Nonpoint source assessment and management program final draft

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

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

NONPOINT SOURCE

ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

FINAL DRAFT

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

TD DECEMBER 1988
424.35
.N5
N66 Property of CSC Library
I

1988

Department of Environmental Protection / Division of Water Resources

Nonpoint Source

Assessment and Management

Program

FINAL DRAFT

December 1988

Thomas H. Kean Christopher J. Daggett

Gov-ernor Acting Commissioner

TABLE OF CONTENTS

P@re

List of Tables .................................................... vi

Chapter I. Introduction ......................................... 1-1

Chapter II. The Existing Nonpoint Source Control Situation in

Neu, Jerse@ . ........................................... 11-1

A. Water Quality Impacts from Nonpoint Sources of Pollution . II-1

B. Nonpoint Sources of Pollution in New Jersey .............. 11-4

1. Streams, Lakes, and Ground Water (excluding interstate

waters) .............................................. 11-4

2. Interstate Waters .................................... 11-9

3. Ocean Waters ......................................... II-10

i. Nonpoint Sources of Pollution ................. 11-13

ii. Municipal Sewage Sludge ....................... 11-14

iii. Dredged Material .............................. 11-14

iv. Industrial Waste Disposal ..................... 11-15

V. Wood Burning .................................. 11-16

vi. Boat Litter ................................... 11-16

C. Existing Legal Control/Aut-hority and Management Programs . 11-17

Chapter III. Nonpoint Source Control Plan ......................... III-1

A. Urban and Developing Areas ................................ 111-3

1. Existing Developed Urban and Suburban Areas .......... 111-4

2. Developing Suburban Areas ............................ 111-6

3. Urban and Suburban Best Management Practices ........ 111-7

B. Statewide Strateg@ . ........................................ 111-8

I. Household Hazardous Wastes .......................... 111-8

2. Road and Highway Runoff ..... ....................... 111-9

3. Agriculture .......................................... III-10

4. Construction and Resource Extraction ................. 111-12

C. Technical Considerations .................................. 111-14

Chapter IX1. Program Implementation ............................... IV-1

A. A Phased Approach ......................................... IV-1

B. Institutional and Economic Considerations ................ IV-3

C. Education Program ........................................ IV-4

D. State Demonstration Projects ............................. IV-5

1. 1988 Toms River Bacteriological Study ............... IV-5

2. Navesink River Shellfish Pollution Control Project .. IV-6

3. Tidal Tuckahoe River ................................ IV-7

4. Coastal Water Quality Management Project ............ IV-7

5. Cook College Study on Watershed Protection .......... IV-8

6. New Jersey Floatables; Study ......................... IV-8

7. New Jersey/New York Harbor Clean-up Program ......... IV-9

8. County Demonstration Studies ........................ IV-9

Chapter V. Integration of the Nonpoint Source Program in Other

Programs ......................................... 0... V-1

A. Division of Water Resources Programs ..... I ............... V-1

1. Stormwater Management ............................... V-1

2. Lakes Management .................................... V-3

3. Ground Water Protection ............................. V-4

4. Toxics Control ...................................... V-5

5.- Estuaries Management ................................ V-5

6. Ocean Management .................................... V-7

7. Total Manimum Daily Load Program ..................... V-9

B. Programs Outside of the Division of Water Resources ...... V-9

1. Stream Encroachment Program ......................... V-10

2. Freshwater Wetlands Permit Program .................. V-10

3. Coastal Area Facilities Review Program, Coastal

Wetlands Permit Program, and Waterfront Development

Permit Program ...................................... V-12

,4. Land Disposal Programs .............................. V-13

i. Sanitary Landfills ............................ 11-13
ii. Hazardous Wastes ............................... V-15

iii. Individual Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems . V-17

C. Federal Financial Assistance and Development Program

Review ................................................... V-18

Chapter VI. Local Agency and Public Involvement in the

Nonpoint Source Program .............................. VI-1

'References ........................................................ VI-3

Appendices

Appendix A. Statewide Nonpoint Source Education Program Plan. A-1

Appendix.B. Preliminary List of Waterways Suspected of Being

Impacted by Nonpoint Source Pollution ........... B-1.

Appendix C. Preliminary List of Lakes Suspected of Being

Impacted by Nonpoint Source Pollution ........... C-1

Appendix D. Preliminary List of Estuaries, Bays, and Coastal

Waters Suspected of Being Impacted by Nonpoint

Source Pollution ................................ D-1

Appendix E. Summary of Existing State and Local Programs

for Nonpoint Source Management E-1

Apenndix F. Depository Libraries for the New Jersey Documents F-1

Table Page

Table 1. Major Nonpoint Source Pollution Categories and

Subcategories II-6

Table 2. Agency Program Index V-19

Chapter 1. Introduction

Nonpoint source water pollution (NPS) has become a public policy

issue in New Jersey and throughout the nation, as NPS affects public

health, safety and welfare, endangers the marine ecosystem and water-

quality, and creates other damaging environmental effects. For regulatory

pur@ poses, NPS is defined in New Jersey as "a contributing factor to water

pollution that cannot be traced to a specific discernible confined and

discrete conveyance" (N.J.A.C. 7:14A-1.9, N.J.A.C. 7:15-1.5). Generally

speaking, NPS includes any pollution which comes from a variety of diffuse

sources, rather than from a specific source such as an outfall pipe from

an industrial or sewage treatment plant. Direct overland runoff into

streams is an example of NPS. Urban stormwater runoff, sanitary

landfills, and certain other pollution sources are often discussed with

N`PS even though the pollutants are frequently discharged through specific

conveyances that constitute "point sources" under the federal Clean Water

Act (CWA) and State law.

(The formal determination of whether a particular activity is a

11point" or "nonpoint" source can involve various legal considerations, and

this report is not intended to guide such determinations. Because State

law provides broad authority for XPS control, the distinction between

"Point" and "nonpoint" sources is less significant in State law than it is

in the CWA. The fundamental issue is not how to make the distinction but

how to control the pollution.)

In response to the growing national concern for NPS pollution,

section 319 of the CW-A directs each State to develop programs for

controlling NPS. The State of New Jersey submits this report in response

to the CWA's requirements and United States Environmental Protection

Agency (VISEPA) guidance for a State Assessment Report describing the
State's NPS problems and a State Mana R ern e nt...)?ro gram explaining what New

Jersey intends to do in the next four fiscal years to address its KPS

problems

Chapter II of this report describes New Jersey's existing NPS

pollution problems and includes a statewide XPS assessment. In that

assessment, the State, determined that interstate NPS pollution is an area

where initiatives must be developed. Particular concerns include estuary

protection as well as controlling floatables in the New York - New Jersey

Harbor area and along the coastal regions of the State. This chapter also

addresses existing legal controls and management programs that authorize

KPS control in the State and serve as the foundation from which this plan

was developed.

