Division construction projects
such as water supply facilities, on stream encroachment permit applications,
on Section 208 areawide water quality management plans, on Pine Barrens
water quality protection measures, and on regulations for on-site sewage
disposal units. The unit coordinates Division environmental review of other
Departmental regulatory and construction activities, as well as reviews of
impact statements prepared by other State and Federal agencies.

(8) Office of Prgram Development

This staff was established during 1976 to assist in evaluating the
effectiveness of the Division's programs. In addition this unit acts as a
clearinghouse for permits issued by the Division. This unit currently is
the key point f coordination for State water quality approval of projects
undertaken by the Army Corps of Engineers with respect to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. The Corps cannot process permits for its own dredging and
filling activities without State approval. Such Corps activities are
essential to maintain navigation, and they may produce material suitable for
beach maintenance and for the rehabilitation of beaches and dunes. At
present the State regulation of dredged material is an ad hoc activity with
respect to staffing, organizational structure, and permit processing to
assure compliance with State water quality standards.

204

(~~~~/ N

I I�

b't. .. ~.. ;"- ,J~
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ �.�.�, i '4

.
~..'' , .. '.. '... ,, .' //_
l ..~~ ~,,,~ X .

~,' J' o- �
?.' *.... .
* i. . ...

'" ' '/
.U'��*. . ...v :"..'::Y .

I:OA I. / .'N

I~~~~~~~~~~~ -' ' '.. ''.*'

* .':'""~

L',4
,,',

3 K~i' -,

4 0 4.8 12MILES
I ~~~~~~~/l'
3 WAIORA, INC.

Figure 11. Flood hazard areas delineated by the DEP Division of Water Resources.
Solid lines indicate pre-1979 delineations; dotted lines indicate mapping to
be adopted during 1979 (DEP-OCZM 1979).

205

(9) Office of Regulatory Affairs

This office provides in-house legal assistance for the operations and
activities of the Division.

f. Division of Environmental Quality

The Division of Environmental Quality includes four units which
regulate various types of facilities and plan for pollution abatement.

The Bureau of Air Pollution Control develops and enforces regulations
needed to control air pollution and to meet Federal air quality standards in
accordance with the Clean Air Act. Under the 1967 Air Pollution Control Act
(NJSA 26:2C-1 et seq.) it investigates air pollution from both mobile
(automobiles, etc.) and stationary (factories, power plants, etc.) sources;
issues permits co construct and certificates to operate equipment which (a)
produces, or (b) is designed to prevent air pollution; certifies tax
exemption for abatement facilities; collects fees and penalties; evaluates
the impact on air quality of proposed new facilities; and is responsible for
air emergency control strategies.

It is responsible also for statewide air quality monitoring and
periodic reports and for maintenance of current pollution control
information. The Bureau assists local governments in developing air
pollution control programs and ordinances. It also participates in the
transportation and air quality planning process with metropolitan and other
planning agencies, provides information and comments on the probable air
quality effects of transport improvements, models air quality and assists
local agencies to model air quality as affected by local traffic, and
promotes carpooling and vanpooling.

Permits are required to construct, and certificates are necessary to
operate, the following types of facilities (NJAC 7:27-8.2):

Air pollution control apparatus
Painting and surface coating operations that use more than 10 pounds of
material per hour
Manufacturing operations that emit air contaminants from open tanks of
capacity greater than 100 gallons (degreasing, etching, pickling,
plating, etc.)
Other manufacturing operations that emit air contaminants for which
materials introduced into one source operation is greater than 50
pounds per hour
Tanks with volatile liquids larger than 10,000 gallons capacity
Containers for solid particles in excess of 2,000 cubic feet capacity
Stationary material handling equipment that emits air contaminants
(conveyors, etc.)
Equipment burning commercial fuel at a heat input rate of 1 million BTU
per hour or more
Equipment that burns non-commercial fuel, crude oil, or by-products
Incinerators, except those in I- or 2-family dwellings or
owner-occupied dwellings with six or fewer dwelling units

206

N ~~~~The Bureau may approve open burning under narrowly defined
circumstances, and issues minimum performance standards for the operation
and maintenance of pollution equipment in motor vehicles. The Bureau also
revied's air quality aspects of various projects that require environmental
review by the Department.

I ~~~~The Bureau of Radiation Protection is concerned with preventing or
prohibiting unnecessary radiation emissions, developing programs for
determining and evaluating hazards associated with radiation usages;
I ~ ~licensing and registering sources of radiation; continuing surveillance of
the environment to determine the compliance of sources of radiation with
applicable regulations; and with maintaining an emergency force capable of
insuring public safety. The Bureau has jurisdiction over nuclear power
genratrsnuclear medicine, and industrial radiation.
The Office of Pesticide Control is responsible for implementing the New
Jersey Pesticide Control Act of 1971 which places restrictions on the use
and method of application of several pesticides. Dealers in and applicators
of restricted pesticides must register and qualify through examination to
administer pesticides.

The Office of Noise Control carries out monitoring tasks and law
enforcement procedures pursuant to the Noise Control Act of 1971 (NJSA
I e~1:I- et seq.). The Office conducts research programs for the purpose of
determining the causes, effects, and hazards of noise. lIn the coastal zone,
monitoring of motorboat noise is an active part of the joint noise control
porm of this Office and the Division of Coastal Resources.

g. Solid Waste Administration

I ~~~~Pursuant to the Solid Waste Management Act (NJSA 13:IE-1 et seq.), the
Solid Waste Administration is responsible for the development of a Statewide
plan to maximize resource recovery and minimize the adverse environmental
I ~ ~impacts of solid wastes. Each county (plus the Hiackensack Meadowland
District) is designated as a solid waste management district. Each district
is responsible for -developing a ten-year plan to meet the solid waste needs
for each municipality within the region. The Solid Waste Administration is
responsible for coordinating district planning through the development of
the statewide plan and for providing guidelines, especially for hazardous
wastes. The current State planning for solid waste facilities offers an
I ~~opportunity to reverse a long trend of locating sources of toxic wastes
indiscriminately, and can in particular ban new landfills from aquifer
recharge areas. Thick outcrops of clay are the preferred location for new
I ~ ~solid waste landfills.

The Solid Waste Administration also administers direct regulatory
programs. Persons and vehicles engaged in the collection and haulage of
sldor liquid waste must renew their registration annually. 'Hotor vehicle
junk businesses require a license, renewable annually. Solid waste
processing and disposal facilities also are subject to annual registration,
I ~~and to the payment of fees that cover the costs of inspection. Plans based
on comprehensive engineering and environmental analyses must be provided for

207

new solid waste facilities, and an environmental impact statement may be
required from the applicant. The operators of solid waste facilities are
required to maintain records of materials received, and to conduct
groundwater monitoring; data are to be forwarded to the Division. During
late 1978 new regulations for the registration, operation, and monitoring of
chemical and hazardous waste disposal facilities were proposed. New Jersey
is considered to have about 10% of the Nation's toxic waste production.

h. Office of the Commissioner

This office is responsible for general administrative supervision of
the Department of Environmental Protection. The Office also is responsible,
through the Assistant Commissioner for Science and Research, for five
specialized agencies.

The Office of Environmental Review coordinates the comprehensive review
of and the Department's comments on major environmental impact statements on
projects in New Jersey that are undertaken by the State or that require
Federal environmental impact statements under the National Environmental
Policy Act. The Office looks not only for a thorough description of
impacts, but also for the project sponsor's awareness of all NJ-DEP permits
that are likely to be necessary for the proposed project. It also seeks to
accomplish post-impact statement followup of projects and to institute
environmental monitoring. State environmental impact statements must be
filed on any project which involves State funds of $1,000,000 or more and on
any environmentally sensitive State project of less than $1,000,000 pursuant
to the Governor's 1974 Executive Order 53 (unless a Federal impact statement
is prepared on the project).

This Office also performs staff archaeologic aspects review for
historic sites That may be affected by projects submitted to the
Commissioner, who is the State Historic Preservation Officer, pursuant to
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470 et seq.).
The Office does not participate routinely in impact statement review related
to permit programs such as CAFRA, wetlands, solid waste landfills, and
stream encroachments, other than for cultural resources. The Office serves
as a liaison with other agencies that frequently produce environmental
analyses (such as the Department of Transportation and the New Jersey Sports
and Exposition Authority), and it receives notice of pending Federally
sponsored projects through the State A-95 review agency (Department of
Community Affairs).

The Bureau of Geology and Topography is responsible for executing
geological surveys, publishing maps and bulletins on various topics, issuing
well driller licenses and permits, conducting shore erosion studies,
preparing and disseminating geological atlas sheets and aerial photos, and
operating a data bank system with information on soils, rainfall, geology,
lakes, historic sites, wells, and other items. This Bureau issues permits
for the underground storage of oils, gas, and chemicals.

The Office of Environmental Analysis delineates New Jersey's legal
claim to lands presently or formerly flowed by tidal waters to the mean

high tide line. Delineation is based on air photo interpretation, field
investigations, and information from published maps and other historic
sources. The Natural Resource Council is charged with delineating the
State tidelands claim. end it sets priorities for the sequence of map
production (NJSA 13:1B-13.2 et seq.). Mapping is based on 1977 and 1978
aerial photography and on a statewide tidal gaging program.

The tidelands delineation project ultimately will produce more than
1,000 photomaps, each at a scale of 1:2,400, depicting in total about 2,700
square miles. The base photomaps meet National map accuracy standards. The
first 37 maps (of the Hackensack Meadowlands) and one map of the
Elizabeth-Newark meadows are complete. About 70 additional maps were
expected to be completed during fiscal 1978 in Monmouth and Middlesex
Counties. A set of reference indexes which relate the photomap locations to
the approximately 100 US Geological Survey topographic quadrangles is
expected to be issued during 1979.

The Office of Cancer-Causing and Toxic Pollutants is investigating the
location of major sources of known and potential cancer-causing substances
in the State, and analyzing their implications for human health. The Office
of Environmental Disaster Response is responsible for prevention of and
response to spills of oil and other hazardous substances in accordance with
the 1976 Spill Compensation and Control Act (NJSA 58: 10-23.11 et seq.).
This mandate includes emergency response to natural disasters, alleviation
and prevention of groundwater contamination, review and inspection of spill
prevention plans for industrial facilities, technical review of water
quality certifications, and review of riparian grant and waterfront
development permit applications pertaining to dredging and to construction
of facilities that handle hazardous substances.

2. State Mosquito Control Commission

Mosquito control is a continuing activity in coastal New Jersey which
is the responsibility of public agencies. The effects of mosquitoes on
public health were demonstrated during the 1890's (JMA 1977, Appendix XI,
p.26 ff.). The State Legislature passed an act appropriating some $10,000
to the State Agricultural Experiment Station during 1902 to investigate the
mosquito problem and its relationship to the sanitary, agricultural, and
other interests of the State. Presently, the County Mosquito Control
Commissions, the State Mosquito Control Commission, and the New Jersey
Agricultural Experiment Station are responsible for mosquito control (NJSA
26:9-2 as amended by L.1975 c 9sl, L.1973 c 295sl, and L.1977 c 366sl.)

The State Mosquito Control Commission can require county mosquito
projects to obtain applicable State and Federal environmental permits in
order to obtain State financial aid, vehicles, or equipment. The State
Mosquito Control Commission consists of ten members and now is located in
the Department of Environmental Protection.

The Commission consists of the Commissioner of the Department of
Environmental Protection, the Commissioner of the Department of Health, the
Secretary of Agriculture (or their designated representatives), and the

209

Director of the New Jersey Agricultural Experimental Station, ex officio,
plus six members appointed by the Governor (NJSA 26:9-12.3 as amended by
L.1977 c 366sl).

The duties of the State Mosquito Control Commission are:

* To study mosquito control and extermination in the state

* To recommend legislative changes needed to enforce and carry out
mosquito control

* To recommend appropriations for the State program

o To administer State aid to the counties for mosquito control through
the New Jersey State Agricultural Experiment Station

* To act as an advisor in all areas regarding mosquito extermination
and control (NJSA 26:9-12.6)

The State Commission also coordinates regional mosquito management
projects.

The Mosquito Control Office links the State Mosquito Control Commission
with DEP. It is under line supervision of the Director of the Division of
Fish, Game, and Shell Fisheries. It serves as a liaison between the
Commissioner, various divisions of DEP, other State departments, the State
Experiment Station, and the county commissions. There is also an advisory
Pesticide Control Council in DEP.

According to the Pesticide Control Act (NJSA 13:lF-l et seq.) and the
implementing regulations (NJAC 7:30-1 et seq.), in order to apply any
pesticide commercially, restricted pesticides privately, or any pesticides
in public places, the applicator or the direct supervisor must be registered
and certified by the Office of Pesticide Controls in DEP. In order to use
mosquito pesticides, additional certification is required in the category
Public Health Control, subcategory Mosquito Control. Under the New Jersey
Economic Poison Act (NJSA 4:8A-1 et seq.), every economic poison including
substances which destroy or repel insects must be registered with the Office
of Pesticide Control in the Division of Environmental Quality.

The New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station is the principal
research agency for mosquito control in the State. The Director of the New
Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station (NJSA 26:9-2 et seq.) must:

a Survey and map the location of mosquito breeding areas in the State

a Investigate the life history, habits, and control for mosquito
extermination

Q Distribute information concerning the nature and results of mosquito
extermination

� Indicate adopted extermination methods and probable cost

210

The Agricultural Experiment Station reviews the budgets of the county
mosquito commissions. It reviews the pesticide proposed for use by the
county mosquito commission and other agencies responsible for mosquito
control on the basis of safety, economy, efficiency, and environmental
considerations. State and county aerial spraying programs also must meet
FAA and State aeronautical safety standards.

Regulatory approvals that may be required to legitimate mosquito
control activities, in addition to the pesticide approvals discussed above,
may include Division of Water Resources approvals in accordance with Section
208 areawide water quality planning, stream encroachment and floodplain
alteration approvals for impoundments and channels, waterfront development
permits for alterations of tidelands, plans for compliance with soil erosion
and sediment control standards, and Corps of Engineers permits for work in
navigable waters (Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act) or placement of
dredged spoil or fill in wetlands (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act). In
the past, mosquito control efforts have brought major changes to coastal
wetlands through the construction of thousands of miles of dikes and ditches
as well as pesticide application. It is appropriate that proposed mosquito
control actions receive the same degree of regulatory and public scrutiny
that are applied to other channelization, dredging, and diking in the
coastal zone under applicable statutes. Mosquito control activities
specifically are exempted from the Wetlands Act of 1970 (NJSA 13:9A-7), and
they ordinarily do not involve the construction of facilities regulated
under CAFRA (NJSA 13:19-1 et seq.).

3. Department of Energy

The Department of Energy Act of 1977 (NJSA 52:27F-l et seq.) grants
this Department a shared authority over all energy related decisions in the
State. This Department also administers the Coastal Energy Impact Program
(CEIP) under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. The Department of
Energy (DOE) and the Department of Environmental Protection have implemented
a memorandum of understanding for cooperation in regulatory functions of
overlapping jurisdiction to maximize and consistent policies between the two
departments. The memorandum has not been formalized as a regulation in
NJAC.

DEP decisions on wetlands, CAFRA, and waterfront development permits
that affect energy facilities in the coastal zone must consider the views of
the Division of Energy Planning and Conservation in DOE. If the views of
DOE in its Energy Report on an application and the DEP decision on the
application differ, resolution of the conflict is by the Energy Facility
Review Board. If appeal by the applicant is made through one of the
alternative channels in DEP, DOE may participate as an interested party.
DOE is guided by the Coastal Management Program in preparation of its Energy
Reports, as well as by the State Energy Master Plan.

211

DEP works cooperatively with DOE in administration of the Federal CEIP
grants program. This includes participation in grant allocations to local
governments, review of individual applications, and receipt of copies of
final reports and other work products.

Both agencies consider the national interests in energy facility
siting. Both agencies also participate in determinations of consistency
with State policy for coastal energy facilities pursuant to Section 307 of
the Federal Coastal Zone Managment Act.

4. Department of Community Affairs

This Department includes three divisions which provide planning
services and assistance to communities with special impact on municipal
planning and housing. The main interactions of these divisions with coastal
management programs is through intergovernmental coordination and reviews.
The Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (HMDC), an independent
agency in, but not of, this Department, regulates land uses and
environmental quality directly in the Hackensack Meadowland District of
northeastern New Jersey.

The HMDC regulatory procedures for the direct control of development
and land use are described at length in Chapter V. The HMiDC reports to a
seven-member Commission appointed by the Governor (its ex officio chairman
is the Commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs). It has been
responsible since 1969 for overseeing the development of the Hackensack
Meadowland District, an area of almost 20,000 acres transcending municipal
boundaries in Hudson and Bergen Counties. The Commission has broad power to
regulate development, and its authority generally overrides conflicting
local land use controls in parts of fourteen municipalities. It may
exercise eminent domain. It has a specific mandate to provide for the
disposal of solid waste, and it is charged with considering environmental
protection and the delicate balance of nature in the meadowlands. Municipal
input to the Commission is provided by an advisory committee whose members
are mayors of the constituent municipalities. The Commission also is
empowered to distribute the financial benefits and liabilities of
development in the District among the municipalities through a formula and
intermunicipal fund established by the Hackensack Meadowland Reclamation and
Development Act (NJSA 13:17-1 et seq.).

The Division of State and Regional Planning acts as a statewide
planning agency. It can review the consistency of proposed actions with the
State Development and Guide Plan, which it prepared under Section 701 of the
Federal Housing and Community Development Act and pursuant to Chapter 47 of
the New Jersey Laws of 1961, The Plan outlines in general terms areas that
are suitable for future development, areas unsuitable for future
development, and places where natural resources should be preserved. The
Plan suggests that priorityfor future State capital investments be given to
existing growth areas. This Division routinely has reviewed CAFRA permit
applications as requested by the Office of Coastal Zone Management in
NJ-DEP. The Division also serves as the State A-95 clearinghouse for
notification of Federal and Federally assisted activities in New Jersey.

212

Pursuant to the Municipal Land Use Law (NJSA 40:55D-1 et seq.), copies of
local applications for developments of at least 150 acres or 500 units are
to be filed with the Division. Pursuant to the Governor's Executive Order
35, a fair-share allocation to municipalities of the needs~for low and
moderate income housing has been developed by the Division.

The Division of Local Government Services provides financial and
technical assistance to local governments, including assistance in planning
and site reviews. The Division assists coastal municipalities in
interpreting the effects of CAFRA and other State coastal laws which can be
coordinated with local municipal land use laws.

The Division of Housing and Urban Development inspects new
construction, administers relocation assistance to dislocated low-income
families, sponsors neighborhood preservation grant programs, and provides
construction mortgages for assisted housing.

5. Department of Agriculture

Within the Department the Division of Rural Resources seeks to preserve
agricultural lands in New Jersey. Together with the US Soil Conservation
Service, the Division is active in dune planting and maintenance.

Through the State Soil Conservation Committee (which includes the
Commissioner of NJ-DEP), the Division cooperates with DEP in implementing
the 1975 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act (NJSA 4:24-1 et seq.).
Standards have been set by the Committee for the control of erosion and
sedimentation during construction. In accordance with coastal policy, DEP
permits require applicants to conform to the erosion and sedimentation
standards of the Committee in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment.

Municipalities must condition their approvals of specified development
projects on certification from the local soil conservation district that
erosion and sedimentation will be controlled. Projects covered are those
(other than a single family house) that disturb more than 5,000 square feet
of land and for which the State Uniform Construction Code requires a
building permit.

6. Department of Labor and Industry

The Office of Economic Research in the Division of Planning and
Research reviews CAFRA permit applications in the context of economic
growth. It has also prepared economic studies under contract to the Office
of Coastal Zone Management in NJ-DEP. The Economic Development Authority
sponsors loans for commercial and industrial redevelopment. The Office of
Business Advocacy assists business interests to identify and apply for
required permits. It circulates a master permit information form for DEP
permits. One-day, over-the-counter service from NJ-DEP is arranged through
this Office for:

o minor stream encroachment permits for projects which do not reduce
floodway water carrying capacity, increase erosion or sedimentation

213

in the stream, or require substantial channel modification or I
relocation;

o minor waterfront development permits for construction in man-made
lagoons and maintenance, repair, or replacement of lawful existing
structures; and

o minor sewer extension projects that are less than 1,000 feet long, I
cost less than $25,000, have sewage flow no greater than 12,000
gallons per day, have no pump station, force main, syphon, or
holding tanks, and are not in areas under sewer ban, administrative
order, or litigation.

7. Department of the Public Advocate

This Department is authorized to intervene in regulatory proceedings
and to intervene or bring legal actions to protect the public interest. The
Department determines when to intervene in cases that have broad policy
implications that otherwise would not be addressed. Coastal issues in which
the Department has been active include public beach access, siting of
I
nuclear powerplants, and solid waste disposal.

8. Department of Transportation

The Department of Transportation sponsors highway, airport, heliport,
rail, and other projects in the coastal zone that frequently require
multiple permits from NJ-DEP. Its powers include eminent domain. The
construction of transportation facilities may have profound secondary
effects on surrounding land uses. The Department also requires a permit for
proposals to construct various facilities within or that affect State
highway rights of way (NJSA 27:7-1 et seq.).

9. Intrastate Regional Agencies

Several State agencies function in multiple county and municipal
jurisdictions, but on less than a Statewide basis in New Jersey. Their
functions and authorities vary widely.

a. Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (H~1DC)

The HMDC was described briefly in the previous discussion of the
Department of Community Affairs. Its regulatory procedures for the direct
control of development and land use are described at length in Chapter XIV.

b. Pinelands Enviromental Council (Historic Note) I

This Council was established during 1972ias an independent agency in
DEP to protect water resources and other natural assets in the Pinelands
Region from misuse and pollution, to encourage the continuation and
development of land uses compatible with the resources and values of the
Region, to improve environmental quality in the Region, and to promote its
agriculture. The Council was to adopt a comprehensive plan for the Region,

I
214
I

and it could review development proposals within the Region. The Council
could require applicants to prepare environmental impact statements. It
revised its draft EIS guidelines several times. The views of the Council
were not binding, however, on municipalities in the Pinelands. Projects note
approved by the Council could be delayed for as much as 90 days, and the
Council could bring legal action to prevent violation of the enabling Act
(NJSA 13:18-i at seq.).

The Pinelands Region included all or part of seven townships in Ocean
County and seven townships in Burlington County. The Act did not apply to
State-owned lands. The Governor terminated State funding for the Council
during 1975, and subsequently its work was supported only by the Counties.
The Council generally was regarded as having been ineffectual, and it was
abolished by the Pinelands Protection Act of 1979. The story of the Council
serves as a reminder of what may eventuate, if the current Pinelands
Commission mandate is not implemented effectively.

c. Pinelands Planning Entity (Pinelands Planning Commission)

Section 502 of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (PL
95-625) provides Federal support for planning in the Pinelands National
Reserve defined in the Act (Figure 12). The Reserve is established to assist
the State of New Jersey and local governments to protect the fragile and
high-value resources of the Pinelands. As much as $3 million of Federal
funds are authorized to support a master planning effort upon request of the
Governor. The Plan is to be ready for review by the Secretary of the
Interior within 18 months from the beginning of Federal funding. Following
the acceptance of the Master Plan by the Secretary of the Interior, as much
as $26 million are authorized to pay 75% of plan implementation costs.
During the development of the Plan, the Secretary is authorized to make
grants to the State for acquisition of lands and waters (both fee simple and
lesser interests) within the National Reserve that he determines (in
consultation with the planning entity) to have critical ecological values
that are in immediate danger of degradation or destruction. All proposed
Federal actions and applications for Federal assistance within the Pinelands
National Reserve, listed in OMB Circular A-95, involving construction of
housing, industrial parks, highways., and sewer or water treatment facilities
are to be reviewed by the planning entity during the development of the
Plan. The planning entity is to refer proposed actions with adverse effects
to the Secretary. Any Federal action in which the Secretary determines to
have significant adverse effects is not to proceed while the Plan is being
developed.

The regional planning and management entity is to consist of seven
members appointed by the Governor, seven members appointed by constituent
counties, and one Federal Representative appointed by the Secretary of the
Interior. During preparation and implementation of the Master Plan, the
planning entity is to review all proposed Federal actions in the region for
their potential impacts on the environment, and bring proposals with adverse
effects to the attention of the Secretary of the Interior.

215

The Plan is to establish permanent mechanisms for integrated Federal,
State, and local coordination to protect the fragile ecosystem of the
region. Should the Plan not be approved by the Secretary of the Interior
within 36 months after the date Federal funds are provided, then all Federal
I
funds must be returned to the Federal Government by the State.

By Executive Order 71 (1979) the Governor established a Pinelands
Planning Commission to accomplish the purposes of the Federal Act. The
region to be analyzed includes the Pinelands National Reserve plus
additional areas recommended during 1978 by the Governor's Pinelands Review
Committee for protection. These areas include much, but not all, of the
typical Pinelands vegetation, plus selected coastal estuaries and barrier
islands outside the area of the Pinelands vegetation (Figure 13). Some of
the lands addressed by Executive Order 71 overlap lands regulated under the
Wetlands Act of 1970 and under the Coastal Area Facility Review Act of
1973.

Executive Order 71 also established a moratorium on State approvals for I
new and pending requests for State financial assistance, grants, permits,
certificates, licenses, or other approvals within the Pinelands during the
planning process (or for 18 months, whichever is shorter), unless two thirds
of the Commission members determine that a compelling public need for the
approval exists or the denial of the approval would produce extraordinary
hardship and there will be no substantial impairment of resources in the
Pinelands. Until the Commission could process certifications, existing
State agencies processed certifications in accordance with the Executive
Order. In the "Protection Area" section of the Pinelands which overlaps the
CAFRA area, development and construction approvals are to be processed by
the CAFRA section of DEP in accordance with CAFRA policies plus those of the
Executive Order and the Federal Act.

The Governor also established an ad hoc Pinelands Development Review
Board to assist the new Pinelands Commission with moratorium exemption
certifications until the Master Plan is developed. This Board consists of
the Commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs, the Commissioner of
DEP, and the Secretary of Agriculture (or their designated representatives).
Staff assistance to the Board currently is provided by DEP through the
Office of the Commissioner.

The Pinelands Protection Act of 1979 was signed into law by the
Governor on 28 June 1979. It adopted generally the boundaries recommended
by the Governor's Committee. No official map was available during September
1979. The State moratorium on new construction is scheduled to expire on 8
August 1980.

d. South Jersey Port Corporation

This agency was established during 1968 as a New Jersey agency for port
development along the Delaware River (NJSA 12:11A-1 et seq.). The
Corporation is a part of the Department of Labor and Industry. The South
Jersey Port District includes Mercer, Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, Salem,
Cumberland, and Cape May Counties, together with all New Jersey lands and
waters in and under the Delaware River and Delaware Bay. The agency may

216 I

I~~~~~~~

/i/

/ / ~�� ,.~-JJ
J SS��~ -->

WAP RA INC. t w
-J I
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Figure 12. The Pinelands National Reserve boundary (PL 95-26;). Pine barrens
vegetation, exclusive of oak-pine fringe areas and stands of Virginia pine,
is stippled. Vegetation boundaries are those of McCormick (1970).

* 217
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i

;---jij~jjiii~i~V
I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~:
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iii~~~

I~~'ii~i
I~~~~~~~~~~~
I~~~~~~~~~� ~i
N~~~~~~~~r..:.:.��iii~E:~~.~ :ii~::
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~::~I ..
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1�;1.�������:�.

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:;:ii
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _______:~~;~::~i~:
WAPORA, NC~~~~~~~�:�'~::�":�I
Figur 12, he Pieland Natinal Rserv bounary (L 95-65). ine brren
vegettion exlsv fokpn ringe arasad tad o irinapie
is sti~~~p~ed. Vegetation boundaries are those of Mc~I',j~ii ormi ck(97)

U~~~~~~~~~~ 217i$ii --:::

promote the use of the Delaware River port facilities in the District and
may cooperate with other agencies in developing and operating port
facilities. At present the Corporation operates and is expanding port
facilities in the City of Camden.

e. Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission

This Commission was established in DEP during 1974 to prepare and amend
a master plan and to review State projects and State and local permits
affecting the State-owned lands that comprise the Delaware and Raritan Canal
State Park (NJSA 13:13 A-I et seq.). The Delaware and Raritan Canal extends
about 60 miles through 17 municipalities in Hunterdon, Somerset, Mercer, and
Middlesex Counties. Commission jurisdiction includes all State-owned lands
and waters, except that part of the canal system between the Landing Lane
Bridge and its confluence with the Raritan River. All projects approved by
municipalities within a review zone established by the Commission are
subject to a binding review by the Commission, which may condition or reject
the proposal on the grounds of non-compliance with the Commission's Master
Plan. The Act directs that the Master Plan consider (1) the function of the
Canal as a major water supply facility, (2) the need to provide recreational
facilities, (3) historic sites preservation and restoration, (4) potential
Canal uses in old urban environments, and (5) preservation of wilderness
areas in undeveloped environments. A Master Plan was adopted during 1977.

The Commissioner reviews all proposed projects within 0.5 miles of the Park
for potential drainage, visual, and other environmental impacts. Within the
more distant sections of watersheds tributary to the Canal, selected
projects are reviewed for hydrologic and water quality impacts. Reviewed
projects here are to include new or redeveloped residential construction of
25 or more dwelling units, projects with 1 acre or more of impervious
surface, or various industrial facilities including petroleum and chemicals
distribution systems, liquid and solid waste facilities, livestock feed
lots, and mining operations.

218

I~~~~~~AR ARE

*~~~~~~~IEAD PRSEVAIN
EIAREA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NEO 1
~~~~~~~~IEAD RTCION

CAFRA-ARESRATN
AREA OVERLAP71

- CAFRA-PROESEVTION
AREA OVERLAP

~~~~~~~048ZMILES
ARAPOVRLAPNC

~~~~i g u e 1.CFAadPnlsamnsrtv vra nsuhr e esy

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

X1II. OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES

This chapter addresses first Federal and interstate regulatory
programs. Then it outlines county and municipal authorities in New Jersey.I
A. Federal Agency Responsibility

Federal Agency actions can be categorized generally into threeI
classes. These include development actions undertaken directly by Federal
agencies themselves, permit approvals by agencies for actions undertaken by
others, and Federally funded actions.I
1. Direct Federal Actions

Development undertaken directly by Federal agencies is to be
coordinated with New Jersey coastal zone management policies in several
ways. First, Federal agencies are required directly to make certain that
their actions are consistent with the approved State management programI
pursuant to Section 307 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. Second,
Federal agencies must apply for Federal approvals under a variety of Federal
regulatory programs that affect the coastal zone. As discussed in a
subsequent section, several Federal regulatory programs require State
certification that permitted activities will be consistent with State
environmental policies. Third, major Federal actions that may affect the
human environment significantly must be reported in environmental impact
statements which analyze the nature of the impacts and afford the State an
opportunity for comment, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(FL 91-190). The regulations of the Council on Environmental QualityI
specifically authorize Federal environmental impact statements *to address
issues of concern to State and local governments, and they encourage early
interagency participation during the scoping of ET.S's (40 CFR 1500; 43 PRI
230:55978-56007, 29 November 1978). Fourth, the system of clearinghouses
established pursuant to OibM Circular A-95 provides early notification to the
State (through the Division of State Planning in the Department of Community
Affairs) that proposed Federal actions are being developed, and henceI
facilitate State interaction during Federal project planning. Likely
Federal actions that may affect the coastal zone and that will be subject to
New Jersey consistency determinations are listed in Table 29.I
The agency with the broadest authority directly to undertake water
resource development in New Jersey is the Army Corps of Engineers. Corps
responsibilities throughout the State recently were summarized
comprehensively (Army Corps of Engineers 1977). There are about 80 Corps
projects completed, underway, or not started in New Jersey. More than half
were undertaken by the Philadelphia District.
2. Federally Licensed and Permitted Activities

The regulatory actions of the Federal Government generally are subject
to the same public notice and comment procedures as direct Federal actions.
In addition, there are specific requirements that some Federal regulatory
actions cannot be completed without opportunity for timely State comment

220

K ~~Table 29 . Direct Federal activities likely to require State consistency
determinations in the New Jersey coastal zone.

General Services Administration Property acquisition
I ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~Building design and construction
Disposal of surplus lands
Army, Navy, Air Force Acquisition and design of new
(Department of Defense, or enlarged installations
'Mi~litary responsibilities) Actions on Federal lands with
potential impact on coastal
lands or waters
Army Corps of Engineers Navigational dredging and spoil
(Department of Defense, disposal projects.
Civil Works) Breakwaters and erosion control
projects
Beach nourishment projects
Reservoir and dam projects
Emergency coastal rehabilitation
projects
Harbor drift clearance projects
Fish and Wildlife Service Acquisition and management of
(Department of the Interior) wildlife refuges
National Park Service Seashore, recreation area, and
(Department of the Interior) park acquisition and management1
Management of Federal historic
and cultural sites
* ~~~~Federal Highway Administration Highway construction and
(Department of Transportation) improvement

'National Park Service jurisdiction is expected to increase in the Pine
Barrens as Federal land is acquired under PL 95-625, which was signed
I ~ ~~into law on 10 November 1978 as the National Park and Recreation Act of
1978.

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~221

and/or certification for consistency with State policies and plans. Some of
the Federal permit jurisdictions overlap State jurisdiction under CAFRA,
wetlands, or waterfront development permits. Others extend beyond the
jurisdiction of existing State authorities to regulate inland wetlands
within and beyond the coastal zone. Two of the Federal permit programs are
designed for voluntary administration by the States, once the Federal
requirements for program takeover have been satisfied. The following
sections discuss those permit programs of greatest significance to
evironmental management in the coastal zone.

a. Army Corps of Engineers

The Army Corps of Engineers administers several permit programs that
directly affect development in or adjacent to New Jersey waterways.
Northeastern New Jersey is under the jurisdiction of the New York District.
Those river basins that drain to the Atlantic Ocean from the Manasquan River
and Metedeconk River drainages southward, and all tributaries to the Delaware
River, are under the jurisdiction of the Philadelphia District (Figure 14).

1. Authorities and Policies

The River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 USC 401 et seq.) is one of the
principal authorities for Corps regulatory jurisdiction. Section 9 requires
a permit to construct any dam or dike in a navigable waterway of the United
States. If the water is interstate, the consent of Congress also is
required; if the water is intrastate, the consent of the State Legislature
is necessary. Permits under Section 9 are drafted at the Department of the
Army level, not by local Districts.

Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act allows persons desiring to
improve any navigable river at their own expense to do so, provided plans
and specifications are approved by the Secretary of the Army and the Chief
of Engineers. Such improvements remain subject to Federal control and
supervision thereafter.

Section 10 identifies structures (including bulkheads, piers,
revetments, power lines, and navigation aids) and activities (dredging,
stream channelization, excavation, and filling) that are prohibited in
navigable waters unless permitted by the Corps. Any work outside a
navigable waterway that limits its navigable capacity also may require a
Section 10 permit. Processing of Section 10 permits is a major
responsibility of District Offices.

Section 11 authorizes the establishment of harbor lines. These lines
now serve as guides for determining the offshore limits of piers, wharves,
and bulkheads from the standpoint of navigation. Corps permits are required
irrespective of the location of proposed work in waterways with reference to
harbor lines.

Section 13 commonly is known as the Refuse Act (33 USC 407). It
prohibits the discharge of refuse matter into navigable waters of the United
States or of their tributaries, or onto the banks of such waters if the

222

", , , . J

NEW b YORK---U'f1T`RTT

PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT

4 0 4 8 12 MILES /

WAPORA, INC. /

Figure 1A. Administrative jurisdictions of the Army Corps of Engineers
(North Atlantic Division) in New Jersey.

223

refuse matter is likely to be washed into the navigable water. Refuse Act
prohibitions can be lifted by the issuance of an NPDES permit by US-EPA or
by an authorized State pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, as
discussed subsequently. Although there is no current Refuse Act permit
program, it remains a viable enforcement mechanism for Federal control over
matter discharged into waterways.

These authorities were administered primarily to protect navigation and
the navigable capacity of the Nation's waters from 1899 to 1968. The permit
requirements during that period were applied to waters in use for the
transportation of interstate and foreign commerce. Subsequently Corps
regulatory responsibility and geographical jurisdiction were expanded
substantially.

On 18 December 1968 Department of the Army policy was revised to
include the following factors in addition to navigation that would be
considered during permit review: fish and wildlife, conservation,
pollution, aesthetics, ecology, and the general public interest
(33 CFR 209.120). Work in waterways landward of established harbor lines
was specifically included in the permit program as of 27 May 1970
(33 CFR 209.150); formerly such work did not routinely require a Corps
permit under Section 10. Corps regulations were revised again during 1974
to add additional public interest factors during permit review (economics,
historic values, flood damage prevention, land use classification,
recreation, water supply, and water quality), to require consideration of
alternatives and cumulative local impacts, and to adopt a policy protecting
wetlands within Corps jurisdiction from unnecessary destruction (33 CFR
209.120).

Current policy is presented in the regulations issued on 19 July 1977
(33 CFR 320-329; 42 FR 138:37121-37164), which form the basis for this
discussion. New factors that must be considered during public interest
reviews include energy needs, safety, and food requirements, and additional
attributes of wetlands. The jurisdiction of permit authority under Sections
9 and 10 of the River and Harbor Act generally extends to navigable waters
of the United States, as defined administratively by the Corps. This area
includes both those waters subject to tidal action shoreward to the mean
high water mark and those that are, have been, or may be used to transport
interstate or foreign commerce.

Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 (the Ocean Dumping Act, 33 USC 1413) creates another Corps permit
program to regulate the ocean dumping of dredged material. The Corps must
evaluate using US-EPA criteria the dredged material proposed to be dumped
into the ocean, and must use EPA-designated dump sites to the maximum extent
feasible. When US-EPA criteria that would prohibit dumping are exceeded,
the Corps must make an independent determination of the need for the
proposed dumping, based on the effects of permit denial on navigation,
economic development, and commerce. A determination of available
alternative disposal methods also must be made by the Corps. Following
Corps public notice, US-EPA may indicate that a permit should not be issued.
If the Corps certifies that no economically feasible alternative method or

224

site is available, US-EPA must grant a waiver unless it finds that the
proposed dumping will create an unacceptable impact on municipal water
supplies, shellfish beds, wildlife, fisheries, or recreational areas.
Approved interim dumping sites in the New York Bight off New Jersey are
outside the New Jersey coastal zone, except for dumping grounds for sand
dredged from various inlets, as authorized by 40 CFR 228.12.

The 1972 and 1977 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(now commonly called the Clean Water Act) affect Section 404, which
establishes a Corps permit program to regulate the discharge of dredged
material and of pollutants that comprise fill material into the waters of
the United States. Evaluation of the impact acceptability of the proposed
discharge in the aquatic ecosystem is according to the criteria of US-EPA.
The Corps may issue a permit inconsistent with US-EPA guidelines only if the
interests of navigation require. The US-EPA may restrict or prohibit
discharge of dredged or fill material that may cause an unacceptable adverse
effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, fishery areas (including
spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas.

Section 404 significantly broadened the geographical jurisdiction of
the Corps to additional waters-including wetlands--not regulated under
other permit programs. Following litigation concerning the extent of waters
to which Section 404 jurisdiction is applicable, and after widespread public
review of proposed regulations for its permit programs, the Corps issued an
administrative definition of its jurisdiction during 1977 (33 CFR 323.2).
In general, however, the lands subject to Corps jurisdiction have not been
mapped. The waters of the United States now include, with respect to fill
material regulated under Section 404:

(1) The territorial seas

(2) Coastal and inland waters, lakes, rivers, and streams
that are navigable waters of the United States,
including adjacent wetlands.

(3) Tributaries to navigable waters of the United States
including adjacent wetlands (exclusive of manmade
nontidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on
dry land)

(4) Interstate waters and their tributaries including
adjacent wetlands

(5) All other waters of the United States not identified
above, such as isolated wetlands and lakes ... and other waters
that are not part of a tributary system to interstate or
navigable waters of the United States, the degradation or
destruction of which could affect interstate commerce.

Discharges of fill into waters listed in (1) through (4) generally
require a general or individual permit authorization unless the discharge
occurs upstream from the point where mean annual flow is 5 cubic feet per

225

second (that is, in headwaters areas) or into natural lakes less than 10
acres in surface area (including, their adjacent wetlands). Discharges of
fill into Category 5 waters generally are allowed by nationwide permit
authorization, unless case-by-case information indicates the need for anI

Wetlands subject to regulation under Section 404 also are defined by
the Corps. They include those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support)
and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.

The conduct of normal farming, forestry, and ranching operations, soI
long as they do not involve discharges of dredged or fill material, are not
regulated under Section 404. Plowing, seeding, cultivating, and harvesting
for the production of food, fiber, and forest products are excluded from theI
Corps definitions of discharges of dredged and fill material.

Any project reviewed by the Corps ordinarily is reviewed concurrently
for the approvals necessary under the River and Harbor Act, the Ocean
Dumping Act, or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Corps policies are
applied whether authorization is required under one or more than one
statute. The general Corps policies for permit evaluation include theI
considerations abstracted in Table 30.

Several classes of permits are authorized by the regulations in
addition to individual permits on proposed actions. Nationwide permits forI
activities considered to have insignificant adver se effects were issued with
the regulations, as noted below. General permits were authorized to be
issued by Districts and Divisions following public notice and review forI
classes of actions that have insignificant individual and cumulative
effects, given compliance with appropriate attached conditions. There is a
general permit for the construction of private residential docks in NewI
Jersey under Section 10 within the Philadelphia District jurisdiction.
Letters of permission for actions subject to Section 10 of the River and
Harbor Act, but not for ocean dumping or discharge of fill, can be issued
when the action is judged to be minor, the environmental impactI
insignificant, and opposition unlikely. Letters of permission do not
require public notice, but do require prior coordination with State and
Federal fish and wildlife agencies. Nationwide permits for which individualI
applications are not needed so long as general conditions are met (unless

226

Table 30. Considerations to be weighed during public interest review of
applications for permits to perform work in waters of the US
regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers (33 CFR 320-329;
42 FR 138:37 121-37164, 19 July 1977).

GENERAL SUBJECT MANDATORY CONSIDERATIONS

Public Interest 1. Weigh protection and utilization of
important resources (conservation,
economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, historic
values, fish and wildlife values, flood
damage prevention, land use,
navigation, recreation, water supply,
water quality, energy needs, safety,
food production, public welfare in
general)

2. Consider extent of public and private
need for proposed work

3. Consider desirability of alternative
locations and methods to accomplish the
object of the proposal

4. Consider extent and permanence of
beneficial and detrimental effects on
public and private uses of sites

5. Weigh cumulative effects relative to
existing and planned nearby structures
or work

Wetlands 1. Identify significant wetlands that
support aquatic and terrestrial biota;
provide study areas, sanctuaries, or
refuges; preserve natural drainage,
sedimentation, salinity, flushing,
current, or other patterns; shield
other areas from waves, erosion, or
storms; store storm and flood waters;
provide prime groundwater recharge; or
naturally purify water.

2. Discourage unnecessary destruction or
alteration of wetlands

3. Include cumulative effects' when
evaluating whether necessary adverse
effects are outweighed by benefits,
considering need for proximity to
aquatic environment and available
alternative sites

IThe District Engineer may consult US-FWS, NXFS, US-EPA, SCS, and the
appropriate State resource agency to assess cumulative effects on
wetlands.

227

Table 30. Corps permit review considerations (continued).

GENERAL SUBJECT MANDATORY CONSIDERATIONS

Fish and wildlife 1. Consult Regional Director, US Fish and
Wildlife Service; Regional Director,
National Marine Fisheries Service; and
head of State fish and wildlife agency
for measures to prevent direct or
indirect loss of resources.

2. Urge applicant voluntarily to modify
proposal to avoid or mitigate adverse
effects, and condition permit if
necessary.

Water quality 1. Review application for compliance with
effluent limitations, water quality
standards, and management practices
during proposed construction,
operation, and maintenance.

2. Consider Section 401 Clean Water Act
certification of compliance (by
Division of Water Resources, NJ-DEP)
conclusive, unless US-EPA advises of
other considerations.

3. Condition permit if necessary to
protect water quality.

Historic, scenic, 1. Evaluate effects on such values
recreational values
2. Use Federal, State, regional, and local
land use classifications to identify
such resources, and avoid adverse
effects on goals of those controls or
policies

3. Specifically consider

a. Designated or proposed Wild and
Scenic Rivers and recreational
rivers established by Federal,
State, and local action

b. Historic, cultural, or
archaeological sites, especially
those listed or eligible for the
National Register of Historic
Places

228

Table 30. Corps permit review consideration (continued).

GENERAL SUBJECT MiA4NDATORY CONSIDERATIONS

c. Sites listed or eligible for the
National Registry of Natural
Landmarks

d. Sites acquired or developed with
assistance of Land and Water
Conservation Fund or Recreational
Demonstrations Projects Act of 1942
and other parks and recreational
areas

e. Any other areas named in Acts of
Congress or Presidential
Proclamations as National Rivers,
National Wilderness Areas, National
Seashores, National Recreation
Areas, National Lakeshores,
National Parks, National Monuments,
Estuarine or Marine Sanctuaries, or
similar designations.

Territorial sea 1. Review for effects on measurement base
of territorial sea.

2. If any change would occur, coordinate
with Attorney General and with
Solicitor, Department of the Interior

Adjacent property and 1. Receive favorably a landowner's effort
projects to protect his property from erosion in
general.

2. Ascertain significant probable adverse
effects on neighboring property, advise
applicant of alternative measures, and
condition or deny permit to avoid
significant adverse effects.

3. Review effects on access to waterway by
nearby landowners and on public right
of navigation; deny undue interference
with access to or use of navigable
waters.

4. Advise applicant of potential conflict
with authorized Federal projects and
lack of Federal responsibility for any
future damage that may result.

229

Table 30. Corps permit review considerations (continued).

GENERAL SUBJECT MANDATORY CONSIDERATIONS

5. Ascertain compatibility of proposal
with existing and planned Federal
projects nearby

Coastal zone 1. Require certification by Federal
applicants of consistency with approved
State coastal management program

2. Require certification of consistency
from non-Federal applicant to be
approved by State coastal management
agency (OCZM, NJ-DEP), unless agency
waives certification, or fails to act
within three months, or unless the
Secretary of Commerce certifies
consistency with Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act or necessity for
national security

Marine sanctuaries 1. Evaluate impact on marine sanctuary

2. Require applicant to provide
certification by Secretary of Commerce
of consistency with Title III of Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972, and condition permit as
required by Secretary of Commerce

Floodplains 1. Evaluate alternatives to avoid adverse
effects of construction in floodplains

2. Seek to reduce flood losses and adverse
impacts, and to preserve and restore
natural and beneficial values of
floodplains

Proposed impoundment 1. Condition permit to require applicant
to operate and maintain structure so as
to insure public safety

2. Condition permit to require periodic
inspection unless inspections are
required or will be performed by
another Federal agency

230

Table 30. Corps permit review considerations (concluded).

GENERAL SUBJECT MANDATORY CONSIDERATIONS

Other agency requirements 1. Process application concurrently with
other required approvals.

2. Deny permit if another agency denies a
required approval (but the application
may be reinstated if the required
approval subsequently is received).1

3. Consider State, regional, and local
agency views on the application as
reflecting local factors of the public
interest.

4. Consider State, regional, and local
land-use classifications and controls
as reflecting local factors of the
public interest.

5. Request the Governor to resolve
conflicting comments from several
agencies within the State, unless a
single State coordination agency has
been designated.

6. Issue permit applications favorably
determined by the State in the absence
of overriding national factors of the
public interest, provided Corps
policies and applicable Federal laws
have been followed and considered.

7. Proceed to process the application if a
responsible Federal, State, or local
agency fails to take action on
authorization or furnish comments
within three months.

'State and local certifications are not applicable to Federal Agency
applicants, unless compliance is required by Federal law or Executive
policy (33 CFR 322.3(c)(2)]. The 1977 Amendments to the Clean Water
Act (PL 95-217) require that the Corps itself receive State water quality
certification under Section 401 during regulatory review of
Corps-sponsored projects.

231

the District Engineer determines otherwise) include the following:

SECTION 10 (33 CFR 322.4)

Aids to navigation placed by US Coast Guard
Structures in artificial canals in residential developments where the
connection of the canal to a navigable waterway was authorized
previously
Repair or replacement of previously authorized structures according to the
original plans and for any originally approved uses
Devices for harvesting marine biota (pound nets, crab traps, eel pots,
lobster traps) that do not interfere with navigation
Staff gages, tide gages, water quality testing devices, and other scientific
structures that do not interfere with navigation
Survey activities including core sampling
Work completed before 18 December 1968 in waterways over which Corps
jurisdiction has not been asserted, provided there is no interference
with navigation

SECTION 404 (33 CFR 323.4)

Discharges accomplished prior to the effective dates of phasing in
regulations (the latest such date was 1 July 1977)

Dischargesl,2 into:

Non-tidal streams, impoundments, and wetlands above headwaters
Natural lakes (including adjacent wetlands, if any) less than 10 acres in
extent that are fed or drained by a non-tidal stream above its
headwaters (generally, point of mean annual flow less than 5 cubic
feet per second)
Natural lakes (including adjacent wetlands, if any) less than 10 acres in
extent, isolated from surface streams
Other non-tidal waters that are not part of surface streams tributary to
interstate or navigable waters

'Such discharges should use, to the extent practicable, these management
practices to minimize adverse aquatic impacts: (a) minimize quantity
discharged to waterway by employing upland disposal sites, (b) avoid
discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons, (c) do not restrict
movement of aquatic biota, impede normal or expected high flows of water,
or cause relocation of waterway (except impoundments), (d) minimize
adverse effects from impoundments that speed or slow water flows, (e)
avoid discharges in wetlands, (f) place heavy equipment working in
wetlands on mats, (g) avoid discharges into waterfowl breeding and
nesting areass, and (h) remove all temporary fills entirely.

2 Such discharges must: (a) not destroy a species or critical habitat for
a species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species
Act, (b) consist of suitable material free from toxic pollutants in other
than trace quantities, (c) be maintained to prevent erosion and other
non-point sources of pollution, and (d) not occur in a component of a
National or State wild or scenic river system.

232

Dischargesl,2 classed as:

Backfill in utility line waterway crossings3, provided there is
no change in preconstruction bottom contours
Bank stabilization3 less than 500 feet long averaging less than
1 cubic yard per running foot, outside wetlands, and not
impairing surface flow of wetlands
Road crossings4 with less than 200 cubic yards of fill below
plane of ordinary high water on non-tidal stream, provided
culvert on bridge does not restrict expected high flows and
that discharges into wetlands do not extend more than 100 feet
on either side of the ordinary high water mark
Fills incidental to bridges across tidal waters (cofferdams,
abutments, foundation seals, piers, and temporary construction
and access fills), not including bridge approach fills and
causeways5
Repair or replacement of previously authorized fills or those
constructed before authorization was required, according to the
orginal plans and for any originally approved uses

2 Such discharges must (a) not be located proximate to a public water
supply intake, (b) not occur in areas of concentrated shellfish
production, and (.c) not disrupt the movement of biota indigenous to the
waterway, in addition to satisfying all the requirements in footnote 2
above.

3The activity will require a Section 10 permit if it is in navigable
waters of the United States.

4 The fill will require a US Coast Guard permit if located in navigable
waters (33 USC 401).

5 The approach fills will require a general or individual Section 404
permit if in navigable waters; both the approach fills and the bridge
require a US Coast Guard permit.

9233

The sole general permit in New Jersey was issued by the Philadelphia
District under Section 10 on 2 October 1978. It expires on 31 December
1983. At that time the cumulative impacts of work performed under the
permit will be reviewed prior to reissuance of the general permit.
Structures authorized by the permit are characterized as follows:

* Open-structure docks supported by floats, pilings, or cantilevers on
bulkheaded, privately owned, residential properties in residential
areas for which the bulkhead previously was authorized by the
Corps.

* No more than one dock per residential lot.

* Maximum dock dimensions are no greater than 5 feet channelward from
the existing bulkhead and no less than 5 feet distant from adjacent
properties on each side.

The permit is not applicable to

* Historic, cultural, or achaeological sites as provided in the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

e Sites eligible for or listed in the National Registry of Natural
Landmarks.

* Any other areas named in Acts of Congress or Presidential
Proclamations, as National Rivers, National Wilderness Areas,
National Seashores, National Recreation Areas, National Lakeshores,
National Parks, National Monuments, or similar areas such as
estuarine and marine sanctuaries.

a Sites identified by the District Engineer as controversial or
environmentally sensitive.

Anyone desiring to undertake work under the authority of the general
permit must notify the District by letter, describing the scope of the
project, exact location of project site, and approximate dates of proposed
construction. (A copy of the DEP waterfront development permit application
normally will provide sufficient information.) Each letter of notification
is reviewed by the Corps to ascertain compliance with the criteria of the
general permit. If compliance is confirmed, then a copy of the general
permit and special conditions is forwarded to the applicant. No work can
commence legally until the copy of the general permit is received by the
applicant. Special conditions include the following:

1. Dock may be used only for non-commercial purposes.

2. Only placement of the open-structure dock is authorized.
Dredging, filling, and other activities are not authorized. In
particular, placement of structures on the docks, storage of

234

pollutants on the docks, and placement of sheathing or
breakwaters on the docks are not authorized.

3. Each proposed dock must receive an approved NJ-DEP permit or DEP
waiver of permit.

4. If any archaeologic or historic artifact is discovered in the
project area, the permittee must cease work immediately and
contact the District.

5. Permittee must preserve the integrity of the permitted structure
and the safety of boats moored to it against damage from wave
wash from passing boats, and the United States cannot be held
liable for damage from wave wash.

6. The permittee must restore the waterway to its former condition
upon receipt of a notice from the Department of the Army, within
the time and manner specified, and at no expense to the United
States. If the permittee fails to comply, the Corps may restore
the waterway (by contract or otherwise), and recover the cost of
restoration from the permittee.

(2) Enforcement

District offices of the Corps are charged with enforcing the regulatory
programs. Cease and desist orders may be issued when unauthorized work is
discovered. During the Corps investigation of unauthorized activities,
views of US-EPA, US-FWS, NMFS, and other appropriate Federal, State, and
local agencies are to be solicited. Should voluntary compliance with Corps
requirements not be achieved, legal action may include criminal and civil
prosecution leading to substantial fines, modification of the unauthorized
work previously accomplished, removal of the unauthorized activity, and
restoration of the-area to its original or comparable condition. District
offices may refer various types of cases to the local US Attorney for legal
action; other classes of cases must be referred to the Office of the Chief
of Engineers (33 CFR 326.4). After-the-fact authorizations may be processed
and issued or denied following public notice and review, if such actions are
4udged to be in the public interest..

(3) Transfer of Program Administration to States

The 1977 Amendments to the Clean Water Act (PL 95-217) authorize the
States to administer the Section 404 program for discharges of dredged and
fill material into certain inland waters (including wetlands) of the United
States. The States are not authorized to assume the Section 404 permit
program, however, for those waters here described as navigable waters
(together with their adjacent wetlands) in accordance with Corps

235

definitions.1 A program for administering Section 404 permits may be
authorized by US-EPA after the State has demonstrated that it possesses
sufficient jurisdiction and enforcement authority to administer the program,
and has provided for the public notice, interagency coordination, and other
procedural requirements mandated for State programs by the Clean Water Act.

During 1978 US-EPA drafted procedures for approving State 404 permit
programs, and the regulations were expected to be published during 1979 as
40 CFR parts 123, 126, 127, and 230 (43 FR 231:56167, 30 November 1978). In
general, the statutory requirements for Section 404 closely parallel
requirements for State NPDES permits under Section 402 of the Clean Water
Act. Transfer of the program will be accomplished by a Memorandum of
Understanding between US-EPA and the State. Such memoranda must be updated
at least every third year. A memorandum of agreement between the State and
the Corps also will be required by US-EPA. The Corps will continue to
administer Section 404 permits for navigable waters and their adjacent
wetlands. New Jersey currently lacks the authority to administer a Section
404 program for waterways subject to delegation. US-EPA will retain the
authority to object to any State-issued Section 404 permit for violations of
the Act, violations of US-EPA guidelines, and objections raised by other
Federal agencies (including, but not limited to the Corps of Engineers, Fish
and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service).

b. Environmental Protection Agency

All of New Jersey is included in Region II of the US Environmental
Protection Agency, which has headquarters in New York City. The National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NLPDES) permit program established by
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act is administered by US-EPA, but New Jersey
is in the process of applying for approval to administer the program. State
authority to administer the NPDES program is provided by the 1977 Water
Pollution Control Act (NJSA 58:10A-1 et seq.). US-EPA will retain the
authority to veto State-issued permits after transfer of the program to the
State. Proposed revision to US-EPA regulations that cover the NPDES permit
programs were published on 21 August 1978 (43 FR 162:37077-37134).

The NPDES permit program establishes effluent self-monitoring
requirements for point sources of wastewater. Existing sources also must be
scheduled for compliance with any nationwide minimum effluent limitations
established to protect State-designated water quality and uses. New sources
generally are subject to more stringent limitations than existing sources.
As mentioned previously, certification by the State (Division of Water
Resources in DEP) pursuant to Section 401 is a mandatory element of Section
402 NPDES permit processing by US-EPA, along with public notice and

J~~~

1Here navigable is used in the traditional sense of the Corps of
Engineers, that is, waters actually used for navigation. This includes
all tidal waters and their adjacent wetlands. Only shoreland wetlands
are eligible for delegation of Section 404 permit authority to the
States.

236

interagency review. This certification provides the State with an
opportunity to recommend conditions more stringent than nationwide minimum
conditions, if appropriate to maintain or enhance water quality,
particularly in waterways designated as water quality limited (a class that
includes most New Jersey waters). Each NPDES permit is valid for no longer
than five years. There currently are about 1,400 permits in New Jersey.
There is to be no discharge of pollutants from 1985 onward.

Under US-EPA administration, new sources also must have received permit
approval following comprehensive environmental review before their
construction can begin. The review considerations are not limited to water
quality aspects of the proposed new sources, but must include all Federal
environmental protection responsibilities (40 CFR 6.900-6.924; 42 FR
7:2449-2459, li January 1977). The review of new sources may result in
formal environmental impact statements. Federal NEPA review is not
mandated when NPDES permits are issued by States.

Clean Water Act programs similar to NPDES may be assumed by the States
for regulating aquaculture (Section 318) and sewage sludge (Section 405), as
well as dredged or fill material (Section 404, as previously noted). The
Section 318 and 405 programs are combined with the Section 402 program. Ali
State-administered US-EPA programs must conform with current Federal laws.
Proposed US-EPA regulations incorporate requirements of the Clean Water Act
of 1977 (PL 95-217) into the State program requirements. (40 CFR 123; 43 FR
162:37077 et seq., 21 August 1978).

US-EPA also administers an ocean dumping permit program pursuant to
Section 102 of the Ocean Dumping Act (PL 96-532, 33 USC 1411-1421). This
program is coordinated with the related Section 103 permit issued by the
Corps of Engineers. Public notice and interagency review includes
opportunity for State certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
for proposed dumping in or that might affect the State waters in the
contiguous territorial sea. State certification for dumping proposed
outside the contiguous territorial sea is not required unless the State can
demonstrate that the proposed dumping will violate water quality standards
within its jurisdiction (40 CFR 222.3). Various substances are subject to
differing degrees of strictness in regulation, depending on their potential
for environmental effects on the marine ecosystem. Dumping must be at sites
approved by US-EPA for interim use. Ocean dumping is expected to be
terminated entirely by the mid 1980's.

US-EPA review of Section 404 permits issued by the Corps is based on
authority mandated directly by the Clean Water Act in Section 404. US-EPA
can condition or deny permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material.
Existing regulations are at 40 CFR 230 (40 FR 173:41291-41298, 5 September
1975), and new regulations are expected by the end of 1978. Section 10
review authority and procedures for administrative referral upward of
disputed permits from Corps District Offices to higher authority are derived
from the 1967 Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of the
Army and the Interior, when the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration (now US-EPA) was a part of the Department of the Interior.
The Meadowlands implements the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.

237

US-EPA also exercises air quality responsibility under the Clean Air
Act. The DEP Bureau of Air Pollution Control has prepared a State
Implementation Plan for New Jersey. Unless the Plan is not approved by
US-EPA, air quality permits will remain a State responsibility, and the
primary US-EPA roles will continue to include permit overview and
establishment of minimum standards. Section 118 of the Clean Air Act states
that all Federal facilities are subject to State air pollution control
laws.

Pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (PL 95-95 and PL
95-190) US-EPA administers a permit program to insure the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) in addition to compliance with other
applicable regulations (40 CFR 51; 43 FR 118:26379-26410, 19 June 1978).
PSD regulations are applied to any stationary source of air pollutants in
one of twenty eight categories listed in the June 1978 regulations that has
the potential to emit 100 tons or more annually of a pollutant regulated
under the Act (currently, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide). They also
are applied to any stationary source that is considered to be a major
emitting facility because it is capable of emitting 250 tons per year or
more of any regulated pollutant. One full year of ambient monitoring data,
together with the results of modeling, is required as part of a PSD
application, and US-EPA must issue its permit decision within one year of
acceptance of a complete application. PSD review is slated to become a
State responsibility when appropriate revisions are made to the State
Implementation Plan.

Section 162 of the Clean Air Act establishes certain classes of Federal
lands as mandatory Class I areas with respect to the prevention of
significant deterioration. All new sources near the Brigantine National
Wildlife Refuge wilderness area, and major new sources throughout southern
New Jersey, may require limitations to preserve air quality in this
mandatory Class I area.

c. Department of the Interior

The Department of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management,
has primary responsibility for managing Federal lands of the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS). It controls lease sales and sets the conditions
according to which leases are issued. Permits and licenses for the
geophysical exploration of leased Federal lands are the responsibility of
the US Geological Survey. Corps of Engineers review of Section 10 permits
for OCS mineral leases are limited to impacts on navigation and national
security; environmental reviews are the responsibility of the Department of
the Interior.

Other agencies in the Department, notably the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Park Service, have no direct regulatory responsibility
outside the Federal lands managed directly by them. Both the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Park Service review public notices and
impact statements, and they regularly comment on actions that affect their
sphere of expertise and jurisdiction.

238

The Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service administers a $5
million matching grants program for maritime heritage preservation. The
funds are part of an appropriation under the National Historic Preservation
I ~ ~Act of 1966. Grant applications are processed for properties listed on the
National Register of Historic places, and funds are granted also for surveys
that lead to National Register listings.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has specific statutory responsibility
pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661-667e; 48
Stat. 401, as amended) to comment on permits issued by the Corps of
I ~ ~Engineers for work in waterways, and it routinely consults with the DEP
Division of Fish, Game, and Shell Fisheries when preparing its comments on
projects in New Jersey. Fish and Wildlife Service policies that it uses in
I ~ ~project reviews under its several statutory authorities regarding work in
waterways are summarized in guidelines that became effective during 1975 (40
FR 231:55809-55824, 1 December 1975). General policy guidelines for
proposals involving new work (Section 5.2 of the Guidelines) include
the following considerations:

1. Encroachments into waterways and wetlands are discouraged where
biologically productive wetlands and shallows would be damaged significantly
or public rights of access, use, and enjoyment would be unreasonably
infringed upon.

2. Sites and designs are encouraged to comply with comprehensive
regional and statewide land-use plans that balance public needs (including
coastal zone management plans).

3. Any proposal that in combination with other developments will have
adverse cumulative effects that would unreasonably degrade environmental
resources or diminish human satisfactions from the waterway are not
acceptable to US-FWS and will be strongly discouraged.

4. Structures, facilities, or activities not dependent on the waterway
will be considered unacceptable unless the applicant demonstrates that the
proposed use is in the public interest and no alter-native site is
* ~~~available.

5. Proposals for sewage treatment lagoons that require filling of
wetlands will be discouraged.

6. US-FWS will object to or request denial of Federal permits for any
proposed project not designated or located to avoid preventable significant
I ~ ~~amages and to minimize and mitigate for unavoidable losses to fish,
wildlife, and other environmental values.

M4ore detailed policies and recommendations are listed for fourteen
categories of activities in Section 5.3 of the Guidelines. Apartments,
shops, and restaurants are named as examples of non-water dependent
facilities.

239

Six specific situations that may lead to a recommendation of permit
denial or objection to the authorization of a Federal project involving work
in waterways are:

1. The project or activity will directly destroy, damage, or degrade
fish and wildlife, their habitat, or other significant environmental values,
including part or all of a natural functioning ecosystem.

2. The project will lead to, encourage, or make possible the
destruction, damage, or degradation of fish and wildlife, habitat, or other
significant environmental values, including part or all of a natural
functioning ecosystem.

3. Public use of a natural or other environmental resource will be
restricted or curtailed.

4. Public benefits will not clearly exceed public losses, ignoring any
private gains not clearly related to health, safety, or protection of
property.

5. The project purposes are not water related or dependent.

6. Alternative upland sites are available for the proposal which would
involve less environmental cots and generally better satisfy the public
interest.

It is the policy position of US-FWS that there is a national
recognition that wetland and shallow water habitats have such high
ecological and social values as to admit of their destruction or degradation
only where there is no question that the public interest demands it.
Detailed investigations that demonstrate projects to be environmentally
sound and in the public interest are the responsibility of project sponsors.
US-FWS evaluates specific projects individually on their merits for
compliance with the policy guidelines in their particular ecosystem
settings. Special permit conditions may be suggested to the regulatory
agencies as a means of providing that authorized work actually is carried
out as promised.

Pursuant to a 1967 Memorandum of Understanding between the Secretary of
the Interior and the Secretary of the Army, Corps District Engineers cannot
override objections of Regional Directors of the Fish and Wildlife Service
regarding permit actions. Unresolved cases are referred to Washington for
further review and ultimate disposition by the Secretaries, if necessary.
These procedures insure that the concerns of the Fish and Wildlife Service
receive thorough consideration in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act.

In addition to its permit review responsiblities, the Fish and Wildlife
Service assists other agencies in carrying out surveillance to identify and
investigate unauthorized work. Its personnel cooperate as appropriate in
enforcement actions. US-FWS staff may conduct followup monitoring to
ascertain whether projects are conducted in accordance with permit

conditions and in a manner that avoids or minimizes adverse impacts. US-FWS
also provides technical guidance and assistance to government agencies and
to others concerning the environmental management of water and wetlands.
Coastal biota of particular concern to US-FWS include migratory birds,
anadromous fish, and species identified as endangered with extinction or
threatened with endangerment.

d. Department of Commerce (National Marine Fisheries Service)

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) a unit of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the Department of Commerce, is the
agency primarily responsible for marine fisheries research, management, and
protection. It actively reviews Federal permits for effects on marine
fisheries. This agency routinely coordinates closely with FWS, and its
comments typically urge environmentally protective measures. NNFS has no
regulations governing its review of permits and Federal agency actions, but
its procedures generally resemble those of FWS, with which the agency
predecessor of NMFS formerly was associated in the Department of the
Interior. The memorandum of agreement between the Departments of Interior
and Army is being revised and is expected to include the Department of
Commerce and to recognize specifically the role of NMFS in referring
disputed Corps permits from District level to higher authority.

e. Department of Transportation

Two agencies of the Department of Transportation have regulatory
responsibilities that frequently may affect development in the coastal zone.
These are the Coast Guard and the Federal Aviation Administration. The
Coast Guard issues permits for deepwater ports under the Deepwater Port Act
of 1974 (PL 93-627).

The US Coast Guard also administers a permit program under Section 9 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1899 and pursuant to the Department of
Transportation Act (PL 89-270) and the General Bridge Acts of 1906 and 1946
(33 USC 491; 33 USC 595) that parallels the program of the Corps of
Engineers. Coast Guard authority comprehends bridges and causeways proposed
for construction in navigable waters. Minor road crossing fills in
navigable waters also are included in Coast Guard responsibilities.
Interagency reviews following public notices are part of the Coast Guard
permit procedures. When another Federal agency is responsible for lead
agency compliance under NEPA (for example, a Federal Highway Administration
Project), the Coast Guard review is concerned primarily with navigation.
When the Coast Guard is the sole responsible Federal agency, however, it
must evaluate all environmental aspects of the project during public
interest review. Coast Guard Section 9 permit regulations are under
revision and are expected to be republished during 1979. The new
regulations will include procedures for coordination with DEP-OCZ4 for State
certification of consistency of proposals from non-Federal applicants. All
of New Jersey is within the Third Coast Guard District, based at Governor's
Island, New York City.

241

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reviews proposed construction
in the flight paths of airports and advises concerning painting and lighting
requirements for structures to insure visibility to pilots. It also permits
ang licenses the construction, operation, and alteration of airports.
Notification to the Eastern Regional Office of FAA is required for all
proposed construction in New Jersey that is to extend more than 200 feet
above ground level, unless it is shielded by terrain or by other buildings
in urban areas (FAA Regulations Part 77, Subchapter B). This Office is at
JFK International Airport Federal Building, Jamaica, New York. FAA review
is based on air safety considerations. Marking and lighting standards
appear in Advisory Circular 7/74-60-IE dated November 1976.

f. Department of Energy

The Department of Energy was organized during 1977 to provide more
nearly centralized Federal planning and regulation of energy facilities.
Regulatory programs that may affect the New Jersey coastal zone include
energy pricing and allocation actions by the Federal Energy Administration,
interstate wholesale electricity rate setting and natural gas regulation by
the Federal Power Commission, the setting of economic terms for outer
continental shelf leasing (formerly under Department of the Interior
control), regulation of interstate oil pipelines and rate setting (formerly
under the Interstate Commerce Commission), and energy conservation
standards for new buildings (formerly under the Department of Housing and
Urban Development).

g. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

This independent agency is responsible for the regulation of nuclear
reactors. It has issued detailed regulations for the licensing of nuclear
power plants, including environmental assessment procedures, and it sets
standards for the safe use of radioactive materials. Regulations of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission appear at Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations in Chapter I (Parts 0-199).

h. Department of Housing and Urban Development

The Federal Emergency Management Agency is responsible for
administration of the Federal flood insurance program. This agency
publishes interim flood hazard boundary maps and permanent flood insurance
rate maps. Municipal regulations must meet minimum Federal standards in
order for eligibility for Federal flood insurance and for loans from
Federally regulated lending institutions. Some 540 local governmental
entities in New Jersey were participating in the National Flood Insurance
Program during 1979 under either the regular program (178 communities) or
the emergency program (362). Ten municipalities were not in the program,
although their flood hazard areas had been identified for more than one
year. No communities were suspended for non-compliance (FEMA 1979).

242

3. Federal Assistance to State and Local Government Agencies

Several mechanisms exist f or coordinating Federal assistance to State
and local agencies with coastal zone management. As in the case of direct
Federal actions, Federal assistance is subject to notice procedures of the
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95. The Department of Community
Affairs serves as the A-95 clearinghouse for the State. Many assisted
I ~ctivities require Federal or State permits, and thus are subject to the
regulatory controls and interagency reviews discussed previously. Major
Federal assistance actions with significant environmental effects are
subject to EIS procedures under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969.

DEP-OCZM will continue to use the A-95 review process and other
mechanisms to become aware of Federal assistance actions affecting the
coastal zone. It may comment on the consistency of the proposed actions
with coastal policies, if a consistency determination previously has not
been made in response to a direct request. When alter-native measures to
reduce inconsistencies with coastal policies are not adopted voluntarily by
applicants, DEP-OCZM may use the A-95 procedures and coastal zone appeal
procedures of NOAA and Secretary of Commerce (15 CFR 930; 43 FR 49, 13 March
1978) to enlist the support of the sponsoring Federal agency.

Substantial Federal financial assistance typically is a part of major
wastewater treatment facilities and highway projects. US-EPA grants for
planning and constructing publicly owned wastewater treatment works under
Section 201 of the Clean Water Act are channeled to local agencies through
the Division of Water Resources in DEP. US-EPA administers a host of
programs which provide municipalities with assistance in environmental
matters. These programs cover the general topics of air quality, noise,
pesticides, toxic substances, radiation, solid waste, and water quality
(US-EPA 1979b). Proposed facilities must be compatible with the areawide
management plans (Section 208 plans) which now are being developed, and
which are required by US-EPA to be coordinated with coastal zone management
pln. Population estimates must be approved by the State and by US-EPA
before wastewater management works are funded by US-EPA, because Federal
policy precludes the use of Federal funds for the construction of new
facilities that will stimulate growth, as opposed to meeting the backlog of
existing waste disposal needs. Highway projects and mass transit
construction are likely to be addressed in environmental impact statements
prepared jointly by the New Jersey and United States Departments of
Transportation. Federal financial asistance programs subject to consistency
review are listed in Table 31.

B. Interstate Responsibilities

Several interstate agencies have been established to carry out water
quality management, comprehensive regional planning, and the planning,
construction, operation, and management of river crossings, port facilities,
and interstate parks. These agencies were formed by New Jersey in
cooperation with New York, Delaware, and/or Connecticut, and have received
Congressional approval. These agencies generally have policymaking bodies
appointed by the State governors, with Executive Directors responsible for
staff implementation of agency programs.

243

Table 31. Federal financial assistance programs subject to consistency with
coastal zone policies (USDOC-OCZM and Hawaii Department of Planning and
Economic Development 1978). Reference numbers are those of the US Office of
Management and Budget, Asterisks (*) indicate an unclassified program.

Federal Grants, Loans and Guarantees in the Coastal Zone2

I. Grants for Planning and Management

AGRICLTUR

* Rural development planning grants

COM/ERCE

11.302 EDA planning assistance
11.418 NOAA CEIP grants

DEFENSE

12.600 Community economic adjustment 3

HEALTE, EDUCATION & WELFARE

13.206 Areawide comprehensive health planning

HOUSLNG & URBAN DEVELOPPENT

14.203 Comprehensive planning assistance
14.702 State disaster plans and programs

15.401 Outdoor recreation State planning
15.904 Historic preservation

TRANSPORT0 TION

?0;.103 Airport planning grants
20.205 Highway research, planning and construction
20.505 Urban mass transportation studies grants

WATE. REESOURCES COUNCIL

65.001 Water resources planning

EnVROE-TAL PROTECTION AGENCY

66.001 Air pollution control program grants (planning)
66.005 Air pollution survey and demonstration
66.302 Solid waste planning grants
* .Areawide waste treatment planning and water quality implementation plans
(Sec. 208)
Statewide continuing planning process for water pollution control

2. Grants for State, Local and Private Development

AGRICULIURE

10.409 Irrigation, Drainage, and Other Soil and Water and Conservation Loans
10.414 Resource conservation and development loans.
10.4L8 Water and waste disposal systems for rural counities
10.419 Watershed protection and flood prevention loans
10.901 Resource conservation and development
10.904 Watershed prorection and flood prevention (Exception: small projects costing
under $7,500 for erosion and sediment control and land stabilization and for
rehabilitation and consolidation of existing irrigation systems.)

Rural Development Act of 1972 -- loans and grants for essential rural co -uni;y
facilities (Sec. 104), rural indus;rializaticn assistance (Sec. 118), vatershed
protection and flood pre-:ention (Sec. 201 e, f, g), water storage facilities
(Sec. 301)

244

Table 31. Federal assistance programs (continued).

CO20"RCE

11.300 EDA grants and loans for public works and development facilities
11.304 EDA public works impact projects
11..407 NOAA commercial fisheries research and development
11.411 NOAA fishery cooperative service
* NOAA grants to purchase and operate estuarine sanctuaries under Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972
11.501 Maritime development and promotion of ports and intermodal transport systems
11.508 Maritime capital construction fund

DEFNLSE

12.101 Corps beach erosion control projects
12.102 Corps flood control works and Federally-authorized coastal protection works,
rehabilitation
12.105 Corps protection of essential highways, highway bridge approaches and public works
12.106 Corps flood control projects
12.107 Corps navigation projects
12.108 Corps shagging and clearing for flood control
12.109 Corps shagging and clearing for navigation

HOUSING AND URBA.N DEVELOPENT

14.207 New communities-loan guarantess
14.211 Surplus land for community development
14.307 Urban renewal projects
14.607 Public housing--modernization of projects
14.701 Disaster assistance

I N=rRIOR

15.400 Outdoor recreation-acquisition and developrrent
15.501 Irrigation distribution system loans
15.503 Small reclamation projects
15.600 Anadronous fish conservation
15.602 Conse-ration law enforcement training assistance
15.603 Farm fish pond management
15.604 Fishery research-information
15.605 Fish restoration
15.608 Sport fish management
15.609 Wildlife enhancement
15.610 Wildlife research information
15.611 Wildlife restoration
15.904 Historic preservation

TRANSPORTATION

20.102 Airport development aid program
20.201 Forest highways
20.204 Highway beautification-landscaping and scenic enhancement
20.209 Public lands highway
20.500 Urban mass transportation capital improvement grants
20.501 Urban mass transportation capital improvement loans

TR7_ASURY

* General revenue sharing

EhVIRONM32IT.AL PROTECTION AGENCY

66.001 Air pollution control program grants
66.015 Construction grants for wastewater treatment works
66.017 Water pollution control-State and interstate program grants
66.504 Solid waste research grants
66.505 Water pollution control demonstrations
66.000 Environmental protection-consolidated program grants
* Programs under Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendnents of 1972

243

Table 31. Federal assistance programs (concluded).

3. Ooerational, Service and Research Grants

AGRICUT TURE

10.902 SCS soil and water conservation
10.903 SCS soil surveys
10.906 River basin surveys and investigations

CO1PMRCE

11.303 EPA technical assistance
11.417 NOAA sea grant
11.400 NOAA geodetic control surveys
11.401 Nautical charts and related data (NOAA)

DEFENSE

12.100 Corps aquatic plant control
12.104 Corps flood plain management service

HOUSING .XYD URBAN DEVELOPMENT

14.214 Urban systems engineering demonstration grants
14.216 Governmental management-technical assistance and information services

INTERIOR

15.300 USGS geologic and mineral resource surveys and mapping
15.801 USGS map information
15.802 USGS minerals discovery loan program
15.803 USGS topographic surveys and mapping
15.804 USGS water resources investigations
15.950 OWiRR additional water resources research
15.951 OWRR water resources research-assistance to States for institutes
15.952 OIWRR water resources research-matching grants to State institutes
15.953 OWRR water resources scientific information center

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

47.036 Intergovernmental science and research utilization
* Research applied to national needs (RANN) program

246

1. Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC)

This agency was created by the Delaware River Basin Compact of 1961.
Section 3.8 of the Compact requires that any project with significant impact
on water resources in the Delaware River Basin receive approval from the
Commission prior to its construction. Section 11 provides further that any
public water resources project must be approved by the Commission as
consistent with its Comprehensive Plan for the Basin before funds can be
spent on its construction. The Commissioner of DEP is the representative of
the Governor on the Commission representing New Jersey. The DRBC is
headquartered in Trenton.

Docket approval for projects under Section 3.8 or Section 11 may be
received from the Commission following review according to the Comprehensive
Plan and Rules of Practice and Procedure. The rules specify threshold sizes
of projects that require Commission review, and the multiple factors that
must be considered, including the applicable water quality classifications
and discharge standards of the Commission.

Resolution 78-10 amended the rules of the Commission by adding a policy
on wetlands effective 28 June 1978. The Commission seeks to preserve and
protect all wetlands, including swamps, marshes, and bogs, within the
four-state Basin, in recognition of the public benefits provided by
wetlands. Projects that propose alteration of wetlands 25 acres in extent
or larger will be reviewed by DRBC. Projects that affect less than 25 acres
of wetlands can be reviewed by DRBC (1) if the project is determined to be
of major regional or interstate significance and no State or Federal permit
review applies, or (2) if a Commissioner or the Executive Director
determines that the final action of the State or Federal permitting agency
may not reflect adequately the Commission's wetlands preservation policy.
The Commission will pay special attention to identifying feasible
alternatives and to reducing adverse impacts from wetlands projects that it
reviews.

The DRBC definition of wetlands includes areas inundated by surface or
groundwater with a frequency sufficient to support a prevalence of aquatic
life that requires saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction, as
well as wetlands delineated by a signatory State. Hence DRBC review can
extend to many wetlands not delineated as coastal wetlands by the State of
New Jersey.

2. Interstate Sanitation Commission (ISC)

The Interstate Sanitation Commission, headquartered in New York City,
began operations during 1936. It has issued effluent standards for
discharges into waters under its jurisdiction in the New Jersey - New York -
Connecticut metropolitan area. The Commission is established under a
compact between the three States (New Jersey approval is in RS 32:18; !;JSA
32:18-1 to 18-23 and 19-1 to 19-10). New Jersey waterways under Commission
jurisdiction include:

247

the Hudson river and New York upper bay and estuaries
and tidal waters thereof between the New York-New Jersey
boundary and Constable Point on Constable Hook, the Kill
Van Kull and Arthur Kill to the mouths of the rivers
entering into the Kills; Newark bay and the estuaries
thereof up to the mouth of the Passaic river; and up to
the mouth of the Hackensack river; Raritan bay together
with the Raritan river up to the Victory bridge on said
river between Pert Amboy and South Amboy; together with
the Cheesequake creek up to the New York and Long Branch
Railroad bridge on said creek at M4atawan; Sandy Hook bay;
together with the Shrewsbury river up to the passenger
railroad bridge between Navesink Light and Highland Beach
on said river.

The ISC does not operate a permit program. It reviews public notices
and applications for State or Federal discharge permits and Section 401
State water quality certifications to insure that ISC requirements will be
met. Its standards are enforceable independently of other State and Federal
water quality authorities.

3. Tri-State Regional Planning Commission

The Tri-State Regional Planning Commission is responsible for
continuing advisory comprehensive regional planning in the New Jersey -
New York - Connecticut metropolitan region. It operates under an interstate
compact pursuant to Chapter 12 of the New Jersey Laws of 1965 (as amended by
C.11 L.1969, C.14 L.1970, and C.161 L.1971) and similar enabling legislation
in New York and Connecticut, with Federal funds and matching State monies.
Its jurisdiction in New Jersey includes the Counties of Bergen, Essex,
Hudson, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, and Union. The
Commission reviews applications for Federal aid in the region pursuant to
Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of
1966, and furnishes information to Federal agencies concerning the
consistency of proposed actions with regional development plans. It also
acts as the regional clearinghouse for transmitting notice of future Federal
actions to local governments pursuant to OMB Circular A-95. It regularly
comments on environmental impact statements and participates in the planning
of transportation and other infrastructure. It also collects planning data
on its region, and it is headquartered in New York City.

4. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC)

The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission is established by the
1965 compact between Pennsylvania and New Jersey as a continuing advisory
comprehensive regional planning agency. Its region in New Jersey includes
Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and Mercer Counties. The Commission reviews
application for Federal aid in the region pursuant to OMB Circular A-95. It
regularly comments on environmental impact statements and participates in
the planning of transportation projects and other infrastructure. It is
preparing the 208 areawide water quality managment plan for Camden,
Burlington, and Gloucester Counties and for Mercer County, and it is

248

H ~~developing regional plans for the year 2000. It is headquartered in
Philadelphia.

I ~~~5. Palisades Interstate Park Commission

This Commission administers the Palisades Interstate Park along the
I ~ ~Hudson River in Bergen County and other parks in New York State.
Headquartered at Bear Mountain, New York, the Commission was established
during 1937 in cooperation with New York State pursuant to New Jersey L.
I ~ ~1937 C. 148. It also administers the Fort Lee Historic Park near the
western terminus of the George Washington Bridge.

6. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

This agency is a major provider of terminal, transportation, and
related commercial facilities in the New Jersey - New York metropolitan
region. It was established during 1921 by action of New York and New Jersey
(New Jersey L.1921 C.151), and has operated under its present name since
1972. The Authority is responsible for operating six interstate tunnels
and bridges between New Jersey and New York, four airports (including Newark
International Airport and Teterboro Airport) and two heliports, seven marine
terminals (including terminals at Newark, Elizabeth, and Hoboken) a bus
terminal, a bus station, two union truck terminals (one in Newark), and the
World Trade Center. A rapid transit system operated by the Fort Authority
Trans Hudson Corporation (PATH) links Newark, Jersey City, Hoboken, and
Manhattan. In New Jersey the Port of New York District in which the
Authority may operate includes an area described roughly by an area of about
25 miles radius centered on the Statue of Liberty. All of Hudson County is
included, together with parts of Bergen, Passaic, Morris, Essex, Union,
Somerset, Middlesex, and Monmouth Counties. Outlying municipalities in the
I ~~District include Paterson, Plainfield, New Brunswick, Matawan, and Atlantic
Highlands. The precise lines of latitude and longitude are described in
Article II of the compact. The undertaking of major activities by the
Authority requires the consent of the Governors and Legislatures of the two
States. During 1978 the mandate of the Port Authority was increased to
include industrial redevelopment in the Port District.

1 ~~~~7. Delaware River and Bay Authority

This agency was organized during 1963 pursuant to an interstate compact
I ~ ~between New Jersey (C.66 L.1961) and Delaware. Its responsiblities generally
are to construct and operate crossings of the lower Delaware River between
the two States, to study and develop transportation and terminal facilities
along the River as needed for economic development, and perform such other
functions as may be mandated by the Legislatures of the two States. In New
Jersey the jurisdiction of the Authority includes the Delaware River and Bay
southward from the Pennsylvania-Delaware boundary, together with adjacent
I ~~areas needed for crossing approaches or for terminal facilities. Major
facilities currently operated by the Authority include the Delaware Memorial
Bridge and the Cape May - Lewes Ferry. An analysis of transportation needs
I ~ ~for future River crossings is underway during 1979.

249

8. The Delaware River Port Authority

This bi-state agency is established by a 1952 compact between New
Jersey and Pennsylvania (New Jersey approval is at RS 32-3-1 et seq.). It
is authorized to construct and operate river crossings and port facilities,
to provide commuter rail rapid transit within a 35-mile radius centered on
the City of Camden, to study the need for future port improvements, and to
promote commerce on the Delaware River. It also is to cooperate with other
agencies engaged in similar activities. The Port District in New Jersey
includes all of Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland,
Gloucester, Ocean, and Salem Counties. The agency is supported from its own
revenues, and new construction activities require the consent of the
Governors of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. At present its major facilities
include the Benjamin Franklin, Walt Whitman, Commodore Barry, and Betsy Ross
Bridges; and the PATCO (Port Authority Transit Corporation) high speed rail
line between Philadelphia and New Jersey communities.

C. County Responsibilities

Counties have relatively little direct control over land use in general
in New Jersey. They are responsible for some road construction and
maintenance activities, and they may review and approve or deny proposed
subdivisions that affect county roadways or drainage facilities (NJSA
40:27-1 et seq.). County health departments in some counties review
proposed on-lot sewage disposal facilities, and they typically provide
inspection and sampling support to NJ-DEP.

County boards of freeholders typically are the County governing bodies
in New Jersey. The freeholders fund the County planning agencies,
environmental agencies, and County engineers. They also control the siting
of County facilities.

Counties are authorized to engage in advisory comprehensive planning,
and they have more extensive planning capabilities than most municipalities.
County planning departments are to review municipal plans and ordinances
proposed under the 1975 Municipal Land Use Law (NJSA 40:55D-1 et seq.), and
they may review applications to the DEP Division of Coastal Resources for
permits. County agencies also maintain lists of cultural resources
(primarily historic sites) that are of county or wider significance. County
planning departments primarily have permissive rather than mandatory review
responsibilities. They typically function as clearinghouses and keep track
of physical and socioeconomic developments countywide.

County mosquito commissions are agencies that have direct impact on the
coastal zone in New Jersey. There currently are sixteen county mosquito
commissions (authorized b4 NJSA 26:9-14 et seq.). Their operations are
supervised generally by the State Mosquito Control Commission. Each has two
ex officio members (the Director of the State Agricultural Experiment
Station and the Director of Health), at least three members who are or have
been employees of boards of health, and one member chosen by the county
Board of Freeholders, for a total of seven. County mosquito commissions
submit plans for exterminating mosquitoes or eliminating their breeding

250

places to the State Commission (NJSA 26:9-30). County Boards of Freeholders
are obligated to raise the funds needed by the commissions to implement
approved plans. The State Commission may assist the county commissions with
State funds, vehicles, or equipment. The four counties which do not have
mosquito commissions accomplish mosquito control through their Departments
of Public Works (Atlantic, Mercer, and Union Counties) or Public Resources
(Hudson County). Some Counties have established environmental agencies.
These advisory bodies provide technical assistance to the planning board on
environmental matters.

D. Municipal Responsibilities

The 567 New Jersey municipalities have been delegated broad powers to
control land use within their boundaries, subject to the New Jersey and
United States constitutional limitations on the taking of private property
without just compensation or due process of law. There are no
unincorporated lands in the State. Statutes granting municipalities the
authority to make and enforce ordinances are found generally in Title 40 of
the New Jersey Statutes Annotated. Municipalities typically use
subdivision, zoning, and setback ordinances and variances to control land
use.

The Municipal Land Use Law of 1975 (NJSA 40:55D-1 et seq.) revised a
number of previous statutes. New, comprehensive zoning ordinances were
required by 1 February 1977, by which time existing ordinances were to
expire. Before a new comprehensive zoning ordinance can be enacted, a land
use plan must have been prepared and adopted by the municipal planning
board. Interim zoning ordinance enactment is allowed until February 1979
(subsequently extended through May 1979) in municipalities where the
municipal master plan is incomplete. All proposed municipal ordinances
regulating land uses must be submitted to the municipal planning board (and
to the appropriate county planning agency) for review and recommendations.
Each municipal master plan, to which zoning must be tied, is to be compared
with County and State plans, and is to be reviewed and updated every six
years. Thus municipal planning and zoning currently are being tied together
by State mandate in New Jersey.

Advisory environmental commissions or committees have been established
in about half of the State's municipalities (pursuant to NJSA 40:56A.1-5 as
amended by Chapter 35, Laws of 1972). These bodies generally compile
environmental information and recommend measures to protect environmental
resources. Some commissions may review environmental impact statements
mandated by local ordinance for proposed developments.

Municipalities may enact various environmental controls in order to
protect the public health, safety, and welfare in accordance with their
traditional police powers. Many municipalities have ordinances governing
individual and semi-public water suppliers (pursuant to the authority
granted in NJSA 26:3-69.1 through 69.6) and regulating the disposal of
sewage. Local requirements may be more stringent than Statewide
regulations, although those municipalities seeking new development may be
reluctant to require more than State-imposed minimum standards.

251

Municipalities also may establish, alone or jointly, community agencies
to construct or operate facilities for such purposes as regional planning,
water supply, sewerage and solid waste disposal, housing construction,
redevelopment, drainage and shore protection, improvement of navigation,
port development, and alleviation of flood damage. A number of sewerage
authorities have been established in New Jersey. They are politically
diverse, and their jurisdictions generally do not correspond with
watersheds. Such agencies have major effects on water quality and land use
in the State by virtue of their control of existing and new wastewater
systems.

There are several restrictions on municipal land use control in New
Jersey, and others have been proposed. Municipalities have no or little
control over State actions on State-owned lands and over Federal actions on
Federally owned lands. Public utilities may appeal adverse municipal
land-use decisions to the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJSA
40:50-55; 55D-19), and 'the Board may overrule the municipality if all State
requirements are met. The public utility category includes a wide range of
facilities as defined in NJSA 48:2-13. The NJ-DEP has the authority to
overrule local disapproval of solid waste facilities under NJSA 13:IE-1 et
seq. Eminent domain is available to the State for military defense
installations and for airports (NJSA 20:1-3.1), for State highways
(NJSA 27: 7-44.6), and for Green Acres parks and open spaces (NJSA 13:
8A-24). Finally, municipalities may face legal challenge if they deny
permits to construct the local fair share of low and moderate income
housing, as determined by the Department of Community Affairs, or
unreasonably restrict public access to beaches. During 1978 bills were
under consideration in the Legislature to provide the New Jersey Department
of Energy with additional power to overrule municipal disapproval of major
energy facility sites, but they were not approved.

Municipal governing bodies exercise final approval over most planning
decisions in New Jersey. They must approve developments that affect water
demand, wastewater disposal, runoff, and a host of other factors of the
natural and socioeconomic environment. They also control the siting of
municipal facilities, subdivision and site plan regulations, and the
protection of watersheds. They also fund municipal staff agencies.

Municipal planning boards typically provide expert and citizen input
into planning decisions. Zoning boards of adjustment likewise tend to
combine citizen and expert inputs to decisionmaking. Local boards of health
are organized under the recent Local Health Services Act, and they
ordinarily work closely with County health departments. Some municipalities
contract with the County to provide health services.

252

XIV. PRINCIPAL ESTUJARINE REGULATORY PROGRAMS AND THEIR I21PLEMENTATION

Three regulatory programs in DEP form the backbone of the existing
coastal zone management program in New Jersey. These are the coastal
wetlands, coastal area facility (CAFRA), and waterfront development
(riparian) programs. Waterfront development permits are administered in
I ~ ~close coordination with grants, leases, and licenses of State-owned
tidelands. As part of the June 1979 reorganization of the Division of
Coastal Resources, administration of the three permit programs was assigned
I ~ ~to the Bureau of Coastal Project Review. Tidelands real estate transactions
are administered by the Bureau of Tidelands under the direction of the
Natural Resource Council.

I ~~~Another permit program addresses proposed stream encroachments. It is
administered by the Division of Water Resources, but uses the same CP-I
application form as the three key DEP permits. Hence this program also is
I ~~described briefly.

In northern New Jersey the estuarine wetlands along the Hackensack
I ~ ~River are within the jurisdiction of the Hackensack Meadowlands Development
Commission, an independent State agency with extensive land-use control
powers and a legislative mandate to preserve the delicate environmental
balance of the District. The operations of the HMDC are examined in some
detail in this chapter to show their role in estuarine protection.
Because it is the principal New Jersey law specifically intended to
protect the estuarine ecosystem, the discussion begins with the Wetlands Act

A. THE WETLA�NDS ACT OF 1970

This section addresses first the provisions of the Act, then
administrative interpretations of the mandated wetlands inventory. Next the
procedures for regulation of activities affecting wetlands are described.
Finally provisions are noted for enforcement.

* ~~~1. Provisions of the Act

Assembly Bill 505 was introduced on 9 February and approved by the
Governor on 5 November 1970 to become Chapter 272. of the Laws of the 1970
I ~ ~(NJSA 13:9A-l et seq.). It became effective on the date of approval. This
act requires the Commissioner of Environmental Protection to inventory tidal
wetlands in New Jersey and to regulate (after public hearing) the alteration
estuarine zone between sea and land, the Legislature found that further
deterioration and destruction of the estuarine zone must be prevented by
regulating activities that include dredging, filling, removing, or otherwise
altering or polluting the estuarine zone (Section l.a.).

The Commissioner of Environmental Protection was directed to conduct
I "~~an inventory and maps of all tidal wetlands within the State. The

253

boundaries of such wetland shall generally define the areas that are at or
below high water" (Section l.b.). Each map was to be filed in the county in
which the wetlands are located. No exception is placed on the "inventory
and maps of all tidal wetlands within the State" under the language of
Section l.b. There is no exclusion of tidal wetlands in any geographic
section of the State, no exclusion of freshwater tidal wetlands, and no
limitation to selected vegetation types or species combinations. There also
is no specific requirement that vegetation types within the wetlands be
distinguished from one another. The inventory was to be completed by 5
November 1972.

Section 2 of the Act describes the authority of the Commissioner of
Environmental Protection to regulate alteration of certain "coastal
wetlands". The term "coastal wetlands" is defined to include various
subaerial landscape types

any bank, marsh, swamp, meadow, flat, or other low land
subject to tidal action

within stated geographical limits that encompass the coastal zone

in the State of New Jersey along the Delaware bay and
Delaware river, Raritan bay, Barnegat bay, Sandy Hook
bay, Shrewsbury river including Navesink river, Shark
river, and the coastal inland waterways extending
southerly from 'Ianasquan Inlet to Cape May Harbor, or at
any inlet, estuary or tributary waterway o[f] any thereof

below an inclusively defined local water elevation not restricted to the
mean high tide limit of State-owned tidelands

including those areas now or formerly connected to tidal waters
whose surface is at or below an elevation of 1 foot above local
extreme high water

and that may be inhabited by 19 named species of characteristic plants

and upon which may grow or is capable of growing some, but
not necessarily all, of the following: salt meadow grass
(Spartin[a] patens), spike grass (Distichlis spicata),,
black grass (Juncus gerardi), saltmarsh grass (Spartina
alterniflora), saltworts (Salicornia [e]uropaea, and
Salicornia bigelovii), Sea Lavend[elr (Limonium carolinianum),
saltmarsh bulrushes (Scirpus robustus and Scirpus paludosus var.
atlanticus), sand spurrey (Spergularia marina), switch grass
(Panicum virgatum), tall cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), hightide
bush (Iva frutescens var. oraria), cattails (Typha angustifolia and

254

Typha latifolia), spike rush (Eleocharis rostellata), chairmaker's
rush (Scirpus american~us], bent ~rass (Agrostis palustris), and
sweet grass (Hierochloe odorata).1

The Section 2 definition of "coastal wetlands" is silent regarding the
inclusion or exclusion for regulatory purposes of some of the lands which
presumably must be inventoried as "tidal wetlands" in accordance with
Section 1.b. The estuaries of the Hudson River, Upper New York Bay,
Hackensack River, Passaic River, Newark Bay, Kill Van Kill, Arthur Kill, and
their tributaries - all of which have some associated tidal wetlands and
are ultimately tributary waterways of Raritan Bay through the Arthur Kill
and Lower New York Bay - are not mentioned. Had all these waterways in
northern New Jersey actually been excluded in the intent of the Legislature,
however, it would have been unnecessary and superfluous to indicate that the
land subject to the jurisdiction of the Hackensack Meadowlands Development
Commission also was excluded from the term "coastal wetlands," as Section 2
states. Furthermore, tidal wetlands that support only plant species other
than the 19 named species were not mentioned in the definition of "coastal
wetlands". Examples of such tidal wetlands include the whitecedar and red
maple stands of tidal swamp forests and also those tidal swamps with
predominant shrub vegetation.

Before exercising his broad authority to regulate, restrict, and
prohibit alteration of coastal wetlands, the Commissioner of Environmental
Protection must hold within the county where the wetlands are located a
public hearing on his proposed order, after giving notice to owners of
record and after locally advertising the hearing. Adopted orders are to be
recorded in the office of the county clerk or register of deeds and filed as
a judgment against the deed of each wetland owner of record. Copies also
are to be sent to known affected owners (Section 3). The Act does not
affect State or private ownership or other rights or obligations concerning
the mapped wetlands (Section 8).

Section 4 identifies regulated activities which are not to be conducted
without a permit. Such activities include, but are not limited to,

draining, dredging, excavation or removal of soil, mud,
sand, gravel, aggregate of any kind or depositing or dumping
therein any rubbish or similar material or discharging therein
liquid wastes, either directly or otherwise, and the erection of
structures, driving of pilings, or placing of obstructions,
whether or not changing the tidal ebb and flow.

Two classes of activities are not regulated by the Act. One is the
Icontinuance of commercial production of salt hay or other agricultural
crops". The other is

1Species names in this section follow the usage of the Wetlands Act unless
otherwise noted.

255

the exercise or perf ormance of the powers and dutiesI
conferred or imposed by law on the State Department of
Environmental Protection, the Natural Resource Council,
and the State Mosquito Control Commission in saidI
Department, the State Department of Health, or any
mosquito control or other project or activity operating
under or authorized by the provisions of chapter 9 of
Title 26 of the Revised Statutes (Section 7).
In granting, denying, or imposing conditions on any permit, the
Commissioner is to consider the effect of the proposal on
the public health and welfare, marine fisheries, shell
fisheries, wildlife, the protection of life and propertyI
from flood, hunrricane, and other natural disasters, and
the public policy set forth in Section l.a. of this
act.
Provisions for enforcement were made in Sections 5 and 7. Challenge by
aggrieved landowners is to be made in the Superior Court (Section 6).

2. Administrative Delineation of Regulated Wetlands

During 1971 the NJ-DEP began the process of inventorying the tidal3
wetlands with the assistance of consultants. Black and white, color, and
color infrared photographs were taken during June and July 1971 and August
and September 1972. The photographs cover the coastal region generally from
the mouth of the Raritan River eastward and southward along the AtlanticI
coast and tributary waterways, then along the Delaware estuary and its
tributaries to the vicinity of Trenton. Tidal wetlands generally along the
north bank of the Raritan River were not photographed. Wetland vegetationI
types then were delineated on the photo maps on the basis of photographic
interpretation supplemented by field checks.