Chapter III presents a general strategy which outlines the phases of
investigation, survey, planning and implementation that will initiate the
State hPS Program. Also included, is a discussion of strategies the State

plans to develop into programs for controlling hTS. It addresses
mechanisms to control pollution at the source, prior to entering or within

,a convevance or discharge system, and at the point of discharge. The
chapter discusses controls, such as water quality management plans with

mandatory Best Management Practices (B',Ts), and emphasizes urban runoff
control. Urban runoff represents a serious and most challenging KPS
pollution problem in the State because of the lack of information on the
subject and the difficulties expected to be encountered while attempting
to.control it. Despite these-difficulties, the plan does discuss

innovative methods and practices for controlling this type of KPS

pollution. This cheipter also describes technical considerations that

must be addressed if an effective statewide NPS control program is to

succeed.

Chapter IV includes a phased approach for implementing the KPS

program and addresses institutional, economic and other considerations.

Chapter V discusses the relation of the NPS program to other programs

within the Division of Water Resources as well as outside the Division.

Chapter V1 addresses mechanisms for local agency and public involvement in

the KPS program.

The State has recently developed a statewide ITS education program to

make the public aware of its role in creating and preventing-K-PS

pollution. The program, which is targeted towards all sectors of the

communitv, seeks to educate the public on the benefits and importance of

reducing pollution and to promote public involvement in voluntary and

regulatory NPS prevention and control programs. Appendix A includes a

discussion of the N-PS education program.

1-3

Chapter 11. The Existing Nonpoint Source Control Situation in New Jersey

This ch8pter discusses the impacts of RPS on water quality. Also

included are discussions of the impacts of KPS to the State's streams,

lakes, and ground water; interstate waters; and the ocean. The chapter

concludes with a discussion of the existing legal authorities and controls

for the management of KPS.

A. Water Quality Impacts from NonDoint Sources of Pollution

The impact of hTS on areceiving water is significant. Nonpoint

sources can potentially contribute such pollutants as sediment, nutrients,

pesticides, salts, fecal bacteria and other organisms, ammonia, toxic

substances, organic chemicals, metals, oil and grease, and miscellaneous

solid wastes. They can also adversely affect stream temperatures and

deplete dissolved ox-ygen levels.

The impacts on water quality from hIPS-derived pollutants range from

threats to human health to degradation and elimination of designated water

uses (e.g., swimming, fishing, recreation) and loss of aesthetics. For

example, metals and organic chemicals which may run off from urban areas

or land disposal areas and reach surface waters or ground waters serving

as water supplies can make them unfit for human consumption. The

hydrocarbons in urban runoff, which are approximately 90% in particulate

form, are believed to adversely affect filter feeding organisims, which

are an important part of the food chain in small streams. High bacteria

levels which may arise from urban areas or agricultural areas can

introduce pathogenic organisms, can preclude primary contact recreation,
and can contaminate shellfish. Nutrients running off from agriculture,

silviculture, or private la%ms and gardens can cause eutrophication of

wa"Cer bodies, can introduce nitrates into water supplies and thus threaten
infant health, and can reduce dissol\;ed oxygen levels posing a threat to

desirable fish species. Coastal algal blooms may also result from

nutrient inputs from NPS.

The USEPA's Nationwide Urban Runoff Program determined mean

concentrations of various contaminants found in urban runoff nationwide

(USEPA, 1983). When it is realized that these are mean values nationwide

and that New Jersey with its high population density may be expected to

have values higher than the mean, it becomes apparent that much urban

runoff is of a quality detrimental to acruatic life and unacceptable as it

effects ground water quality.

The importance of NPS as pollutant sources has been documented in

national studies as well as those of other states. For example, the

importance of agricultural N`PS was noted in a USEPA report which stated

that agricultural NPS pollution adversely affects portions of more than

two-thirds of the nation's river basins (USEPA, 1984). That report also

indicated that urban KPS problems affect more than 50% of the nation's

drainage basins. These N`PS categories are of special importance to New

Jersey which is highly urbanized yet has an important agricultural

segment. All of the KPS categories have to varying degrees some

-significance in New Jersey.

. The effects of NPS as contributors to water quality degradation in
New Jersey are significant. Both surface water and ground vater are

affected. It is explained, for example, in the New Jersey 1988 State
Water Quality Inventory Report that 69 percent of the monitored freshwater.

rivers and streams do not meet both the swimmable and fish

11-2

propagation/maintenance clean water goals. Onlv a small minority of these

segments can be clearly identified as contaminated solely by point

sources. Therefore, the remainder are substantially affected by NPS.

The report also states that lake quality throughout the State has

generally deteriorated or is threatened and that KPS pollution is the

.-primary cause of the degradation. NPS pollution is the major reason for

bathing beach closures and restrictions in New Jersey's shellfish growing

areas in backbays and estuaries. Recent research has shown that in

environmentally sensitive waterways, such as those of the Pinelands,

contaminated stormwater from developed areas severely degrades the natural

aquatic system by destroying the indigenous plant and animal communities.

Nonpoint contributions to lake tributaries will ultimately impact the

downstream lakes. Because lakes behave as sinks trapping sediments,

nutrients, as well as water-borne chemicals, sediments, toxics, etc.

graduallN build up in lake bottoms. At the same time excessive nutrient

inputs accelerate photos@rnthetic activity and, therefore, the process of

lake eutrophication (aging). As with rivers and streams, the degree of

impact upon a lake is proportional to the degree of urban/suburban

development or the intensity of agricultural activity within the

watershed. In addition, XPS contamination in ground water in certain

areas such as Edgewater Park Township, Delanco Township, Dennis Townshipt

Winslow Township, Howell Township, and Monroe Township (Gloucester

County), has impacted water quality which may render them unsuitable for

,potable purposes.

New Jersey's active program for remediation of contaminated well

fields has investigated the extent and sources of contamination in many

different sites. Of the more than seventy cases investigated so far,

11-3

approximate1v 500ft are believed to have been contaminated by identifiable

maJor sources of pollution such as major landfills, large industries, or

hazardous waste disposal sites; the remainder were contaminated by KPS or

by sources unknoum. This shows the relative importance which must be
given to controlling diffuse and dispersed pollution sources as far as

ground water is concerned.

B. Nonpoint Sources of Pollution in New Jersev

This section discusses the present state of water quality in the

State's surface and ground waters as they are affected by NPS. The

section is subdivided into separate sections discussing streams, lakes

(excluding interstate waters), and ground water; interstate waters; and

ocean waters. The discussion of ocean water cruality and nonpoint sources

is extensive due to the special concern which the public has expressed

with the problem of ocean and coastal pollution.

1. Streams, Lakes, and Ground Water (excluding interstate surface waters):

The occurrence of N-PS in New Jersey was preliminarily determined
through the use of a questionnaire which was,sent to various agencies and

government bodies for completion. Information was obtained from county
planning departments, the State's soil conservation districts, the N.J.
Division of Fish Game and Wildlife, and the Division of Water Resources'
MUM) Bureau of Marine Water Classification and Analysis. The

questionnaire asked these bodies to specify the suspected sources of
nonpoint pollution and tYpes of pollutants believed to be impacting the
various waterbodies in the State. This information was incorporated into
the New Jersey 1988 State Water Quality Inventory Report, presently in

11-4

draft form. The nonpoint source evaluations are based upon the best

professionbl judgment of the assessor and not, necessarily, actual

monitoring data. Appendices B, C, and D summarize, in tabular form, the

waterbodies suspected of being impaired by NPS.