The procedure used to map wetlands1 was described in Chapter I of theI
Basis and Background paper issued by NJ-DEP during April 1972. The "major
species associations" were delineated to encompass "those natural groups .
of plant species occurring as mappable units; also, they have unique tonesI
on aerial-type photographic film." Alphabetical designators were assigned
to the plant species of "salt water" wetlands; numberical designators were
applied to species of freshwater areas. Designators that include both salt
water and freshwater species indicate brackish wetlands, according to the
Basis and Background paper. The order of designators in the mapped species
association units has no significance.3

IThe Basis and Background paper drops the adjectives "tidal" and "coastal"
describing wetlands. Presumably only "coastal wetlands", in the language
of the Act, were addressed.3

256

In saline wetlands, the designators used to label a species association
indicate that those species are present on at least 25% of the acreage
circumscribed by the inventory line. Species considered to be of "possible
minor ecological significance" were not mapped separately. In some
freshwater wetlands the lines are stated to encompass sparsely vegetated
areas and open water.

Naturally occurring species groups whose area equals or exceeds 5 acres
were delineated. Smaller areas were delineated if the areas contained wild
rice (Zizania aquatica), a species not mentioned in the Act but considered
to have high food value for wildlife. Areas smaller than 5 acres also were
designated where convenient reference points facilitated field inspections
by contractor personnel.

The administrative rationale for delineating vegetation types ("major

Paper. Possibly the intent was to regulate different vegetation types
differently; Section 6.3 of the Basis and Background Paper notes that the
Wetlands Order prohibits the use of pesticides by persons regulated under
the Act where there are significant mapped stands of high vigor saltmarsh
grass, wild rice, cattail, chairmaker's rush, or Olney threesquare (Scirpus
olneyi). (In fact Olney threesquare was omitted from the
pesticides-regulating section of the Orders [Section 5.2.3.], wherein only
the other four types are named [NJAC 7:7A-1.2 (d) 3].)

Forty-one species were listed by the contractor as characteristic
wetland indicator species in the two test areas for the pilot mapping
project (Earth Satellite Corporation and Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys, Inc.
1972: Appendix V):

Acnida cannabina Pluchea camphorata Zizania aquatica
Atriplex patula Polygonum pensylvanicum
Baccharis halimifolia Polygonum punctatum
Bidens laevis Pontederia cordata
*Distichlis spicata Rumex verticillatus

Echinochloa [w]alteri Ruppia maritima
Eleocharis olivacea *Salicornia europaea
*Eleocharis rostellata *Spergularia marina
Hibiscus palustris *Scirpus americanus
Impatiens biflora Scirpus cyperinus

Iris versicolor Scirpus [o]lneyi
*Iva frutescens *Scirpus robustus
Juncus effusus Sparganium americanum
*Juncus [g]erardi *Spartina alterniflora
Leersia oryzoides Spartina cynosuroides

*Limonium carolinianum *Spartina patens
Myrica pensylvanica Solidago sempervirens
*Panicunm virgatum
Peltandra virginica *Typha angustifolia
Phragmites communis *Typha latifolia

*Listed in the Act.
257

Twenty-seven (66%) of the indicator species are not named in the Act;
five1 species named in the Act were not included by the contractor in his
list of indicators for the pilot area.

A list of all the type categories depicted symbolically (either alone
or in combination) on wetlands photomaps is available from NJ-DEP (Table
32). It shows a total of 33 categories, 25 labeled by numbers ("freshwater"
types) and 8 labeled by letters ("saline" types). A bare ground category
appears among both the saline and the freshwater types. Two "vigor"
categories of saltmarsh grass were distinguished on the basis of infrared
color photographic returns. Nine species named in the Act were found not to
be mappable categories; ten named species were shown as mapped categories.
Twenty-one species not named in the Act were mapped as types either alone or
in combinations. With the exception of two "saline" shrub types (hightide
bush and groundsel shrub), one "freshwater" shrub type (roses), and the two
bare ground categories, all of the mapped types are characterized by
emergent herbaceous species. An administrative decision not to map tidal
swamp forests and shrub swamps is reflected in the absence of their
characteristic species from the contractor's list of indicators and from the
DEP list of mapped types.

The upper (inland) wetland boundary, above which Wetlands Orders do not
apply, was indicated as a continuous line. The position of the line was
determined variously, depending on local conditions. No reference is made
in the Basis and Background paper or on the maps to the statutory "1 foot
above local extreme high water." The seaward extent of jurisdiction under
the Wetlands Act is the seaward extent of lands mapped as wetlands.

Where the local relief change was considered to be abrupt, the upper
(inland) wetland boundary was placed at the toe of the slope. Plant species
occurring at2 this boundary were stated to include salt meadow grass,
hightide bush, switch grass, cattails, common reed, and groundsel shrub. On
uplands considered dry as compared with wetlands, common species frequently
were noted to include arrowwood, cedar3, pine, oak, tulip, poplar,
hickory, red maple, black gum, and sweet gum. (None of these is listed in
the Act.)

1Salicornia bigelovii, Scirpus paludosus var. atlanticus, Spartina
pectinata, Agrostis palustris, and Hierochloe odorata.

2Here "at" apparently means "generally seaward of".

3Presumably, white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides); possibly also red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana).

258

Table 32. Mapped categories of coastal wetlands in New Jersey. List provided
by Office of Wetlands Managment, NJ-DEP, and edited to conform with
terminology of this report. The symbol (X) means that two or more
species are named in the Wetlands Act.

Map Listed in
Symbol Common Name Scientific Name Wetlands Act

SALINE WETLANDDS

A Saltmarsh grass ("high-
vigor") Spartina alterniflora
B Saltmarsh grass ("low- X
vigor") Spartina alterniflora
C Salt meadow grass Spartina patens X
D Spike grass Distichlis spicata X
E Hightide bush Iva frutescens X
F Black grass Juncus gerardi X
H Groundsel shrub Baccharis halimifolia
J Predominantly bare ground

FRESHWATER WETLANDS

I Cattails Typha spp. (X)
2 Wild rice Zizania aquatica
3 Yellow water lily Nuphar advena
4 Arrow-arum Peltandra virginica
5 Common reed Phragmites communis

6 Cutgrass Leersia oryzoides
7 Pickerel weed Pontederia cordata
8 Water smartweed Polygonum punctatum
9 Marsh mallow Hibiscus palustris
10 Bare ground

11 Water millet Echinochloa walteri
12 Salt reed grass Spartina cynosuroides
13 Chairmaker's rush Scirpus americanus X
14 Switch grass Panicum virgatun X
15 Olney bulrush (threesquare) Scirpus olneyi

16 Burmarigold Bidens laevis
17 Sedges Carex spp.
18 Sweet flag Acorus calamus
19 Jewelweed Impatiens biflora
20 Tearthumnb Polygonum arifolium

21 Spike grass Eleocharis spp. (X)
22 Rushes Juncus spp.
23 Roses Rosa spp.
24 Marsh fleabanes Pluchea spp.
25 Arrowheads Sagittaria spp.

259

Where the transition from wetland to upland was considered to be B
gradual, the upper (inland) wetlands boundary was placed at the junction
between stands of upland and wetland species. Mixtures of black grass, salt
meadow grass, high tide bush, groundsel shrub, and switchgrass were
distinguished as wetlands from adjoining upland stands of cedar1 and
hardwoods. Similarly mixtures of salt meadow grass, bulrush, and cattails
were distinguished from mixtures of red maple, willow, alder, and hardwoods,
according to the Basis and Background paper.

In artificially disturbed areas (such as roads, dikes, spoil piles, and
occupied or unoccupied bare areas) the upper boundary was drawn to exclude
most of these areas from regulation. This consciously conservative position
was adopted by NJ-DEP in recognition of "the reduced biological value of
most disturbed wetlands," which were reported no longer to support the kinds
of vegetation listed in the Act. Similarly, where natural bare ground (such
as salt pans) crossed an otherwise established section of wetlands boundary,
the upper boundary was defined at the seaward edge of the bare ground.2

!Presumably, white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides); possibly also red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana).

2kreas where coastal wetland vegetation was growing or was capable of
growing at the time of the inventory, but whose tidal flow was considered
to have been reduced or cut off by some form of dike (for example,
muskrat impoundments, waterfowl impoundments,hay meadows, or salt meadow
grass stands), apparently were mapped as uplands. Some specific examples
of this practice are known to the authors of this report, but whether it
was customary throughout the inventoried region is uncertain. It is the
experience of the authors of the present report that many characteristic
coastal wetland species are capable of growing on lands that have been
diked, impounded, or otherwise artifically disturbed. The mapping
contractor's report (as discussed subsequently) implies that diked areas
customarily were regarded as uplands. The general Basis and Background
Paper is silent on this question, but Section 3.4 of the Basis and
Background Paper attached to the initial Wetlands Order for Ocean and
Salem Counties suggests that several thousand acres of coastal wetlands
may have been excluded by conservative DEP policy from the protection
afforded by the Wetlands Act (Goldshore! 1979:A-100 through A-102).
Because many dikes are relatively ephemeral features unless maintenance
is performed repeatedly, it is not unusual for tidal flow to become
reestablished in diked areas in New Jersey. Moreover, coastal wetlands
vegetation can persist indefinitely in the absence of tidal inundation,
as the Legislature indicated in Section 2 of the Act when recognizing
coastal wetlands as "including those armas now or formerly connected to
tidal waters whose surface is at or below an elevation of I foot above
local extreme high water." The US Fishl and Wildlife Service (1965) noted
that about 10,000 acres of marshes in southern New Jersey had been diked
for the production of salt hay. Continuing habitat values were
recognized in such areas.

260
I

Further definition of the upper wetlands boundary was provided by the
contractor in his final report on the New Jersey Wetlands Pilot Project
(Earth Satellite Corporation and Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys, Inc. 1972:4).

The boundary between wetland and dryland [is] usually
characterized by either a rapid rise in elevation with
forested or agricultural ground as the wetlands border
or ground rise in elevation producing a succession of
plant communities from wetland to dryland. Plant
species typical of N.J. wetlands as defined in the
Wetlands Act of 1970, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
inventory of N.J. wetlands, 1954, and this final report
were used to identify the boundary.1

The contractor's definition appears to depart substantially from the
language of the Act. No mention is made of land within the statutory "areas
now or formerly connected to tidal waters whose surface is at or below an
elevation of 1 foot above local extreme high water." Rather, a "rapid rise
in elevation with forested or agricultural ground" is stated to characterize
the border in many places. Agricultural ground is not defined by the
contractor; agricultural lands were recognized explicitly by the Legislature
to occur within the wetlands, and their continued cultivation without
permits was expressly authorized (Section 4.2.). Excluding such lands from
the mapping, however, precludes DEP regulation if their use changes from
agriculture to activities that otherwise would require a permit. Forested
ground apparently was assumed by the contractor to be a reliable demarcation
of upland from tidal wetlands. The hypothesis that swamp forests (and shrub
swamps) are not flowed by the tides in New Jersey was not substantiated by
the contractor in his pilot project report, and it contradicts the findings

1it is significant to note the contractor's claimed reliance on 1954
US-FWS data. The 1954 survey concerned marshes deemed important to
waterfowl. During 1959 the US-FWS resurveyed all of the wetlands of New
Jersey, including additional wetlands of low or negligible value to
waterfowl. These were included because of the growing scientific
recognition of the importance of all coastal wetlands to shellfish,
finfish, and many wildlife species in addition to waterfowl. The
contractor and DEP elected to ignore two US-FWS categories of coastal
wetlands that represented about 4% of the 1954 inventory, namely shrub
swamps and wooded swamps. In 1954 US-FWS reported 950 acres of shrub
swamps and 8,530 acres of wooded swamps in coastal New Jersey. The New
Jersey mapping contractor prepared no final report on the statewide
project; hence reliance must be placed on the pilot mapping project
report.

261

of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1 Whether swamp forests or shrub
swamps exist within the statutory "elevation of 1 foot above local extreme
high water" also was not addressed. Tidal swamp forests and shrub swamps
presumably fall within the statutory phrase "any bank, marsh, swamp, meadow,
flat, or other low land subject to tidal action."

Yet another boundary, the "biological high water line", was mandated by
NJ-DEP to be determined by the contractor. This line may have been intended
to reflect the Section l.b. general language of the Act pertaining to tidal
wetlands "that are at or below high water". The contractor's final report
on the pilot mapping project does not define "biological high water line".
The contractor does explain how a biological high water line was determined
(Earth Satellite Corporation and Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys, Inc. 1972:
43-45 ).

Where there are saline wetlands, the biological high water line was
distinguished in either of two ways. In some areas the line was depicted at
the break between "high vigor" (alleged to be below high water) and "low
vigor" (alleged to be above high water) stands of saltmarsh grass. These
stands were distinguished using photographic images on color infrared film;
they do not conform to tall and short growth forms distinguishable in the
field. In other areas the line was established at the more readily
identifiable boundary between saltmarsh grass (below high water) and salt
meadow grass (above high water). In saline marshes the biological high
water line apparently was mapped seaward of the upper inland wetlands
boundary.

In fresh and brackish wetlands, the biological high water line was
placed at the inland edge of stands of cattail, saltmarsh grass, wild rice,
and arrow-arum. Here the biological high water line was reported generally
to coincide with the upper inland wetlands boundary.

'Nevertheless, the exclusion of swamp forests and shrub swamps was
mandated by NJ-DEP to the contractor for the main wetlands mapping effort
(Contract 2P-301, Section 3.2.1.1.):

The upper WETLANDS boundary shall be defined as a continuous line
formed by the uppermost boundaries of low growing Herbaceous
species and shrubs in wetlands to principally woody upland
species, often accompanied by an abrupt rise in local relief.

262

The maps showing the biological high water line are not generally
available1, and the term is not used in the Basis and Background Paper
that accompanies the Wetlands Order. Apparently the line was intended to
depict a biological approximation of the average extent of flow by mean high
tide. 2

Wetland boundary lines are considered by NJ-DEP to be accurate within
10 feet of their true position on the ground. The scale of the filed
photomaps is 1:2,400. Each sheet measures 3 feet by 3.5 feet and depicts an
area 7,000 feet long north-south by 6,000 feet wide east-west. Each sheet
thus represents about 964 acres (1.5 square miles). The photomaps are
referenced to the New Jersey State Plane Coordinate grid system. Universal
Transverse Mercator and latitude-longitude indications were computed and
shown with reference to the New Jersey grid. Paper copies of vegetation
type maps and of ownership overlays are available at cost from NJ-DEP. The
maps also may be consulted both in Trenton and at county courthouses.

The wetland inventory is considered by NJ-DEP to be complete.
Altogether 914 photomaps have been produced. All but 42 of these photomaps
were promulgated following notice and public hearing at various times
between 10 January 1973 and 5 August 1977. The Commissioner's Wetlands
Order is in effect only for the mapped and promulgated wetlands. The
remaining photomaps (not yet promulgated) cover areas in Burlington County
(18 maps), Camden County (14 maps), and Gloucester County (10 maps).

Several categories of coastal wetlands, apparently, were excluded
administratively from the inventory mandated by the Wetlands Act. First,
most of the wetlands along the Raritan River have not been mapped or
regulated through apparent oversight in taking the original photographs.
Second, none of the tidal wetlands along waterways north of Raritan Bay has
been inventoried under the Wetlands Act. Third, an unknown expanse of
wetlands smaller than 5 acres in extent may have been omitted within the
inventoried region. Fourth, tidally flooded swamp forests3 and shrub

IThe line is shown on a set of maps kept by NJ-DEP wetlands management
staff in Trenton and which can be consulted by the public there. It is
not shown on the paper copies of photomaps which can be purchased from
NJ-DEP staff for general use.

2The wetlands mapping may have been intended by NJ-DEP staff as a means of
accomplishing part of the work to establish tidelands to which the State
has a title claim. Mapping of tidelands was mandated by the Legislature
during 1968 (NJSA 13:1B-13.2). Vegetation types distinguishable from
aerial photographs, however, at best only imperfectly reflect tidal
elevations, particularly where woody vegetation types are ignored. Woody
vegetation types, in contrast, were mapped from aerial photographs when
the coastal wetlands of Maryland were inventoried recently (McCormick and
Somes 1979).

3Typical species could include red maple (Acer rubrum) and black gum
(Nyssa sylvatica).

263

swamps1 have been omitted entirely. Fifth, some diked coastal wetlands
may have been excluded, particularly in the vicinity of Delaware Bay (but
the Office of Wetlands Management is aware of only one instance in which a
diked wetland was omitted).

The extent of inventoried and regulated coastal wetlands on the 914
maps produced by NJ-DEP has not been determined precisely. The total extent
of regulated wetlands was estimated by NJ-DEP on 4 March 1976 to be 242,000
acres, based on 32% of each promulgated map being wetlands (Memorandum,
Director D. T. Graham to Commissioner D. J. Bardin)2. Maps promulgated
during 1976 and 1977 increased the total by 1,536 acres. The DEP-estimated
extent of additional wetlands on the 42 photomaps not yet promulgated as of
1979 is 500 acres. Thus the total extent of land that is expected to be
regulated by the Act, assuming no accretion and no alteration prior to map
promulgation, is 244,036 acres (estimate from Office of Wetlands Management,
30 June 1978).

The wetland inventory recorded on the 914 photomaps essentially is a
static representation of conditions at the time of the 1971-1972
photography. The prohibitions and restrictions imposed under the Act,
however, did not become effective prior to map promulgation for any given
parcel of land. If, for example, a landowner completed the placement of
fill upon inventoried wetlands prior to promulgation of the wetlands map

1A typical species is buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis).

2The accuracy of this estimate is difficult to determine in the absence of
measurements. Vegetation mapping in coastal Maryland at the same scale
involved approximately 2,000 sheets and covered wetlands measured to
occupy about 261,000 acres, giving an average of about 9% of each sheet
as wetlands (McCormick and Somes 1979). The DEP estimate of protected
acreage may be too high.

264

covering his land, his fill is not regulated under the Wetlands Act.l
Wshen consultation of aerial phocographs and field inspections following
inquiries identify such lands, it is the practice of the Office of Wetlands
Management to inform the landowner chat the subject land is outside the
jurisdiction of the Wetlands Act and Wetlands Order. (Such Lands in that
part of the coastal zone within the CAFRA boundary thereupon become subject
to the CA.RA regulations if a regulated facility is proposed.)

The Office of Wetlands Management (now part of the Bureau of Coastal
Project Review) also has responded to a relatively small but increasing
number of landowner inquiries concerning inventoried wetlands that may have
undergone changes in elevation bv natural processes since the date of
photography, such that they no longer support or are deemed capable of
supporting coastal wetland vegetation. Where field inspections confirm that
the present relatively7 high elevation of a specific area appears to have
been the result of natural processes and that the area in question no longer
satisfies the administrative criteria used in the initial inventory, the
landowner is informed that the specific area is no longer subject to the

I Type 3 activities (as defined in a subsequent paragraph) in progress on
the date of promulgation require approval of a permit before they can be
continued or completed, according to Section 9.1 of the Wetlands Order.
Commissioner R. J. Sullivan interpreted the intent of Section 9.1 as
follows (Memorandum to Acting Director T.M. O'Neill, 29 January 1974):

The intent of this section is to regulate encroachments upon
wetlands which are truly wetlands as of the effective date of
the Order. The section should not be interpreted to mean
that placing fill on top of fill deposited prior to
regulation requires a permit. Neither should it be taken to
mean that the deepening of an excavation existing on the date
of regulation should require a permit.

The proper interpretation of the section is that only
projects which contemplate the expansion of existing fill or
an existing excavation onto wetlands require a permit before
being allowed to proceed. In such cases, any work the
applicant wished to do on the already filled or excavated
area should be allowed to continue as long as it involves no
expansion of the filling or excavation onto existing
wetlands.

The position was upheld in Loveladies Property Owners Association
vs. Max Rabb and David 3ardin, SuperioriCourt Docket
A-2015-74.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wetlands Act and Wetlands Order. The specific area defined by the Office
may be either the same as or different from the area requested by the
landowner for reconsideration.1

To date such determinations of diminution of wetland boundaries and
resultant jurisdictions have been entered only in the files of the Bureau of
Coastal Project Review. The desirability of entering these data graphically
onto overlays to the wetlands photomaps is recognized, but limitations of
staff have precluded map annotations heretofore. The file data on boundary
determinations are open to inspection by the public, but the process does
not lend itself readily to public scrutiny because no public notice or
hearing is necessary.

No effort to date has been made to update the inventory in the opposite
direction; that is, to add now-extant wetlands that were omitted from the
historic inventory for whatever reason. In contrast to the process of
deleting areas from the wetlands inventory and from Wetlands Order
jurisdiction, whenever a wetlands map is amended to include land owned by
someone not previously given notice, a public hearing must be held (Attorney
General's Formal Opinion 16, 30 July 1975). In practice, the notice and
hearing requirements (above and beyond any technical work necessary to
identify additional wetlands) would pose a significant obstacle to expansion
of the wetlands inventory by updating, just as they currently, in effect,
prevent promulgation of the last 42 maps prepared during the initial
invent ory.

3. Regulation of Coastal Wetlands

Identical regulations have been promulgated in Wetlands Orders for each
of the eleven counties which contain inventoried coastal wetlands. The
Orders prohibit certain activities and establish a two-track permit
procedure for regulated activities. Codified regulations for wetlands are
found at NJAC 7:7A-1.1 et seq. Prohibited activities are the following:

� Placing, depositing, or dumping any solid waste, garbage,
refuse, trash, rubbish, or debris.

� Dumping or discharging treated or untreated sewage or indus-
trial wastes, either solid or liquid.

� Applying any pesticide on areas with significant stands of
high vigor saltmarsh grass, wild rice, cattail, or chairmaker's
rush as shown on wetlands maps (except by exempted agencies).

'Where there has been no apparent natural change in elevation, even
though the vegetation may have died out or may have been replaced by
species not named in the Act, the land is considered to be still capable
of supporting wetland vegetation, and is not exempted from the Wetlands
Order. No formal criteria or procedures for making such revisions to
wetlands boundaries have been reduced to writing.

266

* Storing or disposing pesticides.1

o Applying persistent pesticides.2

Type A (abbreviated procedure) permits are required for the following
relatively minor types of activity on regulated wetlands:

* Newly begun cultivation and harvest of naturally occurring
agricultural or horticultural products.

* Excavation of a small boat mooring slip.

* Maintenance or repair of bridges, roads, highways,
railroad beds, or other municipal or utility facilities
(except in emergency situations, which merely require
notice to NJ-DEP within 7 days of their initiation).

c Construction on pilings of catwalks, piers, docks,
landings, footbridges, and observation decks, provided
that the width of such structures is no more than twice
the clearance between the structure and the wetlands.

Applications for Type A permits must include completed application forms;
the established fee; written explanation of the need for the proposed
activity and measures that will be taken to reduce detrimental environmental
effects; detailed description of proposed structures, filling, and
excavation; a map showing the location and boundaries of the area and the
specific location of proposed structures, filling, excavation; names and
addresses of owners of record of adjacent lots; and evidence of applicant's
application for or receipt of all required riparian instruments and
waterfront development permits.

Type B (full procedure) permits are required for other activities:

0 Installation of utilities.

* Excavation for boat channels and mooring basins.

"''Pesticides' mean[s] any substance or mixture of substances labeled,
designed, intended for or capable of use in preventing, destroying,
repelling, sterilizing or mitigating any insects, rodents, nematodes,
predatory animals, fungi, weeds and other forms of plant or animal life
or viruses except viruses on or in living man or other animals;i also
any substance or mixture of substancers] labeled, designed, or 'intended
for use as a defoliant, dessicant or plant regulator" (NJAC 7:7"A-1.3).

2"'Persistent pesticides' means pesticides whose residues and metabolic
products persist in the environment over extended periods of time,
including but not limited to DDT, Aldrin, Dieldrin, Chlordane, Endrin,
Lindane, BHC, Heptachlor and lead or mercury compounds" (NJAC
7:7A-t.3).

267

* Construction of impoundments.

* Construction of seawalls.

* Diversion or appropriative use of water.

a Use of pesticides (except those insect repellents applied to skin
or clothing of individuals), other than by exempted agencies.

* Driving machinery over wetlands which may alter the natural contour
or impair the natural vegetation.

$ Construction of any structure, filling, or excavation.

Applications for a Type B permit must include generally all of the
items for a Type A permit, plus detailed plans for future land uses, proof
of notification of the county planning board and the Army Corps of
Engineers, and an environmental impact statement covering topics specified
in NJAC 7:7A-l.6(b). A public hearing is no longer mandatory for Type B
permits.

For either type of permit, NJ-DEP must find that the activity for which
a complete application has been filed meets the following four criteria of
fact:

(1) It requires water access or is water oriented as a central purpose
of the basic function of the activity.

(2) It has no prudent or feasible alternative on a non-wetland site.

(3) It will result in the minimum feasible alteration or impairment of
natural tidal circulation.

(4) It will result in the minimum feasible alteration of the natural
contour or impairment of the natural vegetation of the wetlands.

Type B permits are transferable when land is rented, leased, or sold, so
long as the land use as set forth in the original application does not
change.

l"'Structure' means any assembly of materials above or below the surface
of land or water, including but not limited to buildings, fences, dams,
pilings, breakwaters, fills, levees, bulkheads, dikes, jetties,
embankments, causeways, culverts, pipes, pipelines, roads, railroads,
bridges and the facilities of any utility or governmental agency. Trees
or other vegetation shall not be considered to be structures"
(NJAC 7:lC-1.4). Duck blinds also are not considered to be structures
(NJAC 7:7A-1.4).

268

A public hearing may be held on any wetlands permit application at the
discretion of NJ-DEP. Local ordinances more restrictive than State permit
conditions are not to be superseded.

Decisions to approve, approve conditionally, or deny wetlands permits
are recommended by the Office of Wetlands Management to the Director,
Division of Marine Services. The Director was delegated wetlands permit
decisionmaking authority by Commissioner's Administrative Order 12 on
8 December 1977. Administrative appeals are made to the Commissioner.

Administrative interpretation of the first finding of fact regarding
water access or orientation for proposed activities hsa been formalized
(Memorandum, Director D. T. Graham to T. F. Hampton, 25 March 1976):

The intent of these sections is to preserve and protect
the characteristic shoreline on a body of water for its
best use, environmentally. It should not be interpreted
to mean that any project proposed on Wetlands should
require water access or be water oriented. Projects on
mapped Wetlands located at a considerable distance from
the waterway may not, in all probability, be able to
satisfy this finding. The proper interpretation of
these sections is that only projects proposed on or
adjacent to waterways be water oriented or require water
access. Those activities located at a considerable
distance from a body of water do not have to meet this
finding.

This policy is restated more briefly in the Coastal Resource Policies [at
3.2.11.2.(a)(i); 3.4.2.2.(a); and 3.4.3.2.; 3.4.4.].

During Type B permit reviews twelve additional factors are to be
considered pursuant to the Wetlands Order for any proposed activity to which
they apply:

� "The degree to which the proposed activity serves the
public need and interest and the free public access to
beaches and navigable waters."

� "The degree co which marine and/or land traffic
generated by the proposed activity will give rise to
traffic flow and safety problems."

� "The degree to which any aspect of food chain or plant,
animal, fish, or human life processes are affected
adversely within or beyond the activity area."

0 "The degree to which filling and excavation activities
can be minimized."

"The degree to which excavation and filling creates
[sic] stagnant water conditions, fish entrapments, and
deposit sumps."

269

0 "The degree to which the proposed activity controls erosion."

a "The degree to which the proposed activity provides facilities
for the proper handling of litter, trash, refuse, and sanitary
and industrial wastes."

"The degree to which the proposed activity alters natural water
0~ ~ ~~i I
flow or water temperature."

* "The degree to which irreplaceable land types will be
destroyed."

* "The degree to which the natural, scenic, and aesthetic values at
the proposed activity site can be retained."

* "The degree to which the proposed activity ecologically enhances
the estuarine environment."

* "The degree of danger arising from hurricanes, floods, or other
determinable and periodically recurring natural hazards."

The evaluation of Type B permit applications and the conditions attached to
approved permits center about these twelve considerations and the four
findings of fact.

Each applicant is encouraged to meet with NJ-DEP personnel in a
preapplication conference before he submits a wetlands permit application.
The conference provides an opportunity for the applicant to test initial and
informal NJ-DEP reaction to his proposal, to ascertain key issues to be
analyzed in his environmental impact statement, and to make certain that he
is aware of all necessary approvals. Wetlands permit inquiries and permit
decisions prior to July 1979 were distributed routinely to the Riparian
Lands Management Section (now Tidelands Bureau) and CAFRA Section (now part
of the Coastal Project Review Bureau) of the Division of Coastal Resources,
to the Division of Water Resources, to municipal plannin .boards and
building inspectors, and to the Army Corps of Engineers. Projects that
require wetlands permits are likely to require other approvals as well.
Representatives of Federal and other State agencies may be invited by the
Bureau of Coastal Permit Review to preapplication conferences for the
purpose of facilitating the review of projects with multiple permits.
Conversely, if a project sponsor first approaches another regulatory agency,

1When a decision has been made to approve a permit, only the text of the I
permit (including conditions) is distributed to the applicant and other
agencies. When the decision is to deny the application, the summary
report on the application is forwarded to the applicant and other
agencies. The summary report is a public file document and is prepared
for every application, but it is not published or distributed widely.
Notice of the status of wetlands applications is published in the DEP
Weekly Bulletin.

270 I

staff from the Coastal Permit Bureau may participate in a pre-application
conference held by that agency, if requested by the agency organizing the
conference.

Interagency coordination is possible through contact with the review
personnel of other agencies. Recommendations initiated by other agencies
may be implemented by wetlands permit conditions, at the discretion of the
Bureau of'Coastal Permit Review subject to the concurrence of the Director
of the Division of Coastal Resources. It is operating policy that the
appropriate -Army Corps of Engineers District office be contacted during the
I ~rei~ew of every wetlands permit application (Wetlands Management Policy
Memorandum 29, 25 July 1977). Meetings, joint field inspections, and
exchange of file copies of comments received on the Corps public notice for
I ~ ~a project are encouraged. A standard wetlands permit condition states that
the wetlands activity is authorized subject to permit and conditions of the
Army Corps of Engineers (Wetlands Management Policy Memorandum 45,
I September 1978). County planning boards may be requested to review
complete wetlands permit applications under funding by the Office Coastal
Zone Management (Wetlands Management Policy Memorandum 42, 23 June 1978).
When a wetlands permit is issued prior to issuance of a pending waterfront
I ~ ~development (riparian) permit, the wetlands activity is authorized subject
to the issuance of the waterfront development permit and its conditions
(Wetlands Management Policy Memorandum 16, 9 September 1976).

Finally, the wetlands permit program is subject to the coastal resource
and development policies formulated under the New Jersey Coastal Management
Program. These policies became effective for the Bay and Ocean Shore
I ~ ~Segment, which includes coastal wetlands except along the Delaware River and
tributaries and along Raritan Bay, on 28 September 1978 (NJAC 7:7E-1.1 et
seq.). The coastal policies (at Section 3.2.11-3) encourage the restoration
U ~ ~of degraded wetlands and the creation of new wetlands in non-sensitive areas
as mitigation for approved wetlands development. (New housing development
is prohibited in water areas and in natural water's edge areas under Section
4.2.2. New housing apparently is not prohibited, however, in coastal
wetlands landward of the first cultural feature, by Section 4.2.2.) No
-provision has yet been made for extending the official wetlands mapping and
Wetlands Orders to include restored or created areas, if such extensions are
neessary to extend protection to the newly restored or created wetlands
under the Wetlands Act.

As of 30 June 1978, 221 applications for wetlands permits had been
filed with NJ-DEP. Of these 143 (65%) were approved, 8 (4%) were denied, 46
(21%) were withdrawn, and 24 (11%) were pending. None of the 83 Type A
* ~~applications has been denied. Virtually every permit contains specific,
environmentally protective conditions. The extent of coastal wetlands
lawfully disturbed under pemits from the times of program implementation
through the first half of 1978 was reported as 422 acres, of which 391 acres
of wetlands vegetation were permanently destroyed and 31 acres were
K ~~considered short-term disturbances (for example, pipeline installation with
subsequent restoration of wetlands vegetation). Two permits account for 43%
of the total acreage (Hope Creek Generating Station, 140 acres; Atlantic

County Sewage Treatment Facilities, 40 acres). The remaining 141 approved

271

permits averaged 1.4 acres of wgetlands destroyed apiece. A breakdown ofI
wetlands permit applications by status and by county is presented in
Table 33..

There are no accurate data for comparison of the rate at which coastal
wetlands were being filled prior to implementation of the Wetlands Act, but
there is widespread agreement that the rate has slowed considerably inI
regulated areas since the Wetlands Orders were promulgated. The US Fish and
Wildlife Service (1965) estimated that 9.6% of the New Jersey marshes rated
as most valuable to waterfowl were destroyed during the 1954-1964 decade,
almost 25,000 acres. Based on a New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and ShellI
Fisheries estimate of the extent of tidal wetlands that were cut off from
tidal flow during the period 1953-1973, the Office of Wetlands Management
during 1978 estimated that about 1,900 acres of wetlands were lost annuallyI
in now-regulated areas during the twenty years prior to implementation of
the Wetlands Act. There are no data on the rate of continuing loss of tidal
wetlands currently unregulated under the Act. In the judgment of the
authors of this report, such losses now occur primarily in the HackensackI
Meadowland District and elsewhere in the Northern Waterfront section of the
coastal zone, where relatively little Federal attention is focused on
wetlands and development is proceeding rapidly in the absence of StateI
Wetlands Act implementation.

4. EnforcementI

A wetlands permit is revocable for violations of the Act, the
applicable regulations, or conditions in the specific permit. A copy of the
permit must be posy~ed prominently at the worksite. Changes in land use to
uses not approved by NJ-DEP in the original application may constitute
grounds for revocation of a permit, but no such revocation yet has beenI
made.

The Office of Wetlands Management traditionally devoted relatively
little staff effort to compliance monitoring of permitted construction.
Post-completion inspections of permitted projects were made to determine
compliance with permit conditions. When in the field, staff members of the
Office of Wetlands Management made notes on possible encroachments intoI
regulated wetlands. Violations were brought to wetlands staff attention by
the field enforcement personnel of the Office of Riparian Lands Management,
by review of applications for State permits other than wetlands permits, andI
by the public. Public notices issued by the Army Corps of Engineers that
may affect regulated wetlands were brought to the attention of the wetlands
staff by the Office of Riparian Lands Management. During the first ten
months of 1978, twenty-two new violations were discovered, and twenty-seven
previously discovered violations were resolved. Field implementation and
inspection to assure compliance with permit conditions and to detect
unauthorized activity now are the responsibility of the Bureau of CoastalI
Enforcement and Field Services.

272

B. Waterfront Development Permit Program

Waterfront development permits are authorized by a statute enacted
during 1914 to protect navigation and waterfront facilities. Prior to
commencement of construction, a review by the Department of Environmental
Protection is required of all

plans for the development of any water front upon any navigable
water or stream of this State or bounding thereon, which is
contemplated by any person or municipality, in the nature of
individual improvement or development or as part of a general plan
which involves the construction or alteration of a dock, wharf,
pier, bulkhead, bridge, pipeline, cable, or any other similar or
dissimilar waterfront development ... (NJSA 12:5-3).

NJ-DEP also is authorized to prevent encroachment and trespass upon
waterfront lands and through court action may require removal of
construction that affects the flow of navigable waters or that is
detrimental to navigation (NJSA 12:5-2).

Applications for revocable waterfront development permits are processed
in accordance with the Ninety Day Law (NJSA 13:1D-29 et seq.) and the
corresponding administrative regulations (NJAC 7:1C-1.1 et seq.). The
coastal regulations and policies (NJAC 7:7E-1.1 et seq.) were applied to
this permit program in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment beginning in
October 1978. The proposed coastal policies are to be applied to this
permit program throughout the coastal zone. Applications for waterfront
development permits are processed concurrently with applications for other
permits from the Division, if a project requires multiple permits. Issuance
of a permit is at the discretion of NJ-DEP following a review to determine
the public interest.

Applications must contain drawings of the proposed development prepared
by a licensed professional engineer, and the intended use of the structures
must be indicated. The general location of the site must be specified, and
upland property lines, roads, sewer lines, utilities, riparian conveyances,
mean high water lines, elevations, and soundings must be detailed. The
estimated cost of the work also must be indicated, so that the appropriate
application fee can be assessed. The applicant must show title to the land
of the project site, and he must have the owner's consent to construct the
project if he is not the owner. The names and addresses of adjoining
property owners within 500 feet must be reported. Environmental impacts
must be assessed by the applicant. Standard environmental aspects which are
expected to be addressed by the applicant (if applicable) include:

* Season when work is to be done; time required to perform work;
expected durationd of construction period.

* Photographs of the project site and characteristics of area
surrounding.

o Types of adjacent marine structures and distances to them
from the proposed project.

273

Table 33. Status of Wetland Permit Application As Of 30 June 1978 (Data From NJ-DEP Office of Wetlands Management).

COUNTY DECISION USES
Residential Utility Recreation Piers & Docks Bulkheads Bridges & Roads Other Total
Approved 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Middlesex Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pending 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Withdrawn 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Approved 1 3 2 8 1 1 3 19
Mo1noD ut h Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pending 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 3
Withdrawn 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 7
Total 4 6 4 9 2 1 3 29
Approved 6 11 2 0 1 1 8 29
Ocean Denied 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Pending i 1 2 0 0 1 0 5
Withdrawn 3 4 0 0 1 0 0 8
Total 11 16 4 0 2 3 8 44
Approved 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 5
Burlington Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pending 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0
Withdrawn 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 4
Total 0 3 1 1 0 2 2 9
Approved 3 12 2 11 4 1 4 37
Atlantic Denied 0 0 0 O 0 0 1 1
Pending 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 4
Withdrawn 2 0 0 0 3 1 1 7
Total 5 13 3 12 8 2 6 49
Approved 5 7 1 15 2 1 6 37
Cape May Denied 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 3
Pending 2 0 3 1 1 0 1 8
Withdrawn 3 1 1 1 4 1 1 12
Total 10 8 6 17 7 3 9 60
Approved 0 1 0 6 0 1 1 9
Cuuberland Denied 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Pending O. 0 O 0 0 O O 0
Withdrawn 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2
Total 0 1 2 6 0 2 1 12

'rable q. Wetland Permits (concluded).

COUNTY DECISION USES
Residential Utility Recreation Piers & Docks Bulkheads Bridges & Roads Other Total
Approved 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
Salem Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pending 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Withdrawn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
Approved 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 4
Gloucester Denied 0 O O O 0 0 1 1
Pending 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 I
Withdrawn 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 4
Total 0 3 0 1 0 1 5 10
Approved 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Caamden Denied 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0
Pending 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3
Withdrawn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 10 0 0 0 1 2 3
Approved 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0
n Mercer Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
Pending 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Withdrawn 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 0 0 0 O 0 1 0 1
Approved 15 39 7 42 8 7 25 143
TOTALS Denied 1 0 2 0 0 2 3 8
Pending 3 2 7 3 3 2 4 24
Withdrawn 11 11 4 1 8 5 6 46
Total 30 52 20 46 19 16 38 221

* Distance to sensitive noise receptors.I

* Types and numbers of construction equipment to be used.

* Specific location of spoil disposal site.

*Age of man-made canal.

*Demonstration of how project will serve the public
interest.

*Summary of deleterious adverse effects.

The probable environmental effects of, and the degree of public interest
served by, the project are subject to independentoevaluation and analysis byI
NJ-DEP. Applicants are advised to make simultaneous application to the
appropriate District of the Army Corps of Engineers (much of the same
application data is required by both the Office of Riparian Lands ManagementI
and by the Corps), and applicants are reminded that Section 401 Clean Water
Act certification from the New Jersey Division of Water Resources is
required before a Corps permit can be issued.
The permit application is not considered complete for review unless the
applicant landowner (or his predecessor in title) has obtained the
appropriate riparian land instrument of conveyance (that is, a grant orI
lease or license from the Natural Resource Council or its predecessor
agencies). Appeals from the decisions of the Division of Marine Services on
waterfront development permits are made to the NTatural Resource Council.
Annually there are about 1,000 waterfront development permit
applications. Most permits are requested for private residential docks and
bulkheads along, waterways. Available data on a sample of applications are
presented in Table 34. State agencies must secure waterfront development
permits on their own actions, but the US Coast Guard is statutorily exempt
from State permits. The Army Corps of Engineers has never been required toI
obtain waterfront development permits on its own actions.

Where an applicant has a lawful grant or lease of riparian land, no
permit currently is required by NJ-DEP for the repair or reconstruction of
lawful existing structures. Rebuilding of bulkheads within IS inches
seaward of existing lawful bulkheads is regarded as "without encroachment"
on State-ow~ned tidelands. Jurisdiction usually is waived forI
non-controversial back-yard docks in manmade lagoons that are designed to be
consistent with neighboring structures, but such informal approvals are
granted only after the submission of formal plans and surveys by theI
applica-nt~ and field inspection by the NJ-DEP staff. Such approvals can be
granted without fee to the applicant, and can be made by field offices, as
well as through the main office in Trenton. There were 52 informal
approvals granted during the month of June 1978. The DEP staff is to be
notified when repair work is begun and when it is completed.

276

Table 34. Characteristics of selected New Jersey waterfront develoment permit applications.
The first 276 applications filed during 1978 are the basis for this tabulation.

No. Permits / of Permits
Geographical Region Number % Type of Work Proposed Requesting Requesting

Bay and Ocean Shore Segment 248 90 Repairs to docks, piers, pilings 107 39
Delaware River Area 14 5 Repairs to bulkheads 65 24
Northern Waterfront Area 14 5 New docks, piers, pilings 48 17
276 100 Maintenance dredging 28 10
New bulkheads 23 8
Type of Applicant Filling 15 5
New and repairs to boat ramps 14 5
Private residential 162 59 Repairs to large fenders and dolphins 13 5
Commercial marina, community New and repairs to stormwater drains 10 4
ramp, or yacht club 53 19 New house/boat house or repairs 10 4
County Government 12 4 New dredging 6 2
Local Government 9 3 Underwater cable 6 2
Electric utility 7 3 Use of dredged spoil basin 2 1
Oil industry 7 3 Utility poles 1 <1
Commercial (stores, malls,
wholesale fishing) 7 3
Commercial recreation 5 2
Port facilities 4 1
State Government 3 1
Other industrial 3 1
Dredging company 2 1
Telephone utility 1 <1
Railroad 1 <1
276 100

Until June 1979 the Office of Riparian Lands Management staff (about 25
persons) included field enforcement personnel who inspected proposed permit
sites, examine completed work, and identified unlawful violations. Field
enforcement now is the responsibility of the Bureau of Coastal Enforcement
and Field Services. Waterfront development permits are processed by the
Bureau of Coastal Project Review.

Applicants may be requested to provide environmental informationt.3
Permit review ordinarily is coordinated closely with the Army Corps of
Engineers, because projects which require waterfront development permits are
almost certain also to require Federal approvals under Section 10 of the
River and Harbor Act or other statutes. Local governments seldom
participate in waterfront development permit review. The Division of Fish,
Game and Shell Fisheries and the Division of Water Resources typically
review waterfront development permit applications to ascertain whether otherI
approvals may be necessary and to comment on environmental aspects. The Law
Enforcement Bureau (Marine Police) staff examines proposals for marinas or
6ff shore mooring buoys, and the Hackensack Meadowlands DevelopmentI
Commission reviews applications from its District at the request of the
project review staff.

It is the practice of the NJ-DEP to review entire projects under theI
waterfront development permit, even if only one part of the project (such as
a wharf or dock) is situated along a waterfront, if this is the only
required State approval for the project. The landward extent of theI
regulatory authority of the State under the waterfront development permit
statute is not well-defined.

C. Riparian Grants, Leases, and Licenses (Natural Resource Council)

Lands now or formerly flowed by the tides in New Jersey are held in
trust by the State for the common benefit. It has long been State policy to
convey fee ownership, long-term leases, or shorter-term use licenses of
tidelands to individual owners in order to promote the use of waterfront
areas for various purposes. The current legal framework for alienation ofI
riparian lands dates from the 1860's, but such conveyances during the past
quarter century have become subject to increasingly stringent tests of
public interest. There is a complex and longstanding doctrine of public
trust in tidelands based on English and American statutory and common law,
which recently was summarized by Goldshore (1979) and will not be elaborated
in this report. It is sufficient to note here that the proceeds of
conveyances of interest in riparian lands in New Jersey are dedicated by theI
State Constitution solely to a Fund for the Support of Free Public Schools,
which provides a minor part of the annual State financing of public schools.
The Fund must receive full market value for all lands alienated from the
public domain, whether they are used for public or private purposes.
The exclusive right to tidelands can be obtained in several forms. A
grant to land conveys a permanent, absolute fee interest, typically inI
return for a one-time payment to the School Fund. Leases ate term
agreements (generally for 10 years or longer) which involve annual payments

278I

for the use of the land. Licenses are essentially short-term leases and
also involve an annual fee.

Conveyances of tidelands generally are made to owners of the adjoining
upland. The upland owner must be given a six month notice and opportunity
to apply for the conveyance if the application is from another party1
(MJSA 12:3-23). The State may condition conveyances in the public
interest.

Each application for a riparian instrument must include the following
inf ormation:

* Metes and bounds description of the adjoining upland owned by the
applicant, together with a certified survey that includes current
property lines, mean high and mean low water lines, depth and width
of the waterway at mean high water, Federal pierhead and bulkhead
lines (if any), and general location of the site.

* Description of exisitng improvements, proposed uses, and
fishing rights in the property.

* Certified copy of the deed by which the applicant claims
title of the adjacent upland, together with a certificate
of title.

a Disclosure statement of the identity, controlling
interests, and tax status of the applicant, if the
applicant is a corporation.

* Application fee.

I Statement concerning environmental aspects (these are the
same as those discussed in the preceding section on waterfront
development permits).

If there is a plan for development of the lands for which the conveyance is.
sought, a waterfront development application ordinarily is reviewed
concurrently with the application for the conveyance. Approval of a
conveyance does not carry any commitment subsequently to approve a
waterfront development or other State permit for any improvement that
requires; such a permit. Approved conveyances are recorded in the
appropriate County and municipal real estate records. Bureau of Tidelands
also maintains atlases that identify riparian conveyances, licenses, and
permits administered by the Bureau.

Thej basic decision to approve conveyances of lands under water in New
Jersey c8rrently is vested in the Natural Resource Council, whose twelve

1An exception to the notice requirement is made if the application is from
a State or municipal agency for a public park or street purpose
(NJSA 12:3-33).

279

I
citizen members are appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent ofU
the State Senate for four-year terms. The Council is established in the
Division of Marine Services within the Department of Environmental
Protection, and the Department provides staff to the Council. The prime
staff functions are performed by the Bureau of Tidelands; other Department
personnel assist the Council as needed. The Office of the Attorney General
provides legal staff to the Council.

The Natural Resource Council is responsible for determining the public
interest in approving or denying applications for conveyances of underwater
lands pursuant to Chapter 383 of the Laws of 1869, as amended (NJSA 12:3-5
et seq.). The Council also approves licenses to dredge sand and gravel from
underwater lands (NJSA 12:3-21 et seq.) and to construct pipes beneath tidal
waters (NJSA 12:3-26). The Council fixes the value of lands conceptually
approved for sale or lease, and it establishes the price of dredged
material. The Council also has been designated to oversee the mapping of
all lands to which the State lays riparian claim (NJSA 13:1B-13.1 et
seq.).1 As indicated in the previous section, the Council also hears
appeals on waterfront development permits administered by the Bureau of
Coastal Project Review. Other duties of the Council include advisory
functions for the Department of Environmental Protection (NJSA 13:lB-l! et
seq.).

Cases are presented to the Council, together with recommendaitons for
action, by NJ-DEP riparian staff. Applicants and the public are afforded an
opportunity to comment on each case. To ascertain fair market value,
especially for lands to be used for commercial purposes, the Council relies
on expert appraisers from within the State government and from outside
firms. Valuation can be especially complex when title is disputed and the
Council is requested to grant a quit claim deed releasing the State's
interest. In this case the strength of the State claim and its chance of
success if litigation occurs are factors considered when the Council fixes
the value of the lands to be conveyed. Council meetings usually are held at
least monthly, after public notice, and they are open to the public. An
absolute majority approval (seven votes) is needed for affirmative action.
Council minutes must be signed by the Chairmanand by the Director of the
Division of Coastal Resources and must be approved by the Commissioner of
DEP to take effect. Riparian land conveyances must be approved by the
Commissioner of NJ-DEP and by the Governor (NJSA 13:1B-13). The Attorney
General and the Secretary of State attest the conveyance.

The Council operates in accordance with an extensive and complex body
of riparian statutory and case law (see Goldshore 1979). Challenges to
State administrative decisions on riparian issues are made in the courts.
The public trust doctrine which affects State tidelands is an issue of
continuing legal interest. The authority of the Council apparently does not
extend offshore.

1Staff for tidelands delineation is provided by the Office of
Environmental Analysis, a unit in the Office of the Commissioner
of DEP.

280 I

1 ~~~The Council is not required by law to provide reasons for its
determinations of the public interest, and it has prepared no compilation of
its operating policies. The written minutes of the Council do not reflect
I ~ ~fully the Council's deliberations, although they record the Council's
decisions. Because the minutes of the Council must be approved by NJ-DEP
officials, there is an opportunity for assurance that Council decisions
I ~ ~comply with adopted coastal zone management policies, as mandated by the
Governor and the Commissioner of NJ-DEP.

On the basis of observations made at Council meetings, it is evident to
I ~ ~the authors of this report that Council members strive to maintain
consistent policy positions, developed over a period of years with the
assistance of NJ-DEP staff, by which to decide equitably the cases which
come before them. Several illustrative Council policies are summarized here
with the assistance of the current Chairman of the Council, Mr. David Moore:

U *~~~~ The Council prefers to issue riparian leases or licenses
rather than fee simple -rants of land. Conveyances of
limited-term interest in riparian lands preserve a greater
measure of future State discretionary control over these
lands than the irrevocable sale of a grant. Provisions for
rental adjustment at stated intervals generally are included
revised at each renewal.

� Bulkheads in developed areas are required to be constructed
I ~ ~~~~no farther channelward than, and in alignment with,
adjoining bulkheads so as to maximize tidal circulation.
The preferred location for bulkheads is landward of wetland
vegetation, because environmental values are maximized while
structural protection is achieved.

a The placement of fill on tidelands is to be minimized.
Docks and boardwalks on pilings are preferred to solidly
filled piers, in order to preserve benthic habitat while
* ~~~~~allowing water access.

* Access to docks along existing channels via boardwalks is
prefer-red to dredging of boat slips.

D. Coastal Area Facility Review Act of 1973 (CAFRA)

The Coastal Area Facility Review Act became effective on
U ~ ~19 September 1973 (NJSA 13:~19-1 et seq.). The Legislature found that the
estuarine environment of Ne~w Jersey and adjoining land areas constitute an
exceptional and irreplaceable environmental resource. Some parts of the
I ~ ~coastal area are experiencing serious adverse impacts from existing
facilities, but multiple uses are in the best long-term interests of all
people of the State. Hence the State is to assist in the assessment of
I ~ ~impacts of future facilities on the delicately balanced, fragile environment

of the coastal area to assure adequate environmental safeguards during the I
construction of new facilities.

1.Regulated Facilities
n ~~~~~~~I
The term facility is defined in considerable detail in the Act (NJSA
13:19-3.c.). It includes industrial operations, utilities, public
infrastructure, and those new housing developments or housing additions with
25 or more dwelling units. DEP interprets the term facility broadly to
apply to all major facilities in the CAFRA area. Minor construction and
reconstruction activities, however, generally are excluded administratively
from review under CAFRA (NJAC 7:7D-2.2).l Modifications and additions to
otherwise exempt ("grandfathered") facilities may be determined to be
subject to the permit requirement of the Act [NtJAC 7:7D-2.6(a)41.

2. Geographic Jurisdiction

The boundaries of the coastal area are defined by reference t~ readily
identifiable landscape features (NJSA 13:19-4). The CAFRA area extends
inland from the limit of offshore State jurisdiction in the Atlantic Ocean,
from Raritan Bay, and from Delaware Bay to named roads and railroads. The
area extends generally from Cheesequake Creek in Middlesex County around the
Atlantic coastline generally seaward of the Garden State Parkway, and then
up the Delaware estuary to central Salem County (Figure 15 ). Included in
this area are all or part of 127 municipalities in eight counties. The
final CAFRA inland boundary followed intensive debate and deliberation by
the Legislature. Regulated coastal wetlands are excluded from CAFRA
jurisdiction, but the division of regulated lands between the two Acts has
not been indicated on regional-scale maps.

3. Regulatory Authority

Within the CAFRA area no facility can be constructed without a permit
from DEP (NJSA 13:19-5). Construction in progress on or prior to the
September 1973 effective date of the Act was exempted. On-site construction
which requires a CAFRA permit is defined by DEP as "all physical activity

-Administratively excluded activities consist of repaving previously paved
surfaces, widening roadways where the number of through lanes is not
increased, extensions of roads less than 1,200 linear feet (provided
that the cumulative total of 1,200 feet is not exceeded in any one
municipality at any one site during any one year), construction of a
new driveway to an existing single house, construction of new roads in
a new housing development of less than 25 units, new parking facilities
for less than 300 vehicles, elementary and secondary school facilities,
sewer line extensions less than 1,200 linear feet (provided that the
cumulative total of 1,200 feet is not exceed in any one municipality at
any one site during any one year) with a design capacity less than
9,600 gallons per day, sewer pipe and system repairs or upgrading where
there is no increase in effluent volume or design flow, and sewer
extensions to new housing developments of less than 25 dwelling units.

282 I

U~~~~~~

~~~~~-~,-... .j ~
, / ~

j~~~~ , ....

.~�:"::. � '.v

`cc. ' ' ~=iij

i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"'''-::''':"ii� :::i
i~ N, :.

%,�� '::-.}~~ .

~i '~~~~~::':~:

':''ii.-.
Figure5.Landanaies /
Ie for riuh
(tAFv t

thgue Wet lands Act of 1970e a~ibried no rgltio psubjet to CARbtthey ar otdffrntae

here from CAFP~ lands.
283

necessary to begin and complete a particular facility and the total
development of its site" (NJAC 7:7D:2.2). Potential applicants are urged to
discuss proposed facilities at the earliest opportunity during project
planning. (The clearance of timber or other modifications of a site prior
to an applicant's public declaration of plans to construct a facility or hisI
submission of an application for municipal approvals, however, may occur
before CAFRA review, and may limit the opportunities for environmentally
sensitive design on the site.)I
DEP has authority to approve, approve conditionally, or deny CAFRA
permits. Approval can be given only if DEP finds affirmatively that any
proposed facility meets the following criteria (NJSA 13:19-10):

a. It conforms with all applicable air, water, radiation, and effluent
standards, water quality criteria, and air quality standards.I

b. It prevents air pollutant emissions and water effluents in excess
of the existing dilution and assimilative capacities at the siteI
and in the surrounding region.

c. It provides for the handling and disposal of litter, trash, and
refuse so as to minimize adverse effects and threats to publicI
health, safety, and welfare.

d. It would result in the minimum feasible impairment of theI
regenerative capacity of ground or surface water supplies.

e. It would cause the minimum feasible interference with plant,
animal, fish, and human life processes at the site and in the
surrounding region.

f. It is located or constructed so as neither to endanger human lifeI
or property nor otherwise to impair public health, safety, or
welfare.

g. It would result in the minimum practicable degradation of unique or
irreplaceable land types, historical or archaeological areas, or
existing scenic and aesthetic attributes at the site or in the
surrounding region.
Specific authority is granted for conditioning permits in order to promote
public health, safety, and welfare; to protect public and private property,I
wildlife, and marine fisheries; and to preserve, protect, and enhance the
natural environment (NJSA 13:19-11). Nuclear power plants cannot be
approved unless the proposed plans for disposal of radioactive wastes areI
judged satisfactory by DEP in removing danger to life and to the environment
and in conforming to Federal standards.

The CAFRA regulatory program supplements but does not supersede theI
need for facilities to be approved under other statutes. If a new facility
would affect regulated wetlands, a wetlands permit is necessary for that3

284

part of the facility. If existing or former tidelands are involved, a
riparian instrument is necessary, and a waterfront development permit may be
required. In the event that a proposed facility must be reviewed under both
CAFRA and the Wetlands Act, provision has been made for combined EIS
preparation to serve the needs of the two statutory mandates in the Bureau
of Coastal Project Review [NJAC 7:7D-2a.4(e)].

4. Permit Procedures

Prospective applicants for CAFRA permits are encouraged to schedule a
preapplication conference with DEP personnel. The conference is an
opportunity for the applicant to gauge informal DEP staff reactions to his
initial proposal, to gain information on the construction permit review
process, and to ascertain the level of detail and emphasis necessary in the
EIS that must be submitted. Approval or disapproval of a proposed facility
cannot be made at a preapplication conference. If a proposed project is
determined not to require a CAFRA or other'DEP construction permit, however,
DEP is to issue a written statement of such finding to the applicant [NJAC
7:iC-1.3(a)].

Following the preapplication conference, DEP issues a memorandum of
record to the applicant. This memorandum summaries apparent strengths and
weaknesses of the proposed facility, the apparent sensitivity of land and
water resources at the project site, and the subjects of emphasis and levels
of detail necessary in the CAFRA EIS. Copies of the memorandum are
distributed to the appropriate municipal and county planning boards (NJAC
7:7D-2.3).

The applicant for each proposed facility must provide an environmental
impact statement with information on

a. Existing environmental conditions at the project site and its
surrounding region

b. The proposed construction, construction methods, and operations
practices

c. All other permits, licenses, and approvals needed, together with
the status of applications for such approvals

d. Probable impacts of the project on the environment

e. Unavoidable adverse impacts

f. Steps taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts

g. Alternatives to all or part of the proposed project, with reasons
for their acceptance or rejection

h. Documentation of references

285

Detailed regulations for permit applications and for the contents of CAFRA
EIS's have been promulgated by DEP (NJAC 7:7D-2.3 at seq.; NJAC 7:1C-1.i et
seq.; see also CAFRA Permit Section Procedure and Policy Manual).

Formal application is made to DEP by filing a completed form CP-I,
appropriate fee, and 20 copies of the EIS. Copies of the CF-i form also
must be sent by the applicant to the appropriate municipal clerk, municipal
environmental commission (if any), county environmental commission (if no
municipal commission), and municipal planning board. The applicant must
provide a copy of the EIS to the county planning agency, county
environmental commission (if any), soil conservation district, and (in
Burlington County) to the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission or
(in Monmouth County) to the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission. Local
agenices may make a copy of the EIS available to the public during normal
working hours upon request. Notice of the filing of each application and
its status is published in the DEP Weekly Bulletin.

Within 20 working days of the receipt of an application, the
application must be (1) accepted as complete for filing, or (2) accepted for
filing with a request for additional information necessary to complete the
application, or (3) rejected with an explanation of why the application is
unacceptable for filing (the fee is to be returned, if the applicant does
not intend to reapply). Amended applications are to be distributed to the
recipients of originally filed material.

The Bureau of Coastal Project Review staff prepares a preliminary
analysis of each complete application prior to the public hearing on theI
application. Comments from other agencies received within 20 days of the
date when an application is declared complete for filing are incorporated in
the preliminary analysis. The preliminary analysis is released to the
applicant and to any person requesting a copy.

A non-adversary public hearing is scheduled within 60 days after the
application was declared complete for filing. The hearing generally is held
in the municipality of the proposed facility. Within 15 days following the
hearing, additional information may be requested from the applicant. When
additional information is received, the application can be declared complete
for review. The DEP decision on the permit must be made within 60 days of
the public hearing or (if additional information was required) within 90
days of the declaration of completeness for review. Should the DEP fail to
act within the required time, the application is deemed to be approved,
subject to the standard conditions applicable to CAFRA permits (as listed in
NJAC 7:7D-2.5). The time limits do not apply to proposed electric
generating facilities or petroleum storage or processing facilities
(including liquified natural gas facilities) with storage capacity greater
than 50,000 barrels (NJAC 7:lC-1.2).

At present, the views of some 17 review agencies are solicited during
the review of a CAFRA permit. The DEP staff independently verifies
information furnished by the applicant and scrutinizes his assessment of
impacts. As of December 1978, formal, written opinions had been issued on

286

48 CAFRA permit applications, and about 40 applications were in some stage
of the review process. Nearly 70% of the CAFRA applications have been for
residential subdivisions. Other facilities have included casino hotels,
motels, sewerage treatment systems, a surface mine for sand used in glass
manufacture, a nuclear electric generating station, a campground, and a
sanitary landfill.

Each CAFRA decision that sets a precedent is accompanied by a formal,
written opinion signed by the Director of the Division of Coastal Resources.
The opinions are substantive documents summarizing the project file. Recent
opinions have utilized the following format:

I. Introduction
If. Administrative History of Application
III. Description of Region, Municipality, Site, and Project
IV. Analysis of the Impact of the Proposed Project on the
Site and Surrounding Land Uses
V. Conclusion

The opinion reports special conditions that are part of the permit, and may
append additional information.

Permits are transferable when the ownership of facilities changes, so
long as the permit conditions are met and the original facility remains
unchanged. The applicant must accept the permit conditions before
construction can begin, and the approved permit must be filed with the
appropriate county clerk for recording in the book of deeds within 45 days
of its receipt.

Any person who considers himself aggrieved by a CAFRA decision may
utilize either of two avenues of administrative appeals. First, within 21
days of publication of a notice of decision in the DEP Weekly Bulletin, the
aggrieved party may appeal to the Commissioner of DEP by filing a written
request for appeal with the Commissioner, with copies to the municipal
clerk, the county clerk, and the applicant (if the appellant is not the
applicant). Following public notice of the request for appeal, the
Commissioner may schedule a plenary hearing. Any person may answer a
request for an appeal to the Commissioner. The Commissioner may accept or
reject the recommendations of the hearing officer, which generally must be
filed within 14 days of the hearing. The Commissioner must issue a decision
within 21 days following the plenary hearing or the filing of any exceptions
to the recommendations of the hearing officer. The Commissioner has broad
discretion to confirm, reverse, or modify a CAFRA decision upon appeal.

Second, an aggrieved party may appeal to the Coastal Area Review Board
(CARB) established by the Act (NJSA 13:19-13), either before or after an
appeal to the Commissioner. The CARB consists of the Commissioners of DEP,
Labor and Industry, and Community Affairs (or their designed
representatives). The CARB may confirm or reverse the decision of the DEP
with respect to any part of a CAFRA permit.

287

Environmental Design Strategy

The Commissioner of DEP was mandated by CAFRA to inventory the
environmental resources and existing facilities in the coastal area within
two years, and to estimate the capability of coastal regions to absorb
future development. Subsequently alternate environmental management
strategies for the CAFRA area were to be developed, and a recommended
environmental design for the area was to be selected (NJSA 13:19-16). These
statutory requirements were completed minimally by DEP within the ailoted
time. This planning process is reflected in the coastal zone management
policies which became effective in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment of the
New Jersey Coastal zone during October 1978 (NJAC 7:7E-1.i et seq.) and in
the numerous background reports produced by the Office of Coastal Zone
Management.

6. Enforcement

Until July 1979 one CAFRA staff was assigned full time to enforcement
and received assistance from other staff. CAFRA personnel attempted to
inspect constructed projects to ascertain compliance with permit conditions
and the success of mitigating measures. Field inspectors of the Office of
Riparian Land Management and members of the public also could bring
suspected CAFRA violations to the attention of the CAFRA staff. The field
inspectors could act on their own volition or at the request of the CAFRA
staff. The staff also relied for surveillance on general circulation
newspapers and on its own field inspections incidential to public hearings.
Field inspection now is the responsibility of the Bureau of Coastal
Enforcement and Field Services.

When violations are identified, DEP is authorized to institute civil
action in the Superior Court for injunctive relief (NJSA 13:19-18). Fines
are authorized to be levied for violations of the Act or of rules or
regulations issued by DEP pursuant to the Act. Permits may be suspended if
conditions are not met or if facility plans are changed significantly.
Revocation is available where major alterations in facility plans or
construction are undertaken, where misrepresentation in plans is discovered,
or where a suspended permit is not remedied within one year.

E. Stream Encroachment Permits

The construction, installation or alteration of any kind of structure
or permanent fill in, along or across the channel or floodway of any stream,
or any alteration of the stream itself (as by dredging or filling), within
the natural and ordinary high water mark, requires a permit from DEP through
the Division of Water Resources (DWR). The requirement for a permit may be
waived by the Division when the drainage area above an encroachment is less
than 320 acres in extent.

Applications for permits for stream encroachment are processed by the
Bureau of Flood Plain Management in the Water Supply and Flood Plain
Management Element. According to Item U. of the permit application form

288

used as of early 1979, an environmental impact statement is necessary for
channel relocation and major fill projects. The mid-1979 revised CP-1 form
makes no mention of possible EIS requirements for stream encroachment
permits. Guidelines for stream encroachment impact statements have been
prepared. The procedures and fees described in the 90-day construction
permit regulations are applicable (NJAC 7:1C-1.1 et seq.). All applications
must include Form CP-1, which also is used for wetlands, CAFRA, and
waterfront development, and other Water Resources Division permits.

Persons who propose to build or conduct an activity in or near a stream
must consult the Bureau of Flood Plain Management to determine whether or
not the proposed site falls within the design flood zone in which an
encroachment permit is required. Maps that define the lands subject to this
permit are not available.

Proposed stream encroachments involving petroleum product pipelines are
referred to the Office of Hazardous Substances Control in the Office of the
Commissioner for review of structural soundness and spill hazard potential.
A permit for such pipeline may be denied, or issued subject to conditions,
based on the Office of Hazardous Substances Control evaluation of spill
hazard, in addition to any other criteria usually employed by the Bureau of
Flood Plain Management in the DWR (NJSA 58:10-25).

Appeals from the actions of DWR on an application for stream
encroachment are made to the Water Policy and Supply Council, according to
procedures described in NJAC 7:1C-1.9 and in the rules of the Water Policy
and Supply Council (NJAC 7:21-1.1 et seq.).

Activities requiring stream encroachment permits frequently also
require the issuance of permits issued by the Division of Coastal Resources,
Department of Environmental Protection. In particular, a waterfront
development permit may be required when an activity is to be located on
lands now or formerly flowed by the tide. Applicants are advised to consult
the Division of Coastal Resources to determine the need for regulatory
approvals by agencies in that Division. (The stream encroachment permit
apparently can be waived for a project that requires a waterfront
development permit, but such waivers are not mentioned in the current stream
encroachment permit regulations at NJAC 7:8-3.15.)

During fiscal year 1978 the Bureau of Flood Plain Management received
595 stream encroachment permit applications. The number issued during the
year was 569; 36 were denied; and 6 were withdrawn. Following hearings on
appeal, the Water Policy and Supply Council approved 6 and denied 7
applications.

No statistics are kept on the number of EIS's generated by this permit
program. According to Bureau personnel, the preparation of an EUS is at the
discretion of the Bureau, and there have been few EIS's on stream
encroachment permits. At least one comprehensive EUS has been prepared
(JMA 1973a).

289

Surveillance and enforcement activities during fiscal 1978 involved 532
site inspections. There were 294 complaint investigations, 163
reinspections, 177 possible violations identified, and 127 needed
inspections backlogged into fiscal 1979. Cases with permit violations or
needing after-the-fact permit applications totaled 54, and there were 27
cases of flood damage investigated. Following inspection, 146 violation
notices were issued. Of the violations, 13 cases were referred to the
Attorney General. Thirteen fines were levied, and payments of four fines
were received.

F. Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (HMDC)

The Master Plan Zoning Regulations for the Hackensack Meadowland
District (NJAC 19:4-1.1 et seq.) establish allowable land uses, mandate
procedures for the approval of proposed developments, and establish minimum
environmental performance standards. First adopted during 1972 following a
2-year moratorium on new development, the Zoning Regulations have been
revised several times. Several other HMDC documents affect development in
the District. These include the Official Zoning Map proposed during 1971
and subsequently amended several times; subdivision, building code, and
foundation regulations adopted during 1969; sanitary landfill regulations
adopted during 1971; a wetlands order and open space map adopted during
1972; and the environmental impact assessment guidelines for specially
planned areas adopted during 1973 and revised during 1978.

1. New Construction Approvals

There are two basic pathways by which HMDC approval can be obtained for
new construction (Figure 16 ). In the ordinary zones of the District,
subdivision regulations apply, and must be satisfied prior to the issuance
of zoning certificates, authorization of fill, or issuance of building
permits. Subdivision review is performed by the Office of the Chief
Engineer, with the assistance of other offices of HMDC as requested. In the
designated Specially Planned Areas, special procedures apply. Review of
such applications is the responsibility of a Development Board, which
consists of the Executive Director and Chief Engineer of HMDC, a mayor
selected by the Meadowlands Municipal Committee, and two members of the
Commission selected by the Commission. The Board is assisted by the HMDC
staff.

Variances and special exceptions to requirements in the regular zones
are decided by the Executive Director after review by the Office of the
Chief Engineer. Variations from Specially Planned Area requirements are
decided by the Development Board. The regulations grant broad authority for
special conditions to be placed on approvals of special exceptions,
variances, and variations. Appeals from decisions of the Office of the
Chief Engineer, the Executive Director, and the Development Board are to the
Commission. A majority of the Commission may affirm, revoke, modify, or
remand decisions of the Development Board on General, Development, and
Implementation Plans. The HM-DC regulations mandate the development and
consideration of environmental information and impacts during the review of

290

Figure 16. 64ACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DEVELOPME.HT CWMAISSION MAJOR STCPS IM NEW GONSTRAJCTION P-EVIFW

Sp"IALLY PLANNED "ASAA AIJD PL.Ah"CO
GI#-OINARV IN REGUL-Xit ZNEU"IT D~dLpET

I sKr. Ic PLAT I GENERAL PLANiVIkIEMurIPL

V~~~~mmFA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I AsSsEmfll-r
PREIJAlut'ky PLAr SXP EVELO PEit PL-AN

4, 4, ENVWONMENTIL AL MP

PU~~~liC. HEARING ~~~~~~~~IMPLEMENJTATION4 PL),N

------1 FINAL PLXl AND POSTING OF
I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~PtRkFOR84Aacli- SOHO*

RIPARIAN IPLAT FILING WIT" ClouNTy IIpLAr.E MEr 014 OF ILL
I~rrRUENT IDEED aec.OkOANG OFFICER I

PEAOSM4C, O F BUILDING PERMIT IPEET-70PA

4, ND I APPUCANT Sml

IBUILDING CA)"STRAICTION OTD

I I~~~~~~~~coNSTfwCTIGH 11,15PECTIONS T4CONYDE
PLACEMUNT OF~ FILLI ,IWrNGOVCR

jCcwFI~l OU CUPA.NcyI FIN&L PLACE

*MANDA40ftV LINLES A, PUBLIC HE-kKINC. ON1 THE
IPaCOPOAL Is MELD CY TWE MUIJICAP)JJTi

both ordinary subdivision and specially planned area applications. New
development in the regular zones that does not require subdivision approval
gets environmental review at the zoning certificate stage.

a. Subdivision Procedures

The applicant for municipal approval of a proposed subdivision must
furnish a sketch plat (minimum scale, 1:2,400) to the Office of the Chief
Engineer of RMDC, together with a general description of the proposed
subdivision and existing site conditions. The Office within 45 days must
approve, conditionally approve, or reject the sketch plat, following a
review for compliance with applicable regulations including environmental
effects and land use conflicts. Minor subdivisions with not more than three
building plots and that are in conformance with all applicable HMDC
regulations need no HMDC subdivision approval beyond the sketch plat. The
applicant must file his subdivision with the county recorder of deeds within
90 days of sketch plat approval. The sketch plat must be accompanied by
evidence that the applicant has received a State riparian instrument, if any
of the land is mapped as subject to tidal claim by the State of New Jersey.

Major subdivisions must pass through more extensive preliminary and
final plat review procedures. Flats must be signed by a professional
engineer licensed to practice in New Jersey. Within 18 months after
submission of the sketch plat to FJMDC, the applicant must submit a
preliminary plat (minimum scale, 1:1,200) with extensive accompanying data,
as described in Article 6 Part 2 of the subdivision regulations, to HMDC.
With this submission there must be proof that the applicant has filed for
State and local approvals of proposed water supply and sewerage disposal
facilities. Evidence of application to the Division of Water Resources,
NJ-DEP, for approval of proposed alteration, improvement, or relocation of
any watercourse, or a proposed drainage structure on a stream with drainage
320 acres (0.5 square mile) or greater, also must be submitted to HMDC.

A decision must be made by the Chief Engineer within 90 days of the
filing of complete information required for the preliminary plat. Unless
the municipality holds a public hearing on the application, the HMDC must do
so. The Chief Engineer has broad authority to condition the approval to
require compliance with HMDC regulations. The applicant may submit all or
parts of an approved preliminary plat for final approval within three years
of the date of preliminary approval, during which period the general terms
and conditions of the tentative approval cannot by changed by HMDC. Failure
by HiMDC to act on a complete preliminary plat application within 30 days of
its receipt (unless the applicant consents to an extension) entails
automatic approval of the preliminary plat.

A complete final plat submitted within three years of preliminary plat
approval must be approved or disapproved by HMDC within 45 days of its
filing. Detailed engineering drawings of proposed required improvements
must be filed at least 60 days prior to the request for final approval.
Review must insure compliance with HIMDC regulations and any conditions of
the preliminary approval. The HMDC decision is to be reported to the

292

I ~~municipal approval authority. If HMDC fails to act within the 45-day period
(unless the applicant consents to an extension), the plat must be recorded
as if approved. No part of the land in the subdivision may be sold prior to
I ~ ~final plat approval. If an application is denied, the applicant must be
advised promptly in writing of the reasons for such disapproval.

Following the posting of any performance bonds required by HMDC, action
I ~ ~can be taken by the Office of the Chief Engineer on a zoning certificate
application for the proposed development. Escrow deposits may be required
as part of a zoning certificate. After the zoning certificate has been
issued, fill may be placed, and building permits can be processed as
subsequently described.

The zoning certificate application requires, among other details of the
proposed plans, sufficient information for HMDC to determine that there will
be compliance at all times with HMDC environmental performance standards.
The applicant must certify that the proposed structure or use will conform
I ~ ~to such standards in future. If the parcel has been mapped by NJ-DEP as
subject to a State riparian interest, either a waterfront development
permit, or a riparian instrument, or a final court judgment terminating the
I ~ ~State's claim, must be submitted by the applicant. The zoning application
must be approved within two weeks if it complies with applicable HMDC
regulations, and if the plans for traffic and drainage and the effects on
adjoining tracts are deemed acceptable. H?4DC must notify the applicant and
the municipality upon approval, and construction must start within one year
of the date of issuance of the zoning certificate.

I ~~b. Specially Planned Area Procedures

Special procedures, rather than the subdivision regulations, apply to
I ~ ~the approval of proposed development in Specially Planned Areas.
Essentially the same special procedures also apply if the applicant seeks to
develop a parcel of land larger than 5 contiguous acres in a regular zone as
a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Approval is granted via a multi-stage
process with General, Development, and Implementation Plans as increasingly
specific review stages (Figure 16-). Such large projects typically are built
in sections over a period of years. If a development is staged, all
regulations applicable to the entire area must be satisfied by each stage.
First, the applicant must file a General Plan covering the entire
Specially Planned Area. An environmental and socioeconomic impact
assessment in accordance with HMDflC guidelines must accompany the applicant's
General Plan, and a public hearing on the General Plan must be held. Action
must be taken by a Development Board on the complete General Plan
application within twelve weeks from the acceptance of the submission as
complete, unless the applicant consents to additional time.

Subsequent to General Plan approval, a Development Plan must be filed
within the period specified in the General Plan approval covering in greater
detail that section of the area to be developed first. This plan, too, must
be accompanied by an environmental assessment, which is expected to~be more

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~293

detailed and site-specific than the General Plan assessment because more
detailed engineering data are now available. Evidence of a State-approved
riparian ownership instrument, waterfront development permit, or final court
judgment terminating the State's ownership claim must be provided, if any of
the land is mapped by NJ-DEP as subject to State riparian interest.
The Development Board must act on the complete Development Plan
application within twelve weeks. The Board may condition approval to insureI
compliance with applicable regulations and General Plan conditions, and it
may grant variations from Specially Planned Area regulations if requested by
the applicant. The Board must find that variations (.1) do not affect the
quality of the environment on the Specially Planned Area, (2) do not affect
the comprehensive plan for the District adversely, and (3) do not impair the
intent and purposes of the Specially Planned Area regulations. Disapproval
is mandatory if the Development Plan is not in compliance with theI
previously approved General Plan or if riparian status has not been
established as required. TIf the Board requests an advisory Environmental
Design Committee appointed by the Commission to review the Development Plan,I
conditions may be imposed by the Development Board to implement
recommendations of the Committee. The applicant must indicate his
acceptance of the conditions of the approval within six weeks of the
Development Board's decision, or the Development Plan is deemed to be
disapproved. If the applicant notifies HXDC within six weeks of the
Development Plan decision that he elects to ref ile a revised Development
Plan, he may do so within four weeks of the notification date (or within theI
time authorized by the General Plan decision, whichever is later). The
Board must decide upon the revised application within six weeks of the
ref iling. The Development Plan approval must set a maximum time limit forI
filing an Implementation Plan.

An Implementation Plan must show in great detail the applicant's plans
for construction of any part of an approved Development Plan. Once again an
applicant's environmental impact assessment is required, with informatin
permitting a determination that the facility most probably will comply with
HMl4C environmental standards. Proof of submittal of sewerage and waterU
supply plans to appropriate State and local agencies must accompany the
Implementation Plan, together with evidence of any relevant application to
the Division of Water Resources, NJ-DEP, for any proposed alteration,
improvement, or relocation of any watercourse or proposed drainage structure
on any' stream with a drainage area of 320 acres or more. Twelve weeks are
allowed for review and decisionmaking by the Development Board. As with the
Development Plan, the applicant may file a revised plan within the specifiedI
time limits, whereupon the Board has an additional six-week period for
decisionmaking. The applicant must accept the Board's conditions within six
weeks of the Board's decision, or the Implementation Plan is disapproved.

Each Implementation Plan decision is to specify the times when
constru~ction is to commence and to be completed. A building permit
application is to be made within three months of the decision.

294I

I ~~~Within two weeks of the Implementation Plan approval, all bonds or
escrow deoisas well as engineering drawings and a final plat of the
subdivision, if the applicant elects to subdivide, must be filed with the
I ~ ~HMDC.- Engineering drawings are to be approved within eight weeks by the
Chief Engineer. The Development Board has 45 days to approve or disapprove
the bonds, deposits, and plat, and no building permit can be issued prior to
U ~ ~Board approval of these documents. Upon Board approval of the final plat,
notification is made to the municipal approval authority, and the plat may
be recorded. If construction does not begin within 1.3 months of Board
approval of these documents (unless the Board grants an extension), approval
I ~ ~of the Implementation Plan and the subsequent technical documents is deemed
to be revoked. No improvements can be made prior to approval of the
technical documents, including the placement of fill (except for existing
I ~ ~sanitary landfills). Fill can be placed after all technical documents have
been approved.
After the development has commenced, the Development Board may grant
modifications to an Implementation Plan following a public hearing. Such
modifications must be found (1) not to alter the character of the
Implementation Plan, (2) to be necessary for preservation of the Specially
I ~ ~Planned Area, and (3) not to confer a special benefit on any person. The
Development Board may use various means to enforce the Implementation Plan,
including use of performance bonds to modify or complete the development.

2. Building Permits, Inspections, and Certificates of Occupancy

At the conclusion of the subdivision process (through issuance of the
I ~ ~zoning certificate) or the specially planned area process (through approval
of the technical comments), including posting of required performance bonds
* ~~and escrow deposits, building permits can be approved by the Office of the
Chief Engineer. During construction all improvements are subject to
inspection by the Office of the Chief Engineer. The applicant must give
HNDC notice 48 hours before beginning to surface any roadway, install
curbing or gutters, backfill or grade utility trenches, or join pipes under
roadways. The applicant is responsible for the cost of such inspections.
As-built drawings must be supplied by the applicant-prior to final
inspection. The applicant's liability for proper construction extends for
two years beyond the date of final certification of the improvements by
HMIC. The certified improvements become the property of the municipality.

Action on a certificate of occupancy application can be taken by the
Office of the Chief Engineer after final inspection. Among other
information, the application must show compliance with the zoning
certificate and building code, and that applicable HIMDlC environmental
performance standards most probably will be met during project operation.
For developments in Specially Planned Areas, the Development Board must
certify completion before the certificate can be issued by the Office of the
Chief Engineer.
Every time the occupancy of a structure changes (except for residential

structures) or a change of use is proposed, a certificate of occupancy must

295

be obtained from HMDC. The Office of the Chief Engineer must inspect the
premises and issue or deny the certificate within one week after the filing
of an application.

3. Operations of HMDC

It is apparent that HMDC has comprehensive regulatory authority over
new construction in the District. HMDC has compiled a number of statistics
which suggest the extent of its operations since 1970. Almost two thirds of
the more than $680 million in new construction Districtwide that had been
undertaken through 1978 were the result of private enterprise (Table 35).
In excess of 1,700 residential units for more than 2,700 people were
constructed, and employment space for more than 25,000 people was created.
More than 4,300 development decisions were made, of which one third were for
building permits, one third were for certificates of occupancy, one fifth
were for zoning certificates, and the remainder were for variances and
subdivisions (Table 36). Since 1973, the first full year during which the
Master Plan zoning ordinance was effective, 459 variance decisions have been
made (Table 37). More than 82% of requests for variances of bulk
requirements were granted, and about 74% of requests for variances of
required uses were granted.

During the 1970-1977 period HMDC reported the abatement or prevention
of more than 1.4 billion gallons of wastewater discharges, of which about
92% were industrial discharges and the remainder were sewage and
miscellaneous wastes. No new sanitary landfills in the District have been
authorized by HMDC. Some landfills have been terminated; others have
expanded vertically but not horizontally, according to HMDC. Alternative
waste management facilities have been studied, and a baler operation is the
first HMC solid waste facility to be constructed. The baler is expected to
begin operation during 1979, if approval is granted by the New Jersey Board
of Public Utilities.

4. HR/DC Master Plan and Wetlands Protection

In the long term, wetlands protection is a major necessity for
protection of the estuarine environment. The HMDC Master Plan recognizes
other goals, such as the encouragement of development and the disposal of
solid wastes, that sometimes conflict with wetlands protection.

Historically almost the entire Hackensack Meadowland District consisted
of estuarine waterways and tidal wetlands. During the past two centuries
human activity has reduced the extent of the vegetated wetlands and of the
waterways. Dikes and culverts have eliminated or almost eliminated the
semi-diurnal flow of the tide ifrom extensive areas; on other areas fill has
raised the surface to form uplands. The H`MDC estimate of the current acreage
of wetlands and waterways in the District, as of 1 January 1979, is 4,662
acres. About 6,900 + 690 acres in the District were estimated by DEP during
1972 to be vegetated wetlands at that time in a review of the HMDC Master
Plan and Zoning Ordinance on the basis of "Wetlands Ecological Value Overlay"

296

Table 35. New development in the Hackensack Meadowland District, New Jersey,
1970-1977. dHDC data are from certificates of occupancy, except that new
residential units data are from building permits.

Total Cost
New New New Residen- of Construction
YEAR Employees Residents tial Units (million $)

1970 0 128 13 105.0

1971 920 42 73 20.8

1972 4,918 212 51 60.3

1973 5,914 298 38 65.2

1974 3,255 128 33 88.9

1975 2,773 347 264 41.7

1976 3,070 662 665 190.3

1977 1,734 908 34 39.6

1978 2,980 509 578 69.4

TOTAUL 25,564 2,740 1,712 681.2

297

Table 36. Ilackensack Meadowlands Development Commission decisions by type, 1970-77 (1IIMDC data).

Zoning Building Certificate
Year Certificate Variance Subdivision Permit Occupancy Other Total

1970 14 5 1 18 10 0 48

1971 77 27 13 87 37 3 244

1972 95 36 36 120 100 5 392

1973 96 64 19 142 139 8 468

)) 1974 123 61 30 231 168 10 628

1975 74 47 25 191 203 5 545

1976 111 45 18 232 226 9 641

1977 130 49 29 209 221 12 650

1978 189 55 13 254 190 2 703

TOTAL 909 389 184 1,484 1,294 64 4,324

% 21 9 4 34 30 1 99

mmmmm mm_

Table 37. -.IDC variance decisions by type and outcome, 1970-77 (H1DC data).

Bulk Use
Year Approved Denied Approved Denied

1970 5 0 4 0

1971 10 4 15 0

1972 (Haster Plan 8/11/72) 11 6 18 2

1973 77 16 8 3

1974 74 15 13 2

1975 63 13 9 5

1976 58 12 12 5

1977 47 12 11 4

1978 88 11 12 1

TOTAL 433 89 102 22

% 83 17 82 16

1973-1978 TOTAL 407 79 65 14

% 84 16 82 18

299

maps produced for the purpose of tidelands determinations1, indicating a
decrease of 4,295 acres (57%) to 2,921 acres (47%) of wetlands over the
period 1972-1979. HIMDC reports 1,440 acres of open waterways in the
19,730-acre District.

According to HMDC data, the HXDC Master Plan Zoning Ordinance, Wetlands
Order, and other regulations currently protect about two thirds of the

1As indicated in the previous section on Wetlands Act implementation, DEF
prepared no maps of the Hackensack Meadowlands District pursuant to the
Wetlands Act of 1970. Wetland vegetation types in the District were
delineated, however, by the DEP mapping contractor as part of the
tidelands ownership investigation conducted for the Natural Resource
Council by the Office of Environmental Analysis. The resulting maps show
vegetation types that correspond in part with the Wetlands Act maps for
other parts of the State, but they lack upper inland wetland boundaries.
The Meadowland District vegetation maps can be consulted only at the
Office of Environmental Analysis in Trenton. The ownership claims to
tidelands in the Meadowland District are a subject of continuing
controversy and litigation. The authors of the present report have found
various major technical flaws in the claims of the DE? vegetation mapping
contractor, as summarized at length elsewhere (see J'LIA 1978:
Appendix VIII).

3O0

remaining wetlands in the District1. As discussed subsequently, the
current HMDC requirements are less protective of wetlands than DEP policies
in coastal wetlands that are regulated under the Wetlands Act (NJSA 13:9A-1
et seq.). They are less protective also than State laws which apply and DEP
coastal management policies that are proposed for those sections of the
coastal zone outside the Meadowland District.

The basic mechanisms by which wetlands in the Meadowland District are
protected consist of (1) "marshland preservation" zoning for the Hackensack
River and its tributaries (totaling 1,400 acres of open water)1 and for
selected marsh areas totaling 3,051 acres1, a zoning category in which the
few allowable uses mandate preservation of natural conditions throughout the
zone; (2) interneighborhood common open space requirements that include marsh
preservation in a varying percentage of the twelve major tracts zoned as
Specially Planned Areas; (3) wetlands buffer strip preservation requirements
along the Hackensack River and its "tributaries" (totaling 50 acres)2; (4)
mandatory compliance with environmental performance standards which includes
limitations on effluent discharges to waterways; (5) sanitary landfill
regulations which are described by HMDC as having prevented the horizontal
expansion of landfills since the implementation of HMDC regulations during
1971; (6) detailed environmental assessment requirements (for Specially
Planned Areas and for PUD's) which will identify wetlands that are to be
protected; and (7) procedural requirements that DEP consent must be given
for development of any land in which the State has a tidelands claim before
HMDC applications can be approved.

Acreages are those reported in the HMDC Open Space Plan, as revised
by HMDC during 1979 to reflect current zoning:

VEGETATED WETLANDS PROTECTED BY ZONING ACRES

Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management Area
(tidelands in DeKorte State Park) 1,186

Other State-owned tidelands in the Marsh
Preservation Zone 271

Privately owned tidal wetlands in the Marsh
Preservations Zone 114

Protected tidal wetlands in Specially Planned
Areas 819

Protected non-tidal wetlands in Specially Planned
Areas 661

TOTAL 3,051

301

According to 1979 HMDC data, protected wetlands (3,051 acres),
waterways (1,400 acres), and waterway buffer strips (50 acres) together form
70% of the 6,395 acres of open space planned for the District. HMDC during
1977 increased by 446 acres the extent of open space (including some
wetlands) protected by zoning at the Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management Area
(Mattson 1978). The focus of the HMDC Open Space Plan is the Hackensack
River, along and outward from which extends a network of proposed wetland
open space corridors.

How much acreage is to be preserved as waterways and wetlands, given
full implementation of the Master Plan, is not certain.1 According to the
HMDC Wetlands Order (p. 5), the District eventually is to include at least
3,210 acres of wetlands and 1,400 acres of open water. Hence, by
subtraction from the 1972 estimates by DEP, some 3,000 to 4,300 wetland
acres ultimately will have been filled during implementation of the Master
Plan, if the DEP and HMDC estimates are indicative approximations. This is
a loss ranging from 48% to 58% of vegetated wetlands reported by NJ-DEP as
present in the District during 1972. Almost one third of the existing 4,662
acres of marsh during 1979 will be lost when the 3,210 acres minimum
protected by the Wetlands Order are reached. The open water total acreage
is to remain constant at 1,400 acres.

Half of the land in Island Residential Areas is to be preserved as
marsh and open water. Lesser percentages are required to be preserved as
wetlands in other Specially Planned Areas. Generalized schematic
representations of the location of preserved wetlands are indicated on the
small-scale HMDC Open Space Map, but actual development to date has not
followed the Map precisely. The Open Space Map was reported to be under
revision during mid-1979.

In the twelve development zones of the District generally, the only
wetlands that are expected to be preserved are wetlands in the waterway
buffer strips (H1DC Wetlands Order, page 1). The HMDC-estimated, 50-acre
total to be preserved as 50-foot wide waterway buffer strip may be an
underestimate, considering that the total length of 50 acres of such strips,
is only about 8 miles of streambanks (4 miles if along both banks). Because
the streams that have buffer-strip requirements have not been defined
explicitly, it is not possible to report the total length of such streams or
to recalculate the associated wetland acreage.

There is no mandatory HMDC requirement that tidal wetlands be
identified or assessed by the applicant or by HMDC prior to development,
except when an environmental assessment is mandated in the Specially Planned
Areas (or in the event of a proposed PUD in the development zones). There
is no counterpart to the findings that must be made by DEP in order to

I Whether land zoned for marsh preservation but now used for industrial
purposes (such as the LNG facility in East Rutherford) still is included in
the HMDC total of wetlands that are protected. is not known. All of the
available data reported here are regarded as approximate.

302

approve development in regulated coastal wetlands, namely, that (1) the
proposal requires water access as a central function, (2) has no prudent or
feasible alternative on a non-wetland site, (3) will result in the minimum
feasible alteration of the tidal circulation, and (4) will result in minimum
feasible alteration of surface elevations and wetlands vegetation.I In
contrast, for the development zones HMDC ordinances mandate only that
relatively narrow buffer strips are to be preserved along some "tributaries"
which have not been identified fully. Additional wetland preservation may
be volunteered by applicants or mandated by HMDC in specific cases following
review of individual applications. In the Specially Planned Areas, the HMDC
Master Plan and Open Space Plan are more stringent concerning the extent and
location of preserved wetlands, but half or more of the land is mandated for
development nonetheless.-

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act provides that no fill material can
be placed legally in the waters of the United States or their adjacent
wetlands prior to issuance of a general or individual permit by the Army
Corps of Engineers. Federal policy on permits for fill and for
construction in waterways is to restrict wetlands filling to projects which
have no feasible site alternative, and to require minimum feasible wetlands
alteration. As implementation and enforcement of Section 404 permit
requirements by the New York District of the Corps are intensified, it is
reasonble to expect that all new developments that both require filling and
receive HMDC approval will require Corps permits. Corps authorizations also
will continue to be needed for work in and along waterways pursuant to
Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899, and Coast Guard approvals

1 For further discussion of the Wetlands Act, see the appropriate section
of this Chapter.
2 The precise method for calculating preservation requirements in
Specially Planned Areas has not yet been established clearly. Presumably
the same land cannot be counted both as a waterway or -buffer strip and as
the mandatory interneighborhood wetland open space. Thus, the required
marsh preservation area conceivably could total more than 50% in the Island
Residential Specially Planned Areas. To illustrate, consider a hypothetical
1,000-acre Specially Planned Area with an Island Residential 50% wetland
preservation requirement. If none of the land is a waterway or buffer strip
zoned as marsh preservation, then 500 acres are developable and 500 acres
are to be preserved. Now assume that 100 acres of the site are in the
Hackensack River and its 50-foot buffer, and 10 more acres are a tributary
stream with its buffers. In this case the developable land is only 445
acres [(1,000 - 110) x 0.5 = 445], and the preservation area is 545 acres
(445 + 100 + 10 = 545).

3For further discussion of the Corps and Coast Guard permit programs and
wetlands protection policies of Federal agencies, see the appropriate
section of this report. Wetlands have been included as waters of the United
States by the Corps for regulatory purposes since July 1975 pursuant to
court order (NlRDC vs. Calloway, 392 F. Supp. 685; D.D.C. 1975).

303

will be needed for bridges and for minor road culverts that affect most
waterways in the Meadowland District under Section 9 of the River and Harbor
Act. To date, few Section 404 (Clean Water Act) permits have been issued
for projects in the Hackensack Meadowland District, and Sections 9 and 10
(River and Harbor Act) permits have not always been obtained for alterations
in the minor tidal waterways. After-the-fact applications for such permits
in the future, therefore, may be required for now-extant facilities
constructed without permits, especially for the numerous fills placed since
I
the 1975 implementation of the Section 404 program. There is no statutory
time limitation governing the need for such permits.

At present, HMC regulations do not require that developers notify the
Corps or Coast Guard of needed authorizations (or obtain statements of
exemption from Federal jurisdiction) during the HMDC review process, nor are
HMDC approvals conditional upon subsequent Federal approvals or exemptions.
Hence, projects approved following the elaborate HMDC review procedures
could be denied critical Federal permits. Project removal with site
restoration or other mitigation could be imposed after the fact, if a
I
Federal permit were denied pursuant to broad public-interest review after a
project was constructed. There is no question that Federal law allows such
measures (for example, see US vs. Keevan, S.D. Fl., 1974; US vs. Sexton Cove
Estates, S.D. Fl., 1975), should the Federal regulatory agencies voluntarily
commence enforcement or be compelled by court order to enforce their
authorities fully in the Meadowlands. It is probable that individual
applicants increasingly will bear the brunt of the conflict between current
HMC and Federal policies concerning Wetlands, unless steps are taken to
resolve the conflicting requirements. The New York District could be
requested to review the HMDC Master Plan and to issue a general permit
authorizing development according to the Master Plan. If such a permit were
granted, presumably following completion of an areawide Federal EIS,
individual development actions in accordance with the Plan could be approved
rapidly by the Corps following negative declarations, whereas variance
applications would require thorough Federal scrutiny and possibly individual
Federal EIS's. Such a framework would provide a significant backup
incentive for compliance with the Federally approved HMDC Master Plan, and a
concurrent incentive to minimize or avoid variances.

5. HMDC Water Quality Standards

The HMDC zoning regulations provide minimum standards for a number of
water quality parameters that must be met by (1) discharges into central
sewage systems, (2) discharges into the Hackensack River or any of its
tributaries (NJAC 19:4-6.14). Sanitary wastes are not to be discharged to
District waterways if sewers are available, and new sewage treatment plants
are to discharge only to the Hackensack River itself, not to its
tributaries. I

The 1972 zoning regulations (pre-FWPCA) have as their objective "that
the waters of the Hackensack Meadowlands District be made suitable for
secondary contact recreation but not primary contact recreation" as well as
for other purposes [NJAC 19:4-6.14 (f)]. This objective is less stringent

304

than that announced by Section 101 of the Clean Water Act, which requires
fishable and swimmable waters by 1983 and zero discharge of pollutants by
1985. HMDC does require, however, that heavy metals and other toxic
substances "be kept to as low a value as is consistent with current
technological practice representing the highest state of the art and levels
consistent with recreational and primary contact water" [NJAC 19:4-6.14
(g) 11].

HMDC has no control over pollutants or discharges that enter the
District from outside sources. HMDC long opposed, for example, the
construction of a new sewage treatment plant in North Bergen which is to
discharge to Cromskill Creek. The facility was underway during 1979 with
Urban Development Action Grant funding from the US Department of Housing and
Urban Development without coordination with the Hudson County 201 Facilities
Plan. Nevertheless, HMDC has achieved water quality improvements in the
District. The surface water of the Hackensack River basin generally is
ranked as poor by NJDEP, but improving trends are noted for two of six rated
parameters (Division of Water Resources 1978).

6. Solid Waste Management

The disposal of solid wastes has been a major factor affecting the
environment of the Hackensack Meadowland District for more than a century.
The HMDC is mandated to exercise control over solid wastes disposed in the
District (NJSA 13:17-10). The 50,000 tons of garbage received weekly from
nearly 80 municipalities by the District represent about one quarter of the
solid waste stream for New Jersey as a whole (Sheehan 1979), and the massive
landfills dominate the landscape of the District.

On the basis of numerous studies during the past decade, HMIDC (1979)
has drafted a solid waste management plan for the District pursuant to NJSA
13:lE-1 et seq. A dozen general technological systems were reviewed for
their applicability in the District, including composting, pyrolysis, local
sanitary landfills, remote sanitary landfills, baling, shredding with direct
disposal, wet separation (hydropulping), conventional incineration,
waterwall incineration, resource recovery, energy recovery, and materials
recovery alternatives.

A 1,000 tons per day baling facility was completed under a $6.9 million
grant from the Economic Development Administration (Department of Commerce)
in North Arlington (Bergen County) during 1978. The baler had not yet been
approved by the Board of Public Utilities as of September 1979, and there
was substantial controversy concerning the proposed fee structure. The
baler compresses refuse, reducing its volume and providing a material which
can form developable land when used to cover existing landfills. The bales
initially are to be used to construct the proposed DeKorte State Park in
Lyndhurst, North Arlington, and Kearny from old landfills and wetlands.

The central proposals of the solid waste plan are two resource recovery
systems, one a 3,000 tons per day unit to be built in Ridgefield and the
other a 2,500 tons per day unit to be built in Newark. HMDC hopes these units

305

can shred and then separate mixed refuse into several fractions: salableI
ferrous metals and aluminum, refuse-derived industrial boiler fuel, and
inorganic residue. Glass could be separated, but its resale value currently
is judged not to justify the effort (Sheehan 1979).

To date HMIDC has given relatively little attention to requiring that
wastes which enter the facilities of the District be separated at the
source, favoring instead engineering solutions to process the mixed wasteI
stream. It also has given little attention to the possibility of generating
energy from refuse in the District and then marketing steam and chilled

water to existing and planned developments in the District.

306~~~~~~~

XV. COASTAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION

This Chapter focuses on several aspects of resource preservation in the
coastal zone that receive relatively little attention in the 1978 and 1979
DEP-OCZM policy documents. The chapter begins with a discussion of open
space preservation techniques for the coastal zone. It then provides brief
commentary on selected legal issues of significance to coastal zone
management efforts. Then it remarks on public participation in the coastal
zone management efforts. Then it remarks on public participation and
associated opportunities for public education in the coastal zone management
enterprise.

A. Open Space Preservation Techniques

In this section alternative open space preservation techniques are
described. Some of these techniques are appropriate as ways of increasing
the quantity of land in public ownership. Others are applicable to land
that remains in private ownership but offers public benefits.

1. Methods to Achieve Public Ownership

The largest single block of public lands in New Jersey is the lands
flowed by the tides, which are held in trust for all citizens of the State.
Although State ownership is unbroken offshore to the 3-mile limit, certain
shorelands now or formerly flowed by the tides have been alienated into
private ownership. State policy increasingly has restricted the alienation
of State tidelands (Goldshore 1979).

Historically, the principal method of adding to the stock of public
land is by acquisitions in fee simple, either through open market purchase,
bargain sale at less than fair market value, donation, or condemnation.
Acquisition of land by purchase insures public access and the highest degree
of public control. Public purchase of fee-simple ownership implies both the
availability of funds for land purchase (both a local share and matching
contributions from State funds such as those created by the 1974 and 1978
Green Acres bond issues in New Jersey) and the existence of a land
management agency to insure that each specific parcel is used for its
intended purpose. Land condemned for public use in New Jersey must be paid
for at fair market value. Donated lands generally create local eligibility
for matching funds to the extent of their fair market value.