In completing the questionnaires, these agencies focused upon

pollution sources, rather than pollution cause cateRories (types of

pollutants). As a result of the di fferent focus, pollutant types were not

reported in aproximately forty percent of the questionnaires. If

pollution cause categories were not provided in the evaluations, cause

categories based upon what would be expected from the source category

listed in the evaluations were added to the table by the Bureau of Water

Quality Planning. For example, if a local planning department reported

that a stream was affected by construction activity, siltation was listed"

as the probable pollutant. Therefore, the nonpoint source and cause

category information is considered preliminary.

The most commonly reported NTS included agricultural runoff, road

runoff, and runoff from construction activities and urban/suburban

surfaces. These sources are ubicruitous because land use in New jersey is

principally either agricultural, urban/suburb&n, or a mixture of both.
Table 1 lists the USEPA source categories idenfified as significant to

some degree in New Jersey. The most common pollutant categories

encountered in the evaluations were sediment loading, nutrient loading and
bacterial contamination. The severity of the poIllution problem is

generally proportional to the regional population density and/or the

intensity of local agricultural activit.y. Regions where KPS pollution is

minimal or water quality effects are not apparent are limited to the

11-5

Table 1.

Nonpoint Source Pollution Categories and Subcategories

Urban Runoff
Storm sewer (source
control)
Combined sewers (source
control)
Surface runoff

Construction
Highway/road/bridge
Land development

Agriculture
Non-irrigated crop production
Irrigate crop production
Specialty crop production
e.g., truck farming and
orchards)
Pasture land
Feedlots-all types
Animal holding/management
areas

Resource Extraction/
Exploration/Development
Surface ming
Subsurface mining
Dredge mining
Petroleum activities

Land Disposal Runoff/
Leachate from Permitted
Areas
Sludge
Wastewater
Landfills
Industrial land treatment
On-site wastewater systems
(septic tanks, etc.)
Hazardous waste

Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification
Channelization
Dredging
Dam Construction
Flow regulation/
modification
Bridge
Removal of riparian
vegetation
Stream Bank modification/
destabilization
contaminants

Other
Highway maintenance and
runoff
Natural

Source Unknown

Source: USEPA. April 1, 1987. Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1988
State Water Quality Assessment (305(b) Report), p. 19.

II-6

northwest corner of Sussex County in the Flatbrook watershed, and in

State-owned "crests of the Pinelands region.

This relationship between KPS pollution severity and population

density applies to its impact on ground water as well as surface water;

however, the assessments of impacts to ground water are complicated b\

local geologic and soil characteristics. Areas such as the coastal plain

bave very porous soils; hence, this region contains &cruifers which are

highly susceptible to contamination even though they often xtiderlie

relatively undeveloped areas. Also highly susceptible to contamination

are the limestone acruifers in parts of northwest New Jersey.

Specific sources of aggricultural pollution include runoff from

croplands and animal holding areas. Cropland runoff is often laden with

sediment, as well as herbicides, pesticides, and inorganic fertilizers

initially applied to the fields by the farmers. Animal waste accumulation

areas which generate significant quantities of manure are responsible for

excessive nutrient and bacterial loadings. This latter category (animal

holding) includes feedlots, dairies, and horsefarms. Also within this

category are horse racet-racks which often stockpile large quantities of

horse manure.

Nonpoint pollution sources in urban/suburban regions are diverse.

The most significant perhaps is runoff from paved surfaces such as roads,

highways, parking lots and various commercial and industrial sites.

Another significant source is lawns. Most of this runoff ends up as

stormsewer effluent; however, any land surface which drains into storm

sewers can have the potential for contaminating runoff. Urban/suburban
runoff often contains lawn fertilizers, sediment, heavy metals, fecal

bacteria, animal wastes, organic and inorganic debris, and household

11-7

chemicals as well as oils and grease from motor vehicles. Another

T-Ossible pollution source, difficult to track, is leakage and overflow

from sanitary sewer systems.

Construction site runoff is a significant source of pollution because

of its transport of sediment loads and, in certain areas, the exposure of

acid-producing deposits. Such sites include the construction of roads,

bridges, homes, and commercial buildings. This problem is especially

visible in regions undergoing rapid population growth and suburbanization.

An additional pollution source associated with suburban development is

septic tank- leachate which can contaminate waters with bacteria, household

chemicals, and nutrients. The cause of this problem is usually poor tank

maintenance, installation, and/or too many tanks in a region. Results are

most immediately damaging in small lot subdivisions served by individual

wells.

Other sources of KPS pollution have been reported which are not

necessarily associated with intersity of agriculture or urbanization.

These sources are hydrologic habitat modification, leachate from

landfills, hazardous waste sites, and sludge disposal activities. Also

inc:Iuded here are sporadic spills which can occur during chemical
transport and storage.

Kot all h7S pollution is necessarily due to man's activities.

Natural sources are also reported to be important contributors to bacteria

and nutrient loadings. For example, the extensive waterfowl populations

which inhabit the State's lakes, ba%s and estuaries can have a significant

affect upon water quality.

The New Jersey 1988 State Water Quality Inventory Report (draft)
lists nearly eighty streams believed to be'impaired by h7PS. The actual

11-8

number is probably much higher. The appendix summarizes, by waterway, the

nonpo;.nt source categories and pollution sources as presented in the 11988

305(b) report. At this time, information is not presented in USEPA Water

Bod%. System (WBS) format. Division staff are presently adapting the

watershed data scheme to WBS. Detailed watershed by watershed assessments

are presented in the 305(b) report. Although NPS has been identified in

the 1988 State Water Quality Inventory Report as a significant impediment

to bchieving designated water uses and water quality objectives of the

Clean Water Act, little NPS-related monitoring has been performed in New

Jersey.

2. Interstate Waters:

Delaware River and Bay: Water pollution control in the Delaware

River and Bay is the joint responsibility of the federal government, the

four Delaware River basin st-ates (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and

Delaware) and the Delaware River Basin Commission (DBRC). The DRBC

conducts monitoring, regulatory and other water quality management

functions as part of its basinwide responsibilities. The DRBV' prepared

the 1986-1987 305(b) report that assessed the water quality of the

Delaware River, Delaware Bay, and the interst-ate portion of the West

Branch Delaware River. Of the total 339 mil es, 88 percent met the federal

fishable goal and 89 percent met the federal swimmable goal; however, 9

percent (30.5 miles) were severely impaired by nonpoint sources of

pollution. In addition, DRBC showed concern for hPS impacts on the

pristine waters of the northern Delaware River due to accelerated

development and recreational usage.

11-9

Neu, Jersey/New York Metropolitan Area: 5@eventy-two square miles of

New Jersey's tidal surface waters in the U-NY metropolitan area fall

u:jder the jurisdiction of the Interstate Sanitation Commission.

Fifty-four square miles are Class A waters designated for primary contact

recreation, shellfish culture and development of fish life; nine square

miles are designated for secondary contact recreation and fishing (Class

B-1); and nine square miles have been identified for fish passage and

maintenance (Class B-2). Based on monitoring data, none of these waters

meet the federal fishable or swimmable goals. For 18 square miles, these

goals are deemed unattainable by the Interstate Sanitation Commission.