Land may be donated for public purposes either in full fee simple or in
a lesser interest. Federal tax policies have been formulated to encourage
such donations, and therefore donations and bargain sales typically are made
to provide the donor with a deduction from Federal income and inheritance
taxes. Charitable donations are acknowledged for public-purpose gifts or
land to local, State, and Federal agencies and to qualified charitable
organizations. Lands transferred at death are deductible from the
decendent's estate at the current market value.

307

Land may be restricted from future landscape alteration such as by tree
cutting, mining, and housing construction, by the terms of covenants in
deeds. Covenants in deeds, like the easements discussed subsequently, can
provide positive public rights or can specify negative prohibitions
concerning the use of the land and preservation of its features. A covenant
can be attached to a deed by a private landowner on his own volition or upon
receipt of payment from the benefiting public (for example, from a
municipality). Alternatively a public agency can buy property, insert theI
covenant, and then resell the property. When a covenant addresses only
future contingencies, it is likely to have little or no effect on the
current value of the land which the agency seeks to resell.
Covenants in deeds of lands donated for -public purposes may require the
reversion of title, if the terms of the gift are breached. Provision for
the reversion of interest can assure that donated lands are used in theI
manner specified by the donor, but the reversion generally should be to an
alter-native public agency or conservation organization rather than to the
donor, if he is to assure his tax benefit.
Easements are the principal mechanisms for transfer of a
less-than-fee-simple interest in land to the public body. An easement is a
formal, recorded, less than fee-simple title interest in land, which
typically runs with the land in perpetuity. Positive easements allow public
uses otherwise not available, such as access for biking, hunting, or
fishing. Negative easements prevent otherwise allowable private uses, such
as the destruction of scenic vistas, damage to environmentally sensitive
areas, or alterations in the facade or interior of an historic building.
The fee-simple owner may sell or donate development rights and may restrictI
future development. As with fee-simple gifts, landscape change may be
forestalled. The most protective easements are those given or sold in
perpetuity. For achieving open space preservation, easements generally are
less costly than outright acquisitions for the local government or otherI
public body.

The easement technique is especially useful where the owner isI
interested in preserving and using land in its existing state, but he does
not want to donate it entirely. Municipalities may acquire easements by
condemnation. The landowner who sells or donates an easement may receiveI
income tax benefits or a reduction in local property taxes, but New Jersey
law and court decisions historically did not require local tax assessors to
reduce assessments on land because of public easements. The reduction in
local tax liability as a result of a conservation easement recently was1
mandated by the Division of Tax Appeals in the case of Fincher and Parsons
vs. Township of Bethlehem, County of Hunterdon, et al. in a
precedent-setting case with broad implications in New Jersey discussed inI
the following section.

Easements offer various advantages and disadvantages to landowners and
to the public as compared with fee-simple public acquisition. The specific
terms of easements and deed restrictions must be negotiated by landowner
grantors and public agency or public-interest organization grante es in each

308

I ~~instance. Useful presentations of general principles are those of Stover
(1976), Gave (1977), HCRS (1978), and various publications of the Nature
Conservancy. In general, easements and deed restrictions are much less
I ~ ~widely understood than direct public fee-simple land acquisition by market
or condemnation purchase or by donation. They are compared in Table 38 and
discussed in the following paragraphs.

I ~~~~In general, landowner advantages from the granting of easements include
the ability to insure the future conservation of historic, scenic, or
ntural values, while preserving the owner's remaining fee-simple rights
concerning the use, sale, and lease of the land, subject to the conditions
of the easement. State and/or Federal income and estate tax benefits,
together with local property tax savings, may be sufficient to allow a
3 ~~landowner to retain land that he otherwise would 'nave to sell. Most
transfer (settlement or closing) costs may be assumed by the municipality or
other grantee. The establishment of easements also offers an opportunity
for neighbors to assure mutual benefits in resource conservations.

Potential disadvatages to landowners also may result from easements.
The reduction in future development rights may entail a monetary loss
U ~ ~greater than the income realized from the sale or tax benefit realized from
the donation of the easement. The number of future buyers willing to accept
the easement-restricted property may be smaller than the number of buyers
interested in the unrestricted property. To obtain tax benefits, the
landowner may have to grant public access, and thereby may incur public
liability unless the grantee provides liability insurance.

I ~~~~Community advantages from easements include the accomplishment of
legally enforceable rights in public access, scenic vistas,,environmentally
sensitive areas, and historic structures at a lower initial capital cost
I ~ ~than fee-simple purchase of the land. Maintenance costs may remain a
private responsibility, saving ongoing costs to the community. Some local
property tax revenue ordinarily will continue to be produced, as opposed to
none from fee-simple publicly owned land. If it- is perpetual, public rights
vested in the easement are less likely to be changeable by temporary
political pressure than those guaranteed only by local zoning and
subdivision regulations. Finally, public benefits may be realized even
without physical public access, especially where easements concern private
lands that surround public lands.
Community disadvantages also may arise from easements. When easements
are acquired by condemnation, the community generally has to pay all
transfer and settlement costs. The community may incur continuing
administrative and financial obligations for the periodic inspection of
I ~ ~~and, for enforcement of the terms of the easement, and for land
maintenance, which may reduce the advantage of capital cost savings. Public
access is not acquired automatically by an easement, as it is with
I ~ ~fee-simple acquisition. Public rights and benefits in each case must be
explained to the pbulic, because they differ from easement to easement.
Easements in gross (as for example where adjacent land is not publicly

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~309

owned) may not run with the land. Finally, easements can be used forI
exclusionary purposes.

DEP-OCZX can encourage counties to sponsor local bond issues to acquireI
scenic easements or to accomplish preservation of environmentally important.
shore areas. Such local efforts are eligible for matching funds from the
State Green Acres bond issue. The Burlington County Pinelands bond issue,I
for example, is being used to purchase conservation easements on lands of
exceptional environmental value. These easements prevent future
development.

Municipalities also are empowered to issue bonds for the purchase of
easements. Moorestown currently is considering a local bond issue to
purchase easements on farmlands in order to preserve the agricultural natureI
of the community. State enabling legislation allows local governments to
issue bonds for the purchase of easements.

Local governments may utilize revolving funds to buy large tracts using
general property tax revenues, and then resell selected parcels to
developers as land values increase. Profits can be returned to the fund to
purchase additional open space. Such measures enable a municipality toI
control the rate and location of growth and to protect environmentally
sensitive areas.

2. Federal and State Assistance Programs

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is administered by the Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service in the Department of the Interior.I
Grants are made to local governments through the Green Acres Program in DEP.
Grants can be made for matching as much as 50% of land acquisition costs.
lands purchased with Federal Conservation Funds must be kept perpetually inI
the public uses for which they were acquired.

The New Jersey Green Acres program can be used for acquisition of
interests (both fee and easements) in real property, riparian rights, and
water rights (NJSA 13:8A-3d). Land to be acquired must constitute a logical
recreation and/or conservation unit. The land must be acquired within a set
period of time, and it must provide a net increase in outdoor recreation or1
conservation activity.

Property tax relief for private owners of wetlands, with offsetting3
State compensation of municipalities, can be investigated by DEP-OCZM.
IMinnesota eliminated all property tax on privately owned wetlands during
1979. In addition, a property tax credit was established for every acre of
wetland that a landowner agrees not to drain. The credit was established at I
0.75% of the value of the highest valued cropland on the farm for every acre
enrolled in the program. Some such program might be of benefit in

preserving inland wetlands in New Jersey

310~~~~~~~

Table 38. Comparative tax effects of various methods of protecting public
interests in open space (HCRS 1978:20).

I
!NTEREST WlEN tRANSACTiON IMPACTS ON GRANTOR IMPACTS ON GRANTEE
ee simopIe Pub II c use would conflict Sale Generates taxabIe Income. Decreases property tax base.
Ith any other use. Decreases taxable estate by amount of value of property Increases operations and maintenance
A lesser Interest cannot sold. costs.
be acquired Eliminates property tax.
Bargain Sale Generates taxable Income. Decreases property tax base.
Generates Income tax deduction for charitable contribution Increases operations and maintenance
In amount of difference between the fair market value of costs.
the prooperty and the sale price. Provides local matching share for
Decreases taxable estate by amount of the fair market grant from Land and Water Conser-
value of the property. vatlon Fund in amount of the
Eliminates property tax. charitable contribution.
Donation Generates Income tax deduction for charitable contribution Decreases property tax base.
In amount of the fair market value of the property. Increase operatlons and maintenance
Decreases taxable estate In amount of the fair market costs.
value of the property. Provides local matching share for
Eliminates property tax. grant from Land and Water Conser-
vation Fund In amount of the
charitable contribution.
Conserva- Public use would not con- Sale Generates taxable income Preserves property tax base.
tlon Ease- fllct with other uses of Oecreases taxable estate by amount of the fair market
ment property. value of the easement.
Scenic or other public May reduce property tax.
values protected .lthout
public use of property. Bargain Sale Generates taxable Income. Preserves property tax base.
Generates Income tax deduction for charitable contribution Provides local matching share for
In amount of difference between the fair market value of grant from Land and Water Conser-
the easement and the sale price. vation Fund In amount of charl-
Oecreases taxable estate In amount ot the fair market table contribution.
value of the easement.
May reduce prooerty tax.
Donation Generates Income tax deduction for charitable contribution Preserves property tax base.
In amount of the fair market value of the easement. Provides local matching share for
Decreases taxable estate In amount of the lair market grant from Land and Water Conser-
value of the easement. vation Fund In amount of fair
May reduce property tax. market value of easement.
.eaesehold Grantor desires to retain Donation of less May eliminate prooerty tax for term. May decrease property tax base for
ownersnl but is willing than perpetual term.
to permit public use and lease Increases operations and maintenance
administration for a costs.
term of years. Donation of May eliminate property tax for term. Provides local natching share for
perpetual ease- Generates Income tax deduction for charitable contribution grant '-om Land and water Consar-
ment before In amount of the fair market value of donated Interest. vatlon Fund In anount of the 4alr
June 30, 1977 market value of donated term
Interest.

311

As Deardorff (1977) has pointed out, the quality of the Nation's waters
is expected to improve dramatically during the decade of the 1980's. Hence
water-oriented greenways can be expected to appreciate dramatically in
value, particularly along currently polluted urban and suburban water
courses. DEP has a prime opportunity for spearheading the coordination of
public and intergovernmental efforts to acquire waterfront land in the New
Jersey coastal zone.

3. Alternate Zoning

Uncommon methods of zoning include transfer of development rights and
the now increasingly popular cluster zoning. Each of these allows the
construction of additional development on certain lands in exchange for the
preservation of other lands in open space.

Transfer of development rights is aimed at preserving environmentally
sensitive areas by prohibiting development in such areas but allowing the
landowner to transfer the right to develop to other lands. The development
rights become marketable interests that can be bought and sold. New Jersey
currently lacks enabling legislation that would authorize municipalities to
institute the transfer of development rights or to establish a public
authority to buy and sell the development rights.

The transfer mechanism, by allowing higher density than local zoning
otherwise would permit, may encourage large developers to enter areas which
formerly were of little interest. Development of large-scale subdivisions
may induce significant population growth at a rate much faster than is
likely under traditional zoning for low-density housing.

Cluster zoning involves the relaxation of zoning regulations governing
lot sizes, setbacks, frontage, sideyards, and other aspects of development,
resulting in a rearranged pattern of development at a total gross density no
greater than that allowable under the conventional zoning. Because the
dwellings are clustered on a relatively small percentage of the land,
relatively large areas of open sapce can be maintained.

Clustering provides advantages in the construction of infrastructure
and in some parts of structures (for example, common walls between units).
The suitability of land for clustering varies, with on-lot sewerage and soil
considerations as important limitations. Clustering is permitted by State
enabling legislation for those municipalities that elect to establish
ordinances permitting it.

B. Selected Legal Issues

This section addresses ~everal legal issues that have bearing on the
implementation of the New Jersey coastal zone management program. First
there is a brief commentary *on the so-called "taking issue". Then several
key court decisions are cited under pertinent topics. The thrust of this
review is to provide support for the regulatory programs of NJ-DEP. Finally,

312

recognition is given to the significance of the New Jersey Environmental
Rights Act of 1974.

1. The Taking Issue

The coastal zone management program in New Jersey is designed primarily
to use existing State laws which entrust State agencies with the power to
exercise some measure of control over selected areas and selected uses of
those coastal resources with greater than local significance. These State
regulatory controls are in addition to other controls exercised at the local
and Federal levels of government. The program also aims to achieve
coordinated policies among the several levels of government with respect to
individual projects and facilities.

The power to regulate construction and other activities stems from the
inherent power of governments to regulate the conduct of their citizens for
the common good in order to assure the public health, safety, and welfare.
The power to regulate is delegated from the people by the Constitution of
the United States and by the New Jersey Constitution to the Federal and
State governments, respectively. The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution
provides that the powers not delegated to the Federal Government by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
or to the people. The New Jersey Legislature, in turn, has delegated
extensive powers to its creatures, the counties and municipalities of the
State. The State nevertheless retains a substantial measure of power to
regulate for the purpose of assuring public health, safety, and welfare.

The regulatory powers of government must be exercised within reasonable
limits. The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution provides that no person
is to be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law, and
that no private property is to be taken for public use without just
compensation. The Fourteenth Amendment further mandates that no State shall
deprive any person of property without due process of law or deny any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. These limitations
form the basis for the "taking issue," namely, whether a regulatory action
(1) deprives a property owner of liberty or property without due process of
law, (2) takes private property for public use without payment, or (3)
regulates a person unfairly with invidious discrimination. Environmental
laws and regulations that diminish the value of private lands may be struck
down by the courts, if they are judged to constitute an unconstitutional
taking. When a challenge is raised, the courts must weigh the public
interest being served by regulations in the specific instance against the
specific diminution of property value.

The taking issue historically proved to be a formidable obstacle to
environmental regulation. When a regulation has the effect of completely
destroying the value of private property, it may be declared unlawful, even
if it otherwise can be proved reasonably to be related to the public health
or welfare. During recent decades, however, both the Federal and the State
courts have established a record of upholding environmental regulations even
in cases where that regulation results in a substantial reduction in the

313

value of private land, provided that the reasons why the regulation is
necessary to insure the public health, safety, and welfare are identified in
the regulation process and are demonstrated in court (Bosselman, Callies,
and Banta 1973). Where a cause and effect relationship between the
restricted behavior or use and some significant potential environmental
detriment to the safety, health, or welfare of others can be demonstrated,
the regulation of the behavior or use is very likely to survive legal
attack. Objective environmental values and demonstrated ecological
relationships in principle form a highly defensible rationale for land use
controls by virtue of their regional (as opposed to parcel-specific) nature
and their relationship to human safety, health, and welfare. The greater
the public necessity for a law, the greater the reduction in property values
which the courts are likely to uphold without finding a taking (for further
discussion, see Haughey and Goldshore, 1977; CEQ 1973; and Rathkopf 1975).

The taking issue can be illustrated by several cases which concern
floodplains and wetlands. In an important case in New Jersey, Morris County
Land Improvement Co. vs. Parsippany-Troy Hills (40 NJ 539, 1963), the New
Jersey Supreme Court struck down a municipal zoning ordinance provision that
was intended to preserve inland wetlands in their natural condition until
such time as they could be acquired as part of a public flood control
project. The court found that no productive use could be made of the land
by its owner under the ordinance, which essentially created a public park on
private land. Several more recent decisions, however, have taken a
different view.

In Sands Point Harbor, Inc., vs. Richard J. Sullivan (Docket No.
A-765-73, App. Div. 1975), the New Jersey Superior Court found that the
regulations of the New Jersey Wetland Act of 1970 did not violate the State
or Federal Constitution. The court noted that the Legislature has broad
discretion to classify and treat lands differently, so long as the
classification is reasonable and is related to the basic object of the
Legislation. The only activities prohibited under the Wetlands Act were the
dumping of solid waste, the discharge of sewage, and the storage and
application of pesticides. The effects of other proposed uses were to be
scrutinized by DEP before a permit could be issued, but the act did not
constitute a taking of property.

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court again upheld the Wetlands
Act against the change of a taking and denied the contention that the Act
was vague, unreasonable, or unconstitutional in the case of Carton et al.
vs. State of New Jersey (Docket No. A-638-73, 1978). This decision cited
Sands Point Harbor; a petition for appeal was denied by the New Jersey
Supreme Court. Likewise, the Chancery Division of the Superior Court held
that a prohibition of spoil disposal on 80 acres of State-delineated tidal
wetlands, which constituted only 3% of a 2,500tacre tract along the
Delaware River was not unreasonable and did noticonstitute a taking. The
mere diminution of economic value of the land was stated not to be an
excessive use of the police power (American Dredging Co. vs. State, 161
N.J. Super. 504, 1978). The Appellate Division upheld the lower court,
noting that local zoning limited development in any case to 50% of the
tract, and the wetlands might in future be used to benefit the upland part
of the tract (169 N.J. Super. 18 Appell. Div., 1979).

314

Justice Hall, the author of the Morris County decision, himself offered
a revised view of that decision in 1974 (A. G. M. Associates vs. Springfield
Township, 65 NJ 101, 1974):

The approach to the taking problem, and the result, may be
different where vital ecological and environmental
considerations of recent cognizance have brought about rather
drastic land use restrictions in furtherance of a policy
designed to protect important public interests wide in scope
and territory, as for example, the Coastal Wetlands Act, NJSA
13:9A-1 et seq. and various kinds of flood plain use
regulation. Cases arising in such a context may properly
call for a reexamination of some of the statements 10 years
ago in the largely locally limited Morris County Land case...

There were a number of cases in other states during the 1970's which
parallel the cited New Jersey decisions. A Maryland case, Potomac Sand and
Gravel Co. vs. Governor of Maryland (266 Md. 358, 293 A. 2d 241, 1972, cert.
den. 409 US 1040, 93 S. Ct. 525, 34 L. Ed. 490, 1972) upheld the stringent
coastal wetland statute in that State by reference to the substantial harm
which would result from abuse of the wetlands. In Turnpike Realty Co. vs.
Town of Dedham (24 N.E. 2d 891, 1972) the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld
a township floodplain zoning ordinance which reduced the value of
plaintiff's land to 12% of its previous value. The Wisconsin Supreme Court
also upheld prohibitions on filling against the charge of taking (Just vs.
Marinette County, 65 Wis. 2d 7, 201 N.W. 2d 701, 1972):

It seems to us that filling.a swamp not otherwise
commercially usable is not in and of itself an existing use,
which is prevented, but rather is the preparation for some
future use which is not indigenous to a swamp. Too much
stress is laid on the right of an owner to change
commercially valueless land when that change does damage to
the rights of the public.

As previously mentioned, there are several examples of the Federal
courts having upheld Federal statutes protecting wetlands. A major
precedent was set by the "public interest review" denial of a permit, which
was sustained by the court in Zabel vs. Tabb (430 F. 2d. 199, 15th Cir.,
1970; cert. den. 401 US 910,1972). The Corps regulatory jurisdiction was
broadened by US vs. Holland (373 F. Supp. 665, M. D. Fla., 1974); by US vs.
Stoeco Homes, Inc. (498 F. 2d. 597, 3rd. Cir., 1974; cert. den. 420 US 927,
1975); and NRDC vs. Calloway (392 F. Supp. 635, D. D. C., 1975). Other
significant permit denials by the Corps of Engineers, which also entailed
restoration of the natural conditions that prevailed before illegal work was
undertaken, include US vs. Keevan (S. D. Fl., 1974) and US vs. Sexton Cove
Estates (S. D. Fl., 1975).

315

It is the conclusion of the consultant that the taking issue need not
be a factor of undue concern for the implementation of the DEP managementI
program for the New Jersey coastal zone. None of the key statutes to date
has been struck down. It is apparent that the staff of NJ-DEP can read the
statutes liberally and can strive for the fullest protection of theI
environment of the coastal zone without fear of legal challenge, so long as
the regulation is done in a manner soundly based on environmental
information, ecological science, and explicit criteria for decisionmaking.I
To the extent that the taking issue reflects Constitutional safeguards that
require the fair and soundly conceived administration of environmental laws,
it should serve as a salutary incentive for responsible decisionmaking.3

2. Commentary on Cases

The cases mentioned here include challenges to several State coastal
zone management plans, to the New Jersey Coastal Area Facility Review Act,
to the New Jersey general stream encroachment statute (NJSA 58:1-26), and to
State water quality standards. Other cases are mentioned which concern
tidelands and riparian ownership, public access to beaches, and conservation
easements. Challenges to the Wetlands Act of 1970 were discussed previously
as examples of the taking issue.

a. Federal Coastal Zone Management Act

On the Federal side of the law Federal courts in California and3
Washington DC rejected broad attacks by major oil companies on the coastal
protection laws in California, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin. The oil
companies claimed the coastal programs did not meet the requirements of the
Coastal Zone Management Act and- sought an injunction against further Federal
funding of the coastal programs and their application to any offshore
drilling activities on the Federal Outer Continental Shelf. The principal
claims asserted by the oil companies were 1) the State programs were notI
specific enough in relation to the companies' proposed activities, 2) the
programs did not accommodate the "national interest" in the siting of energy
facilities, and 3) improper adoption and review procedures were followed.

On 31 August 1978 the US District Court in Los Angeles gave the
companies standing to challenge the California program but found their
claims to be without merit. The US District Court for the District ofI
Columbia ruled that the oil companies lacked standing to sue Massachusetts
and Wisconsin, because they failed to show any injury to their interests
from the coastal program implementation and their claims were not ripe. TheI
California court noted that the Federal law "was first and foremost a
statute directed to and solicitous of environmental concerns" and rejected
the notion that California must make a blanket commitment to accept the
energy facilities proposed by the companies. The affirmation of these
coastal programs is especially significant in light of the new emphases in
facilitating energy sources and the continuing controversy over silting

energy facilities and sewer plants in the coastal zone.

316

b. New Jersey Coastal Area Facility Review Act

Toms River Affiliates vs. Department of Environmental Protection, 140
NJ Super. 135, 355 A 2d 679 (App. Div. 1976) cert. den. 71 NJ 345, 364 A.
2d 1077 (1976), deals with the constitutionality of CAFR.A and the validity
of a DEP decision under CAFRA, Appellants were denied permission by
the Deputy Commissioner to build a ten-story condominium in Toms River. The
Coastal Area Review Board upheld the Commissioner's decision because the
proposed development would have precluded options at a time when DEP had not
yet completed statutory planning standards and designs for the coastal area.
The Court restrained the developer in order to assure proper environmental
protection through comprehensive planning.

c. Tidelands and Riparian Ownership (see also Goldshore 1979)

O'Neill vs. State Highway Department, 50 NJ 307 (1967), deals with
lands along the Hackensack River to which the State claimed title. The
Court found that the State owns in fee simple all lands flowed by the tide
up to the high water line or mark.

The high water line or mark is formed by the intersection of the tidal
plane of mean high tide with the shore. In finding the high water line, the
Court suggested using the average of all the high tides over a period of
18.6 years.

The State cannot gain more land by building artificial works such as
ditches which extend the tide ebb and flow on lands naturally beyond the
tide. A riparian owner likewise cannot gain land by excluding the tide.
Whoever challenges the existing stituation must satisfy the court that the
tidelands area was changed artificially.

Leonard vs. State Highway Department of New Jersey, 29 NJ Super 188
(App. Div. 1954), lays out the rules of erosion by natural means.
Generally, a landowner loses title to the State where there is erosion. If
there is accretion, a landowner can gain title at the expense of the State.
An owner does not suffer loss if the erosion is an event of a sudden and
perceptible loss of land.

d. Stream Encroachment

Deskovick vs. Water Policy and Supply Council, 157 NJ Super 89 (App.
Div. 1978). Deskovick wished to place a sanitary landfill on land along a
river. He was denied a stream encroachment permit by DEP because filling
the property would lead to a loss of flood retention capacity, and sediment
and debris might enter the river from the newly filled area as it had from
adjacent lands previously filled. The Appellate Court reversed the Council
and remanded the case saying that the agency had read its jurisdiction too
broadly.

There is no formal Attorney General's opinion clarifying the Deskovick
case. Some feel that new legislation is needed to clarify stream
encroachment jurisdiction. In the meantime, the Division of Water Resources

317

is using a memorandum from the Attorney General's office which gives stream
encroachment jurisdiction over anything which affects the channel.I

In Parkway Mall vs. Water Policy and Supply Council, 157 NJ Super 169
(App. Div. 1978), the court found that the DEP could issue a stream
encroachment permit subject to conditions and rescind the permit when the
applicant did not satisfy the conditions within three years.

e. Water Quality

In New Jersey Builders et al. vs. New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, a three-judge appellate court found that DEP had
authority under the state water planning law and water pollution control act
to set water quality standards and also had the power to implement
anti-degradation standards.
f. Public Access to Beaches

In Borough of Neptune vs. Borough of Avon-by-the-Sea, 61 NLJ 296 (1976),
Avon wanted to charge a higher fee for non7-resident users of the Avon beach.
The Court held that a coastal municipality in the maintenance and operation
of a beach could not discriminate in any respect between residents andI
non-residents. The New Jersey Supreme Court read the Public Trust doctrine
to include recreational use in addition to the traditional rights of
navigation, commerce, and fishing. Under Avon, the public owns tidal landsI
between the mean high and mean low water marks as well as beneath the ocean
seaward from the beach. The municipality had dedicated the beach front to
the public, and the court forbade the municipality from charging the public
adiscriminatory fee for using the beach, saying that such a fee wasI
equivalent to a physical barrier.

The Deal case, Van Ness vs. Borough of Deal, 78 NJ 175 (1978),
involved a club which was adjacent to the beach and consisted of a swimming
pool, cabanas, and related recreational facilities. The club had been built
by the municipality, and its membersh ip was limited to residents of the
municipality. The beach in front of the club had not been dedicated to
public use. Nevertheless, the New Jersey Supreme Court found that a
municipally owned open beach on which permanent improvements had not been
built and as to which no claim of private ownership had been asserted was
subject to the Public Trust doctrine. Therefore, all had a right to use and
enjoy the beach, and the municipality could not frustrate the public right
by restricting its use to residents of the municipality. The Court pointedI
out that Deal could not alienate from the public their rights on a limited
basis when, under the doctrine of Public Trust, the public inherently
possessed these rights in full.5

In Hyland vs. Borough of Allenhurst, 78 NJ 190 (1978), the New Jersey
Supreme Court found that where municipal toilet facilities exist adjacent to
a public beach area, it is an abuse of municipal power and authority to barI
users of the public beach from access to such basic accommodations. The
Court cited the restriction of toilet facilities to Allenhurst Club members

318I

as an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of municipal power, but it let the
municipality restrict access to other club facilities provided for changing
to bathing attire. Toilet facilities were found related to health and
welfare, but changing facilities were not.

g. Conservation Easements

In Ernest B. Fincher and Robert R. Parsons vs. Township of Bethlehem,
County of Hunterdon, the court dealt with the value of vacant land affected
by a conservation easement granted by the property owner to the New Jersey
Conservation Foundation, a non-profit organization. It underlined the fact
that a conservation easement limiting development on property should be
reflected in the assessment of the property. The Court noted that no
monetary benefit from the conservation easement accrued to the owner and
that the lands serve the needs of the public, even though there is no public
access. Therefore, the lands subject to conservation easement have no
monetary value to either the present or future owner so long as the easement
is in effect. Where the land has no practical economic value, the value of
the land is nominal. The public cannot have it both ways; it cannot obtain
the non-use of the parcel in totality and yet demand that the property owner
pay real estate taxes based upon the value which the land would have
otherwise.

h. Scenic and Historic Preservation

The protection of cultural, historical, aesthetic, and architectural
assets is an aspect of public welfare that the states are empowered to
protect under their police powers. This view is supported by People vs.
Goodman, 31 N.Y. 2d 262 290 N.E. 2d 139 338 N.Y.S. 2d 47 (1972). People vs.
Stoner, 12 N.Y. 2d 462, 191 N.E. 2d 272,240 N.Y.S. 2d 734, app. dis., 375
U.S. 42 (1963); opinion of the Justices to the Senate 333 Mass. 773, 128
N.E. 2d 557 (Mass. 1955); Penn Central Transportation Co. vs. City of New
York, 46 L.W. 4856, 4863 (Sup. Ct. 1978) (dictum); and Berman vs. Parker,
348 U.S. 26, 33, 75 Sup Ct. 98, 102-103 (1954) (dictum). Hence DEP can
exercise the power to identify and regulate scenic areas and corridors. It
also can encourage historic landmark districts.

The recent opinion of the United States Supreme Court on Penn Central
Transportation Co. vs. City of New York upholding the application of the New
York City Landmark Preservation Law strengthens historic preservation
regulations. Landmarks recognized in New York City are those that possess
(1) a special character, (2) special historic or aesthetic interest, or (3)
value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of
the city, state, or nation.

3. The New Jersey Environmental Rights Act of 1974

The Environmental Rights Act is a relatively unknown and little used
statute that may take on increasing significance during the 1980's. Because
the State's environment is continually threatened by pollution, impairment,
and destruction, the Legislature found that every person has a substantial

319

interest in mninimizing such threats, and that the public interest is served3
by facilitating ready access to the courts to remedy such abuses.
Accordingly, the Act authorizes any person to sue any other person
(including agencies) to enforce statutes, regulations, and ordinances
protective of the environment. In situations where no statutes or standardsI
are applicable, the court may decide equitable and declaratory relief,
including temporary and permanent injunctions and conditions, and
performance bonds may be required. The court may dismiss suits deemed to beI
frivolous, harrassing, or lacking in merit.

The rights -ranted by this Act are in addition to any other available
remedies under other statutes. The Act expressly provides that theI
prevailing party in appropriate cases may be awarded reasonable counsel and
expert witness fees, not to exceed a total of $2,500.I

It is reasonable to expect an increase in litigation to insure the full
enforcement of existing and future environmental laws, as the concerned
public becomes increasingly knowledgeable of pollution problems. DEP
administrators have not always been successful in acquiring the staff and
financial resources to implement fully their legislative mandates. This
problem may become more severe as the deadlines for compliance with National
air and water quality standards approach. A current example is theI
difficult problem of toxic wastes disposal. Their disposal by clandestine
means is financially lucrative, and the severe environmental damages that
result on the coastal waterfront, in the Pinelands, and elsewhere are
currently the subject of considerable public attention (see, for example,
the series of news articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer beginning at Vol.
301, No. 86, p. 1, 24 September 1979). DEP should welcome litigation under3
the Act as a potential tool for acquiring additional support for its-
programs.

C. Public Participation and Public EducationI

DER has given substantial attention to the encouragement of public3
participation in the process of developing its coastal zone management
program. It has held numerous meetings throughout the proposed coastal
zone, and it has provided copies of successive versions of regulations for
public comment.
As the coastal zone management program is implemented, other
opportunities for encouraging public participation in management activitiesI
will arise. These will include opportunities to advise local government
groups and agencies concerning open space preservation, encouraging public
participation in coastal celebrations focusing on known coastal resources
and identifying new ones, and providing basic tools and educational
curricula for appreciation and surveillance of coastal resources.

DEP can provide an activist stimulus for local governments to utilizeI
existing opportunities to secure State and Federal assistance for protecting
scenic areas, critical environmental sites, bikeways and pedestrian paths,3

320I

and other resources that are recognized as important locally. Local
governments virtually always need assistance in developing and administering
zoning, acquisition, and funding techniques to protect open space with
significant environmental values. DEP can take the initiative in
cooperating w~ith the Department of Community Affairs to help coastal
communities. It would be particularly appropriate for DEP to provide
3 ~~coordination for projects such as bikeways that cross several municipal

DEP can utilize the opportunity provided by State government to
publicize coastal or marine heritage festivals through means such as
Governor's Proclamations or Executive Orders. Technical assistance can be
provided to municipalities not only to stage festivals that celebrate public
pride in known resources, but also to motivate local groups to identify
natural and cultural resources peculiar to specific places.
DEP can take the lead in working with other agencies, including the New
I ~ ~Jersey Department of Education and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, to develop imaginative educational programs soundly based on
knowledge of the estuarine environment and its values. Coastal field trip
itineraries suitable for school groups interested in ecological and/or
cultural aspects of the region can be developed. An environmental Education
center to explain and interpret the coastal resource ecosystems and values
of the Hackensack Meadowlands must be constructed and operated in the
I ~ ~Hcensack Meadowland District by the New Jersey Sports and Exposition
Authority in partial mitigation for the filling of several hundred acres of
wetlands for the Sports Complex in East Rutherford. DEP can make certain
that exhibitions developed at this new facility are suitable for
reproduction and use at nature centers throughout the coastal zone with
cooperative funding under the New Jersey Environmental Education Act as well
3 ~~as coastal zone funds.

DEP can develop a set of tools to help the public better understand the
location of coastal zone resources, regulatory programs for their
I ~ ~protection, and how each citizen can participate in environmental
surveillance. Foremost among tools for public understanding are maps
showing lands subject to special regulatory protection. Flyers that remind
the public of the kinds of activities that require permits, and notices of
reported can be designed and circulated. Coastal zone regulation should be
3 ~ ~~nderstood -- the "why" as much as the "how" -- by the public, so that the
regulatory process continues to receive public support.

DEP also can earmark Federal coastal funds directly for support of
I ~ ~public participation in coastal environmental impact statement review. In
California, funds were allocated during 1979 for public participation in the
environmental review of the Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary proposal to
encourage those who otherwise might be unrepresented to participate.
Applications were processed for compensation for salaries, consultant fees,
attorney fees, travel expenses, and document reproduction.

1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~321

XVt. RECOMMENDED 'EASURES TO STRENGTHEN ESTUARKNE PROTECTION

The recommendations presented in this Chapter address first various
technical and procedual improvements that, in the professional judgment of
the consultant, could improve the regulatory processes described previously.
Then recommendations for substantive policy changes are described in a
commentary on the coastal zone management policies that were proposed by
DEP during March 1979. Next the opinions of the consultant are reported
concerning the need for, and possible ways to enhance, enforcement of
regulatory requirements. Then the need for new State legislation is
addressed, and the Chapter closes with comments on topics suitable for
further study.

A. Technical and Procedural Improvements

The recommendations in this section are for administrative actions to
implement fully certain legal authorities that are not yet protecting the
estuarine environment adequately and for other actions to improve the
procedures now used in administering key programs. No legislative changes
are needed to adopt these reforms. Following several general
recommendations, the recommendations are grouped which concern specific
reguiatory prtograms.I

1. General Recommendations 3

A-1. The Commissioner of DEP should assign a high priority to
coordination of permit review responsibilities among DEP agencies. 3

DEP has numerous and complex authorities over proposed construction
that may affect the environment of the coastal zone. Any project that
requires one DEP approval is likely to require others. Two purposes of
interagency review are to assist applicants to identify the full spectrum of
applicable State approvals at the earliest possible time, and to inform
applicants of the kinds of evaluations that will be made of their proposals.
The written coastal zone management policies, the optional pre-application
conference, and the consolidated Water Resources/Coastal Resources permit
application form (as required during mid 1979) are valuable steps toward
achieving these purposes. Interagency review also can provide guidance to
applicants on ways to develop in an environmentally sensitive manner,
enforced if necessary by permit conditions, to achieve full implementation
of current legal requirements that protect sensitive resources.

The formal procedures of the CAFRA permit staff for circularizing
applications among other State agencies are a model for other permit
programs in the Division of Coastal Resources, Division of Water Resources,
Division of Environmental Quality, and Solid Waste Administration that may
affect the estuarine environment significantly. Coordinated interagency
permit review requires that the responsibility for review be defined clearly
in each administrative unit, that adequate staff resources be assigned to
the review function, and that a mechanism exist whereby the effects of a
review agency's comments on permit decisions by the administering agency
(including recommended mitigating conditions) are made known to the review

322 !

I ~~agency before the permit is issued. The need for timely feedback to
commenting agencies is recognized by numerous staff reviewers in DEP. It
would facilitate the referral of policy differences among agencies on
specific applications upward through the administrative hierarchy of the
several divisions, and thereby foster thorough consideration of interagency
policy differences.

U ~~~~To maximize estuarine protection, primary concern must be given to the
special areas which contain high-value resources, as the current DEP coastal
policies recognize. The consultant recommends a threef old ef fort to
strengthen the protection afforded by DEP to special coastal resources in

3 ~~~A-2. The first step in this process is for DEP to complete the
inventory of coastal zone resources in map series based on the USGS 1:24,000
topographic quadrangles or other geographic data system (such as a
computerized system).

This ef fort was initiated by DEP in its pilot study of a part of Cape
May County (DEP-OCZM, 1978). Existing information on the location of
I ~ ~sensitive areas should be supplemented continuously by original data
developed by university scholars, ongoing agency research efforts (for
example, 208 and 201 water resources planning efforts, studies by the
I ~ ~Division of Fish, Game and Shell Fisheries, and data collection by other DEP
agencies), and original investigations by applicants for coastal permits.

A-3. The second step in maximizing protection of special areas is to
use the parameters (environmental changes) of potential concern for each
type of special area or resource as identified in this report to requ ire
that each applicant for a State coastal permit, a State NPDES wastewater
I ~ ~discharge permit, Section 201 certification, or Section 208 water quality
approval demonstrate through site specific data that his proposed project
will avoid or minimize adverse effects on such areas.

U ~~~~Parameters of potential concern were identified for each class of
-special areas in Chapter XI of this report. Given the current state of
scientific knowledge, quantitative values will not be available for
U ~ ~threshols of acceptable changes in most such parameters during the near
future. Hence it should be up to the applicant to demonstrate why he should
be allowed to affect special areas, rather than receive a permit denial or
I ~ ~especially stringent condition. It is the experience of the consultant that
this procedure is being used successfully by a -rowing number of states, for
example Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, particularly in conjunction with
their "PDES programs. It is essential that New Jersey DEP, like the
corresponding agencies in these States, develop the in-house expertise to
specify definitive original research methodology so that applicants for
permits accomplish the minimum appropriate investigations to allow informed
permit decision making.
Another example of this procedure was developed recently by the
consultant for use by the Army Corps of Engineers in the Kenai River Basin
of Alaska. The central features of the process are illustrated in Appendix

U 2~~~~~~~~~~~~~23

1 of this report. The New Jersey coastal zone, of course, is substantially
more developed than the Kenai River Basin, and the State's regulatory
authority is more comprehensive than that of the Corps in much of the New
Jersey coastal zone, but the principles used in the Kenai Basin can serve as
a regulatory model in this respect.

If an EIS is prepared on the permit application, the applicant's
original findings and methods should be presented in the EIS. If no EIS is
prepared, the data should be presented in a formal report which accompanies
the application for the permit.

A-4. Third, DEP should sponsor original research to provide the basis
for quantification of acceptable changes in parameters of environmental
concern, and it should provide the staff expertise and data storage resources
to keep abreast of new developments elsewhere, in order to avoid duplicative
research and to focus on the most significant issues.

The long-term objectives of this research should be to develop explicit
criteria on which to base regulatory decisionmaking and to augment current
knowledge of impact-reducing and mitigative techniques for permit
conditioning. Applicants who seek to build new facilities frequently will
find it to their advantage to demonstrate the absence of adverse impacts in
specific instances. DEP should pay special attention to the methodology and
results of such demonstrations, and should mandate in detail what
information is needed, how it is to be collected, and how it expands the
body of already existing information on the topic elsewhere in the coastal
zone. Duplicative and unnecessary data gathering should be avoided.

A-5. DEP should establish a publications-reference and retrieval
system that catalogs, curates, and provides copies of DEP-funded reports,
DEP-prepared reports, maps, EIS's, and other relevant reference information
needed by DEP and the public.

At present DEP has no library facility. Numerous reports are developed
by and for DEP on a wide range of subjects and programs. Responsibility for
preservation of records should be identified, and resources should be
provided to organize the records for easy retrieval by DEP staff and the
public. Coastal zone managers; fish, game, and shellfisheries managers; and
other DEP personnel have a continuing need for the numerous reports produced
by their own and other DEP programs. Consideration should be given to
consolidating DEP archival functions. The establishment of a bureaucratic
memory is a task that requires sustained administrative attention, in order
to increase staff efficiency and maximize the value received from reference
materials collected for various purposes. The coastal information center
established by DEP-OCZM is a positive step.

2. Environmental Impact Statements and Permit Review Procedures

324

to satisfy the needs of DEP as well as other Federal, State, and local
agencies.

Some projects require environmental review at more than one level of
government. It is to the advantage of all concerned to consolidate
environmental review to the extent possible. Simplification of EIS
preparation and paperwork should benefit both DEP, applicants, and other
interested parties. The language of NJAC 7:1C-1.3 (a) should be revised
specifically to encourage Federal participation in voluntary pre-application
conferences. DEP staff should mandate in detail for each EIS the scope and
methods for use by applicants in developing original information regarding
significant issues in accordance with an overall coastal research strategy.

A-7. DEP should make certain that any EIS prepared for its review,
inventories and assesses potential impacts on all nearby wetlands, as well
as other significant resources.

Currently the EIS regulations for various permit programs do not
specifically require the inventory and assessment of inland wetlands. For
example, the CAFRA EIS regulations refer only to [State-] regulated
[coastal] wetlands [NJAC 7:7D-2.9(b)7], and the 1976 "Guidelines for the
Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for Solid Waste Facilities"
do not mention wetlands in outlining the EIS which may be required on a
proposed solid waste landfill (NJAC 7:26-2.12.2.20).

A-8. DEP should promulgate all general EIS regulations in NJAC, and an
entry for EIS regulations should be added to the NJAC general index.

As of mid-1979, the most detailed EIS guidelines for some DEP permit
programs (e.g., stream encroachment permits) were not promulgated in NJAC.
There was no general cross reference to EIS regulations in the NJAC index.

A-10. Every EIS prepared for a DEP permit should be circulated to the
applicable 208 Areawide Water Quality Planning Agency, if such agency is
capable of reviewing and commenting on aspects of the EIS within its
expertise or jurisdiction.

This can be accomplished by inserting "Applicable 208 Agency" in the
distribution list in the 90-day permit regulations at NJAC 7:IC-1.3 (b).

A-f1. If any inland and/or coastal wetlands are to be filled as part
of any project that DEP regulates, the applicant should be required to
notify the appropriate office of the Army Corps of Engineers.

At present only the wetlands permit program (Division of Marine
Services) requires formally that the applicant notify the Army Corps of
Engineers as part of the State permit process. The applicant for a

325

waterfront development permit is advised by the application form to apply to
the Corps. Other permit programs do not mention Federal approvals.

At present, only wetlands permit approval routinely is conditioned upon
Corps of Engineers approvals when a project needs multiple approvals
(Wetlands Management Policy Memorandum 45). Other permits may be
conditioned on other State permit approvals [NJAC 7:lC-1.8(c)]. The
authorization at NJAC 7:1C-1.8(c) to condition permits should be broadened
to include Federal permits, and such condition also should be authorized for
solid waste landfill permits.

A-13. DEP should make certain that every EIS prepared for a State
permit is made known and physically available to the concerned public.

Notification of the submittal of regulatory EIS's to DEP for review
should be made in the DEP Weekly Bulletin on the same page as notification
concerning Federal EIS's. (At present only the status of selected permit
applications is indicated, not the existence of EIS's.) EIS's must
accompany applications for Type B wetlands permits, all CAFRA permits, and
selected riparian grants, waterfront development permits, stream
encroachment permits, and solid waste permits.

When an EIS is prepared, the applicant should be required to file at
least one complete copy in the local public library nearest the project
site. This measure would enhance the opportunity for public review while
imposing a minimal additional burden on the applicant and no additional
burden on the State agency personnel. Filing copies with agencies is not a
substitute for filing at least one copy for the permanent collection of the
local library.

A-14. DEP should direct applicants to be certain that EtS's are
prepared by responsible persons qualified by education and experience for
the topics they address, and should require that those persons responsible
for the preparation of each EIS be identified in any EIS document submitted
to the Department for review.

There are several potential purposes served by this recommendation,
which parallels the guidelines of the DEP Office of Environmental Analysis
and the Federal requirements in the Council on Environmental Quality
regulations (40 CFR 1502.17; 43 FR 230:559.96. 26 November 1978). First, it
insures that each EIS will be prepared by appropriate individuals who
recognize and understand resources and impacts. EIS's are mandated by DEP
only when there is a strong probability that sensitive resources will be
damaged. Hence the EUS should be prepared by knowledgeable persons trained
in appropriate disciplines. Second, EIS preparers should be responsible for
their work, and this is not possible given anonymous documents. Some EIS's
already contain full documentation of authorship; others do not. Third,

326

such a recommendation allows reviewers to identify authors and address
questions directly to them.

Whenever an EIS is required, the permit compilation should be mandated
to the applicant, so that he does not neglect to satisfy other applicable
laws. The listing also serves conveniently to alert reviewers to the
current status of the various applications. The documentation section is
necessary to support the credibility of the EIS. These requirements can be
inserted at NJAC 7:7A-1.6 (b) in the wetlands permit regulations, and at
appropriate points in the stream encroachment, solid waste landfill, and
waterfront development regulations as well.

At present the coastal policies recognize only those historic places
that are listed on the State or Federal Register. Such sites doubtless
should receive the attention of DEP reviewers. Numerous other sites,
however, have been identified by county agencies, other local groups, or are
listed in the New Jersey Inventory, and such sites should be mentioned in
any EIS that is prepared for DEP. (The Inventory may be consulted at the
Office of Historic Preservation in the Division of Parks and Forestry of
NJDEP in Trenton.) Such sites should be identified in the vicinity of
proposed developments, and the significance of any adverse effects on them
should be estimated.

A-17. DEP should retrieve systematically any original information
developed in permit or other EIS's in order to assure its maximum use in
ongoing management and regulatory undertakings.

This recommendation is in addition to the recommendation for a general
library facility. Its acceptance presupposes at the minimum an
identification and indexing procedure for significant new information in
individual EIS's.

3. Wetlands

The Wetlands Act of 1970 is a powerful tool for the protection of the
estuarine environment. It affords no protection, however, to coastal
wetlands that have not been mapped and promulgated as subject to a Wetlands
Order. DEP hitherto has used its administrative discretion in interpreting
narrowly the legislative mandate to map wetlands. The effect is to have
restricted significantly the area of wetlands which in fact are protected

327

under the Act. Implementation of the following recommendations, in the
opinion of the consultant, would expand significantly the wetlands protected
under the Act by adding several thousand acres in the coastal zone.

A-18. DEP should promulgate immediately the 42 completed coastal
wetlands photomaps which have not yet been promulgated.

No protection is afforded by the Act to a coastal wetland until the map
which shows it has been promulgated. DEP should make available the staff
resources to examine the appropriate municipal tax maps as quickly as
possible in order to permit the required notice and hearings to be
accomplished for promulgation. DEP should accept the proffered assistance
of local government agencies or others in compiling lists of affected
landowners so that the promulgation can be expedited, if it lacks resources
to compile the lists. As of September 1979, there was no expected date for
this promulgation. Meanwhile, at least one proposal to fill a
high-quality, partially mapped, but not promulgated wetland was active
during 1979 (JMA 1979).

All tidal waterways in New Jersey north of Raritan Bay should be
recognized as estuaries tributary to Raritan Bay through the Arthur Kill,
Kill Van Kull, and Upper and Lower New York Bays. Section lb. of the Act
mandates "an inventory and maps of all tidal wetlands within the State."
Only lands controlled by the HMDC are excluded from regulation as coastal
wetlands by Section 2 of the Act. The DEP, in short, should read the Act as
broadly as possible to maximize estuarine protection. In this way DEP'Gc .t
policies and Wetlands Act protection of coastal wetlands can be asserted
along the "Northern Waterfront" estuaries except for the Hackensack
Meadowland District, as well as in additional areas in the Bay and Ocean
Shore Segment and in the Delaware River basin.

Rougi estimates of the extent of areas hitherto excluded from
regulatio-~ by narrow administrative interpretation should be made by DEP.
Priority ~hould be given to promulgation of maps that will protect the
the largest acreage of now extant wetlands and that will protect wetlands
where development is considered most imminent. Particular attention should
be given to extensive wetland areas that may have been diked for muskrat
production, salt hay production, mosquito control, and other agricultural

328

purposes, as well as to shrub swamps and swamp forests in areas that have an
elevation within I foot above the highest local water level, and to areas
initially excluded be-cause they were considered to be spoil piles. Diked
I ~ ~areas were excluded, at least in some coastal areas, during the initial
wetlands mapping, even though the dikes may have had little or insignificant
affect on the qualification of the wetlands for protection under the Act.
Spoil piles were excluded even in instances where they were of low surface
elevation and were capable of supporting wetland vegetation. Extensive
unprotected coastal wetlands should be mapped in the Rancocas Creek basin.

A-21. DEP should update the entire statewide coastal wetlands mapping
at intervals no greater than ten years to reflect natural and man-made
changes in this resource.

Coastal wetlands are a dynamic resource. Their extent and composition
change in response to storms and to changes in sea level and sedimentation
rates, as well as to construction activities. Recognition of this fact
I ~ ~should be expressed in provisions for periodically updating the maps,
particularly in backbarrier bays where natural changes are especially rapid.
Emphasis should be placed on the determination of the inland extent of
regulated wetlands, rather than the relation of vegetation types to tidal
elevations. The updating could be accomplished in sections, with different
counties in a logical geographic sequence being updated during different
* ~~~years.

In the State of Maryland about twice as many maps of coastal wetlands
were produced as in New Jersey. Acreages were measured for each wetland
I ~ ~~ype, by county and by watershed, and habitat values were reviewed in
detail. A methodology for comparing individual parcels was developed, based
on the ecosystems affected (McCormick and Somes 1979). The entire Maryland
wetlands work was completed for about $1 million, as compared with the New
U ~~Jersey maps alone for about $2 million.

A-22. DEP should establish criteria and procedures for correcting
I ~ ~wetlands maps during the intervals between map updates.

Explicit administrative criteria for adding and deleting areas to and
frmmaps for regulation under the Act should be developed by the Office of
Wetlands Management and published for public comment. There should be a
mechanism for recognizing changes in the wetlands between updates and for
correcting errors that are discovered. At present, no formal written
criteria for changing photomaps have been developed. As indicated in the
Chapter XIV discussion of the Wetlands Act, several requests for local changes
in the kmapping already have been processed. Particularly if a periodic
general updating of wetlands maps is not undertaken, requests for changes
can be expected to increase.

At present, only additions to regulated wetlands are subject to public
scrutiny by virtue of the required notice and hearing procedures in the Act;
deletions are not publicized, and the areas deleted from wetlands
jurisdiction are not annotated on the DEP 's existing maps. Over a period of
years, the current practices are likely to prove detrimental to equitable

329

administration of the Act, given inevitable changes in regulatory personnel.
The DEP Weekly Bulletin could be used to give public notice of proposed
boundary changes that would delete areas from regulation.

A-23. When a memorandum of record is prepared following a
pre-application conference prior to Type B wetlands permit application
submittal, DEP should send copies of the memorandum to the county and
municipal environmental commissions (if any) and to the county, municipal,
and regional planning boards (if any) which subsequently may review the
project.

The pre-application conference serves to outline important concerns to
be addressed by the applicant in his EIS. Because the EIS must accompany
the CP-1 form as part of a formal application, the distribution of the CP-i
form to such agencies pursuant to NJAC 7:1C-1.3 comes after the EIS probably
has been completed. Although the review agency concerns subsequently can be
addressed by the applicant, it would be most expeditious for him to cover
the concerns in the EIS.

A-24. DEP should distribute any memorandum of record for a prospective
wetland permit application to the relevant District Office of the Army Corps
of Engineers.

Current written policy of the Office of Wetlands Management is to
contact the appropriate Corps District Office during initial project review
(Policy Memorandum 29, 25 July 1977). To facilitate the applicant's early
consideration of Federal concerns, the Corps should be given the opportunity
to comment at the earliest period of contact between the applicant and DEP.

At present only the CF-1 form must be sent to these agencies pursuant
to NJAC 7:lC-1.3. Although the form constitutes a notification, early
project review would be facilitated by distribution of the more informative
EIS document as well.

A-26. Inland wetlands on or adjacent to each State-regulated project
site should be required to be shown on coastal wetlands permit application
maps, in addition to the regulated coastal wetlands.

Placement of fill in inland wetlands of the coastal zone is likely to
require a permit under Sectibn 404 of the Clean Water Act. The applicant
should become aware early of; this possibility, so all inland wetlands
(especially forested wetlands) should be identified on the applicant's
preliminary drawings. The applicant can be directed explicitly to identify
all wetlands (whether regulated as coastal wetlands or not) on and adjacent
to the project site as part of his EIS [NJAC 7:7A-1.6(b)].

330

A-27. DEP should prepare two map series for use by coastal planners,
applicants for permits, and the interested public, one showing the upper
inland wetland boundary at a scale of 1:24,000, and one showing the general
distribution of regulated wetlands at a scale of 1:250,000.

The existing wetlands photomaps (scale, 1:2,400) do not allow regional
or statewide interpretation of the extent of coastal wetlands regulated
under the Act. The upper inland wetland boundary line should be shown on a
series of overlays that fits the USGS topographic quadrangle base (scale,
1:24,000), because photomaps contemporary with the wetlands photography are
available at this scale, and the topographic maps are basic environmental
management and planning tools. Reduction of the general distribution of
regulated wetlands to the USGS 1:250,000 base used by OCZM and other
agencies will provide a workable map for many planning uses involving the
coastal zone. At present, the CAFRA and Wetlands Section personnel have no
means of determining their respective jurisdictions except at the
individual-project (1:2,400) scale.

The level of effort required for a graphics technician visually to
generalize and transfer the upper boundary for the existing 914 photomaps is
estimated as 30 man-days for the 1:250,000 scale map (1% of original size)
and 50 man-days for the 1:24,000 scale quadrangles (10% of original size.)
Photoreduction would be an inappropriate method to accomplish such wide
changes in scale.

Research increasingly is being directed to documenting the benefits
from disposal of treated secondary effluent in vegetated wetlands under the
sponsorship of US-EPA and other agencies. DEP may find it appropriate to
revise the Wetlands Order to allow case-by-case determinations of proposals
to dispose treated effluent into wetlands.

A-29. DEP should extend the Wetlands Order prohibition against
pesticides to all stands of Olney threesquare.

This vegetation type was omitted from the list in NJAC 7:7A-1.2(d)3.
The cited section should be amended by formal modification of the Wetlands
Order for all regulated counties.

4. Coastal Area Facility Review Act

Several procedural recommendations apply to the CAFRA permit program.
They can help accomplish interagency coordination.

331

A-30. A copy of the memorandum of record following a pre-application I
conference should be sent to the appropriate regional planning board, county
environmental commission, and municipal environmental commission (if any).

At present, copies are sent to the municipal and county planning board
[NJAC 7:7D-2.3(c)51. The other agencies which will have an opportunity to
review the EIS also should have a chance to express their preliminary
concerns prior to completion of the EIS, so that the applicant can address
those concerns in the EIS.

A-31. CAFRA review of any project concurrently with Federal review
explicitly should be authorized and specifically encouraged in the CAFRA
regulations.

To this end, the term "Federal" should be inserted as appropriate in
NJAC 7:7D-2.3(b). The intent is to speed project review and minimize
duplication of effort by riview staff in various agencies, particularly
where major facilities (such as electric generating stations or highways)
are proposed.

A-32. A copy of the CAFRA EIS should be supplied by the applicant to
the State or Federal agency that administers Section 404 (Clean Water Act)
permits, if any inland (shoreland) wetlands are likely to be affected by
fill related to the proposed facility.
I
This step already is taken during permit processing for State coastal
wetlands permit approvals. At present the 404 agency is the appropriate
District Office of the Army Corps of Engineers. The additional distribution
of one copy of the EIS could be mandated to applicants by an insertion into
NJAC 7:7D-2.3(d)4.

5. Waterfront Development Permits and the Natural Resource Council

Two recommendations can be made concerning the administration of
waterfront development permits and the responsibilities of the Natural
Resource Council. Both recommendations are for written accounts of
procedures.

A-33. Procedural and jurisdictional aspects of the waterfront
development permit program should be reduced to Written form.

A relatively complex body of procedures for determining what kinds of
developments require permits under NJSA 12:5-3 has evolved over the more
than 65 years that this program has been in operation. Yet there is no
account of regulations for this permit program In Chapter 7 of NJAC. Only
the general 90-Day Law regulations (NJAC 7:!C-1.j1 et seq.) together with the
coastal policies for the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment (NJAC 7:7E-'.l et seq.)
address this program in written form. It would be of benefit to the public,
and should reduce the staff time needed for explanations, if the central
features of this program were codified for NJAC. The coastal and inland

332

navigable waterways subject to this program should be defined explicitly,
and the overlap or division of jurisdiction between this program and the
stream encroachment program administered by the Division of Water Resources
(NJSA 58:1-26 et seq.; NJAC 7:8-3.15) should be indicated.

A-34. Operational procedures and routine approval/disapproval criteria
used by the Natural Resource Council should be reduced to written form.

The discussions and explanations that occur at Council meetings
indicate that the Council, with the assistance of DEP staff and the Attorney
General, has evolved consistent policies for approving, conditioning, and
denying applications that concern riparian lands. The coastal management
policies also now apply to actions of the Council in the Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment (NJAC 7:7E-1 et seq.), and Goldshore (1979) reviewed legal aspects
of the framework in which the Council operates. Nevertheless, there is no
set of written regulations that describe the procedures used by the Council
to provide equitable decisions on the numerous applications which come
before it. There currently are no rules of practice and procedure for
riparian cases at NJAC 7:7-1.1 et seq.

To accomplish the goal of public understanding of decisions made by the
Council, policies and procedures that routinely are used should be recorded
and published, either as a handbook or at NJAC 7:7-1 et seq., or as
additional sections in the coastal management policies. Written policies
undoubtedly would be useful also to Council members in discharging their
statutory obligations.

The principal policy concern of the ensuing recommendations regarding
the HIDC is the need for resolution of apparent conflicts between the
current HMDC Master Plan and other current State and Federal laws and
policies. Other recommendations address steps that HMDC can take to promote
public understanding of its activities and requirements. The
recommendations are presented here in a general sequence from items that
need immediate attention to items that necessarily must take a longer period
to implement.

6. Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission

A-35. HMDC should revise its zoning regulations (NJAC 19:4-1.1 et
seq.) to eliminate typographical errors.

The numerous typographical errors, including but not limited to
cross-references, lead to an erroneous presentation of HMDC requirements in
the codified version of the regulations as revised through 24 July 1978.
Other errors were transferred to the codified version from previous versions
of the zoning regulations published directly by HMDC, including errors of

333

language and errors of fact.I All of the zoning regulations should be
reviewed immediately by HMDC, and appropriate changes should be made to
reflect the intent of HMDC, in the interest of facilitating ongoing
compliance with the regulations.

A-36. H/DC should provide for publicly available copies of its zoning
map, promptly reflecting the latest revisions, on a continuing basis.

The Zoning Map is an integral part of the zoning regulations of HMDC,
and the written regulations cannot be understood without constant reference
to the Map. For about six months, copies of the most recent, but obsolete,
printed version have been unavailable, although a current wall map could be
consulted at the HMDC office during business hours. The Map is a part of
the regulations according to NJAC 19:4-6.28, but the Map itself is
conspicuously absent from the codified regulations in NJAC.

A-37. HMDC should maintain and distribute a complete list of its
publications, and should provide for the sale of its publications at cost.

At present there is no published list of the numerous publications
(including both regulatory documents and analytical reports and studies)
that HMDC has issued or has required to be prepared. For users of such
material to become aware of its existence requires consultation with HMDC
professional staff, unnecessarily consuming the time of both the user and
the HMDC staff. A publications list should be prepared immediately. Sales
of copies of HMDC documents at cost should be made a responsibility of the
clerical, not the professional, staff of HMDC.

A-38. HMDC should define in its regulations the following terms which
are central to the implementation of the regulations: "tributary" and
"major water courses".

The Hackensack River and its tributaries are zoned for marshland
preservation, and 50-foot wide buffer strips with natural vegetation are to
be preserved wherever development abuts the "Hackensack River and its
tributaries."2 The distinction between or synonymy of "tributaries" with
"streams, brooks ... and drainage ditches" [NJAC 19:4-5.8(a)2. i(6)] and
with "existing watercourses" [NJAC 19:4-5.10(a)2.xii] should be identified.
Likewise, clarification should be made of "major watercourses" to be

'For an example, NJAC 19:4-53(d)14 should be deleted as an error of fact,
and the first sentence of sections 19:4-5.9(a)3.iv. and 14:4-5.10(a)3.iv
apparently contains the same drafting error in all versions of tIhe
regulations. i

2NJAC 19:4-3.3(c), 4.24, 4.32(c), 4.40(b), 4.50(b), 4.60(b), 4.71(b),
4.81, 4.89(b), 4.99(b), 4.108(b), 4.120, 4.130(b), 5.2(d)5, 5.3(d)5,
5.4(d)6.iii.

334

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

preserved in their natural state [NJAC 19:4-5.2(d) 3(iii) and
5.3(d)3(iii)]. The acreage of buffer strips that are to be preserved should
be recalculated by HMDC after the language is clarified. HNDC staff have
both the knowledge of the intent of the original regulations and the field
experience necessary to produce comprehensible regulations. To maximize
estuarine protection, the terms "tributary" and "major water courses" should
be defined as broadly and inclusively as possible. HRMDC staff have
indicated that 50-foot buffer strip requirements were not intended to be
applied to man-made ditches, and that such ditches will be shown not to have
buffer strip requirements in the 1979 version of the Open Space Plan.

A-39. HMDC explicitly should require identification of the extent and
type of wetlands (if any) affected by every development decision authorizing
construction in order to reduce Federal agency and applicant paperwork and
to insure consistency of intergovernmental decisionmaking.

Many proposed developments in the Meadowland District will require
placement of fill or other alteration of wetlands. The specific
identification of wetlands to be affected (if any) should be a mandatory
part of the review process for all HMDC construction approvals, both in the
regular zones and in the Specially Planned Areas. Applicants should be
required to identify wetlands in order to plan their projects to have
minimum adverse impact and in order to become aware of their need for a
filling permit in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. HMDC
has ample authority in its regulations to require identification of
wetlands.

A-40. HMDC should require that evidence of notification of appropriate
Federal agencies, if any Federal permits are likely to be necessary for a
proposed project, be supplied by applicants prior to HMDC approval of
preliminary subdivision plat, zoning certificate, or Implementation Plan,
and HMDC approvals should be conditioned on the receipt of necessary Federal
approvals.

Such permits may be required for placement of fill in waterways or
wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Army Corps of Engineers),
activities affecting navigable waterways and their tidal tributaries under
Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 (Army Corps of Engineers),
activities involving bridges over or culverts in navigable waterways or
their tidal tributaries under Section 9 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899
(US Coast Guard), discharges of pollutants to waterways under Section 402 of
the Clean Water Act (US Environmental Protection Agency; NJDEP if delegated
in future), or other agencies in specific cases. At present there are
requirements for State-level interagency coordination of riparian grants and
waterfron development permits, of water supply and sewerage disposal
approvals, and stream alteration or dam construction permits at the
appropriate places in the HMDC regulatory process. Notification of relevant
Federal agencies similarly should be mandated by the HMDC zoning and
subdivision regulations.

335

A-41. HMDC should revise its Master Plan Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map,
and other regulations to conform with current Federal laws and policies.

The HMDC Master Plan was developed during the 1960's and early 1970's
and adopted during late 1972, with several amendments thereafter. Finally,
Federal permit requirements under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the
placement of fill were extended by the Corps of Engineers during June 1975
to include wetlands adjacent to all waters of the United States. Federal
policies on filling of wetlands are protective of the natural environment,
and they anticipate substantial mitigations if wetlands are destroyed for
development. The potential Federal support of HMDC wetland open space
preservation policies now available should be reflected in the amended
Master Plan developed pursuant to NJSA 13:17-9(a).

A-42. The HMDC should request a general permit from the New York
District for its amended Master Plan under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act and Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act.

An areawide Federal EIS probably would be required to assess the
cumulative effects of implementing the Plan. Once the permit for the Plan
is approved, individual development proposals in accordance with the Plan
would require minimal Corps and interagency review. Proposals in conflict
with the Plan and requiring variances, however, probably would require full
review including a Federal EIS.

The result would be a full coordination of HMDC and Federal policies,
and the HMDC Master Plan could with justification be adopted as the State
coastal policy for the Meadowland District. The expectation of timely
Federal approval would be a major factor influencing developers to act in
accordance with the Plan.

A-43. HMC should adopt and enforce soil erosion and sedimentation
control standards in consultation with the Soil Conservation Service and
other appropriate agencies, and incorporate such standards in NJAC 19:4
Subchapter 6.

These standards should implement effectively the 1975 New Jersey Soil
Erosion and Sediment Control Act (NJSA 4:24-1 et seq.) for the Meadowland
District, because the Soil Conservation Service is not staffed adequately to
oversee new construction in the Meadowlands.

A-44. HMDC should revise the goals of its environmental performance
(discharge) standards to correspond in so far as practicable with the uses
designated by the DEP surface water designated uses and the goals of the
Clean Water Act.

The HMDC standards currently do not have equally protective goals as
the relevant DEP surface water use designations (NJAC 7:9-4 et seq.) and
Section 101 of the Clean Water Act. The HMDC discharge standards should be
reviewed by HMDC, DEP and US-EPA to determine whether they should be altered

336

in order to attain the stated goals. HMDC should continue to focus public
attention on the serious pollution problems in theDistrict, and should
continue to seek State and Federal assistance in meeting the State and
National goals for water quality.

A-45. HIMDC should specify clearly the methods that should be utilized
in calculating waterway buffer strip and open space requirements.

As discussed in the section on open space preservation in the
Hackensack Meadowland District, there currently is ambiguity in the method
for calculating HMDC requirements. Because the HMDC staff have substantial
experience in making such calculations, they should specify the basic
principles for the benefit of applicants and the concerned public in
written form.

A-46. HMDC should require source separation for all solid wastes
disposed in the District in order to reduce the need for landfills in the
immediate future as well as in the long term.

HDC has ample authority in its enabling legislation to regulate solid
waste in the Meadowland District. Materials that have economic value and
can be kept separate from mixed refuse should be prohibited from disposal
in landfills in the District. This would force municipalities and private
contractors to keep materials separate, rather than allow them to be mixed
upon collection. The HMDC should seize the opportunity to keep materials
that are salable when homogeneous out of mixed refuse, rather than concen-
trating solely upon resource recovery from mixed waste streams.

A-47. HMDC should investigate seriously the feasibility of generating
and marketing centralized steam and chilled water from refuse for use by
existing and anticipated new development in the Meadowland District, in
order to reduce the need for landfills in the long term.

The most economically rewarding urban market for energy derived from
refuse is centralized steam and chilled water. Such systems are not un-
common in Europe, and the new facility at Nashville, Tennessee, is success-
fully demonstrating the use of urban refuse to meet urban heating and
cooling needs (Reisch 1978). Air emissions initially posed difficulties
in Nashville, but they have been overcome successfully. The cogeneration
of electricity and subsequent utilization of low-pressure steam is a
compatible mode of using refuse to derive energy. HMDC has an exceptional
opportunity to supply energy to the massive new development slated for
the District, and to avoid the serious economic costs associated with
shipping refuse derived fuel to remote users outside the District. To
the extent that the refuse derived energy replaces fossil fuel, air and
water quality can be expected to benefit.

337

B. Recommendations on Substantive Coastal Policies

This section of the report is organized as a critique of proposed DEP
coastal policies as presented in the March 1979 options document at Appendix
H. The proposed policies are to be applied to State regulatory activities
throughout the New Jersey coastal zone.

The format of this section includes first a brief identification of
each policy which the consultant finds capable of improvement to enhance
estuarine protection, then a statement and discussion of the views of the
consultant, and finally a recommendation for change in the policy. The
sequence of the commentary follows the sequence of the proposed policies.
Reference to other sections of the options document is made as appropriate.
The consultant has followed the evolutionary process by which the proposed
policies were evolved and recognizes the overall accomplishment of DEP in
bringing the policies to their present state.

In Section 1.1. the purpose of the regulations is stated. No explicit
reference is made to the potential purposes of coordinating State regulatory I
policies with current Federal laws and regulations or of coordinating State
and local regulatory policies. Such coordination could enhance estuarine
resource protection substantially, and reference is made to such
coordination at various places in the body of the policies.

B-1. The purposes of the coastal policies should be stated to include
coordination of State actions with Federal laws and regulations and with
local regulatory approvals (Section 1.1.).

In Section 1.2. DEP states the authorities pursuant to which the
coastal policies are adopted. No reference is made to the January 1979
mandate of the Governor's Executive Order 71 that the CAFRA staff of DEP
should perform interim certification of new construction sought during the
18-month moratorium on such approvals while a Master Plan for the Pinelands
is developed. The Order is applicable to those sections of the Pinelands
Protection Area which overlap lands regulated under CAFRA. The
I
administration of this mandate must consider additional policies to maximize
environmental protection in the Pinelands, over and beyond those of the
coastal zone in general.
a ~~~~~~I
B-2. The Governor's Executive Order 71 (1979) and the Pinelands
Protection Act of 1979 should. be added to the list of authorities cited in
Section 1.2.

The authorities for the policies also fail to mention other statutes
and regulations through which the coastal zone policies can be implemented.
These authorities are not uniRue to the coastal zone, but they are essential
for estuarine protection withiin the coastal zone.

B-3. Statutes and regulations administered by the DEP Divisions of
Water Resources, Environmental Quality, and Fish, Game, and Shell Fisheries,
by the DEP Solid Waste Administration, by the Hackensack Meadowlands

338
Ie

Development Commission, and by other relevant State agencies should be added
to the list of authorities cited in Section 1.2.

In Section 1.3.1. the actions of DEP itself in the coastal zone are
stated to be subject to the coastal policies. The actions of DEP and of the
State and County Mosquito Control Commissions are exempt from the Wetlands
Act of 1970 (but not from other State coastal permit programs when
applicable or from Federal regulatory programs).

The DEP Commissioner ex officio is a member of the State Mosquito
Control Commission, and the State Commission exerts substantial control over
County Commissions. DEP should make maximum use of its influence with the
mosquito control agencies to minimize dredging, filling, diking, and
pesticide application in favor of the open marsh management techniques
advocated by the Division of Fish, Game, and Shell Fisheries.

The coastal zone boundaries are proposed in Section 1.3.2. to include
(1) the CAFRA area, (2) all other coastal waters to the limit of tidal
influence, (3) shorelands adjacent to those waters inland to the first
public road or railroad track, (4) State-regulated coastal wetlands landward
of the foregoing, and (5) the Hackensack Meadowland District. The
consultant believes that the proposed coastal zone should be expanded to
include other areas where development potentially poses direct and
significant impacts to, and is exposed to impacts from, coastal waters.
Several recommendations address specific expansions of the proposed coastal
boundaries, and reference should be made to the maps in Appendix B of the
March 1979 DEP-OCZM options document in weighing the recommendations.

B-5. All now or formerly tidal waterways (and their tidal tributaries)
should be included in the coastal zone, inland to the present or most
probable historic limit of tide.

In many areas the DEP has elected to use current tidal limits as the
preferred initial boundary criterion (with the 20-foot stream elevation as
an alternative). Various tidal streams appear to have been omitted from the

339

March 1979 maps1. The tidelands delineations of the Office of
Environmental Analysis should be used as they become available to extend the
coastal zone boundary to include all of tidal or historically tidal
waterways. Actions that affect such waterways inevitably have a direct and
significant impact on estuarine water quality because runoff from them flows
directly to tidal waters, and such actions should be consistent with coastal
policies.

B-6. The coastal zone boundary should be drawn to include the tidal
wetlands now or historically adjacent to all coastal waters, whether or not
those wetlands currently are regulated under the Wetlands Act of 1970.

The current DEP proposal is to recognize only regulated coastal
wetlands as part of the coastal zone landward of the first public road or
rail line. Existing tidal and formerly tidal wetlands all should be
included in the coastal zone, whether or not they have been afforded
protection heretofore by administrative action under the Wetlands Act. The
currently proposed boundary in the Hackensack River basin, for example,
follows the political boundary of the Hackensack Meadowland District (as
established by NJSA 13:17-4), which was not based on tidal streamcourses and
their adjacent wetlands. In particular, the District boundary excludes
fringing wetlands along the upper part of tidal Berrys Creek in Wood-Ridge,
where serious industrial contamination of the estuary long has originated,
and it does not include extensive wetlands west of the District (mostly in
Kearny) between the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Schuyler Avenue. Other
probable tidal or formerly tidal wetlands appear from an inspection of the
1979 boundary maps to qualify for inclusion in the coastal zone. Whether or
not they currently are regulated under the Wetlands Act, the following areas
should be reviewed for inclusion in the coastal zone:

1The following probable examples were noted during an examination of the
1:24,000 quadrangles:
Upper Berrys Creek tributaries in Wood-Ridge and Upper "Sack Creek"
(formerly the northern watershed of Division Creek) in Secaucus
(Weehawken Quadrangle).
Drainage ditch encircling the southern half of Newark Airport (Elizabeth
Quadrangle).
Streams south and southwest of South Amboy (South Amboy Quadrangle).
Delaware River Between the Toll Bridge and the Calhoun St. Bridge
(Trenton West Quadrangle).
Pompeston Creek (Frankford Quadrangle) - apparently a drafting error by
reversal of pattern; presumably the intent was to put the Creek in the
coastal zone, not the Palmyra and Cinnaminson developed areas.
Pennsauken Creek (North Branch) from Penn Central RR Bridge at least to
Kings Highway (Moorestown Quadrangle).
North Branch Rancocas Creek from the Vincent'wn Dam to Smithville Lake
(Mount Holly Quadrangle).
Cooper River to historic head of tide (Camden Quadrangle).
Streams in Woolwich and East Greenwich Townships (Bridgeport
Quadrangle).

340

In the general vicinity of Tennent Pond (South Amboy Quadrangle).
Newbold Island (Trenton East, Trenton West, and Bristol Quadrangles).
Along Pennsauken Creek between the Penn Central (Conrail) RR Bridge and
Kings Highway (Moorestown Quadrangle).
Along the Rancocas Creek (Mount Holly and Pemberton Quadrangles).
Vicinity of Oldmans and Five Points (Marcus Hook Quadrangle).
Upper Little Timber and Pargey Creeks (Bridgeport Quadrangle).
Big Timber Creek south of Blenheim (Runnemede Quadrangle).
Pennsville Township east of Central Park and southwest of Glenside
(Wilmington South and Penns Grove Quadrangles).
Oldmans Township southeast of Perkintown and Penns Neck Township
between NJ Turnpike and US 40 (Penns Grove Quadrangle).
Upper Raccoon Creek (Woodstown and Pitman West Quadrangles).
Oldmans Creek east of Porches Mill (Woodstown Quadrangle).

The inland limit of regulated wetlands in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment
has not been mapped at a useful regional scale and is not commented upon
here.

B-7. The coastal zone boundary should be drawn to include all land
areas (now or) historically flowed by the tides as soon as information
becomes available from the ongoing State tidelands mapping program.

Tidelands at present are being mapped throughout the State. Filled
tidelands are by definition adjacent to tidal waters. They are likely sites
for flood damages and particular concern should be attached to filled areas
with a current surface elevation of less than 10 feet. The activities
conducted on filled areas are likely to have direct and significant effects
on tidal water quality. Examples, based on inspection of the 1979 boundary
maps, are:

Vicinity of Moonachie, Little Ferry, South Hackensack, and southeastern
non-HMDC section of Secaucus (Weehawken Quadrangle).
Newark Airport and vicinity, and tank farms in Linden (Elizabeth
Quadrangle).
Tank farms in Linden and Carteret (Arthur Kill Quadrangle).
Burlington Island (Bristol Quadrangle).
Tank farm (Bridgeport Quadrangle).
Tank farm and other filled areas at National Park (Woodbury
Quadrangle).
Penns Beach (Wilmington South Quadrangle).
Penns Grove (Penns Grove Quadrangle).

As discussed at length in the analysis of Wetlands Act implementation
in Chapter XIV, there are additional wetlands in Northern New Jersey and
elsewhere which meet the criteria of the Act, but which DEP has elected
neither to map nor to regulate. As these areas are mapped in the future,

341

the coastal zone boundary should be expanded to include them wherever
necessary. The process of amendment to the coastal zone boundary should
include, but not be confined to, considerations of expanded tideland claims,
as implied by Appendix B of the MHarch 1979 options document (p.80). The
elevational criteria for regulating coastal wetlands are far less stringent
than the criteria for claiming tideland ownership, and coastal wetlands
should be identified if they exist outside the lands claimed as present or
former tidelands.

B-9. Federal lands should be deleted from DEP jurisdictional
boundaries on maps of the proposed coastal zone.

Review of the proposed boundary maps indicates that the Killcohook
National Wildlife Refuge (Wilmington South and Delaware City Quadrangles).

Section 1.3.4. lists consistency decisions to which the coastal
policies apply.

B-10. Section 1.3.4. should be revised to cite specifically Section
401 of the Clean Water Act and all actions noticed pursuant to OMB Circular
A-95 with relevance to the coastal zone.

Section 2.6. lists generally the environmental and development
information requirements for which applicants for State approvals are
responsible. This section and the remainder of the policies suggest the
topics an applicant must consider in permit applications and EIS's. Some of
those topics can be discussed appropriately from existing data. DEP must
provide the staff expertise to identify those topics for which original
research is needed and to specify precisely the scope and methods to be
employed by the applicant, so that the results have the greatest utility for
both the individual permit review and for coastal zone management
generally.

B-11. DEP should revise Section 2.6. to indicate that its staff will
specify precisely the original information that an applicant is required to
collect and the exact methods that are to be used, if an ETS is mandated on
his project, following a voluntary pre-application conference.

Such a commitment by DEP will assist applicants to produce original
data essential to DEP decisionmakers, while relieving them from the burden
of developing data unnecessary for specific applications. The specific
requirements should be detailed in the memorandum of record following the
conference.

Section 3. presents the DEP-OCZM location policies for the coastal
zone.

B-12. DEP should rewrite the coastal location policies on special
areas to indicate that it is the applicant's burden to demonstrate that
projects which could affect special areas adversely in fact will avoid or
minimize adverse effects.

342

Section 3.1.3. specifies what information should be mapped by the
applicant at the pre-application phase.

it is not necessary that the applicant prepare original base maps at
this earliest step in his contact with NJ-DEP. Implementation of other
recommendations will produce wetlands maps at the 1:24,000 scale, and should
assist applicants in accomplishing the mandate of Section 3.1.3.
Appropriate maps should be mandated as part of every EIS required by NJ-DEP.
The most recent available aerial photograph of the project site also should
be brought to a pre-appplication conference.

Section 3.2.9. identifies marine sanctuaries as a special area. It
does not mention estuarine sanctuaries established pursuant to Section 312
of the Coastal Zone Management Act.

3-14. Section 3.2.9. should be relabeled as "Designated Sanctuaries"
and should include both marine and estuarine sanctuaries, as they are
designat ed.

Proposed language for such a section is as follows:

3.2.9. Designated Sanctuaries

Marine Sanctuary

Definition: A marine sanctuary is a specific geographic area
located within ocean waters, from the highest extent of tidal
action seaward to the outer edge of the Continental Shelf,
which has been designated by the Secretary of Commerce after
approval by the President of the United States. Any
sanctuary within the New Jersey coastal zone would not become
effective, if within 60 days of designation the Governor
disapproved. Under Title III of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (PL 92-532), a marine
sanctuary can be established for the purpose of preserving or
restoring marine areas for various values. To date, there
are no designated marine sanctuaries within New Jersey. The
Office of Ocean Management within NOAA presently is reviewing
all recommendations, including those within the Mid-Atlantic
states. DEP-OCZM, submitted six recommendations to NOAA in
1977, including the Hudson Canyon, Shrewsbury Rocks, Great
Bay estuary, shipwrecks, inlets, and offshore sand ridges.
Designation of one or more of these areas as marine
sanctuaries in New Jersey's nearshore and offshore areas
requires joint actions by the Governor of New Jersey and the
US Secretary of Commerce, and could take place during 1979.

343

Estuarine Sanctuary1

Definition: An Estuarine Sanctuary is a research area,
teaching area, or natural field laboratory, established
pursuant to Section 312 of the Federal Coastal ZoneI
Management Act of 1972, as amended. Such an area may include
all or any part of an estuary and adjoining edge and
shoreland areas in a manner so as to constitute, to theI
extent feasible, a natural unit. The Secretary of Commerce
is authorized to provide grants of up to 50% of the costs of
acquisition, development, and operation of an estuarine5
sanctuary or of up to two million dollars, whichever is
less.

Policy: Management principles in the selected sanctuary3
areas should serve to preserve and protect the areas, as well
as indicate what actions are not permissible in the area.
Nion-permissible uses in any designated estuarine sanctuaries
will be dependent on the five basic purposes for designation,
which include:

habitat areas, species areas, research areas, recreational
and esthetic areas, and unique or exceptional areas. A~fter
designation, activities not compatible with the basic
purposes will be prohibited or restricted, but in general all1
other uses are allowed. Final policy in marine and estuarine
sanctuaries must be approved jointly by the Governor of New
Jersey and the US Secretary of Commerce.3

Rational: Certain portions of the Atlantic Ocean and
adjacent estuaries are of special national and regional
environmental value, and could be adversely impacted by
development likely to take place in the future, especially
activities related to offshore oil and gas development. It
is in the long-term interest of the people of the Nation toI
identify, protect, and manage these sanctuaries.

3-15. The text of Section 3.2.11 on wetlands should be revised to
incorporate Section 3.2.17 (whitecedar stands) and to protect otherI

The following revised text is recommended:3

3.2.11. Wetlands

Wetlands are areas in which the substrate is "inundated I
or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and.
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetationI
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (US
Army Corps of Engineers 1977). The vegetation of wetlands is

344

highly productive, and wetland habitats may be utilized
intensively by various species of waterfowl, shorebirds,
songbirds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and other
forms of animal life. On the basis of the water regime, two
categories of wetlands (estuarine, or tidal, wetlands and
shoreland, or non-tidal wetlands) are recognized.

Coastal Wetlands

Definition: Coastal wetlands are low-lying areas of
relatively flat land that may be known as marshes, meadows,
swamps, or by some other local name. Many herbaceous tidal
wetlands in that part of the coastal zone from the south
shore of Raritan Bay to Cape May Point and, hence, to Trenton
have been delineated by DEP on official maps at a scale of
1:24,000 (as listed at NJAC 7:7A-1.13). Forested wetlands
extend landward from the herbaceous coastal wetlands at many
locations, and are included in this category. Both
herbaceous and forested coastal wetlands also occur in areas
that have not yet been mapped officially. Extensive meadows,
which are herbaceous wetlands, are a characteristic feature
of the Hackensack Meadowland District, an area that was
excluded from the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Act of 1970
(NJSA 13:9A-1 et seq.).

This category also includes areas of wetland that
formerly were flowed by the tides but now are enclosed by
embankments or other structures.- Such impounded wetlands are
distributed throughout the coastal zone, and they occupy
extensive areas along Delaware Bay and in the Hackensack
Meadowland District.

Policy

(a) In general, development of all kinds is discouraged in
wetlands, unless it is found that the proposed
development meets the following four conditions:

(i) Requires water access or is water oriented as a
central purpose of the basic function of the
activity (this condition applies only to development
proposed on or adjacent to waterways),

(ii) Has no prudent or feasible alternative on a
non-wetland site,

(iii) Will result in minimum feasible alteration or
impairment of natural tidal circulation, and

345

(iv) Will result in minimum feasible alteration orI
impairment of natural contour or the natural
vegetation of the wetlands.3

(b) In particular, the dumping of solid of liquid wastes,
the application of persistent biocides, or the storage
of any biocides on wetlands is prohibited.I

(c) Under State law, the activities of the DEP State
Mosquito Control Commission, and county mosquito control
commissions are exempted from the coastal wetlandsI
policy (a) above. Voluntary administrative compliance
with regulations established pursuant to the Act,
however, is not precluded by the Act. The continuation
of agricultural activities exempted by the act will not
be regulated by DEP under the Wetlands Act.

Rationale: The environmental values and fragility of coastalI
wetlands have been recognized officially in New Jersey since
the passage of the Wetlands Act of 1970 (NJSA 13:9A-1 et seq_.).
Coastal wetlands are the most environmentally valuable land
areas within the coastal zone.

Coastal wetlands contribute to the physical stability of the
coastal zone by serving as: (a) a transitional area between
the forces of the open sea and upland areas that absorbs and
dissipates wind-driven storm waves and storm Surges, (b) a
floodwater storage area, and, (a) a sediment and pollutionI
trap. Also, wetlands naturally perform the wastewater
treatment process of removing phosphorus and nitrogenous
water pollutants, unless the wetlands are stressed.
The biological productivity of New Jersey' s coastal wetlands
is enormous and critical to the function of estuarine and
marine ecosystems. The emergent cord grasses and associated
algal mats convert inorganic nutrients into organic plant
material through the process of photosynthesis. In this way,
the primary base for estuarine and marine food webs isI
provided. The principal direct dietary beneficiaries of
organic wetland detritus are bacteria and protozoans, which
are in turn fed upon by larger invertebrates. ImportantI
finfish, shellfish, waterfowl, and other resources feed upon
these invertebrates. New Jersey's coastal wetlands are prime
wintering habitat annually for hundreds of thousands of
migratory waterfowl. Approximately two-thirds of marine fishU
and shellfish are known to be estuarine, and, therefore,
wetlands-dependent.i

Both the restoration of degraded wetlands as a mitigation
measure for certain types of approved wetlands development
and the creation of new wetlands in non-sensitive areas are3

3463

encouraged. The Division of Marine Services previously has
required restoration of temporarily disturbed wetlands and
will continue to do so on a case-by-case basis.

Shoreland Wetlands

Definition: Shoreland wetlands occupy areas adjacent to or
near shoreland rivers and streams and areas not associated
closely with streams, but in which the water table is at or
near the surface at least for several days during most years.
The vegetation of most shoreland wetlands is characterized by
trees and/or shrubs, but some wetlands are covered by
herbaceous vegetation. These areas are known as swamps,
spungs, cripples, bogs, marshes, savannas, and by other local
names. The general distribution of shoreland wetlands in
the Pine Barrens, which includes parts of the Bay and Ocean
Shore Segment of the coastal zone is shown on a map by
McCormick (1978). The locations of white cedar swamp
forests, hardwood swamp forests, pitch pine lowland forests,
fresh marshes, and bogs in the Pine Barrens are shown in more
detailed maps prepared by McCormick and Jones (1973). Forest
type maps available at the Bureau of Forestry in NJ-DEP also
indicate the distribution of southern whitecedar swamp
forests and other wetland forest types.

DEP has the authority to regulate development directly only
on those wetlands which have been formally delineated and
adopted under the requirements of the Wetlands Act of 1970.
The Wetlands Act does not give DEP authority to manage
development in shoreland wetlands. New Jersey's ability to
protect wetlands not regulated under the Wetlands Act is
based upon its authority to regulate point-source and
non-point wastewater discharge CAFRA facilities affecting
such wetlands, the policies and actions of the Delaware River
Basin Commission and Hackensack Meadowlands Development
Commission, the authority to protect the Pinelands mandated
at present by the Pinelands Protection Act of 1969, and on
DEP's comments to the Army Corps of Engineers on applications
for Corps permits to fill wetlands under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. Such permits may not be issued without a
Section 401 certificate from the DEP Division of Water
Resources, and DEP has broad authority to condition such
certifications.

Policy: Development that would degrade or diminish the size
of a shoreland wetland shall be authorized only upon the
applicant's demonstration of overriding considerations in the
public interest, following full coordination with responsible
agencies and opportunity for public notice and comments.
Approvals to degrade or diminish the size of a shoreland

347

wetland shall be effective conditional upon approval by all
Federal agencies with jurisdiction.

Rationale: Shoreland wetlands play an important role in
regulating the quality of water in shoreland streams that
slow to the estuaries; they retard runoff and store storm
waters; they are critical habitats for several species of
plants and animals that are endangered or threatened, and,
they are productive habitats for other game and non-game
animals, such as deer and waterfowl. These wetlands also
serve as fire breaks, and may limit the spread of forest,
brush, or grass fires. They are inappropriate development
sites due to poor drainage and load bearing capacity of the
underlying soils. The white cedar, which is a characteristic
species of streamside wetlands on the Coastal Plain and
formerly was predominant in the Hackensack Meadowland
District, is considered to be the most valuable timber tree
in the State. The wood has a long tradition of use for
shipbuilding and in local crafts. The present distribution
of the white cedar in New Jersey, however, is less extensive
than its former range, and large, nearly pure stands now are
rare.

Section 3.2.15. addresses historic resources. At present it recognizes
only those historic places that are listed on the State or National
Registers.

B-16. Section 3.2.15.1 should be revised to recognize historic place
names and historic sites identified by County agencies or listed on the New
Jersey Inventory as significant resources, in addition to historic places on
the State or National Register.
W ~~~~~I
Section 3.2.15.2(c) then can be revised to apply specifically to those
sites listed on the State or National Register. In this way all known
historic resources will receive some measure of recognition, but the highest
level of protection will be afforded only to those sites with recognized
State or National significance.

B-17. The text of Section 3.2.16. should be revised slightly to
enhance its precision.

The recommended text is as follows:

3.2.16. Specimen Trees

Definition: Specimen trees are the largest (diameter at 4.5
feet above ground) known individual trees of each species in
New Jersey as listed by the DEP Bureau of Forestry in
Porcella (1977). A specimen tree site is the area directly
beneath the crown, that is, within the drip line. Large
trees that are within 10% of the diameter of the known

348

I ~~~~largest individual of the same species also shall be

5 ~~~~Policy: Development is prohibited that would significantly
reduce the ~amount of light reaching the crown, alter drainage
patterns within the site, adversely affect the quality of
water reaching the site, cause erosion or deposition of
I ~ ~~~material in or directly adjacent to the site, or otherwise
injure the tree. The site of the tree should extend to the
outer limit of the buffer area necessary to avoid adverse
impacts, or 50 feet from the tree, whichever is less.
Rationale: Many interested citizens have assisted NJ-DEP
during the past several decades in locating specimen trees.
This process includes reporting large trees that can be
considered specimens even though they may not be the largest
in New Jersey of a species. Specimen trees are an
irreplaceable scientific resource. Often these trees have
also been associated with historical events.

3 ~~~~Section 3.2.18. addresses imperiled species and Section 3.2.19.
addresses critical wildlife habitats.

B-1S. The text of Section 3.2.18. should be revised to incorporate
I ~ ~Sections 3.2.5. and 3.2.19.

The following revised text is recommended:

3.2.18. Critical Habitats

3 ~~~~~Habitats are considered to be critical when they are
essential to the survival of species of animals or plants
that are endangered or threatened, when they are essential to
regular and/or the seasonal. movements of aquatic or
terrestrial animals from one habitat to another, when they
are utilized intensively as areas for reproductive
activities, as areas for the congregation of animals on a
I ~ ~~~seasonal basis, or when they are of a type that is present in
the coastal zone in relatively limited supply. The
degradation or destruction of critical habitats could result
3 ~~~~in decreases in the populations of the species that utilize
them, and could result in the extinction of species whose
existence in the State already is in jeopardy. Reductions in
the populations of waterfowl and upland game will affect the
success of hunters, birders, and other naturalists.
3 ~~~~Endangered or Threatened Species Support Areas

Definition: Any area of shoreland, edge, or water that
serves as habitat for any species of animal or plant that has
5 ~~~~been designated as "endangered" or "threatened" by the

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~349

Secretary of the Interior or by NJ-DEP is considered to be a
critical area. The definition also includes a sufficient
buffer area to insure continued local survival of the
species. Dissemination of data that identify specific areas
inhabited by endangered or threateded animals or plants
should be restricted in order to protect the species.

Policy: Development that would affect the habitats of
endangered or threatened species adversely is prohibited.
Review of proposals shall be on a case-by-case basis.

Rationale: Endangered species are organisms which face
possible extinction in the immediate future due to loss of
suitable habitat, past over-exploitation through human
activities, or natural causes. Threatened species are not in
jeopardy of immediate extinction, but they could become
endangered if conditions were to worsen. Extinction is an
irreversible event and represents a loss to future human use,
educational research, and to the interrelationship of all
living creatures with the ecosystem.

The current (1979) official list of endangered species of
animals in New Jersey (NJAC 7:25-11.1) includes the following
species:

Shortnose sturgeon, Tremblay's salamander, blue-spotted
salamander, eastern tiger salamander, pine barrens treefrog,
southern gray treefrog, bog turtle, timber rattlesnake, bald
eagle, peregrine falcon, osprey, Cooper's hawk, least tern,
black skimmer and Indiana bat, as well as six marine mammals
and four marine reptiles. Additional species are designated
as threatened, peripheral, undetermined, declining, and
extirpated.

Currently, no official list exists of species of plants
that may be endangered or threatened in New Jersey.
Fairbrothers and Hough (1975), however, compiled an
unofficial list, and 17 species of plants that occur in New
Jersey were recommended by the Smithsonian Institution to the
US Fish and Wildlife Service for addition to the Federal
lists (40 FR 27863-27864, 1 July 1975). Until a Federal or
State list of endangered plants is adopted officially, the
species recommended by the Smithsonian Institution shall be
covered by this policy.

Special Wildlife Support Areas

Definition: Special Wildlife Support Areas are critical
habitats that serve one or more essential roles in the
maintenance of wildlife. Rookeries for colonial nesting
birds such as herons, egrets, ibis, terns, gulls, and

350

skimmers; stopovers for migratory birds, such as the Cape May
Point region; and natural corridors for wildlife movement
merit a special management approach through designation as
Critical Habitats. This designation also applies to areas of
water and edge that serve as wintering areas for waterfowl,
to areas in which individuals of a particular species, such
as the muskrat, are concentrated, to freshwater ponds and
lakes, which are relatively scarce habitats in the coastal
zone, and to spawning grounds of identified species of fish.

Policy: Development that would adversely affect special
wildlife support areas shall be discouraged, unless: (a)
minimal feasible interference with the habitat can be
demonstrated, (b) there is no prudent or feasible alternative
location for the development, and (c) the proposal includes
appropriate mitigation measures. Proposals shall be reviewed
on a case-by-case basis.

Rationale: The State of New Jersey, as custodian of a
particular portion of the national wildlife heritage, has the
obligation of stewardship on behalf of the people of the
State and Nation to perpetuate species of wildlife within its
borders for use, education, research, and enjoyment by future
generations.

Migratory Pathways for Aquatic Organisms

Definition: Waters which serve as passageways for migratory
fish and shellfish to or from seasonal spawning areas,
nursery areas, or feeding areas are critical habitats.
Pathways of anadromous fish through rivers, streams, bays and
inlets, as identified by Zich (1977), are a major component
of this type of critical habitat. Also included are ocean
waters within the 3-mile territorial limit of New Jersey,
through which many species migrate.

B-19. A new policy should be inserted at Section 3.2.19. to protect
scientific research sites.

Such sites should be cataloged by DEP-OCZM during its detailed
inventory of the coastal zone on the basis of the published literature and
communications from the academic and research community. The recommended
text for such a policy is as follows:

3.2.19. Scientific Research Sites

Definition: Scientific Research Sites are locations in the
ocean, estuarine, or shoreland sections of the coastal zone
in which notable scientific studies have been conducted
and/or where concentrated inventigations currently are being
conducted.

351

Policy: Development that would destroy, degrade, or block
access to a scientific research site shall be prohibited.

Rationale: Substantial bodies of scientific information have
been developed for areas defined as scientific research
sites. These sites now serve as valuable baseline areas in
which future studies can be conducted to evaluate natural and
man-induced changes.

B-20. A new interim policy on Pinelands should be inserted as Section
3.2.24.

The policy should be revised if necessary when a Comprehensive
Management Plan for the Pinelands has been adopted.

The recommended text for such a policy follows:

3.2.24. Pinelands Planning and Management District

Definition: The boundaries of the Pinelands Planning and
Management District, as recommended by the Governor's
Pineland Review Committee (1978) and adopted in Executive
Order 71(1979), are indicated in Figure 13. The District
is divided into a "Pinelands Protection Area" and a
"Pinelands Preservation Area". Certifications of projects
for exemption from the Governor's moratorium, which was
confirmed through mid 1980 by the New Jersey Pinelands
Protection Act of 1979, in the Protection Area where it
overlaps lands regulated under CAFRA, are to be processed by
DEP-OCZM under the policies of the National Parks and
Recreation Act of 1978 (PL 95-625) and the State Pinelands
Act, in addition to coastal policies that are consistent with
the goals of the Act and the Executive Order. The Pinelands
Planning Commission and DEP are directed to make consistent
long-range plans for all areas of overlapping jurisdiction.
Certifications for exemptions in any overlapping Preservation
Area lands are being processed by the Pinelands Planning
Commission1.

Policy: The following policies were established by the
the Pinelands Protection Act of 1979 for the Pinelands
Protection Area:

No application for financial assistance or for a grant,
permit, certificate, license, or other approvals for any

1If a revised map of the Pinelands protection and
preservation areas is issued by the Pinelands Commission, its
boundaries should be used rather than those of Executive
Order 71.

352

development or construction shall be approved unless the
applicant demonstrates that

(1) there exists a compelling public need for the
development or construction,
(2) the denial of the approval would result in
extraordinary hardship, or
(3) the development or construction is consistent with
the intent, goals, and objectives of the Executive
Order and the Federal Act.

In no case is development to be certified if the development
could result in substantial impairment of the natural
resources of the Pinelands.

Rationale: The following goals were established by the
Governor's Pinelands Review Committee (1978) for the
Pinelands Protection Area, and they provide the basis for the
policy of DEP in overlap areas administered by DEP until a
Comprehensive Management Plan is adopted by the Pinelands
Commission:

1. To maintain, through minimal disturbance, the essential
vegetative character in order to afford existing and
prospective residents the opportunity to live in a
Pinelands environment.

2. To protect and maintain existing surface and ground water
quality for the region's current and prospective users.

3. To discourage piecemeal and scattered development.

4. To encourage settlement patterns that will accommodate
agriculture, as well as appropriate commercial,
residential, and other development which is compatible
with the protection of the Preservation Area and the
maintenance of a Pinelands living environment and
reflective of the economic forces in and surrounding the
Area.

5. To accommodate in an orderly way existing and future
regional growth influences while being particularly
sensitive to the potential cumulative adverse impacts of
growth and development on the residents and the
environment which includes one of the last unpolluted
shellfish beds in the State.

The following goals were established by the Governor's
Pinelands Review Committee (1978) for the Pinelands
Preservation Area, and are to be implemented by the Pinelands

353

Planning Commission for areas of Preservation Area overlap
with the coastal zone:

1. To preserve an extensive and contiguous undeveloped land
mass in its natural state which would have as its purpose
the preservation of a Pinelands wilderness containing the
unique ecological features which have distinguished the
Pinelands as being more than a large expanse of
undeveloped forest.

2. To promote compatible agricultural, forestry, and
recreational land uses within the framework of
maintaining a wilderness area.

3. To prevent all development which is incompatible with the
preservation of lands which are primarily undeveloped.

4. To provide a sufficient amount of undevloped land to
accommodate specific wilderness management practices,
such as selective burning, which are necessary to ensure
the maintenance of the area's ecology.

5. To protect and preserve the quantity and quality of
existing surface and ground water for the citizens of the
State.

Section 3.2.25 identifies special hazard areas.

B-21. Section 3.2.25. should cross reference the riverine and tidal
flood hazard areas policies in Section 5.23, and these areas should be
included in the special hazard area discussion.

Sections 3.4.3. and 3.4.4. address retained water's edge and filled
water's edge areas, respectively. The farthest inland limit of such areas
is proposed to be set judgmentally at 100 feet from the existing waterway,
and it is less than -100 feet if there is a closer public road, boardwalk, or-
railway.

B-22. Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4 should be revised to remove the 100
foot and first cultural feature limitations on the inland extent of retained
water's edge and filled water's edge, but policies favoring water-dependent
development within 100 feet of waterways (or shoreward of the first cultural
feature) should be retained.

Water's edge areas, even after they are filled or retained, continue to
have direct and significant interactions with the other parts of the coastal
zone. They are near the water, and are subject to flooding, especially
during hurricanes. The uses of such areas may generate wastes that find
their way directly to the nearby coastal streams (lawn fertilizers and
petroleum products are two common examples). Hence such areas should be

354

~~~~~~~IGHGOT

I~~~~~~LWGOT

I~~~~~~F 7

MHIGAT GROWTH)

HACKENSACK MEADOWLAND
3 ~~~~~~~DISTRICT

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~35

part of the coastal zone at least to the extent that they formerly were
flowed by the tides, as shown on DEP tidelands maps and riparian atlases.