The New York-New Jersey Harbor and the Delaware Bay have been

declared estuaries of national significance and have been accepted for the

National E.stuarv Program. 'n)e New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection (N.JD---P) is working with USEPA Regions II and III, Delaware,

Pennsylvania, and New York to develop comprehensive management plans which

include recommendations for pollution control in both the New York-New

Jersey Harbor and the De laware Bay.

3. Ocean Waters:

Potential water quality problems associated with the condition of N@tw

Jersey's coastal water quality and beaches received a great deal of

publicity in the summers of 1987 and 1988. The major complaints by

beach-goers and local residents included health risk concerns, garbage

floating in the water, and litter on the beaches. From unexplained

dolphin deaths to hospital wastes washing onshore, it appeared to the
public that the complaints were not unfounded (NJDEP, January 1988e).

Ti-10

At the same time, the NJDEP and the USEPA reported that their routine

monitoriiig progranis i)jdicated excellent ocear, oater quality. The state

and federal scientists were recording high dissolved oxygen levels, good

water clarity and generally low bacteria) counts (NJDEP, 1988e).

The apparent ability of the Atlantic Ocean to dilute and assimilate a

large quantity of solid and liquid waste has designated it as a major

disposal site for modern society. The ocean does have a remarlable

ability to process some kinds of waste naturally without harm to living

marine resources or its recreational value. The pollution problems

visible to all this summer indicate that this ability has its limits and

does not apply to all kinds of wastes. These limits cannot be abused

without detrimental effects.

The necessity to close beaches in the summers of 1987 and 1988

indicated areas and times when the ocean environment was stressed bevond

its limit for supporting primary contact recreation. The Coastal

Cooperative Monitoring Program identified 12 short term and 3 extended

ocean beach closings in 1967 (see section D of Chapter III of Report 303b

for a more detailed description of estuarine a-nd ocean water quality).

The causes of the periodic short term beach closings in the ocean were

land-based and usually associated with rainfall. The three extended

closings were in Atlantic City, Monmouth County, and Seaside Heights. The

mechanism for bacterial transport to beaches during one closing in

Atlantic City was considered to be contaminated flow from the stormwater

pipes discharging to the ocean. A damaged valve in a sewage line at the

Ocean Toumship Sewerage Authority facility was the cause of an August

closing in Monmouth County. in Seaside Heights, the beach was closed on

either side of the Casino Pier as fecal coliform concentrations were

elevated above the standard. The bacterial contamination was attributed

to the presence of the bird popul8tions roosting wider the pier (N.TDEP,

The Jersey Shore also suffered beach closings in the summer of 1967

due to other causes than high bacterial levels. Discretionary beach

closings from Point Pleasant through Long Beach Island in Ocean County

from IMay 27 through May 29 were invoked during an extensive washup of

floatables which included plastics (condoms and tampon applicators),

grease-coated organic particles of varying size and the decomposing

remnants of an major algal bloom which had extended from Sandy Hook to

Long Beach Island. From August 13 and August 16, 1987, a period preceded

by extreme tides, heavy rains and northeast winds, another major

floatables washup caused beach closings from southern Monmouth County

through Long Beach Island. The presence of medical waste (syringes,

needles, intravenous tubing), wood and glass required major cleanup

efforts prior to the reopening of the beaches (NJDEP, 1988a).

The NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Health and the USEPA initiated

and continued a number of programs and studies addressing ocean and beach

pollution. A floatables study to identify sources and determine the

distribution of solid wastes that float or remain suspended in the water

column was continued by the QDEP and USEPA (Science Applications

International Corp., 1987). The concern over gastrointestinal,

respiratory and skin infections reported 'by visitors and residents of the

shore during the summer of 1987 initiated a health study by the K-JDOH

WDOH, 1988). The NUDEP and the USEPA are analyzing pbytoplank-ton and
chlorophyll "a" concentrations in the N.vw York Bight area. The KJDEP and
the coastal county health departments have a program to monitor ocean

TT-12

water quality as related to fecal coliform concentrations at bathing

beaciies (NJDEP, 1986a).

The Commissioner of NJDEP initiated a studv bv scientific,

governmental, and environmental professionbls to review the events of the

summer of 1987 in the context of the larger issues of coastal development,

water quality and marine resources. This "Blue Ribbon Panel" submitted a

.written report addressing the pollution events of last summer that

includes recommendations of actions to avoid similar occurrences in the

future. These recommendations are discussed in the management section of

this report.

i. Nonpoint Sources of Pollution: Eighty to ninety percent of the coastal

beach closings are attributable to localized sources of elevated bacterial

,po2lution from stormwater runoff. With one exception, during the past two

summers there have been no pollution incidents that can be conclusively

attributed to sewage treatment plants along the coast. The bacteria comes

from leaky sanitary sewer lines, cross connections of sanitary lines into

A.
S%.orm sewers, bird populations, and pet- droppings. Excess fertilizers

from agricultural lands and suburban lawns likely contribute nutrients
..that sometimeg trigger algal blooms in the ocean. Floatables of wood,

plastics paper, metal and glass originate from a variety of sources

including landfills, marine transfer stations, primary sewage treatment
plants, combin;ed sewer overflows, boating and beach activities and
stormdrains. The lack of distinguishing physical or chemical features on
J
floatables does not allow sources to be clearly identified (Science

Applications International Corp., 1987). 'However, another study suggests.

that the majority of floating litter and debris that has plagued the

11-13

beaches of New Jersey comes from stormwater runoff and flushing of storm

%ater pipes after heavy rainfalls (NUDEP. Jaijuar\- 1986t).

Municipal Sewiige Sludge: Sewage sludge is the solid portion of waste
that has settled to the bottom of tani-,s during the wastewater treatment

Process at municipally operated sewage plants. Three New York and six New

Jersey sewerage agencies dispose approximately 6.8 million wet tons of

sluOge into ocew). Over 150 smaller New Jersey communities have stopped

ocean disposal of sewage sludge since 1976.

In 1964, the USEPA denied petitions from the ocean dumpers to

continue to use a USEPA designated site located 12 miles off shore in

shallow water. At present all sludge dumping is to be done at a 106 mile

site in deep water off the continental shelf (ODEP, January 1988e).

Both the State of New Jersey and the LIS Congress have passed

legislat-ion that calls for the cessation of all dumping in the ocean. The

State of \,@@w Jersey has set March 17, 1991 as the date that ocean dumping

of sludge generated by municipal sewerage agencies in the State is

prohibited. - Federal le islation allows permits for dumping to be

effective until December 31, 1991. After that date, penalties will be

assessed for those violators who continue ocean dumping.