Section 3.5.3 presents the DEP growth policies for the coastal zone.
Growth regions are identified in Figure 17, and areas of overlap with
Pinelands jurisdiction are identified in Figure 13. Comparison of the
proposed growth policies (and the currently promulgated policies for the Bay
and Ocean Shore Segment) with Pinelands policies mandated by the Governor in
accordance with the National Park and Recreation Act of 1978 (see
Recommendation B-20) shows a high probability of conflict in areas
designated for moderate and high growth. The rationale for the designation
of the several growth categories is not provided in detail, and the method
for delineating the boundaries of the growth areas was not identified by
NJ-DEP in the 1978 BOSS Impact Statement or the 1979 Options document.

B-23. DEP should reexamine growth policies for those sections of the
Central (high), Western Ocean (moderate), Barnegat Corridor (moderate),
Absecon-Somers Point (high), and Southern (moderate) Coastal Regions which
overlap the Pinelands Management District and bring those policies into
consistency with the Governor's Executive Order 71 (1979) and the Pinelands
Protection Act of 1979.

Growth policies in areas of overlap with the Mullica-Southern Ocean
(low) and Great Egg Harbor River (low) Coastal Regions are expected to have
less of a policy conflict, but they, too, should be reviewed by DEP for
consistency with the Governor's Executive Order 71 and the Pinelands
Protection Act. The Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan, expected to be
issued during 1980, eventually should be the basis for coordination between
DEP and the Pinelands Commission in areas of regulatory overlap.

Section 3.5.4.4 defines areas ranked as having low environmental
sensitivity.

B-24. The first criterion of low sensitivity in Section 3.5.4.4 should
be revised to reflect more clearly how sections of project sites are
identified that, because of onsite paving or structures, qualify as low in
sensitivity.

Section 3.5.6.2 addresses high intensity development. The minimum
requirement for land that must be covered by forest is judgmentally
established at 5%, and that by herbland (or shrubs), also at 5%. These
percentages are inadequate to achieve significant modification of
microclimate or aquifer recharge. Forest is not defined, particularly in
contrast to scattered shade trees with mowed undergrowth. If the area of
tree boles on the site is to be at least 5% of the site, then the section
should be reworded. Preciseiamounts of vegetation are not possible to
specify, but significant, beneficial effects on microclimate and recharge
are unlikely when vegetationicovers less than 30% of a property
(Figure 18). Preservation of existing forest should be preferred to
promised replanting by applicants for coastal approvals.

356

_5-

Z~ fi %OF MAXIMUM

-' O DJ T to
a
LI

,:3 20 S O 8. 1oo
PERCENT SUPFACE AS!A
EVAPC0TEtSPIllINC

Figure 18. Microclimatic effect of vegetation in relation to percentage
of surface area covered by vegetation (Schmid 1975, after Oke 1972).
Oke showed by a theoretical calculation that, when one third of the
surface was covered by plants, two thirds of the maximum effect on
afternoon temperatures was expected. As the proportion of green space
decreases, the effect on temperatures drops rapidly to insignificance.

357

3-25. Section 3.5.6.2 should be revised either to require an ultimate
minimum of 30% of the site to be shaded by vegetation or to drop aquifer
recharge and microclimate control as objectives of the policy.

Section 3.5.6.3. addresses moderate intensity development. At least
20% of the project site arbitrarily is mandated to be devoted to forest,
but the height and the minimum density of tree planting are set at half the
minimum required for high-intensity development. It is the expectation of
the consultant that the stated policy favoring native herbs and shrubs may
be difficult to implement in the long term, even if developers follow the
mandates of DEP, because residents tend to install ornamental plants
traditionally associated with suburban housing, even in areas where
considerable environmental manipulation (e.g., watering, fertilizing) is
necessary (Schmid 1975).
I
Section 4.5.3. encourages pathways for pedestrians and cyclists in the
coastal zone.

3-26. Section 4.5.3. should be revised (or another section should be
inserted) to encourage also the conversion of abandoned railway or other
rights of way to public pathways in the coastal zone wherever possible.

Section 4.6.3. concerns solid waste landfills.

B-27. The Section 4.6.3. policy should be revised to indicate that any
sanitary landfill with a potential for release of toxic materials which is
proposed for development in an aquifer recharge area ordinarily will be
denied.

Implementation of this recommendation presupposes that applicants for
coastal approvals will have to identify all areas of landfill on project
sites.

3-29. The Section 4.6.3. policy should specify that the extent and
nature of all existing active or inactive landfill areas on sites proposed
for uses that require a State coastal permit be identified as part of the
permit application.

Section 4.10.6 addresses dredged spoil disposal. Disposal is described
as conditionally acceptable on formerly spoiled wetland areas that have
revegetated. If the new vegetation consists of wetland species, as
frequently can be observed on old spoil piles in coastal New Jersey, then
such areas should be mapped and regulated as coastal wetlands and should be

358

subject fully to the protection offered by the Wetlands Act, which
discourages placement of spoil on wetlands.

B-30. Section 4.10.6 should be revised to insure that inactive spoil
piles that become revegetated by wetland species receive full protection
under the Wetlands Act of 1970.

Paragraph 2 of the "Policy" section should read: Dredge spoil disposal
is prohibited on natural undisturbed wetlands and on formerly spoiled
wetland areas on which wetland vegetation has become reestablished.
Replanting of wetland vegetation in general is encouraged.

NJ-DEP should establish a procedure for the formal delineation of such
areas as wetlands. See recommendations A-21 and A-22.

Section 5.8. addresses appropriate coastal vegetation.

B-31. Section 5.8. should be revised to eliminate dogwood as a native
Pinelands species and to encourage the planting of native shrub and
herbaceous species as well as native trees.

Appropriate species native to the Pine Barrens were listed by McCormick
(1970:50-52). Section 5.8 also appropriately might indicate that native
vegetation has become a specialty of some landscape architects in the
mid-Atlantic region, and that it is no longer necessary to rely on exotic
nursery-supplied species for ornamental purposes.

359

C. Legislative Changes

This section first comments on the legislative changes proposed by
DEP in its March 1979 options document. Then it comments on other
legislative changes that could enhance State-level protection of the
estuarine environment.

DEP finds that the coastal wetlands, waterfront development, and CAFRA
permit programs could be combined into one, because all three now are being
administered under a single set of policies in the Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment, and they are proposed for administration under uniform policies
throughout the coastal zone (DEP-OCZM, 1979:43ff.). The differences between
the programs are viewed by DEP as less significant than the similarities
between them.

DEP would include water's edge areas in a first tier of wetlands, along
with beaches, dunes, floodprone areas, and all other areas between the
waterways and the first inland road or railway. Barrier islands are not
mentioned. Virtually all proposed developments in the first tier would
require a coastal permit. A second tier would consist of most remaining
uplands in the coastal zone. Here only major facilities would require a
coastal permit. A third tier would include the Palisades Ridge along the
Hudson River , where authority would be sought to prevent new development
from obstructing the view from the Palisades. The map and sketches provided
by DEP do not illustrate clearly how the proposed regulatory tiers would be
established or administered.

This recommendation cannot be implemented readily by DEP. At present,
there is no consolidated, regional map of regulated coastal wetlands; there
is no map showing shoreland wetlands, and official state floodplain maps of
non-tidal areas are only beginning to be promulgated. No State flood
hazards are known to be in preparation for tidal areas. Interim HUD-FEMA
flood hazard boundary and permanent flood insurance rate maps, however,
could be used for floodplains, and USGS topographic maps could be used for a
first approximation of wetlands.

DEP envisions a county and/or municipal option to take over
administration of the coastal permit program. Delegation would not be
accomplished until DEP certifies local ordinances as consistent with the
State coastal policies; DEP could supply partial funding for administration
of local programs. It would re-certify each municipal program bie nially.

360

I ~~~~C- 3. DEP should state approximately how many of the 237 municipalities
in the coastal zone now have policies consistent with the proposed coastal
policies, and should estimate the number of municipalities and of counties
that probably would seek to acquire coastal program delegation.
It is the expectation of the consultant that few municipalities
currently have the ordinances necessary to implement proposed State coastal
zone policies. The transition period from State permits to local permits
could be of long duration. It is probable that some municipalities will not
opt to administer the program, and even some counties may not elect to
participate. Unless full delegation occurs, DEP still will have to
administer coastal permits.

3 ~~~~DEP proposes that the three permit programs administered by the Divison
of Coastal Resources in DEP would be subject to delegation. Hence
delegation could exacerbate the existing difficulties of coordination
apparent already within the single level of State government. It is
probable that few municipalities have the interdisciplinary technical staff
able to administer the three permit programs with full consideration of
affected resources. For example, there is no municipal equivalent to the
I~ ~ ~E Division of Fish, Game and Shell Fisheries which can predict impacts on
biological resources. Hence there is a reasonable probability that
biological impacts will be underestimated systematically by municipal
I ~ ~administrators. To counteract this probability, the consultant believes
that a State technical assistance mechanism would have to be developed.

C-4. DEP should detail a mechanism for providing technical assistance
I ~ ~to municipalities, if it pursues the notion of permit delegation.

Finally, DE? should address the problem of local-Federal cooperation in
the context of permit delegation. At present there is a mixed record of
State-Federal permit coordination. It is difficult to envision closer
contact between Federal agencies and 237 municipalities than between the
I ~ ~Federal agencies and one set of State counterparts. As indicated in other
sections of this report, the proposed State policies are not fully
consistent with Federal policies. At the municipal level, local political
3 ~ ~~onsideration tend to weigh more heavily than Federal laws and regulations,
and the potential for conflict in specific cases appears to be great.

C-5. DEP should explain how local-Federal policy coordination can be
I ~ ~achieved most effectively if the coastal permit program were to be
delegated.

Other legislative initiatives mentioned by DEP include a dune
I ~ ~management act and a regional commission to manage the coastal zone. Given
the extent of the coastal zone, the consultant sees little value in creating
aregional commission to replace statewide agencies. Coordination is
diffcultenough at present, without adding additional agencies.
C-6. DEP should continue to support a strong State dune management act
to protect this resource and to develop technical information that will
facilitate the implementation of new legislation.

3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~361

The consultant concurs with the DEP preference for a bill that
recognizes the dynamic nature of the dune resource (Kinsey and Wiener 1979).
We recommend that any bill provide explicitly that DEP would retain an
oversight and veto power over permits issued by approved municipalities, and
that DEP would review all variances granted by municipalities under the
prospective act.

Any such legislation should be comprehensive in scope and should be
based on the accurate delineation of inland wetlands. The passage of such
legislation would pave the way for State administration of Section 404 Clean
Water Act permits for placement of fill in inland wetlands. New State
legislation would be necessary before this program could be delegated by
US-EPA. Any proposed new legislation should be developed in coordination
with the Section 208 Areawide Water Quality Planning Process administered by
the Division of Water Resources.

C-8. Should an inland wetland permit program be established, its
administration should be combined with that of the present coastal wetlands
permit program.

Currently this segment of the fertilizer industry is not subject to
regulation under NJSA 4:9-15.1 et seq.

Historic preservation zoning may be an important consideration in
acquiring Federal funds and tax credits for the redevelopment of urban
waterfront areas andythe encouragement of concern for the New Jersey marine
heritage. Historic preservation and open space preservation logically can
be combined in legislation such as the bill proposed by Assemblyman Froude.
The legislation would allow municipalities to establish historic districts
in which architectural features would be subject to controls. Such
legislation has proved successful in Massachusetts.

C-11. DEP should sponsor a New Jersey trails system act to authorize
establishment of scenic and recreational trails.

362

The trails may traverse State-owned lands as well as private lands
acquired by fee-simple, lease, conservation easement, or other means. Such
an act has been enacted in North Carolina. DEP also may seek to nominate a
coastal scenic trail as a National Trail. Such designation by the Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service (Department of the Interior) could
provide access to Federal funds.

C-12. DEP should consider the establishment of a Coastal Conservancy
along the lines of the California agency established by the State Coastal
Conservancy Act of 1976.

Such an agency could (1) award grants to local public agencies for the
restoration and rehabilitation of urban coastal areas, (2) award grants to
local and State agencies to enhance coastal resources that have experienced
degradation in the past, (3) award grants for acquisition of buffer zones
around sensitive special resource areas, (4) provide loans for public
acquisition of key resource areas that otherwise would be unlikely to be
preserved, and (5) award grants for public accessways. The creation of such
a Coastal Conservancy could enable DEP to take an activist role in shaping
the future New Jersey coastal zone, rather than relying primarily on its
regulatory role to respond to the initiative of others.

C-13. DEP should work with DOT to develop legislation that would
authorize the control of highway advertising in the coastal zone.

At present DOT has authority to restrict billboards along certain
highways including those of the Interstate System. In Massachusetts an
Outdoor Advertising Board can prohibit advertising along primary roads in
areas that are not zoned for commercial or industrial use. Such a measure
in New Jersey would help preserve the scenic integrity of the coastal zone.

C-14. DEP should sponsor legislation to delete the 24-unit threshold
from housing developments regulated under the Coastal Area Facility Review
Act.

The 24-unit exemption should be eliminated so that the coastal zone
management program can exercise control over cumulative impacts, which were
shown in the matrices prepared for this report to be adverse even for
low-density housing. Moreover, control over low-density housing is needed
by DEP to enable it to enforce the coastal policies favoring
moderate-density housing and preserving open space.

C-15. DEP should sponsor legislation providing that structures in
barrier island and shorefront areas that are destroyed or extensively
damaged by wind or wave action should not be rebuilt at the same location
unless there is a compelling public need or purpose.

This provision should be supported by DEP whether or not the proposed
dune legislation is adopted. DEP already has developed the appropriate
rationale (Kinsey and Wiener 1979:20):

This firm stance should be taken for three reasons: (a)
the inevitable reoccurrence of a destructive storm, (b) the

363

cost to the public for clean up and protective measures, andI
(c) the cost to the public of subsidizing development at
hazardous locations, without commensurate public benefits. A
standard of 50% destruction of fair market value is proposedI
as the threshold for prohibiting the rebuilding of structures.
The Rhode Island Coastal Management Program already has a
similar policy prohibiting the restoration of structures
reduced to 50% or less of market value by fire, flood or
other such catastrophe if the structure is locatedlin an
identified developed coastal flood hazard area.3

364~~~~~~

D. Surveillance and Enforcement

Surveillance and enforcement are critical elements in coastal zone
management, and are essential to insure protection of estuarine resources.
Unauthorized activities are detected by two principal mechanisms: (1) field
observation and air photo surveillance of such activities by State
enforcement personnel on their own initiative or following inquiries from
the concerned public, and (2) interagency permit review for necessary
approvals. DEP should be concerned with enhancing both types of
surveillance and enforcement. The record of achievement in enforcing the
three principal coastal regulatory programs should be maintained and
enhanced.

The New Jersey coastal zone is a large area, encompassing parts of 17
counties and all or part of 257 municipalities. It is unrealistic and
costly for State inspectors to cover the whole of the coastal zone at all
times. Moreover, surveillance should not be the exclusive burden of State
bureaucrats charged with this single function.

D-1. DEP should foster surveillance for coastal laws by local law
enforcement personnel; it should enhance the potential for a concerned
public to help bring about compliance by undertaking public education
campaigns; and it should inspect and inform interested persons on the
enforcement measures taken on alleged violations.

The Coastwatch Program organized by the American Littoral Society is a
step in the right direction, but the base of "coastwatchers" should be
broader than committed conservationists. Law enforcement officials should
be made aware of the kinds of activities that require permit approvals, and
of what State and Federal offices should be apprised of activities such as
filling or new construction in regulated environments, so that followup
inspections can be made by the appropriate agency personnel. The
publication of portable maps (e.g., 1:250,000 scale) showing wetlands and
other sensitive features subject to regulation should be a priority
undertaking. The environmental reasons why protective legislation should be
enforced should be the subject of frequent reminders to the public.
Educational materials concerning why coastal resources are important and are
regulated should be developed by DEP and distributed through the public
schools, institutions of higher learning, natural history and science
museums, and conservation groups.

Particular attention should be given to educating local zoning board
and environmental commission personnel in the nature and extent of
regulatory controls at higher governmental levels, and local agencies should
be encouraged to coordinate with other levels of government at the earliest
practicable stage in project review.

D-2. DEP-OCZM. should act as an intermediary between educators and
surveillance and enforcement units in DEP to continue to encourage internship
and work-study programs whereby students can assist in surveillance
activities.

365

I
There is a gowin omitment to environmental studies programs in the3
high school and college curricula. Students are eager to participate in
activities that give them first-hand exposure to coastal resources and ways
to protect those resources. By enlisting student aides and interns during
summer and even during the school year, DEP can enhance State surveillance
capabilities manifold for at least some categories of resources at the
minimum expenditure of funds. The Rutgers University (Cook College)-DEP
cooperative program now is in its fourth year and should continue to receive
DEP support.

Many of the recommendations in this report address ways to enhance
interagency coordination. Projects in the coastal zone that need one
approval are likely to need others, because resources are densely "packed"
in this region.
D-3. DEP should continue its efforts to secure interagency reviews of
coastal permits, and should enhance the review process by insuring feedback
to reviewers.

Particular attention should be focused on State-Federal coordination to
secure enhanced enforcement of Federal laws such as Section 10 of the River
and Harbor Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In the experience of
the consultant, priority attention should be given to enhanced Federal
enforcement in the Hackensack Meadowland District and the rest of the
I
northern waterfront section of the coastal zone.

D-5. DEP should insure that there are sufficient personnel for
surveillance that each inspector knows his geographical region of
I
responsibility intimately.

DEP should publicize the fact that its surveillance personnel will
inspect all land areas in the coastal zone on foot, by automobile, or by
boat at least twice annually on a routine basis. The availability of
airplanes, helicopters, and aerial photographs to assist in the ground
surveillance also should be made known. Public awareness that surveillance
is ongoing will encourage voluntary compliance with coastal regulatory
programs.

I
3663

E. Further Study Needs

Several data gaps have become apparent during the preparation of this
report. DEP can assist in filling these gaps for the coastal zone.

At the outset of the present investigation, it was anticipated that
inventory maps would be available during the course of the work. Coastal
resources have not yet been inventoried, however, at a uniform, regional
scale. A selection of existing data was presented by DEP-OCZMI in its 1975
Inventory of the New Jersey Coastal Area, and pilot comprehensive mapping
has been accomplished in Cape May County. The inventory should be completed
throughout the coastal zone.

It is not possible to protect unrecognized resources when reviewing
projects for their direct and their cumulative impacts on the coastal zone.
At present, DEP is administering a contract to map submerged estuarine
vegetation using NOAA funds. Other comparable activities could include
surveys to identify maritime heritage resources (matching funds are
available through the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service),
historic and archaeolgic resources, critical habitat for imperiled species,
scientific sites, and shoreland wetlands in the coastal zone. The National
Trust for Historic Preservation funds grant programs to assist in the
restoration and conservation of maritime and other resources that qualify
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Federal funds can
be secured for the public acquisition of islands pursuant to the Coastal
Zone Management Act, and DEP should seek out candidate islands in the
coastal zone. The extent of regulated coastal wetlands should be
determined, by type, by county, and by watershed, to make possible the
estimation of significance when coastal wetlands are proposed for
alteration, and the same data should be prepared if -shoreland wetlands are
delineated. Fish spawning, grounds and other critical wildlife habitats;
communities with specially distinctive ethnic or architectural attributes;
wild, scenic, and recreational rivers; areas that potentially may qualify as
National Natural Landmarks; and natural areas that qualify for designation
under NJSA 13:IB-15.12a et.seq.; all should be inventoried. Several areas
within State lands now are included in the New Jersey National Areas System,
but no private lands have been designated in the coastal zone or elsewhere
in the state.

E-3. DEP should foster and encourage the development of a formal,
coordinated natural resources inventory and research effort in the New
Jersey coastal zone.

367

Such an effort could be set up as a new and distinct bureau or divisionI
within the DEP, or DEP could coordinate such an Effort by designating a
major university as the program manager. Consistent, up-to-date, and
well-managed data on the present location, abundance, condition, andI
function of natural resources are needed in New Jersey. To fill this need a
study group could be created whose express purpose would be to study in a
coordinated fashion the natural resources of the State. Such a group might
be designated the New Jersey Natural History Survey. Such a group might be
structured according to disciplines (i.e., terrestrial ecology, marine
ecology, etc.) or according to specific study goals (i.e., "survey and
evaluate m~igratory pathways and prime spawning areas"~). The basic approachI
would be to study the natural resources of 'New Jersey by hiring competent
scientists and specifically directing them to devote their full-time
energ~ies to meeting designated resource inventory goals. As the locationI
and abundance of a specific natural resources becomes better known,a
coordinated effort to establish quantitative thresholds for the
environmental parameters of concern listed in Tables 9 through 26 could be
undertaken. The fragmented natural resource data of varying quality whichI
are available today are testimony to the inadequacies of the present system.
New Jersey should boldly undertake to initiate a new coordinated system
which will produce high quality data on which to base future coastalI
resource decisions.

The functions of the proposed Natural History Survey could include:3

* Coordination and conduct of original research on the
functioning of ocean, estuarine, and fresh water
ecosystems of the State and on ways to mitigate adverseI
impacts from future development.

a Development and maintenance of a continuing inventory of3
coastal resources.

a Development of public education concerning techniques to
accomplish development in the coastal zone that isI
compatible with the resources -of the region.

a Technical assistance to regulatory agencies that must makeI
planning and permit decisions in the coastal zone.

a Liaison with scientific counterpart personnel in3
surrounding states.

E-4. DEP should assist the Hackensack M4eadowlands Development
Commission to designate valuable public and private wetlands in the DistrictI
as part of the State Natural Areas System.

368

I ~~~~A number of areas are slated for preservation by the HMDC Master Plan.
Some or all of these areas should be designated as parts of the State
Natural Areas System to give recognition to their biological importance.
Any proposals to alter such areas consequently would be more likely to
receive detailed scrutiny by regulatory reviewers.

3 ~~~E-5. DEP should assist the Division of Fish, Game and Shell Fisheries
to identify public and private wetlands elsewhere in the coastal zone that
merit listing as parts of the State Natural Areas System and should expedite
3 ~~their designation.

For example, the outstanding freshwater tidal marsh at Fish House Cove
on the Delaware River (Pennsauken, Camden County) currently is not protected
I ~ ~~y the Wetlands Act from proposed filling because of a combination of
unpromulgated maps and incomplete mapping. During 1979 the Camden County
Environmental Agency succeeded in bringing the area to the attention of the
I ~ ~US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of Engineers, and it may be
accorded protection under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. How may more
such cases are extant in the coastal zone is a matter of conjecture.

I ~~~~E-6. DEP should identify and publicize known and potential polluted
areas and sources of pollution that affect the coastal zone in order to
3 ~~focus public and regulatory attention on such problems.

Polluted estuaries and the watersheds which contribute polluting
substances to them should be mapped and included in DEP environmental impact
I ~ ~statements. Streams should be classified into categories such as those that
(1) always meet or exceed established standards, (2) generally meet
standards, and (3) always fail to meet standards, on the basis of existing
information from the plans developed by or for the DEP Division of Water
I ~ ~Resources under Sections 208 and 305 of the Clean Water Act. Landfills
should be shown on a map, with differentation of categories by potential for
adverse impact. Facilities subject to oil spills and facilities where
exposiestoxic substances, or hazardous wastes are stored also should be
mapped. Known areas with polluted sediments should be flagged. Particular
attention should be given to those sites where accidents or floods could
release toxic or deleterious substances to the waterways. Sites with a past
history of clandestine dumping also should be noted and their
characteristics described, so that surveillance in future can be
* ~~intensified.

E-7. The boundary of the coastal zone should be expanded to include
those watersheds from which runoff is found to cause direct and significant
adverse impacts on the estuarine environment.
In the developed sections of the coastal zone, water pollution control
is a major and continuing responsibility of the DEP Division of Water

Resources and other agencies. DEP should assist in these efforts by

369

including watersheds known to have significant contributions of pollutants
from urban/industrial or other activities within the coastal zone
boundaries. Candidate areas are to be found along the northern waterfront,
where old, mixed residential/industrial land uses still send urban
stormwater, sanitary effluent, and industrial discharges directly into the
waterways (for example, the Cromakill Creek basin in Hudson County).
Similar water quality problems are extant along the developed Delaware River
waterfront. The watersheds that should be included, at a minimum, are those
urbanized lands that drain to tidal waterways directly, and are not
otherwise included in the coastal zone.

370

AC1NOWLEDGNENTS AND AUTHORSHIP

The consultant thanks Assistant Commissioner Donald Graham and the many
members of his staff in the Division of Coastal Resources, other agency per-
sonnel in the Department of Environmental Protection, and the staff of other
State, interstate, and Federal agencies for assistance and numerous courtesies
during the preparation of this report. Particularly helpful comments
were provided on an earlier version of this report by T. Hampton, R. Kantor,
D. Kinsey, S. McKenzie, and S. Weiner. Remaining errors of fact or interpre-
tation are those of the consultant. Mr. Richard Kantor was project manager
for the Bureau of Coastal Planning and Development, and Mr. Raymond Bogardus
was project manager for WAPORA.

The impact analysis section of this report was written by Raymond
Bogardus, Joe Andrea, Michael Black, and the late Dr. Jack McCormick.
Technical assistance for this section was provided by C. Rhodehamel,
J. Urban, A. Hirsch, J. Munro, M. Black, and R. Cutler. Matrices were
prepared by J. Andrea with the assistance of R. Bogardus, M. Black,
J. Urban, and C. Rhodehamel, with helpful guidance and review by
S. McKenzie, R. Kantor, and J. Perykasz of the Bureau of Coastal Planning
and Development, NJDEP.

The management section of this report was written and edited by
Dr. James A. Schmid with the assistance, for legal matters, of Ms. Mary
Ann Thompson. Insightful comments were provided on an earlier draft of
this section by the late Dr. Jack McCormick. Technical assistance was
provided by J. Munro, C. Rhodehamel, M. Hannemann, V. Jurka, and J. Andrea.

The photographs in Volumes Two and Three were taken by J. Munro.

Graphics for this report were produced by J. Gold, S. Kullen, and
J. Wrend under the supervision of W. Bale. Typing was by P. Awner, S. Baldwin,
E. Ennis and N. Daoud.

371

XIV. LITERATURE CITED

Anon. 1972. Coastal zone workshop on critical problems of the coastal zone.
(Fide Cronin 1977).

Army Corps of Engineers. 1977. Water resources development in New Jersey.
North Atlantic Division, New York City, 68 p.

Army Corps of Engineers. 1978. Kenai River review final report. Prepared
by WAPORA, Inc. Anchorage District, Anchorage AK, 334 p.

Bassett, Carolyn. 1974. Parallel problems in southern New Jersey. In
Joseph LeMay and Eugene Harrison (Editors), Environmental land use
problems, a study of northern New Jersey. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York
NY, p. 65-67.

Battelle (Battelle Memorial Institute). 1966. Development potential of US
continental shelves. Prepared for the US Department of Commerce, En-
vironmental (ESSA) (Fide Cronin 1977).

Bosselman, Fred, D. Callies, and J. Banta. 1973. The taking issue: a
study of the constitutional limits of governmental authority to
regulate the use of privately owned land without paying compensation
to the owners. Council on Environmental Quality, Washington DC.

Boysen-Jensen, P. 1914. Studies concerning the organic matter of the sea
bottom. Rep. Danish Biol. Sta. 22: 1-39.

Cape May County Planning Board. 1975. Cape May County comprehensive plan.

Carlson, Cathy. 1979. Marine sanctuaries symposium summary, Stockton
State College, 11 January 1979. Prepared for US Representative James
J. Howard. Washington DC, typescript [35 p].

Carriker, M. R. 1967. Ecology of estuarine benthic invertebrates: a per-
spective. In G. H. Lauff (Editor). Estuaries. American
Association for the Advancement of Science, Publication No. 83, p. 442-487.

CCES (Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies). 1978a. Analysis and
delineation of submerged vegetation of coastal New Jersey: a case study
of Little Egg Harbor. Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ, 58 p.

372

CCES. 1978b. Draft assessment of long range erosion control alternatives:
Sandy Hook unit of the Gateway National Recreation Area. Submitted to:
Contracting Officer, North Atlantic Region, National Park Service.
Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ, variously paged.

CEQ. 1973. The law and land use regulation. p. 121-153 in Environmental
quality, the fourth annual report of the Commission on Environmental
Quality. Washington DC.

Cheng, Su-Ling, S. J. Koepp, and M. McCormick. 1978. Preliminary observa-
tions of heavy metal pollution in Newark Bay. (Title only) New Jersey
Academy of Science Bulletin 23: 87.

Chestnut, A. F. 1966. Estuarine ecology in North Carolina. In North
Carolina University Water Resources Research Institute Symposium on
Estuarine Ecology: Coastal waters of North Carolina. Raleigh NC, p. 99-103.

Clark, John, 1974. Coastal ecosystems: ecological considerations for
management of the coastal zone. The Conservation Foundation, Washington
DC, 178 p.

Clark, John. 1977. Coastal ecosystem management: a technical manual for the
conservation of coastal zone resources. The Conservation Foundation,
John Wiley and Sons, New York NY, 928 p.

Conservation and Environmental Studies Center, Inc., and Burlington County
Planning Board Staff. 1978. Burlington County outer continental
shelf and energy facility planning program, final report. Burlington
County Board of Chosen Freeholders and Planning Board, 58 p.

Cooper, A. W. 1974. Salt marshes. In H. T. Odum, B. J. Copeland, and
E. A. McMahon (Editors). Coastal-ecological systems of the United
States. The Conservation Foundation, Washington DC, Volume 2, p. 55-98.

Copeland, B. J. 1965. Fauna of the Aransas Pass Inlet, Texas: I - Emigration
as shown by tide trap collections. University of Texas Inst. Mar.
Sci. Publication 10: 9-21.

Corps of Engineers. 1977. Regulatory programs of the Corps of Engineers.
Federal Register 42(138): 37121-27164.

Cosrel. 1968. Coordinating governmental coastal activities. (Fide Teeters
1968).

Cronin, L. Eugene. 1977. Interactions of pollutants with the uses of
estuaries. In USEPA, Estuarine pollution control and assessment,
proceedings of a conference. Office of Water Planning and Standards,
Washington DC, EPA 440/1-77-007 (NTIS PB-265 467), p. 739-756.

373

Cumberland County Planning Board. 1978. Cumberland County onshore develop-
ment alternatives, an impact analysis of offshore oil and gas drilling.
Bridgeton NJ, 134 p.
I
Daiber, F. C. 1974. Tidal marshes of Delaware. In H. T. Odum, B. J. Copeland,
and E. A. McMahon (Editors). Coastal ecosystems of the United States,
Conservation Foundation, Washington DC, Volume 2, p. 99-149.

Darnell, Reznat M. 1961. Trophic spectrum of an estuarine community based
on studies of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Ecology 42: 553-568.

Day, J. J. 1967. The biology of Knysna Estuary, South Africa. In
G. H. Lauff (Editor) Estuaries. AAAS Publication No. 83, p. 397-407.

Deardoff, Howard. 1977. The public benefits of cleaned water: emerging
greenway opportunities. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington
DC, 32 p.

Division of Water Resources. 1978. Summary report, water quality conditions
in New Jersey, 1976-1977 water year. Department of Environmental
I
Protection, Trenton NJ, 20 p.

DRW. 1977. New Jersey water resources program for fiscal year 1979-78. 3
Division of Water Resources, Department of Environmental Protection.
Trenton NJ, variously paged (166 p.). 1

Earth Satellite Corporation and Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys, Inc. 1972. New
Jersey wetlands mapping pilot project final report. Prepared for the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton NJ. Washington
DC, variously paged, 72 p.

Ellis, Robert N. 1973. Analysis of critical management issues related to
Chesapeake Bay. The Center for Environment and Man, Inc., Hartford
CN. (Fide Cronin 1977).

Fairbrothers, David E., and Mary Y. Hough. 1973. Rare or endangered vascu -
lar plants of New Jersey. New Jersey State Museum Science Note 14.

Federal Emergency Management Administration. 1979. National flood
insurance program community status book, New Jersey, 31 March.
Washington DC, 17 p.

Ferrigno, Fred, and others. 1969. Ecological approach for improved manage-
ment of coastal meadowlands. Proceedings of the 56th annual meeting
of the New Jersey Mosquito Extermination Association, Atlantic City NJ,
March 19, 20, 21, p. 188-203.

~374~I
374
U

Gove , Greg. 1977. Easements for recreation and conservation. PA Department
of Community Affairs, Bureau of Recreation and Conservation, Leisure
Technical Assistance Publication 6, 34 p.

Gloucester County Planning Department. 1978. Gloucester County outer
continental shelf and energy facilities planning study, 87 p.

Goldshore, Lewis. 1979. The New Jersey riparian rights handbook. State of
New Jersey, County and Municipal Government Study Commission, Trenton
NJ, 107 p.

Governor's Pinelands Review Committee. 1978. Planning and management of
the New Jersey Pinelands. A draft report. Division of State and
Regional Planning, Trenton NJ, 148 p.

Grave, C. 1901. The oyster reefs of North Carolina. John Hopkins Circular
No. 151, 9 p.

Gray, I. E. 1974. Worm and clam flats. In H. T. Odum, B. J. Copeland, and
E. A. McMahon (Editors). Coastal ecological systems of the United
States. The Conservation Foundation, Washington DC, Volume 2, p. 204-243.

Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission. 1972. Master Plan Zoning
Ordinance, Lyndhurst NJ. (Reprinted with revisions to 24 July 1978
as New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 19, Subtitle C, Chapter 4.
New Jersey Division of Administrative Procedure, Department of State,
Trenton NJ.)

HMDC. 1979. Draft solid waste management plan for Group I Districts,
Revised 15 March. Secaucus NJ, 80p.

Harry, G. Y., Jr. 1963. The shrimp fishery of Alaska. Gulf Carib. Fish.
Inst. Proc. 16: 64-71.

Haughey, Gerald E., and L. Goldshore. [1977?]. The legal environment of
water quality planning, draft working paper 7.01-6. Prepared by Dela-
ware Valley 208 Joint Venture, New York City, for Delaware Valley
Regional Planning Commission, Philadelphia PA, 144 p.

Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. 1978. Technical Assistance
Workbook. US Department of the Interior, Washington DC, 96 p.

Hudson County Office of Planning. 1977. Hudson County offshore oil and
coastal energy facilities study. Jersey City NJ, 115 p.

Ipon. 1968. Identification of problems and opportunities and needs, exist-
ting and potential. (Fide Teeters 1968).

375

JMA. 1973a. Environmental impact statement on the construction and
operation of a dredged spoil disposal area in Logan Township,
Gloucester County, New Jersey. Prepared for American Dredging
Company, Philadelphia PA. Devon PA, 114 p.

JMA. !973b. Environmental impact statement on the construction and
operation of Ocean Harbor, a residential and commercial development
in the City of Brigantine, Atlantic County, New Jersey. Prepared
for Louis Sachar, Brigantine Harbor, Inc., New York City. Devon PA,
206 p.

Jack McCormick & Associates, Inc. 1976. Summary report on analyses for
mercury in sediments and waters of the Hackensack Meadowlands District.
Prepared for the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority, East
Rutherford, New Jersey. Berwyn PA, 44 p.

Jack McCormick & Associates, Inc. 1977. Investigations of aquatic and ter-
restrial mercury contamination in the vicinity of the former location
of the Wood-Ridge Chemical Corporation processing plant, Boroughs of
Wood-Ridge and Carlstadt, Bergen County, New Jersey. Prepared for the

I
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.' Berwyn PA, 97 p.
Jack McCormick & Associates, Inc. 1978a. Full environmental impact state-
ment for the proposed Meadowlands Arena at the New Jersey Sports
Complex, Borough of East Rutherford, County of Bergen. Prepared for
the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority, East Rutherford, New
Jersey. Berwyn PA, 277 p.

Jack McCormick & Associates, Inc. 1978b. Environmental impact statement on
a multipurpose development proposed on a tract of land in North Bergen
and Secaucus, Hackensack Meadowlands District, Hudson County, New
Jersey. Prepared for Hartz Mountain Industries, Inc. Berwyn PA,
variously paged, 292 p. + 9 plates + appendix, 909 p.
JMA. 1979. An assessment of selected environmental resources at Fish House
Cove on the Delaware River, Camden County, New Jersey. Prepared for the
Camden County Environmental Agency. Berwyn PA.

Jagschitz, John A., and Robert C. Wakefield. 1971. How to build and save
beaches and dunes: preserving the shoreline with fencing and beachgrass.
University of Rhode Island, College of Resource Development, Marine
Leaflet Series 4, Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 408, Kingston
RI, 12 p.

Johnson, Arthur, J. Tourbier, J. D. Keenan, J. C. Keene, C. W. Lewis, and
R. Pilling. 1978. Guidelines for land application of wastes in the
State of Idaho, a technical report. Center for Ecological Research
in Planning and Design, Department of Landscape Architecture, University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA, 208 p.

376

Kane, Richard, and R. B. Farrar. 1976. Coastal colonial bird survey of New
Jersey. New Jersey Audubon II (11; Occassional paper 125: 8-14.).

Ketchum, Bostwick H. 1969. Eutrophication in estuaries. In Eutrophication:
causes, consequences, and correctives. 1971. National Academy of
Sciences, Washington DC, p. 197-209. (Fide Cronin 1977).

Ketchum, Bostwick H. (Editor). 1972. The water's edge: Critical problems
of the coastal zone. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 393 p.

Kinsey, David N. and S. Wiener. 1979. Dune, beach and shorefront protec-
tion legislation, and options and background paper. DEP-OCZM, Trenton
NJ. 43 p.

Krotee and Krotee. 1966. Shipwrecks off the New Jersey Coast. Krotee,
Philadelphia PA, 114 p.

Laird, M. 1961. Microecological factors in oyster epizootics. Can. J.
Zool. 39: 449-485.

Lennon, Gerald A. 1978. OCS and energy facility planning project, Camden
County Board of Chosen Freeholders and Environmental Agency, Camden NJ,
71 p.

Lewis, J. Volney, and Henry B. Kummel. 1940. The geology of New Jersey.
New Jersey Department of Conservation and Development, Division of
Geology and Topography Bulletin 50 (Geologic Series), 203 p.

Lill, Gordon. 1970. (List of coastal activities). California Advisory
Committee on Marine Resources. (Fide Cronin 1977).

Massman, W. H. 1971. The significance of an estuary on the biology of
aquatic organisms of the Middle Atlantic Region. In A symposium on
the biological significance of estuaries, February 1970, Houston, Texas.
Sport Fishing Institute, Washington DC.

Mattson, Chester P. 1978. An ecological and resource management plan for
the Hackensack Meadowlands. Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission,
Secaucus, NJ, 75 p.

McCormick, Jack. 1970. The pine barrens: a preliminary ecological inventory.
New Jersey State Museum, Trenton NJ. Report 2, 103 p.

McCormick, Jack. 1978. Vegetation of the pine barrens. Frontiers 42(2):
22-28.

377

McCormick, Jack, and Leslie Jones. 1973. The Pine Barrens: vegetation geo-
graphy New Jersey State Museum, Research Report Number 3. Trenton NJ,
78 p.

McCormick, Jack, and Horace A. Somes, Jr. 1979. The coastal wetlands of
Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Zone
Management Program, Annapolis MD, 319 p.

McHugh, J. L. 1966. Management of estuarine fisheries. In A symposium
on estuarine fisheries. American Fisheries Society, Washington DC,
Special Publication 3: 133-154.

McHugh, J. L. 1967. Estuarine nekton. In George H. Lauff (Editor). Estuaries.
American Association for the Advancement ot Science, Washington DC,
Publication 83, p. 581-620.

McHugh, J. L., R. T. Oglesby and A. L. Pacheco. 1959. Length, weight, and
age composition of the menhaden catch in Virginia waters; Limnol. Oceanogr.
4(2): 145-162.

McMaster, Robert L. 1954. Petrography and genesis of the New Jersey beach
sands. New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development,
Division of Planning and Development, Bureau of Geology and Topography
Bulletin 63 (Geologic Series), 239 p.

McRoy, C. P. 1966. The standing stock and ecology of eelgrass, Zostera
marina, Izembek Lagoon, Alaska. M.S. Thesis, University of Washington,
Seattle, 138 p.

Merriman, D. 1937. Notes on the life history of the striped bass (Roccus
lineatus). Copeia (1937): 15-30

Middlesex County Planning Board. 1978. Policies for handling impacts of
offshore oil and energy facilities in Middlesex County. Final report.
Environmental Systems Section, New Brunswick NJ, variously paged,
162 p.

MITRE Corporation. 1979. Disposal of dredged spoil material within the
New York District: present practices and candidate alternatives.
Prepared for the New York District, Army Corps of Engineers. McLean
VA, 2 volumes.

NJDEP/NOAA. 1978. New Jersey coastal zone management program, Bay and
Ocean Shore Segment, and final environmental impact statement.
Trenton NJ and Washington DC, 466 p.

378

NJDEP. 1973. Wetland ecology, marsh destruction, August 1, 1968 to May 30,
1973. Division of Fish, Game and Shellfish, Bureau of Wildlife
Management, Job progress report, Project W-53-R-1, Job I-G, 20 p.

NJDEP. 1975. An inventory of the New Jersey coastal area. A report to the
Governor and Legislature. Coastal Zone Management Program, variously
paged.

NJDEP. 1977a. The collection of existing information and field investigations
of anadromous clupeid spawning in New Jersey. By Division of Fish,
Game and Shellfisheries, Bureau of Fisheries, Lebanon NJ, Misc. Report
41, unpaged.

NJDEP. 1977b. Estuarine and wetland resources, a staff working paper.
(Prepared by Richard A. Kantor). Division of Marine Services, Office
of Coastal Zone Management, Trenton NJ, 125 p.

NJDEP. 1977c. New Jersey water resources program for fiscal year 1977-1978.
Divison of Water Resources, Trenton NJ, variously paged, 166 p.

NJDEP. 1977d. Nominated areas of public concern in the New Jersey coastal
zone, a staff report. Division of Marine Services, Office of Coastal
Zone Management, 124 p.

NJDEP. 1977e. Ocean resources: Living, a staff working paper. (Prepared
by Richard A. Kantor). Division of Marine Services, Office of Coastal
Zone Management, Trenton NJ, 31 p.

NJDEP. 1977f. Surface and coastal water resources of New Jersey, a staff
working paper. (Prepared by Robert A. Kull). Division of Marine Services,
Office of Coastal Zone Management, Trenton NJ, 216 p.

NJDEP. 1978a. A method for coastal resource management. A pilot study of
lower Cape May County. Division of Marine Services, Office of Coastal
Zone Management, Trenton NJ, 178 p.

NJDEP. 1978b. Ocean dumping of sludge -- program through phase-out in
1981, Commissioner's conclusions and recommendations [and] staff report.
Trenton NJ, variously paged, 49 p.

NJDEP. 1978c. Stormwater runoff policy for coastal developments. Draft.
Division of Marine Services, Office of Coastal Zone Management, unpaged
manuscript.

NJDEP. 1979. Options for New Jersey's developed coast: A preview of a
state coastal management program for parts of Salem, Gloucester,
Camden, Burlington, Mercer, Middlesex, Somerset, Union, Hudson, Essex,
Passaic and Bergen Counties. Division of Marine Services, Office of
Coastal Zone Management, Trenton NJ, 70 p. and appendices (3 volumes).

379

NJDOCED (New Jersey Department of Commerce and Economic Development). 1969.
A study of submerged dredge holes in New Jersey estuaries with respect
to their fitness as finfish habitat. Division of Fish and Game, Miscel-
laneous Report 2M.
NJ Governor's Pineland Review Committee. 1978. Planning and management
of the New Jersey Pinelands, draft report. Division of State and
Regional Planning, Trenton NJ.

Nichols, P. R., and R. V. Miller. 1967. Seasonal movements of striped bass,
Roccus saxatilis, tagged and released in the Potomac River, Maryland,
1959-61. Chesapeake Science 8(2): 102-124.

Nieswand, G. H., C. W. Stillman, and A. J. Esser. 1972. Inventory of
estuarine site development lagoon systems: New Jersey shore. Rutgers
University, Water Resources Research Institute, 36 p.

Ocean County Planning Board. 1978. Ocean County outer continental shelf
and energy facilities planning study, 108 p.

O'Connor, Joel S., and H. M. Stanford (eds.). 1979. Chemical pollutants
of the New York Bight: priorities for research. US Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental
Research Laboratories, Boulder CO, 217 p.

Odum, H. T., and B. J. Copeland. 1972. Functional classification of
coastal ecological systems of the United States. In B. W. Nelson
(Editor). 1972. Environmental framework of coastal plain estuaries.
Geological Society of America, Memoir 133, p. 9-28.

'Odum, H. T., B. J. Copeland, and E. A. McMakari. 1974. Coastal ecological
systems of the United States. The Conservation Foundation, Washington
DC, Volume 4.

Odum, Eugene P., and Armando A. de la Cruz. 1967. Particulate organic
detritus in a Georgia salt marsh-estuarine ecosystem. In George H.
Lauff (Editor). Estuaries: nutrients and biological production. AAAS,
Washington DC, Publication 83.

Oke, T. R. 1972. Evapotranspiration in urban areas and its implications
for urban climate planning. In Teaching the teachers on building
climatology. Swedish National Institute for Building Research,
Stockholm, Sweden. Volume III, p. 47.1-57.9.

Phillips, R. C. 1974. Temperate grass flats. In H. T. Odum, B. J. Copeland,
and E. A. McMahon (Editors). Coastal ecological systems of the United
States. The Conservation Foundation, Washington DC. Volume 2, p. 244-314.

Pham, C. H., H. G. Halverson, and G. M. Heisler. 1978. Precipitation and
runoff water quality fron an urban parking lot and implications for
tree growth. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Broomall PA,
Forest Service Research Note NE-253, 6 p.

380

Porcella, Santiago. 1977. List of New Jersey's biggest trees. New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Forestry, 8 p.

Power, Edward A., and William L. Peck. 1971. The national picture. In
Sidney Shapiro (Editor), Our changing fisheries. US Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Washington DC, p. 1-18.

Rathkopf, Arden H. 1975. The law of zoning and planning, fourth edition.
Clark Boardman Co., Ltd., New York NY. variously paged.
Reisch, Mark E. 1978. The status of resource recovery, a report of site visits.
Prepared for the House of Representatives Committee on Science and
Technology. Congressional'Research Service, Library of Congress,
Washington DC, 31p.
Riedl, R., and E. A. McMahon. 1974. High energy beaches. In H: T. Odum,
B. J. Copeland, and E. A. McMahon (Editors). Coastal ecological
systems of the United States. The Conservation Foundation, Washington DC.
Volume 2, p. 180-251.
Robichaud, Beryl, and Murray F. Buell. 1973. Vegetation of New Jersey.
Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick NJ, 340 p.

Schmid, James A. 1975. Urban vegetation. A review and Chicago case study.
The University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Research Paper
No. 161, 266 p.
Sheehan, Patricia Q. 1979. Solid waste planning for the Meadowlands. New
Jersey Municipalities. (April): 24-25.

Simonds, John O. 1978. Earthscape, a manual of environmental planning.
McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York, NY, 340 p.

Stover, Emily Jane. (Editor). 1976. Conservation tactics. (A reprint
from Protecting Nature's Estate. Techniques for saving land.) US
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 29 p.

Swanson, R. L. 1977. Status of ocean dumping research in New York Bight.
Journal of the Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Division, American
Society of Civil Engineers 103 (WW1) Proc. Paper 12722: 9-24.

USDOC. 1974. Anglers' guide to the United States Atlantic Coast: Section
III: Block Island to Cape May, New Jersey; Section IV: Delaware Bay to
False Cape, Virginia. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service.

USDOC and Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Planning. 1978. State
of Hawaii coastal zone management program and draft environmental
impact statement. Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Washington DC, 401 p.

USDOI. 1963. Distribution of shellfish resources in relation to the New
Jersey intracoastal waterway. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 5 plates.

381

USDOI. 1965. Supplementary report on the coastal wetlands inventory of
New Jersey. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife, Region V, Boston MA, 13 p.

USDOI. 1969. Water pollution aspects of urban runoff. American Public
Works Association.

USDOI. 1970. The National Estuarine Pollution Study Report of the Secretary
of the Interior to the United States Congress. US Government Printing
Office, Washington DC, 633 p.

USEPA. 1975. Development document for effluent limitations guidelines
and new source performance standards for the hot forming and cold
finishing segment of the iron and steel manufacturing point source
category. Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, Effluent Guidelines
Division, Washington DC, EPA-440/1-75/048, Group I, Phase II, 559 p.

USEPA. 1976. Impacts of construction activities in wetlands of the
TUnited States. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research I
and Development, Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis
OR, Ecological Research Series EPA 600 3 76 045, 392 p.

USEPA. 1978. Innovative and alternative technology assessment manual,
draft. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati OH, variously paged (394 p.). 3

US-EPA. 1979a. Ocean dumping permit program, public announcement of
complete application and scheduling of public hearing. Region II
Public Notice 79-273, New York City, 6p.

US-EPA. 1979b. Environmental assistance: a guide for your community. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, Dallas TX, 59p.

USEPA, US Army Corps of Engineers, and US Department of Agriculture. 1977. I
Process design manual for land treatment of municipal wastewater.
USEPA Technology Transfer Series, EPA 625/1-77-008, Washington DC,
variously paged (593 p.).

Whigham D. F., Jack McCormick, Ralph E. Good, and Robert L. Simpson, Jr.
1978. Biomass and primary production in freshwater wetlands of the
middle Atlantic coast. In R. E. Good, D. F. Whigham, and R. L. Simpson
(Editors). Freshwater wetlands production, processes and management
potential. Academic Press, New York NY.

Whigham, D. F., and R. L. Simpson. 1976. Sewage spray irrigation in a
Delaware River freshwater tidal marsh. In Proceedings of the national
symposium on freshwater wetlands and sewage effluent disposal,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, May 1976. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI,
p. 119-144.

Wood, R. D., and P. E. Hargraves. 1969. Comparative benthic plant ecology
by SCUBA-monitored quadrats. Hydrobiologia 33: 561-586.

382

Woodhouse, Jr., W. W., and R. E. Ranes. 1966. Dune stabilization with
vegetation on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. North Carolina State
University, Department of Soil Science, Raleigh NC. Soils Information
Series 8, 50 p.

Yasso, Warren E., and Elliott M. Hartman, Jr. 1975. Beach forms and
coastal processes. MESA NY Bight Atlas Monograph 11, 51 p.

383

Appendix 1. Example of a resource-based permitting strategy
developed for the Army Corps of Engineers.