Two alternative disposal options to ocean dumping for sludge are
incineration and composting with land application. Ulile these options
would stop ocean disposal they could cause air or ground water pollution

that also must be considered.

iii. Dredged Material: Sand, silt, and mud must be removed from
navigational channels and docking areas throughout the-part of New York

11-14

and New Jersey. Some of these sediments come from industrial and sewer

outfall arebs which cor,-Lain pollu*@ants such as he&,.-\ metals, PCBS' oil and

grease. The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is responsible for the

transportation and dumping of the dredged material at a site (.Mud Dumping

Site) six miles east of Sea Bright. The Corps is responsible for

determining the suitability of dredge material for dumping by running

bioassay and bioaccumulation tests. In 1986 a law was enacted by Congress

which requires the USEPA and the Corps to find a new site at least 20

m.-ile:@_qffshqre and relocate the dredge material disposal from the Mud Dump

Site. Promising alternatives to dumping the dredged material include the

creation of a containment island in Lower New York Bay or in Raritan Bay,

filling existine holes in the harbor area and using clean sand to

.Ee-establish eroded beaches (NJDEP, January 1988e).

iv. Industrial Waste Disposal: Only two companies are authorized to barge

a portion of their wastes for disposal in the ocean under permit authorit-v

of the USEPA. The USEPA's regulations state that ocean disposal can only

be considered if land-based alternatives do not exist. Allied Corporation

is authorized to dispose of dilute hydrochloric acid at a site

approximately 20 miles ea.st of_Asbury Park. DuPont in Delaware withdrew

its permit application in August 1988 which would have allowed it to

continue ocean dumping of dilute iron-acid waste at the 106 mile site.

All ocean disposal of industrial waste is expected to be curtailed as soon

as these companies begin to utilize land based disposal alternatives

(NUDEP, January 1988e).

Ciba - Geigy Corporation.operates a chemical manufacturing plant in

Toms River and discharges its treated wastewater to the ocean one half

11-15

mile offshore through an outfall pipeline. It is New Jersey's only

industrial discharge directly into the ocean. The discharge is regulated

through a permit issued by the N JDEP.

V. Wood Burning: A \ew Jersey/New York Harbor clean-up program exists in

cooperation with the Corps of Engineers. This program is designed to

remove old piers, pilings, hulk-heads, and abandoned vessels. Wooden

debris and charred timbers which drift in the harbor and are found on

beaches are collected. The wood is collected to minimize hazards to boat

navigation. The collected material is burned in special steel barges at a

site aDDroximatelv 20 miles east of Point Pleasant, Rew Jersey.

Public concerns center around the poor record of operations by

certain burn barge contractors. Timbers have fallen overboard in transit

to the burn site and washed onto beaches or caused hazards to fishing and

recreat.ional boats. The NJDEP has been authorized by the USEPA to monitor
all burn operations involving New Jersey originated material. In 1986 and
1987, USEPA imposed conditions on burning including fewer burns, no

overloading of barges, trailing vessels to pick up fallen material and
increased monitoring. Air pollution and water pollution by soot and ash

are also concerns which need to be addressed (KMEP, January 1988e).

vi. Boat litter: There are laws which_prohibit the discharge of oil or
oily substances in the ocean. The Coast Guard is responsible for ensuring
,that the merchant marine laws are enforced. At the present time,

commercial vessels can legally dispose of garbage generated aboard ship in
0
the ocean beyond three miles from shore. This practice has become a major
issue nationally. A recent KJDEP study concluded that there is a

11-16

significant potential for wash up of garbage plastics and f loatables from

cffshcre vessels including recreational craft, fishing boats. and merchant

marine vessels.

The problem of plastics and marine garbage generated by ships is

addressed in the international agreement, Annex V of the International

Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships, 1973 (KARPOL 73/78),

entitled "Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage by Ships,

signed August 29, 1988. The agreement, which is effective December 31,

1988, no longer allows ships to dispose of plastic wastes overboard and

regulates other types of solid waste disposal (NJDEP, January 1988e).

C. Existing Legal Control /Authority and Management Programs

Currently, authority for KPS pollution control in New Jersey is

included in a broad range of both regulatory and voluntary programs at all

levels of government. To a great extent, KPS control programs which

currently exist in the State are voluntary. However, regulatory programs

do exist. These programs focus primarily on soil erosion control during

new construction activities, coastal water protection and stormwater

management in developing areas.

State and local governments, as well as the Federal government, have

broad legal authority for NPS control. This authority has often not been

exercised because of uncertainty about what hPS controls to require,

limited funds and sta ff available for NPS control programs, and concern

about h-PS control costs. Because of uncertainty and the immensity of the

task, there has been no clear-cut action program at any level. Some of

the more important State and Federal statutes are noted below with general

Provisions discussed before specific hTS categories. The Federal

11-17

government h6s legal authority for certain specific NPS controls such as

pesticide control (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act), conservation provisions in agricultural commodity programs (the Food

Sec,urity Act of 1985), discharge permits for stormwater and dredged or

fill material (Sections 402(p) and 404 of the Clean Water Act), and

management of solid or hazardous wastes (the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act).

The Water Pollution Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 et seq., gives the

Department of Environmental Protection broad authority-to regulate any NPS

category for any water pollution control purpose. To date, the Department

ha's applied this authority to a limited number of NPS categories (e.g.,

industrial stormwater discharges, landfills, land diSDOSal Of wastewater

and sludge). The Water Quality Planning Act, N-J.S.A. 58:11A-1 et seq.,

expressly requires areawide D1811S to control several h7PS categories, but

existing areawide plans generally include no mandatory NPS controls.-

Although the County Environmental Health Act, N.J.S.A. 26:3A2-21 et seq.,

provides for water pollution control (not limited to public health

protection) through environmental health ordinances, environmental health

services, and delegation of Department environmental health powers to

county health departments, present NTS control under that Act is generally

limited to monitoring programs and enforcement of existing Department

rules. The Home Rule Act, N.J.S.A. 40:48-1 et seq., authorizes

municipalities to adopt ordinances to protect public health, safety and

welfare, but use of such powers for NPS control has been slight.

Agriculture is exempt from the State Soil Erosion and Sediment

Control Act, N.J.S.A. 4:24-39 et sea., but agricultural and other

pesticide users are subject to the Pesticide Control Act of 1971, N.J.S.A.

13:1F-1 et seq. The Right. to Form Act, N.J.S.A. 4:1C-1 through 10,

directs the State Agriculture Development Committee to recommend

bgricu)tural management practices for wbter (Tuality control, pesticide

control, and fertilizer application. If State regulations conflict with

those practices, State agencies must consider the Committee's

recommendations. The Right to Farm_Act-wy-preempt local powers to

independently regulate agricultural NPS.

-rolled in most respects, although
Existing urban runoff is uncont.

authority for such control is available under the Water Pollution Control

Act and Water Quality Planning Act (which expressly refer to stormwater),

the S-%-.orm Water Management Ple-n article of the Municipal Land Use Law

(N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et sea.), the municipal sewerage and drainage statutes

(N.J.S.A. 40:63-1 et seq.), the municipal street cleaning statute

(N.J.S.A. 40:66-1), the Home Rule Act and public health statutes (e.g.,

N.J.S.A. 26:3-31) that authorize local ordinances to control animal waste,

anti-litter statutes (N.J.S.A. 13:!E-92 through 99-10), and statutes

authorizing construction and maintenance of streets amd highways (N.J.S.A.

27). The recently approved Sewage Infrastructure Improvement Act (L.
1988, C. 90),requires abatement of contaminaied stormwater discharges and
nonpoint source pollutants to coastal waters in Monmouth, Ocean, Atlantic

and Cape May counties, as well as Statewide abatement of combined sewer

overflows Local stormwater management ordinances are required under the
Municipal Land Use Law (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et Iseq) only when there is State

funding for development of such ordinances. Because of this approach,

these regulatory programs do not contain provisions for identifying

11-19

sPecific Pollutants to control and %aterways to be improved but are

implemented with what can be considered technology-hased standards.

Most present urban runoff control appl.ies to new construction 011INI;

additional authority for such control is provided by the subdivision and

site plan provisions of the Mu))icipal Land Use Law and the county planning

statute, N.J.S.A. 40:27-1 et seg. The Sewage Infrastructure Improvement

Act requires that stormwater collection systems built by state agencies be

designed to abate adverse surface water quality impacts to the greatest

extent Le_asible. The Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act requires

erosion and sediment control for land disturbance of more than 5,000

square feet (agriculture and horticulture are exempt).

Many hydrologic and habitat modifications are controlled under the

Flood Hazard Area Control Act (N.J.S.A. 58:16A-50 et seg.), the Freshwater

Wetlands Protection Act (N.J.S.A. 23:9B-1 et seg.), the Water Pollution

Control Act, and, in coastal areas, the Wetlands Act of 1970 (N.J.S.A.

13:9A-1 et seg.) and the Waterfront Development Law (N.J.S.A. 12:5-3).

Construction of individual subsurface sewage disposal systems is regulated

under the Realty Improveme nt Sewerage and Facilities Act (1954), K.J.S.A.

58:11-23 through 48; control of malfunctioning existing systems is
authorized ky the Water Pollution Control Act and public heal@h statutes

(e.g., N.J.S.A. 26:3-31).

Land disposal NPS such as land application of municipal va'stewater

and sludge, sanitary landfills, undergound storage tanks, hazardous waste
facilities, and hazardous discharge sites are regulated by onelor more

statutes such as the Solid Waste Management Act (N.J.S.A. 13:1E-1 et

seg.), the Water Pollution Control Act, the Spill Compensation and Control

11-20

Act (K.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11 et seg.), and the Environmental Cleanup

Responsibility Act (N.J.S.A. 13:IK-6 et seg.).
In specific regions of the State, some additional authority for KPS
control is avtiilable under the Pinelands @rotection Act (N.J.S.A. 13:18A-1

et seg.), the Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Development Act

(K.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et seg.), the Coastal Area Facilities Review Act
(N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 et seg.), and the Delaware and Raritan Canal State Park

Law of 1974 (N.J.S.A. 13:13A-1 et seg.).

Obviously both Federal and State statutes have provided ample

authority to control NPS; but from a practical viewpoint relatively little

has been accomplished in New Jersey (and other states). In many instances

nonpoint source control has been authorized through existing regulatory

programs which were originally created to primarily control point sources

of pollution. Given the emphasis that has been placed on point source

control both nationally and statewide, these programs have not fully

exercised their regulatory authority to control nonpoint source pollution.

Appendix E is a summary of existing State and local programs for the

provision of nonpoint source management.

Chapter Ill. Nonpoint Source Control Plan

The QDEP recognizes that clean water goals for surface and ground

waters of the State cannot be attained without an active program for the

control of KPS. With the substantial funding which has been provided for

point source control since passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, major

progress has been made in reducing point source pollution. It is now

necessary to remedY nonpoint source pollution if environmental goals are

to be attained. Although the importance of NPS has been known for a

number of years, limited action has been taken at the State or federal

level. The complete implementation of hTS control throughout the State

will be a task for many years. New Jersey's general strategy is intended

to chart, at this time, the phases of investigation, survey, planning and

implementation that will initiate the State KPS Program.

Cultivating public and legislative support for NPS control through an

awareness and education program is critical. Equally important is the

need for the NUDEEP to prepare statewide regulations and guidelines for the

development and implementation of control programs. Moreover, better

information must be provided as to the specific origins of hTS pollution.

Thelactual implementation of any program must be accomplished with the

involvement of state, county and municipal agencies.

The specific origin of hTS pollution will be investigated through

storm sewer surveys, monitoring programs, research projects, and
demonstration projects. Investigation of sources of hTPS pollution will

precede any attempt to mandate general remedial action with Best

Management Practices (BI-Ts). When sources and impacts of N-PS are better

understood and BMP ef f ectiveness has been established,

plans need to be developed oll a witershed/ojunicipal scale.

KPS controls using BMPs are to be based on a combination of programs

dealing with minimizing pollutant input at the source (source controls),

trebtment prior to entering or within a conveyance system and a program

that controls the location and quality of discharges to selected

waterways. Controls would be primarily of a regulatory nature. however

voluntary controls may still continue for certain activities.

B@Ms are officially approved procedures for reducing NPS through

structural and nonstructural controls, including operation and maintenance

procedures. Selection of suitable BMPs for each category of NPS will

require extensive coordination between various agencies at all levels of

government, as well as assistance and cooperation from the general public.

For some of these categories, available BM?s have already been identified

and their selection processes established through existing regulatory
programs. In effect, these programs represent the B1,Ts that are utilized

for various activities, which ultimately may become legal requirements.

The following chapter discusses strategies the State plans to develop

into programs for reducing h7S pollution from a number of sources.

Nonpoint source pollution from urban and suburban sources are the least
understood yet most extensive h7S -Droblem facing New Jersey. Although the

management program will concentrate on the challenge of reducing urban and

suburban h7S pollution, the NJDEP will not ignore other XPS sources. A

number of already existing programs can be modified to integrate BMPs in

water quality management planning requirements. These programs are

discussed in Chapter V.

A. Urban and Developing_Areas

The intensity of the impacts of urban and suburban KPS pollution

varies geographically throughout the State. Initially, the resources of

the New Jersey NPS Maiiagement Program will concentrate on investigating

urban and suburban NPS control in high priority areas of the State. As

the program evolves, the technical information and successful management

practices developed for these high priority areas will be applied

statewide.

All developing and developed areas will be classified on a priority-

basis, relative to NPS pollution affects upon waters that are impacted as

determined in the State's KPS assessment including coastal waters,

reservoirs and lakes. In each case, it is considered that a phase of

storm sewer sur-veys, monitoring and identification of KPS would precede

any attempt to mandate general remedial action with B',Ts- In this way,

the sources of pollution could be identified and a coherent program

outlined. Such a program will serve to identify and designate responsible

parties, either specifically or generically. These parties could then be

required to take remedial action, as well as identify residual sources of

pollution.

Designated high priority areas, as rapidly as resources permit, will

be the subject of amendments to water quality management plans and will be

implemented by NJPDES permits to responsible governmental entities. (It

must be recognized that these WQM plan amendments and NJPDES permits will

be of very different character to those currently used which refer to

wastewater facilities only.) These plans and permits may make mandatory

certain B11,Ps which, f or the time being, remain voluntary in other areas.

111-3

The source control of NPS before they enter an urban or suburban

drainage svstem must be considered. This can involve both regulatory and

voluntary initiatives. Intensive land activities, such as large shopping

center parking lots, inav require permits on an individual basis. Land

uses that are known to be significant contributors of pollutants need to

be identified. Such land uses may be required to get a permit demanding

specific water quality limitations, management practices or structures

much in the same way industrial pretreatment programs are intended to work

in relation to sewage treatment plants.

The NJDEP will pu.-sue a program of selective permitting of NPS
discharges from specific sites or facilities. This program could be t)

related to specific water ality goals of waterwaNs or ground waters

(environmentally sensitive and valuable habitat areas), in waters with

violations of water quality standards, or to areas of a certain population

size or densit\.