The following pages are excerpted from a report on the
Kenai River Basin, a region of about 3,000 square miles in
southcentral coastal Alaska. The report was prepared by the
consultant and published by the Anchorage District of the
Army Corps of Engineers (ACE 1978). The Kenai Basin is re-
nowned for its salmon fishery and other wildlife.

The summary tables of "permit activities classifications"
prepared for the Kenai Basin resemble the "acceptability
tables" prepared by DEP-OCZM for the New Jersey coastal zone
(for example, NJDEP 1979: Appendix H, p. 193, 240-242). In
case of the Kenai Basin, however, the tables were prepared
following completion of a comprehensive inventory and a pre-
cise review of the extent of Corps regulatory jurisdictions.
They were made specific to five geographical subregions (each
about 40 square miles of the Basin, except for the National
Moose Rauge where few permit applications are expected).
Except for parts of Cape May County, no comprehensive invent-
ory has yet been undertaken by DEP-BCPD for the New Jersey
coastal zone , and no similarly detailed permit activities
classification has been attempted.

AREA CLASSIFICATION AND ACTIVITY RATING SYSTEM

Several factors affect the administration of Corps of Engineers
(COE) permit authority. To effectively convey the results of this Review,
the following area classification and activity rating systems were developed.

Area Classification System

The Study Area has been divided into two units: The primary area
comprises lands and waters directly under the jurisdiction of the Corps.
Secondary areas are lands and waters outside the jurisdiction of the
Corps. Because activities in secondary areas may affect areas under
Corps jurisdiction, and, conversely, the Corps' permit authority may
affect secondary areas, secondary areas are included in this Review.

Areas of Jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers

Within the Review Corridor, shown in Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9 on pages
27, 31, 35, and 39, respectively, numerous requests for permits are antici-
pated although few permit applications are expected from the rest of the
Review Area. The greatest part of the Corps responsibility to administer
the permit program is based on Section 10 of the River and harbor Act of
1899 and Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as
amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 which may be found in the
Regulatory Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of 19
July 1977 (43 FR 138; Chapter II, 33 CFR, Part 320-329). A copy of these
regulations may be found in Appendix B and is the document cited in the
following discussions concerning areas of jurisdiction within the Review
Area.
Section 10 prohibits the construction of any structure or performance
of any work in or over any navigable water of the United States that
could obstruct or alter such waters in any way unless the structure or
work has been authorized by the District Engineer (33 CFR 320.2(b)0.

Section 404 prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material
into most waters of the United States unless authorized by the District
Engineer (33 CFR 320.2 (g)).

The Corps' jurisdictional boundaries for Section 10 purposes extend
shoreward to the mean higher high water line in tidally influenced waters
and to the ordinary high water line in non-tidal waters. For Section
404 purposes, the Corps' jurisdiction extends to the high tide line in
tidally influenced waters and to the ordinary high water line in non-
tidal waters. Section 404 jurisdiction is also extended to all wetlands
affecting these waters (33 CFR 322.2 and 33 CFR 323.2).

All waters of the Kenai River, including Skilak Lake and up to and
including Kenai Lake have been determined "navigable"
on the basis that they are now used, or have been used in the past, or
may be susceptible to use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
The Corps jurisdiction in tidal and non-tidal portions of these waters
is under both Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 and Section
404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended by the Clean
Water Act of 1977.

.A1 wetlands adjacent Co the entire Kenai River, including Kenai Lake,
Skilak Lake, and tributaries, are regulated under Section 404 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977. Should
any of the wetlands be located below the mean higher water mark in tidally
influenced water or below the ordinary high water mark in non-tidal water, they
will also be regulated under Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899.

All other waters of the United States in the Kenai River watershed inclu-
ding isolated wetlands, isolated lakes, and intermittent streams, and potholes,
the degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate commerce are
regulated under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended
by the Clean Water Act of 1977 which applies to the discharge of dredged or fill
material (33 CFr 323.2 (a)(5)).

Other critical environmental areas of special concern in evaluations of I
applications for permits include:

Properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register
of Historic Places (33 CFR 320.3 (j)).

Critical areas for species designated by the Secretary of the Interior I
as endangered or threatened (33 CFR 320.3 (j)).

Properties acquired or developed with assistance from the Land and 'Water
Conservation Fund (33 CFR 320.3 (m)).

Flood plains of the Kenai River and its system or tributaries (33 CFR
320.4 (1)).

Important habitats for fish and wildlife, including such features as
nesting areas of migratory birds (33 CFR 320.3 (c)).

The subarea maps of the Review Corridor are color coded to reflect the
areas of Corps jurisdiction. Wetlands are green,water bodies and tributaries
are blue. Although the Corps jurisdiction does not include the entire flood plain
when no wetlands are adjacent, it is indicated on the maps to enable the ap-
plicant to wisely plan for activities.

ACTIVITY EVALUATION

The evaluation method for proposed activities within the Subareas is designed
to provide interested parties with a system that is easily understood. Activities
requiring Department of Army permits are reviewed as they relate to a subarea,
based on information found in the Profiles. Each activity is evaluated within
its subarea and designated as an activity that will be conditioned (C), ordinarily
denied (OD), or not applicable (N/A). Activities in wetlands will have an addi-
tional activity evaluation unit (W) for evaluating permit requests for specific
types. This unit alerts interested parties to the fact that permits are required
for the discharge of dredged or fill material in wetlands.

These activity evaluations are offered as guides for the permit applicant, com-
menting agencies and individuals, As guides, I
the evaluations do not carry the force of law nor are they prejudgements of the

ultimate action to be taken on a specific permit application. Every Oermit
appolication received bv the Alaska District will continue to be processed and
subsequent determinations made on a case-by-case basis.

The decision to condition or deny a specific permit is made by the Alaska Dis-
trict Engineer following a public interest review. The importance of the
public interest review cannot be overemphasized. If through the public interest
review it is determined that the granting of a specific permit with conditions
will be in the public interest, the permit will be issued with said conditions.
(No permits, unless under emergency situations, are granted without a public
interest review.) Likewise, if during the public interest review it is deter-
mined that the granting of a specific permit is not in the public interest,
the permit will be denied.

In making the decision to issue or deny a specific permit the Alaska District
Engineer must follow general policies which govern permits. Discussions of
the general policies, areas where permits are conditioned, areas where permits
are ordinarily denied, and wetlands permitting policies follow.

General Policies Governing Permits

All applications for Department of Army permits for actions affecting the
Renai River, its tributaries, and wetlands undergo a public interest review
following the publication of their respective public notices. These policies
are derived from 33 CFR 320-329, other Federal regulations, and the profile
information and findings of this review.

A permit will be granted only if its issuance is found to be in the public
interest. Questions which must be answered during the public review are as
follows:

1. Will the activity have adverse effects on the enhancement, pre-
servation, or development of historic, scenic, wildlife, recre-
ation, economic, and similar values?

2. Have applicable State or Federal water quality statutes, rules,
and standards been met for the activity?

3. Will fish and wildlife resources be protected adequately or
can they be protected by special conditions attached to the
permit for the activity?

4. Has required local, State, or other Federal authorization been
granted or denied for the activity?

5. Does the proposed activity conform to State, regional, and local
land use goals, policies, plans and ordinances that apply to the
land and water areas under review?

6. Does the activity tend to preserve and maintain agricultural land?

7. Will the activity increase flood hazard potential or will it lo-
cate a permanent structure in a hazardous area? If so, has the
applicant demonstrated that there is an overriding necessity
for the proposed activity?

8. Will the activity protect or increase erosion of stream bank or
tidal flat that may be caused by wind or currents?

9. Does the activity improve public access to and public recrea-
tional use of the resources of the area? If so, will the resources
of the.area support such access and use?

10. Does the activity help to maintain or enhance the local and re-
gional economy? If so, does it conflict with overriding State
or national interest?

11. If the activity is to provide or improve major transportation
facilities, will the social, economic, and environmental effects
of the facility be acceptable?

12. Does the activity interfere unnecessarily with natural erosion
and accretion processes?

13. Will the activity minimize the disturbance of adjacent vegetation?

The responses to this review must indicate clearly the proposed activity is
in the public interest and will minimize adverse effects on the environment
before a permit will be issued.

Areas Where Permits Are Conditioned

All permits issued for activities in the Kenai River, Kenai Lake, Skilak Lake,
tributaries, and wetlands shall contain standard permit conditions, however,
certain activities will require special conditions. These special conditions
are designed to ensure that the proposed activities are carried out in a
manner that will minimize their effect on navigation, fish and wildlife, water
quality, and other considerations. For example, a permit for the construction
of a floating dock on the Kenai River may be authorized provided the ap-
plicant agrees to conditions such as:

1. The dock is constructed of environmentally compatible and aesthet-
ically pleasing materials.

2. The dock or dock platform is portable to facilitate removal and
thereby minimize susceptibility of damage to the structure and da-
mage caused by the structure from washouts during flooding.

3. The dock is no larger than the minimum size required to accomplish
the desired purpose. Where a single boat will be docked, the fa-
cility should be no larger than the maximum length of one boat
parallel and perpendicular to shore.

13 I

It must be emphasized that while the applicant must agree prior to permit
issuance to meet the conditions for specific activities as described in the
section of this review entitled "Permit Conditions and Recommended Manage-
ment Practices", additional conditions may be placed on the permit as a result
of the public interest review. Likewise, there may be instances where permits
are issued with fewer special conditions. in any- event, all applicants should
be aware that no permits will be granted without conditions. The extent of
the special conditions placed on a permit will come as a direct result of
case-by-case examinations of individual permit applications and the public
interest review procedure.

Areas Where Permits Are Ordinarily Denied

Any individual may apply for a Department of the Army permit for any activity
proposed in areas within Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction, and the applica-
tion will be processed on a case-by-case basis; however, several types or
activities (work) in specific areas of the Kenai River and tributaries have
been determined to be detrimental to the overall integrity of the system.
An example of these activities would be groins, revetments, dams, gravel re-
moval, canals, and navigation channels. In the Kenai River or tributaries
the use of fill to construct a fill embankment, groin, levee, or dam will
ordinarily be denied. Interested parties should consult the individual sub-
area matrices to determine those specific activities which would ordinarily
be denied.

Wetland Permitting Policies

Wetlands have been documented to exist within the Study Corridor. The method-
ology used to classify these areas as wetlands are explained in the following
Profiles. Under current Section 404 regulations, the U.S. Army, Corps of
Engineers exercises jurisdiction in these areas. Wetlands are one of the
most important natural resources addressed by Corps of Engineers permit reg-
ulations. Wetlands are defined as:

"... Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." 33 CFR
323.2 (c).

In reviewing permit applications, the Alaska District Engineer is required
to take into account the interrelated nature of wetlands resources and to
account for the cummulative effects of many piecemeal changes that may re-
sult in impairment of wetlands.

"No permit will be granted to work in wetlands identified as important.
unless the District Engineer concludes, on the basis of the analysis
required. . that the benefits of the proposed alterations outweigh the
damage to the wetlands resource and the proposed alteration is necessary
to realize those benefits." (33 CFR 320.4 (b)(4)).

Wetlands that are considered to perform functions important to the public
interest are described in the Corps regulations 33 CFR 320.4 (b)(2). They
are as follows:

1. Wetlands which serve important natural biological functions, includ-
ing food chain production, general habitat, and nesting, spawning,
rearing, and resting sites for aquatic or land species.

2. Wetlands set aside for study of the aquatic environment or as sanc -
tuaries or refuges.

3. Wetlands the destruction or alteration of which would affect detri-
mentally natural drainage characteristics, sedimentation patterns,
salinity distribution, flushing characteristics, current patterns,
or other environmental characteristics.

4. Wetlands which are significant in shielding other areas from wave
action, erosion, or storm damage. Such wetlands often are associ-
ated with barrier beaches, islands, reefs and bars.

5. Wetlands which serve as valuable storage areas for storm and flood
waters.

6. Wetlands which are prime natural recharge areas. Prime recharge
areas are locations where surface and ground water are directly
interconnected.

7. Wetlands that through natural water filtration processes serve to
purify water.

To date, no quantitative data are known which document the importance of in-
dividual wetlands within the Study Corridor. In the absence of such data,
the Alaska District will, upon request or upon receipt of a permit application,
conduct on-site investigations to document whether or not a particular site
is a wetland. (It should be emphasized that areas depicted as wetlands on the
subarea maps were so designated merely as a guide for individual permit appli-
cants and other interested parties. It is possible that physical and/or bio-
logical phenomena may have altered the extent of these wetland areas since
publication of data used in their classification. At this time it is not
known if a change has occurred, nor is it known that i' in fact a change
has occurred, the wetland areas have increased or decreased.)

The investigations will be done in areas designated as wetlands in this report
or any other areas in question. All permit applications for work involving
the discharge of dredged or fill material in wetlands will be processed on
a case-by-case basis; however, permits will ordinarily be denied for activi-
ties in wetland areas identified during the public interest review to be wet-
lands performing functions important to the public interest and considered
vital areas constituting a productive and valuable resource (see items 1-7
mentioned previously).

PERMIT CRITERLA BY SUBAREA

To facilitate the use of this Environmental Review, the Study Area has been
divided into five subareas. The boundaries of these subareas are shown in
Figure 5. The next five sections include a narrative summary of background
profile information for each subarea. A map and table show for each of Sub-
areas I through IV the classification given various permit activities.

No map of Subarea V is included because very little, if any, permit activity
is anticipated in this section of the Study Area. Limited permit activity
for public access facilities may be received, however, no additional private
permit requests are expected since the majority of land in the area is controlled
by the Federal Government.

The following procedure is suggested for utilization of Subarea maps and
tables:

1. Locate the Subarea where the permit activity is anticipated on one
of the following maps.

A. Subarea I: Kenai River - Cook Inlet Confluence to Limit of Tide
(River Mile 12, Page 25).

B. Subarea II: Limit of Tide to Kenai National Moose Range Boundary
(River Mile 12 to River Mile 25, Page 29).

C. Subarea III: Kenai National Moose Range Boundary to Moose River
(River Mile 23 to River Mile 36, Page 33)

D. Subarea IV: Kenai River area to Kenai National '.oose Range Boun-
dary (River Mile 36 to River Mile 45, Page 37).

2. Locate the specific site where a permit activity is anticipated.

3. Match the activity (dock, slip, etc.) with the area in which the
activity is anticipated (Kenai River; Tributary or Wetland).

4. Determine the permit classification

UZSSCVA SY -9IM
wo e~dNMS1U

-cm-I
.......

awrOF Ir
NVERMII

SU8AREA I -FIGURE S.~~

Table 1. Subarea I: Permit Activities Classification

ACTIVITY KENAI TRIBUTARIES W 'ETLANDS
RIVER
STRUCTURES (no filling):
DOC'KS
Floating C N/A N/A
Piled C N/A N/A
Crib (open) C N/A N/A
Cantilevered C N/A N/A
DOLPHINS C N/A N/A
RAMPS C N/A N/A
Small Private C N/A N/A
Large Community C N/A N/A
GROINS O/D N/A N/A
REV2TMENTS C N/A N/A
DAMS O/D N/A N/A
DISCHARGE LINES C N/A N/A
SUBSURFACE UTILITIES C N/A N/A
OVERHEAD UTILITIES C N/A N/A
MOORING BUOYS C N/A N/A
DREDGING:
GRAVEL REMOVAL O/D N/A N/A
CANALS* 0/D N/A N/A
NAVIGATION CHANNEL* 0/n N/A N/A
SLIPS*
Shoreline Notch C N/A N/A
Community Facility (Large) C N/A N/A
FILLING:
FILL EBA~NKMENT** O/D O/D N
AMP S
Small Private O/D O/D W
Large Community C O/D
GROINS O/D O/D W
ORAVETMENTS C C W
LEVEES O/D O/D W
DAMS O/D O/D W
CULVERTS & BRIDGE APPROACHES C C W
SUBSURFACE UTILITIES C C W
OVERHEAD UTILITIES C C rW
DISCHARGE OF FILL OR DREDGED W
MATERIAL O/D O/D W

Legend: C - Permits ordinarily conditioned. (see page 18)
O/D - Permits ordinarily denied. (see page 19)
W - Permit requirec for the discharge of dredged or fill material
(see page 19)
N/A - Not applicable (No Department of the Army Jurisdiction).
* - Maintenance Dredging (Activities authorized by a Department of :he
Army permit or existing facilities which were constructed prior
to 13 December 1968 are subject to a permit condition that
requires the structure or work to be maintained in good
usable condition.)
** - Examples: House pad, access road, etc.

Subarea V. Kenai National Moose Rane Boundarv to Outlet of Kenai Lake I

Subarea V begins at River Mile 45 and continues upstream to River
Mile 83. Kenai River mainstem spawning is documented throughout the
subarea. All major tributaries entering the River in this subarea
except Cooper Creek are known to provide nursery habitat and may pro- 3
vide spawning habitat. Previous studies by the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game have shown that sockeye salmon rearing occurs in Skilak
Lake.

There has been little residential or commercial development in
Subarea V,as the majority of land is controlled by the federal
government. The major exception to this pattern is the settlement of
Cooper Landing near the outlet of Kenai Lake, which is held by various U
private interests.

The topography of the area is flat west of Skilak Lake and |
mountainous to the east of the Lake. This subarea is considered
the most aesthetically pleasing of the Study Area.

Future permit requests are anticipated from residents of the
Cooper Landing area. As the settlement of Cooper Landing grows,
future studies may be required to determine the suitability of pro-
posed permit actions. Permit requests may arise also for additional
public access facilities associated with the Kenai National Moose
Range. 3

PERMIT CONDITIONS AND RECOMEDED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

In addition to standard conditions found on all permits, many
activities in the Kenai River, Skilak Lake, Kenai Lake, their tribu-
taries, and wetlands must meet specific conditions before
a permit may be issued. These special conditions as they apply to 3
the described activities requiring permits are included in the section
along with recommended management practices which should be followed
to the maximum extent possible to minimize potential adverse effects
on the environment. (Although recommended management practices are
not enforceable by the Corps of Engineers, the extent to which appli-
cants agree to their adherence will be considered in the determination
to issue or deny a permit.)

The conditions and management practices outlined in this section
have been developed from the summary findings of the environmental
profiles and 'nave not been developed for those activities for which
permits would ordinarily be denied. These profile conclusions are
listed in parentheses behind each condition and can be found in their
entirety on the following pages.

Docks 3

A dock is defined as a place (such as a wharf or platform) for
loading or unloading goods or people. Floating, piled, and cribbed
docks have been constructed on the Kenai River and serve as river
access structures for boats or planes. I

41 1

Although isolated, individual boat docks may not create significant
impacts, the cumulative impact of several docks may be adverse. A
proliferation of boat docks will reduce aquatic habitat, limit near-
shore fishing, accelerate erosion, create additional flood hazard
(debris), and diminish the aesthetic appeal of an area.

Community or shared facilities minimize the impacts caused by
excessive numbers of smaller boat docks. Depending on the availa-
bility of community facilities, individual boat docks may not be needed.
Permit applications for community or shared boat docks will be en-
couraged in place of individual facilities. Although permit requests
for numerous types of boat docks are anticipated, cantilivered or
floating structures will be encouraged over pile structures.

Soecial Conditions

a. Docks shall be constructed of environmentally compatible and
aesthetically pleasing materials. (For example, railroad ties or
creosote-treated wood would not be acceptable in that they may impart
the preservative to the water and degrade water quality. Automobile
bodies or discarded freezers may provide suitable foundations for docks
but obviously would be environmentally unacceptable and aesthetically
displeasing.) (Physical 9; Biological 3; Aesthetic 1,2, and 3; and
Land and Water Use 2)

b. Docks or dock platforms shallbe portable to facilitate
removal and thereby minimize susceptibility of damage to the
structure, and damage caused by the structure from washouts during
flooding. (Physical 5; and Land and Water Use 1)

c. Docksshall be no larger than the minimum size required to
accomplish the desired purpose (usually the maximum length of one
boat parallel and perpendicular to shore for individual facilities).
(Physical 2;and Aesthetic 2)

Recommended Management Practices

The following management practices should be followed to the
maximum extent possible:

a. The dock should not be constructed in a manner that will
adversely affect a wetland. (Physical 8; Biological 1; and Socio-
economic 1)

b. The dock should not be constructed directly on a cut (high-
energy) bank. (Physical 3)

c. Construction of roadways or access to the dock should be
such that a minimum of vegetation is removed and that erosion is
minimized. (Physical 1 and 4;and Biological 3)

SliDs

A slip is defined as a sloping ramp extending to the water's
edge to serve as a facility for landing or repairing ships (boats).
Small and large slips have been constructed on the Kenai River

primarily as access sites. Small,isolated, individual slips may not
produce significant impacts. Although small slips provide some benefit
as nursery sites for salmon, the cumulative impact of slip proliferation
may be adverse.

A proliferation of slips would cause removal of unacceptable
amounts of shoreline vegetation, increase erosion potential, and
diminish the aesthetic appeal of the area. Permit applications for
community or shared slips will be encouraged over individual slips.

Soecial Conditions

a. Slips shall be constructed only during periods of low water
and in areas where in rivebed excavation work is not necessary. (Bio-
logical 2 and 3; and Socioeconomic 3)
b. Excavated material shall be placed inland a sufficient
distance to insure that it does not re-enter the river through
erosion. (Physical 1; Biological 2 and 3; Land and Water Use 2;
and Socioeconomic 3)

c. Slips shall not be constructed in a manner that would
cause drainage of an adjacent wetland. (Physical 8; Biological 1;
and Socioeconomic 1)

d. Riprap shall be placed on the sides and bottom of the slip
to prevent erosion. The material should be of sufficient size to
preclude washouts or erosion. Side and back slopes of the slip should
be replanted with vegetation suitable to stabilize the slope and add
aesthetic appeal. (Physical 1,4,7, and 9; Biological 2 and 3; Socio-
economic 3; and Aesthetic 1, 2, and 3)

e. Excavation for slips shall not extend below the ordinary
low water mark. (Biological 2 and 3;and Socioeconomic 3)

Recommended Management Practices

a. Roadways or other access to the slip should be constructed m
in such a manner that minimizes vegetation removal or destruction.
(Physical 1, 4, and 8; Biological 2 and 3; Socioeconomic 3; and
Aesthetic 1)

'b. Slips should not be constructed directly on a cut (high
energy) bank. (Physical 3) 1

Ramps

A ramp is defined as a slope for launching boats. Ramps have I
been constructed along the Renai River for that purpose. The slopes
of some ramps on the river have been paved. Other slope stabilization
materials such as metal landing mats have been used. In general,
slope stabilization does not produce significant impacts. Ramps
without stabilization materials, however, are subject to erosion.
Ramp proliferation reduces the aesthetic quality of an area.

~43~ !
43

Community (or shared) ramps will be encouraged over private
facilities. Such ramps, depending on location, would eliminate the
need for individual facilities.

Soecial Conditions

a. Ramps shall be constructed only during periods of low
water to minimize the discharge of excavated materials into the
stream. (Physical 1, 7, and 8; Biological 2 and 3; and Socio-
economic 3)

b. The slope of the ramp shall not exceed a grade of six to
one (6 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical). (Physical 1)

c. Ramps shall be designed and constructed in a manner that
will avoid the alteration of the drainage patterns of adjacent wet-
lands. (Physical 8; Biological 1; and Socioeconomic 1)

d. Excavated material shall not be discharged into the stream
but will be deposited at a distance from the ramp sufficient to pre-
vent introducing the material into the waterway. (Physical 1;
Biological 2 and 3; Land and UWater Use 2; and Socioeconomic 3)

e. Ramps shall not extend below the ordinary lower water
line. (Biological 2 and 3;and Socioeconomic 3)

f. The bottom surface of the ramp shall be stabilized to
reduce erosion. (Physical I and 7; Biological 2 and 3; and Socio-
economic 3)

g. Riprap of sufficient size to prevent washout shall be
placed on the side slopes of the ramp. (Physical 7)

Recommended Management Practices

a. Ramps should not be constructed directly on a cut (high-
energy) bank. (Physical 3)

b. Areas above the high water line should be revegetated where
possible. (Physical 4;and Aesthetic 1)

c. Construction of roadways or access to the ramp should be
such that a minimum amount of vegetation is removed and erosion
is minimized. (Physical 1, 4, and 8; Biological 2 and 3; Socio-
economic 3; and Aesthetic 1, 2, and 3)

Culverts

A culvert is a conduit (pipe, tile, or tube) over a transverse
drain. Culverts are designed to carry water under a roadway, but
often they cause barriers to fish passage by constricting flow,
increasing current velocities, and creating waterfalls.

Special Conditions

a. The culvert shallnot restrict normal water flow in a manner

which would increase current velocity. (The shape and dimensions
of the culvert must be similar to the shape and dimensions of the
stream bed.) (Physical 9-and Biological 3)

b. Culverts shallbe placed at a depth sufficient to insure
that artificial impoundments are not created upstream. (Biological 3)

c. Riprap or other stable fill material shallbe placed at the
outlet of the culvert to insure protection against erosion at the
outlet. (Erosion at the outlet could create a waterfall that would
become a barrier to fish passage.) (Physical 1 and 7; Biological 2
and 3; and Socioeconomic 3)

d. Culverts shall be constructed during the period between fry
emergence and adult spawning. (Physical 1; Biological 2 and 3; and
Socioeconomic 3)

e. In all cases, prevention of discharge into the stream of
excavated materialshall be ensured. (Physical 7; Biological 2 and 3;
and Socioeconomic 3)

Recommended Management Practices

a. In general, culvert location should consider the natural
terrain in such a manner that placement will require a minimum of
backfill. (Physical 9; and Aesthetic 1 and 3)

b. Culverts should be constructed of materials (preformed
cement or corrugated steel) that will be aesthetically acceptable.
(Aesthetic 2 and 3)

c. Vegetation disrupted or destroyed during construction should
be restored or replaced with those types of vegetation appropriate
for disrupted areas. (Physical 4; and Aesthetic 1)

d. In known fish spawning or important nursery areas, a bridge
structure should be considered over a culvert installation. (Biological
3; Socioeconomic 3)

Revetments

A revetment is defined as a facing (as of stone or concrete)
to sustain an embaniment. On the Kenai River, revetments have been
constructed for bank erosion protection and bank stabilization.

The Kenai River is a swift flowing, meandering stream. As a
result, natural erosion aong the streamback is a constant problem
for riparian landowners. The cumulative effect of the continuous
restoration of eroded banks is potentially altered stream flow, re-
duced aquatic habitat, and diminished aesthetic quality. In some
streams of the lower 48 states, bank protection measures have reduced
streams to sterile, concrete channels. The question then arises,
who is allowed to revet and who is not? Although it is beyond the
scope of this review to make such decisions, it is hoped that local,
state, and federal officials will formulate a management plan that

will offer solutions to the problem. In the absence of such a plan,
the following guidelines are offered for various revetments that
may be used on the Kenai River:

Natural vegetation is the first preference for revetment.
Vegetation stabilizes banks, contributes detrital material for use
by aquatic organisms, provides habitat for fish and wildlife, and
provides a shoreline more aesthetically pleasing than one denuded.
In many areas, however, vegetation alone will not reduce erosion.
Cut (high-energy) banks are an example of such areas.

Where vegetation alone is not sufficient to control erosion,
riprap in combination with vegetation is preferred. Riprap is ac-
ceptable if the material to be used is of sufficient size to resist
erosion.

The grade of the newly riprapped or reveted bank is critical
to its functional success. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
suggested experimenting with bank slopes of four to one, or eight
to one (horizontal to vertical) to provide more stable areas resis-
tant to erosion and wave actions, and to permit the growth of selected
vegetation. Various vertical-to-horizontal diagrams are shown
in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Slope Grade Diagrams (after Nehalem Wetlands Review, 1976).

Studies in Puget Sound indicate that concrete stairsteps
and rock riprap facings of moderate slope (one-horizontal-to-one-
vertical or less steep slope) are least detrimental to survival of
chum and pink salmon fry. Various revetment structures are shown
in Figures 11 and 12.

Upon completion of rock placement, or during the placement of
the top layers, material relatively higher in soil content can be
added to provide a seed bed for vegetation. Revegetation could be
accomplished by planting black cottonwood, Labrador tea, willows,
and various grasses and sedges. Applicants should contact local

----I

DUMPED ROCK RIPRAP

High Water Level - "Comnacted
--_-_ backiill

Note: Choice of rock size
for stable riprap is a function
of the bank slope, water
Toe Trench depth and velocity, stream
curvature, and specific gravity
Cross Section of Channel (density) of the rock.

WIiLLOW-GRAVEL BANK PROTECTION
Filled Slope
Note: All gravel fill is susceptible to erosion in high velocity streams.

Old Ground Line
High Water Line Z o_

Low Water Line ; C4 Stakes

afi! is:: Compacted
~?~ra Bed ock .~To"e ez' Gravel Fill
Stream Bed

Cross Section of Channel

Figure 11. Revetment Structures (after Nehalem
Wetlands Review, 1976).

'ILLOW-GRAVEL BANK PROTECTION
Cut Slope

High Water Line

Layer of Gravel

Low 'Water Lne' Live Willow Stakes or other
r_>i ,IS' _l vegetation capable or es-
-; ,>i/>> ,~ tablishing root systems
(5il~~~ A d<Hquickly
Stream Bed

Cross Section of Channel

Figure 12. Revetment Structure (after Nehalem
Wetlands Review, 1976).

Soil Conservation Service personnel for advice and suggestions on |
plantings.

Bulkheads (vertical or near-vertical structures parallel to 3
the shoreline) provide efficient erosion control, but cause loss of
aquatic habitat and degrade the aesthetic value of an area. Aquatic
habitat is lost primarily through the destruction of niches that are 3
normally available on the uneven surfaces of the stream slopes.
These surfaces, usually gravel, may be used as salmon spawning sites
and would provide habitat for macroinvertebrate populations. In-
stallation of bulkheads, therefore, is strongly discouraged. 1

Special Conditions

a. Riprap material shall be of sufficient size and bulk to I
prevent the material from being washed away. (Physical 7)

b. Revetments shall be constructed only during periods of I
low water so that discharge of construction-disrupted material into
the waterway will be minimized. (Physical 1 and 7; Biological 2
and 3; and Socioeconomic 2)

c. Permits will not be granted for revetments until the appli-
cant demonstrates that the planned activity will produce the leastt
adverse impact on spawning or nursery sites. (The applicant should
be aware of the. location and relative importance of spawning and
nursery sites downstream from the activity site, importance of
spawning and nursery sites at the proposed activity site, and should
demonstrate ability to protect those critical habitats.) (Biological
2 and 3; and Socioeconomic 3)

d. Revetments shall be constructed in a manner that would
not alter the flow or integrity of wetlands. (Physical 8;
Biological 1; Land and Water Use 2; and Socioeconomic 1) 1

Recommended Management Practices

a. Natural vegetation is the preferred revetment and should I
be used whenever possible. (Physical 4)

b. Riprap revetments should be revegetated above the ordinary 3
high water mark with appropriate ground-holding vegetation.
(Physical 4)

Dredging I

Dredging is defined as digging, gathering, or pulling material 3
(in this case, from a navigable water) with some type of device.
Dredging disturbs the stream substrate, may alter stream flow and
current patterns, and may increase turbidity and the amount of sedi- j
ment in the stream. Dredging is usually conducted to maintain the
navigability of canal systems, to improve river access to facilities,
or for the removal of gravel for construction purposes.

49 1

Special Conditions

a. Dredging shall occur only during those periods between fry

3; Land and Water Use 2; and Socioeconomic 3)

b. Dredging shall not occur in areas of known or suspected
spawning or nursery activity. (Biological 2 and 3;and Socioeconomic 3)

c. The applicant shall. demonstrate that dredging will be done
in a manner that will minimize in-stream resuspension of materials.
(Physical 1 and 9; Biological 2 and 3; Land and Water Use 2; and
Socioeconomic 3)

d. In-stream disposal of dredged materials is prohibited.
(Physical 1 and 9; Biolgical 2 and 3; Land and Water Use 2; and
Socioeconomic 3)

e. The disposal of dredged material shall be at a distance
inland sufficient to prevent reintroduction of the material to the
waterway, and should not be in a wetland. (Physical 1 and 9; Biological
2 and 3; Land and Water Use 2; and Socioeconomic 3)

Bridges and Bridge Approaches

A bridge is defined as a structure carrying a pathway or road-
way over a depression. Bridge approaches are defined as pathways or
roadways which connect to bridges. While the Corps of Engineers does not
regulate bridges generally, they do comment on permits issued by the U.S.
Coast Guard for such structures. The Corps, however, does regulate
bridge approach fills. Four bridges having approaches cross the
mainstem of the Kenai River. Several smaller bridges with approaches
scan Kenai River tributaries.

Special Conditions

a. Backfilling, where necessary, shall be of clean material
free from pollutants.. (Physical 9; Biological 2 and 3; Land and
Water Use 2; and Socioeconomic 3)

b. Bridge approaches shall be constructed 9nly at periods of
low water. (Physical 1 and 9; Biological 2 and 3; and Socioeconomic
3)

c. Bridges shall be of sufficient height to permit navigation.

Recommended Management Practices

a. In wetlands, piled bridges would be preferred to bridges
built on fill. (Physical 8; and Biological 1)

b. Bridge pilings in tributary or mainstem channels should

be discouraged (long-span bridges would be preferred). (Physical 5)

Subsurface Utilities

Subsurface utilities are underground facilities (such as pipelines
or cables) -used to transport liquids or gases, transmit electric
power, or transmit communication signals.

Special Conditions I
a. Construction shall be done only in early summer, following
fry emergence but prior to the onset of major sport fishing activity. 3
(Physical 1 and 9; Biological 2 and 3; and Socioeconomic 3)
b. Vegetation within Corps jurisdictional boundaries removed
adjacent to waterways shall be replaced using suitable practices.
(Physical 1 and 4; Biological 2 and 3; Socioeconomic 1 and 3; and
Aesthetic 1)

Recommended Management Practices I

a. The applicant should demonstrate that construction methods
will be designed to minimize adverse impacts.

b. Points of entrance to the waterways should not be in wetlands.
(Physical 8; Biological 1; Socioeconomic 1)

Overhead Utilities 3

Overhead utilities include telephone, power transmission lines,
and pipelines. Their effect on navigation, aviation, avifauna, and
aesthetics are matters of public interest. Several overhead power
transmission lines span the Kenai River and tributaries.

The minimum clearances shown in Table 5 are required for aerial
electric power transmission lines crossing navigable waters of the
United States. These clearances are related to the clearances over
the navigable channel provided by existing fixed bridges, or to the
clearances that would be required by the U.S. Coast Guard for new
fixed bridges in the proposed power line crossing. The clearances are
based on the low point of the line under conditions that produce the
greatest sag, taking into consideration temperature, load, wind,
length of span, and type of supports as outlined in the National
Electric Safety Code.

Table 5. Minimum Clearances: Aerial Electric Power Transmission
Lines Crossing Navigable Waters of the United States

Minimum Additional Clearance
Nominal System (ft) Above Clearance
Voltage, kV Required for Bridges

115 and below . . . . . . . . 20
138 . . . . . . . . 22
161 . . . . . . . . 24
230 . . . . . . . . 26
350 . . . . . . . . 30
500 . . . . . . . . 35
700 . . . . . . . . 42
750-765 . . . . . . . . 45

Special Conditions

a. No supporting structures shall be constructed within the
mainstem of the Kenai River. (Physical 1, 2, and 8; Biological 1,

Recommended Management Practices

a. The applicant demonstrates that no other feasible means, such
as subsurface routes or bridge attachment, are available.

b. Overhead utilities should cross navigable waters in areas not
having intense waterfowl activity unless no alternatives are available.

Discharge Lines

A discharge line is defined as a pipe or system of pipes which
release materials and/or effluents. Few discharge lines are known to
exist on the Kenai River.

Soecial Conditions

Same as conditions for "Subsurface Utilities".

Appendix 2. Principal State Regulatory Authorities in New Jersey.

Nature of Authority and
Act Date Reference Geographical Jurisdiction Administrative Agency

Riparian Lands (1776) 1869- NJSA 12:3 et seq. All lands now or formerly below mean The State of New Jersey exercises sole ownership
Statutes high tide, unless conveyed to others; of tidally flowed lands in public trust. Special
ownership currently extends offshore procedures for sale of grants, leases, licenses,
to 3-mile limit (Peace Treaty of 1783 (ordinarily landward of pierhead lines) by
allotted the States ownership offshore Natural Resource Council with approval of Commis-
20 marine leagues, about 60 statute aioner of NJ-DEP, Attorney General. and Governor.
miles). The owner of the adjoining upland (rips) must be
given the opportunity to secure riparian title,
before it can be conveyed to other private owners
by the State.

Water-front and 1914 NJSA 12:5-3 Waterfront on or bordering any navigable Pre-construction review of plans required for
Harbor Facilities water on stream within pierhead lines. waterfront construction plans. Applicants must
Statutes have obtained riparian grant, lease, or license
before waterfront development permit can be ap-
proved. Approval by Director, Division of Coastal
Resources, NJ-DEP; processing by Bureau of Tide-
lands:

Wetlands Act 1970 NJSA 13:9A-1 Tidal wetlands as delineated on pro- Permits required for use of mapped wetlands, ex-
et seq. mulgated NJ-DEP maps (scale 1:2,400) cept continuing harvest of salt hay or other agri-
currently from Raritan Bay to Atlantic cultural products and lawful mosquito control
coast to Delaware Bay and River. activities. Bureau of Coastal Project Review,
NJ-DEP, processes Type A (minor) permit and Type B
(major, with environmental impact statement) permit
applications; approval by Director, Division of
Coastal Resources.

Coastal Area 1973 NJSA 13;19-1 CAFRA area as defined by Acts selected Permit with environmental impact statement required
Facility Review et seq. zones along Atlantic coast and lower for commercial developments and for residential
Act Delaware Bay, exclusive of lands regu- developments above minimum threshold (24 dwelling
lated by Wetlands Act. units). Application to Bureau of Coastal Permit
Review; approval by Director, Division of Coastal
Resources, NJ-DEP.

State Water Policy 1929 NJSA 58:1-26 Lands within natural and ordinary high Pre-construction review of plans for construction
Commission Statutes et seq. water mark of any stream; from 1950- or repair of structures (including fill) and other
1972 jurisdiction was exercised over the alterations in streams by the Bureau of Flood Plain
15-year floodplain; since 1972, over the Management and approval by the Water Policy and
100-year floodplain. Supply Council in the Division of Water Resources,
NJ-DEP, is necessary to protect the public (stream
encroachment permit).

M mm - mmI m m m m m m II

Appendix 2. Principal State Regulatory Authorities in New Jersey (continued).

Nature of Authority and
Act Date Reference Geographical Jurisdiction Administrative Agency

Flood Hlazard Areas (1962) 1972 NJSA 58:16A-50 Floodplains of the state(except lands Division of Water Resources, NJ-DEP, must study the
Statute et seq. designated tidal wetlands under NJSA nature and extent of floodplains. The Water Policy
18:9A-1 et seq.), when they have been and Supply Council may regulate and prohibit land
delineated officially by NJ-DEP after uses in floodways to preserve the flood carrying
engineering survey, capacity of the streams. The Bureau of Flood Plain
Management may set minimum standards for land use
in flood fringe areas and enforce the standards if
municipalities do not.

Hackensack Meadow- 1929 NJSA 13:17 et seq. iHackensack Meadowland District as Zoning, planning, subdivision, and environmental
lands Reclamation defined by Act in Hudson and Bergen performance standards authority vested in independ-
and Development Act Counties (parts of 14 municipalities). ent agency in Department of Community Affairs, with
intermunicipal tax sharing pool. Commissioners
appointed by Governor with consent of Senate.

Delaware and Raritan 1974 NJSA 13:13A-14 Review zone including D&R canal and Independent commission in NJ-DEP may review and
Canal State Park Act adjacent lands in 17 municipalities. modify or prohibit State actions that would affect
the park adversely. Actions by others approved by
municipalities also may be modified or prohibited.

Pinelands Protection 1979 Defined region in Atlantic, Camden, Independent commission in NJ-DEP is to prepare
Act Cape Hay, Gloucester, Ocean, and studies, formulate a comprehensive plan, and
Salem Counties. develop an implementation mechanism to protect
environmental values in the region. The Commission
may grant hardship exemptions from the construction
moratorium imposed by the Act. Commissioners appointed
by Governor (7), county freeholders of each county (7),
and Secretary of the Interior (1).

Fish Statutes 1937 NJSA 23:5-28 Statewide No person is allowed to release any substance into
the waters of the State which would destroy or dis-
turb the habits of the fish inhabiting those waters.
The Division of Fish, Game, and Shell Fisheries in
DEP is to enforce this statute.

Noise Control Act 1971 NJSA 13:1G-1 Statewide NJ-DEP can set noise control standards, impose noise
et seq. zoning, set noise standards for motor vehicles, and
require permits from operations likely to produce
noise.

Soil Erosion and 1975 NJSA 4:24-1 Statewide Municipalities must condition their approvals on
Sediment Control et seq. soil conservation district approval of erosion control
Act plans for all new construction projects (except a
single family house) that will disturb more than 5,000
square feet of land and for which the State Uniform
Construction Code requires a permit.

Appendix 2. Principal State Regulatory Authotities in New Jersey (continued).

Nature of Authority and
Act Date Reference Geographical Jurisdiction Administrative Agency

Solid Waste (1970) 1975 NJSA 13:13-1 Solid waste facilities, statewide. Solid Waste Administration, NJ-DEP, must approve
Management Act et seq. proposals for solid waste disposal facilities;
Environmental impact statement is part of appli-
cation, along with engineering plans.

Supplement to 1976 NJSA 1311E-38 Hazardous waste facilities, statewide. Disposal of hazardous waste, chemical waste, bulk
Solid Waste et seq. liquids, and pesticides are prohibited within 1,000
Management Act yards of defined riverine flood hazard areas begin-
ning in 1977. Facilities for such wastes must
monitor groundwater and must prevent pollution of
the waters of the State.

Realty Improvement (1954) 1971, NJSA 58:11-23 Realty improvements with 50 or more Proposed realty improvements where approved water
Sewerage and 1972 et seq. aggregate dwelling units statewide. supply and sewerage are lacking must receive certi-
Facilities Act fication from the Division of Water Resources, prior
to local subdivision approval, that applicable
State standards are met considering soil conditions,
groundwater levels, population densities, and growth
trends.

Realty Improvement 1966 NJSA 58:11-44 Realty improvements in defined Critical Building permit cannot be issued by local authority
Sewerage and et seq. Areas [currently, in Central Pine prior to Division of Water Resources, NJ-DEP, certi-
Facilities Act Barrens, in Burlington County adjoining fication of sweage disposal plans, and sewage
Mullica River and tributaries, and facilities cannot be constructed prior to State
throughout Monmouth, Atlantic, and Cape approval. Special, stringent water quality standards
May Counties where the surface elevation in Central Pine Barrens.
is less than 10 feet above mean sea
level, 1929 datum.]

Air Pollution 1967 NJSA 26:2C-1 Statewide for regulated facilities Division of Environmental Quality, NJ-DEP, must
Control Act et seq. approve permit to construct and certificate to
operate regulated facilities that emit air con-
taminants. Boilers with heat input rate of 1 million
BTU/hr or more using commercial fuel or smaller, and
non-commercial-fuel equipment of any size, are regu-
lated. Incinerators in one or two unit dwellings,
and dwellings with six or fewer units if one is
owner occupied, are excluded. Fuel service stations
and facilities for volatile organic materials require
a permit for their construction or alteration.

m m - -----

Appendix 2. Principal State Regulatory Authorities in New Jersey (continued).

Nature of Authority and
Act Date Reference Geographical Jurisdiction Administrative Agency

Safe Drinking 1977 NJSA 58�12A-1 Statewide NJ-DEP has the power to regulate the quality of
Water Act et seq. public water supplies, to set and enforce standards
for drinking water, and to conduct monitoring,
inspection, and systematic surveys of potable water
supplies. Division of Water Resources processes
permits to construct, modify, or operate a public
water supply and to interconnect approved water
supply systems with other systems.

Spill Compensation 1976 NJSA 58:10-23.11 Statewide ' DEP has the authority to regulate the transfer and
and Control Act storage of hazardous substances, to establish a
spill compensation fund supported by a tax on
petroleum, and can require information on hazardous
substances. The Act also affirms the liability of
the owners of hazardous substances for any spilled
materials.

Water Supply Law 1958 NJSA 58:22-1 Statewide Vesting of responsibility to regulate water supplies
et seq. in Division of Water Resources.

Delaware and Raritan 1934 HJSA 13:13-1 D&R Canal Delaware & Raritan Canal is State property and the
Canal Statute et seq. State may sell water from the Canal.

Water Pollution 1977 NJSA 58:10OA-1 Statewide Defined pollutants are not to be discharged unless
Control Act et seq. a permit has been issued by NJ-DEP or US-EPA.
Facilities for the collection, treatment, or dis-
charge of pollutants cannot be built or operated
without the approval of NJ-DEP. Treatment works
approval, sewer system approvals, exemptions from
sewer bans, and industrial pretreatment requirements
are administered by the Division of Water Resources.

State Water Policy 1929 NJSA 58;1-18 Statewide Proposed public or semi-public water supply (diver-
Commission Statutes et seq. sion) systems drawing on any source must be approved
by the Division of Water Resources, NJ-DEP.

Subsurface and 1947 NJSA 58:4A-2 Entire State is a delineated area Proposed groundwater diversion wells and ponds of
Percolating Waters 100,000 gallons/day require permit approval from
Statutes the Division of Water Resources, NJ-DEP.

State Water Policy 1963 NJSA 58;1-36 Entire State is a delineated area Proposed diversions of surface water for consumptive
,,q- at rates Rreater than 70 gallons/minute require

Appendix 2. Principal State Regulatory Authorities in New Jersey (concluded).

Subsurface and (1974) 1971 NJSA 58:4A-14 Statewide Permits from the Division of Water Resources, NJ-DEP,
Percolating Waters are required prior to drilling of wells. Samples
Status of drilled material must be delivered to the State
Geologist, and a well log must be filed with the
Division after the well is completed. Abandoned
wells or test holes must be sealed by their owners
(NJSA 58;4A-4.1 et seq.).

Health Care 1971 NJSA 26:2H-7 Statewide New health care facilities require a certificate of
Facilities Statutes et seq. need from the State Commissioner of Health prior to
their funding or licensing by State or local agencies.

State Highway 1927 NJSA 27;7-1 Statewide A permit is required from the Department of Trans-
Statutes et seq. portation for constructing various facilities in or
that affect State highway rights-of-way.

State Highway 1971 NJSA 27:7A-11 Statewide
Statutes et seq. A permit is required from the Department of Trans-
portation for off-premise advertising signs along
State highways.

Water Pollution (1921) 1977 NJSA 58110A-1 Statewide A permit is required to establish a factory for the
Control Act et seq. manufacture of goods, but the permit may be waived
by the Division of Water Resources, NJ-DEP, if
wastes are discharged to a public treatment system.

Dam Construction 1912 NJSA 54:1 et seq. Statewide Proposed dams that raise waters more than 5 feet
Statute where the drainage area is 0.5 square mile or more
above the dam must secure prior approval from the
Division of Water Resources, NJ-DEP.

Dams and Reservoir 1912 NJSA 58:4-9 Statewide (permanent reservoir The owner shall not destroy or abandon a reservoir
Statutes drawdown) 20 years old with settled shorelines without the
consent of NJ-DEP.

Fish Statutes 1937 NJSA 23:5-29 Statewide (temporary reservoir No person shall shut off or draw off the waters of
drawdown) any pond, stream, or lake or place a screen in the
waterway without permission from NJ-DEP, Division of
Fish, Game, and Shell Fisheries.

Appendix 3. Federal Environmental Laws Most Frequently Encountered

Clean .Air Act (42 USC 1857 et seq.)

Clean Water Act (PS 92-500, as amended; 33 USC 13 et seq.)

Riyer and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 USC 401-413)

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 USC 191-192; 351-353)

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended (16 USC 661 et seq.)

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC 2011 et seq.)

Wilderness Act 6f 1964, as amended (16 USC 1131 et seq.)

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470 et seq.)

Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 USC 1653 (f)3

National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (42 USC 4001 et seq.)

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1969, as amended (PL 90-542)

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended (PL 91-596)

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (PL 92-583; 16 USC 1451 et seq.)

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (PL 92-532;
33 USC 1401 et seq.; 16 USC 1431 et seq.)

Noise Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-574)

Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (PL 92-340; 33 USC 1221; 46 USC 391a)

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.)

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 USC 469 et seq.)

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (PL 93-523; 42 USC 300; 21 USC 349)

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (PL 94-579; 43 USC 1701)

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (PL 94-588; 16 USC 1600)

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 USC 6901-6987)

Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (PL 94-469)

Surface 'Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (PL 95-87; 30 USC 1201)

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1973 (PL 95-396;
7 USC 121 et seq.)

Appendix 4. Ranking of principal known chemical contaminants of
the New York Bight, June 1977, in terms of research priority
(O'Connor and Stanford 1979).

Category A. Major Perceived Threats That Require Continued Study

Chlorinated pesticides' Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
Lead (PNAHs)2
Mercury Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Plutonium

Category B. Potentially Significant Threats For Which Data Must Be
Collected and Evaluated

Arsenic Isophorone
Benzidenes Low-molecular-weight, halogenated
Cadmium hydrocarbons (LDMH{s)3
Chlorobenzenes Petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs,
Chlorophenols other than PNAHs)
Diphenylhydrazine Thallium
Halogenated diphenyl ethers

Category C. No Threat At Present, On The Basis of Existing Information

Chromium Phenols
Haloalkyl ethers Phthalates
Nitrobenzenes Selenium
Nitrophenols Silver

lAldrin/Dieldrin,- Chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites), DDT
and metabolites, Endosulfan and metabolites, Endrin and metabolites,
Heptachlor and metabolites, Hexachlorocyclohexane (all isomers), and
Toxaphene.

2Aromatic compounds with unsaturated ring structures: Benzene, Alkyl-
substituted'benzenes, and Polynuclear hydrocarbons with multiple alkyl
substitutions.

3Carbon tetrachloride, Chloroform, Chlorinated ethanes (includes 1,2-
dichloroethane, 1,1,1- trichloroethane, and hexachloroethane), 1,1- and
1,2- Dichloroethylene, Halomethanes (other than specified), Tetrachloro-
ethylene, Tricholoroethylene, and Vinyl chloride.