The NJDZP will pursue permitting of stormwater discharge quality

through the NJPDES program on a priority basis in areas where water

mi_ai@itv @rotection is most important. A system of general permits or

areawide permits may be applicable. The permitting program will need to
be closely coordinated with Etormwater permitting regulations currently
being developed by the USEPA under Section 405 of the Clean Water Act

amendments. A program of system inspection and maintenance involving

local management agencies would be needed.

1. Existing Developed Urban and Suburban Areas:

In developed urban and suburban areas, infrastructures are in place

and land use established. hTS control in these areas will stress source

TTT-4

oj@
40@

O'control through permitting of higt_@jntensity land uses. In addition,

trecatnient requirements for discharges will be implemented through permits

where feasible. Before such controls can be implemented, existing

discharge systems need to be surveyed and analyzed to identify NPS

pollution.

As resources become available, storm sewer surveys will be conducted

with state aid. The NJDEP will institute a program that will require

sanitary survevs for the removal of illegal connections into storm'

drainage systems. In addition, the prOgrdM Will identify the occurrence

of hazardous materials in storm drainage systems, will locate and control

the sources of the materials and have the materials removed from the

systems. For example, a portion of the $33.5 million appropriated in the

recently signed Sewage Infrastructure Improvement Act will be available to

map, invertory, plan and design stormwater and sewage facilities to reduce

KPS Pollution entering critical coastal waters in four counties. Under

this Act, the bulk of the planning implementation is the responsibility of

municipal governments using state funds available from cost share grants.

Most of the corrective action taken by the NJDEP will be to require

elimination of illegal connections and to promote improvements in sanitary
6D>A
and combibed sewer systems. The methodology for such surveys remains to
be develop'ed.

Among the developed areas will be large municipalities expected to be

designated for stormwater controls by the USEPA under section 402(p) of

the Clean Water Act The initial regulations will address separate storm

,water systems of municipalities with populations greater than 250,000 and
.between 160,000 and 250,000 or where water quality standards have been

violated. In New Jersey, municipalities meeting these population criteria

,have combined sewer svstems rather than separate systems and, therefore,
may not be general Iy covered by the initial LSEPA regulations.

Consequently, the initial USEPA regulations.will more likely be applied to

storm water systems uhere violations of water quality standards occur or

where significant contributions to pollution are determined.

As in all developed urban and suburban areas, high intensity land uses

and other sources in densely populated areas will be subjected to NJPDES

perwits. The permit conditions will be set in part by WQ.M plan

provisions. It is easy enough to determine that the storm runoff of any

large city is of undesirable q-oality; but, unless information is available

as to the origins of the pollution in question it will be very difficult

to require remedial action with any assurance of success. As in other

high priority areas, State-supported storm sewer surveys and monitoring
will be required in these U-SEPA-designated municipalities.

The combined sewer systems will be dealt with through programs

mandated by the Sewage infrastructure improvement Act where a portion of

the S33-5 million which has been appropriated in that Act will be
available for planning and design work- required for the abatement of

combined sewer overflows. This will need to be coordinated with other

State and federal programs 'related to CSOs.

2. Developing Suburban Areas:

In developing areas, h?S controls can be implemented before
construction buins. Unlik-e developed areas, location as well as quality
of discharge can be pontro IIled through land use and stormwater management
Plans in developing area Source control will be anticipatory in nature
through BMPsy land use planning and zoning Intense pollutant-producing

111-6

activities will be subjected to site plan review by municipalities and may

require NJPDES permits. At a minimum, stormwater regulations under the

Municipal Land Use Law will be mandatorily applied.

3. Urban and Suburban Best Management Practices (BMPs)P

BMPs in high priority areas may be implemented through NJPDES permit

conditions, a variety of existing regulatory programs, new NPS programs

yet to be initiated, or through county and municipal action, under the

Municipal Land Use Law and the County Environmental Health Act.

Selection of specific BMPs will depend primarily upon the type of

pollutant affecting the nearby waterways or attributable to particular

land use. The physical conditions of the site including acessibility for

maintenance and enforcement as well as soil type and slope for design will

play a role in BMP selection. In addition, environmental costs and

benefits will be considered. As discussed previously, BMPs can be

implemented at the source, collection, and discharge points into surface

and ground waters. A number of technical references for planning and

designing urban BMPs feasible for use in New Jersey are available. NJDPE,

1986; MDDOE 1987a and MDDOE 1987b provide details on construction design

of storm water BMPs. USEPA, 1984 and USEPA, 1983 give an overview of the

nature of urban NPS from a national perspective. Shueler, 1987 discusses

planning as well as design of urban BMPs. BMPs may be mande mandatory in

the high priority areas or on a statewide basis for high priority

problems. Because of practical limitations, full implementation of high

priority area controls will be initiated on a phased basis.

III-7

B St at eu-i de-Si rat egy

State%%ide B'11? controls will require local action regarding approval

and operation of facilities such as automobile body shops, filling

stations, car wash establishments, and supermarkets, as well as provisions

regarding deposition of used crankcase oil, used household chemicals, care

of private ]awns end gardens, soil erosion and sediment control,

construction disturbance and animal waste management. These B'lPs will be

enforced partly through other regulatory controls such as facility permit

action, and partly on a voluntary basis; however, specific authority will

be sought to require municipalities to consider such BMPs in subdivision

and site plan approvals under the Municipal Land Use Law.

While the management program will initially concentrate on

controlling urban and suburban NPS on a priority basis, the KJDF.P also

plans to pursue a number of measures to reduce NPS pollution statewide.

These are discussed below in terms of NPS source category.

1. Household Hazardous Wastes:

The proper disposal and reduction of household hazardous wastes 'will

be addressed in many of the activities within the KPS education program.

Along with these educational efforts, each municipality would be required.

to have a collection point for unused household chemicals. Inquiry

indicates that most municipalities either have no such facility or that

its existence is not generally knowm. In addition, municipalities should

be required to develop alternative source control programs to control hTS

caused by improperly disposed of household chemical wastes. Special

attention will focus on the use of septic tank cleaners end the disposal
+
of used crank-case oil.

Some enforcement o r an implementing regulation will be required. Such

a progrbm will requir e the cooperation of the Di\,isions of Hazardous

Waste, Water Resources and Solid Waste within KJDEP as well as county and

municipal agencies. Collection at a local level can be costly and a

long-term source of funding needs to be identified to implement such a

program.

2. Road and Highway Runoff:

The control of road runoff must be addressed. Runoff structures are

important along the larger highways and state/local roads, particularly in

areas with high incidence of spills. Programs of highway drainage should

be adjusted to NPS objectives and priorities so as to reduce contamination

not only of small streams but also of surface aquifers. The increased

priority now given to ground water quality necessitates that all processes

involving infiltration of runoff into ground water conform to the State's

ground water cruality standards. As an additional source B.I.-T, road salting

practices can be modified to minimize water cruality impacts.

Implementation of VIPs may begin on state roads and used as

demonstration projects to encourage local transportation agencies to adopt

these practices. This will require an interdepartmental agreement with

the Depaftment of Transportation and also an agreement on infiltration

with Soil Erosion and Sediment Control agencies. Technical information

concerning the design of highway stormwater runoff BMPs is available

(LISDOT, 1985).

111-9

3. Agricu)ture:

The control of apricultural-related NPS must be addressed,

particularly in areas of concentrated crop production, animal feedinR and

animal waste accumulation, where potential agricultural KPS problems exist

and in areas where surface or ground waters are of special concern. Tile

Department of Agriculture (DOA), through the State Soil Conservation

Committee (SSCQ and the local conservation districts, has general

responsibility for -implementation of agricultural B.11Ps. The DOA will

strengthen its existing programs in consultation and coordination with the

KJDEP, which is the Statewide water quality management agency, to achieve

greater WT implementation. In addition, the NODEP will work with the DOA

to formulate new and innovative approaches designed to maximize pollutant

reductions from farmland.

The State's Farmland Preservation Program provides cost/share

incentives for implementation of soil and water conservation practices

wliereby up to 50% of the cost for installing approved practices is

provided by the state to the farmland owners who agree to at least an

eight year development restriction easement on their lands. Most of the

conservation practices that have been approved by the State Soil

Conservation Committee for inclusion in the cost/share program have both

direct and indirect water cruality benefits. Additional emphasis will be

placed on implementing those practices as an element of the Preservation

Program. in addition, the DOA will seek the necessary funding to implement

a separate generic statewide agricultural cost/share program that will be

available to all farm operations for a more limited scope of BMPs having

direct water quality improvement impact.

III-10

As an integral partner in this effort, the federal Soil Conservation

Service (SCS) is expected to cont-inue its ongoinR program of providing

technical assistance through the 16 local conservation districts to

ftrniers. However, to accelerate MP implementation, the DOA will attempt

to supplement the SCS field conservationists with State personnel to be

assigned to areas of high priority as described above. Continued

assistance will be required to ins truct farmers on the proper use and

application of fertilizers and pesticides. Also, it is anticipated that

application of sewage sludge to farmlands will become one of the few

remaining disposal alternatives and that increased technical assistance

will be required for installations of BMP land treatment practices. The

DOA will seek additional funding required to support this work.

Considerable SCS staff resources will be required to implement the

conservation compliance provisions of the federal Food Security Act of

1985. This Act requires that conservation plans (BMPs) be developed and

implemented by 1995 on farms containing highly erodible land, under +-he

threat of losing eligibility for all USDA assistance programs. Priority

will be placed on ensuring that all relevant water quality factors are

reflected in the development of the conservation plans which will be

required on at least 130,000 acres.

The DOA and the soil conservation districts (SCD), working in

cooperation with the SCS and the NUDEP, will also be focusing on

watershed-wide approaches to correcting significant agricultural KPS

problems where potential exists for group support by landowners and the

federal watershed protection program (P.L. 566) can apply. Innovative

approaches to BMP implementation will be evaluated through demonstration

projects such as providing 100% of the cost to farm landowners for

inirilenienting water quality control BliPs in targeted drainage areas.

There is a need to strengthen the education program administered by

the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) bN developing additional NPS

education tools and improving the existing out-reach program.. The DOA will

work with the CES and the NJDEP to prepare for this initiative in a manner

that is complementary with the NPS Education Plan developed by the NJDIEP.

A unique situation which frequently results in inadequate utilization

of BYIPs and increased potential for KPS pollution involves farmland leased

by tenant farmers from absentee landowners. There has been limited

success in securing full participation of absentee landowners in NPS

control and conservation programs. This has been generally attributed to

the unwillingness of land speculators or the tenant farm operators to make

the additional investments for MP implementation when the land may be

sold for development purposes at any time. Initiatives which will develop

appropriate measures to resolve this problem will be pursued.

4. Construction and Resource Exi-Xaction:

New Jersey has an established and progressive program, for managing

soil erosion and sedimentation associated with these activities throughout

the State. Virtually all land disturbance activities such as

construction, cruarr-Ying and landfill capping are all subject to the

requirements for soil erosion and sediment controls by local SCDs in

accordance with standards promulgated by the SSCC under the authority of

the state Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act of 1975. Prior to

commencement of such activities, technical plans to control soil erosion

and sedimentation must be certified by the local SCD or municipality.

Projects also maN not be occupied until all permanent controls are in

place. These -plans ident-if%.41he IIIAT-S that will be utilized including both

vegetative bijd structural controls as required on a site specific basis.

This program is administered by the SSCC, the sixteen SCDs and the

exempt municipalities and is an ongoing program within the DOA. Because

implementation is primarily at the local district level, there is

significant variation in local procedures for approval of control plans

and establishment of fee schedules among the districts. This variation

results to some extent in differing levels of soil erosion and

sedimentation control measures. The State Soil Conservation Committee

proposes to provide additional professional and technical staff necessarv

to coordinate and assist local districts to achieve basic statewide

iuiiformity. Expanded and revised procedural standards and rules have been

initiated but additional staffing and funding are needed to achieve these

goals.

In addition, to strengthen the local district enforcement process,

additional training and tectmical support programs are proposed. A

regimen of training for professionals servicing the regulated community.
including construction officials, engineering firms, developers and

instal lers/construction workers will be expanded. In addition, a state

recognized program of proficiency certificates for district technical

personnel will be initiated. This will provide enhanced program

credibility and eliminate challenges from the regulated community where

registered professional engineers and architects object to non-licensed

professionals evaluating their designs.

To coincide with the NPS Management Program, a process for

prioritizing specific control mea. sures in high priority pollution control

111-13

areas such as those drainine to sensitive waters will be formulated. In

addition. a munitoring procram to e\-a)uate the effectiveness of 13.1-1P

control measures will be established as a pdrt of this process.

The full implementation of this soil erosion and sedimentation

Program for construction activities is currently impaired because of

conflicting requirements of other state regulatory programs. re To ensure

against erosion and sedimentation resulting from storm drainage from such

construction sites, an agreement and technical requirement for erosion

control is needed. An interagency memoi-&ndum of widerstanding has been

initiated and will be adopted to prevent such conflict. The above

mentioned monitoring program will assist in the elimination of such

conflicts.

"'he SSCC has initiated a program to digitize existing soil survey

data. This will enable planners, landowners, and those agencies concerned

with implementation of regulatory KPS programs to quickly retrieve data

and evaluate land uses in relation to soil capabilities and limitations

which must be overcome for land use to be compatible with the environment.

Substantial costs are involved in the completion of this project which is

proposed as a cooperative effort between the SSCC, USDA, N-JDI:P and other

state agencies.

C. Technical Considerations

Many technical cruevi_-ions about the nature of RPS pollution need to be

addressed to build a sound management program. Particular concerns

include monitoring Itechniques, hTS toxicity on acruatic organisms and the

behavior of hydrocarbons in ground water.

Current monitoring techniques and sampling data statewide are

inadequbte for NPS evaluhtion. Without an entirely different kind and

scale of monitoring efforts, it will be impossible, in most cases, to

identify specific sources of NPS pollution and make informed decisions on

controlling the problem. Also, improved monitoring will provide an

assessment of BMP effectiveness after implementation. It will be

-necessary to develop methodologies and information that can predict B"ip

effectiveness for both preventive and remedial applications without

requiring extensive monitoring. This can be accomplished utilizing

available information and technologies obtained from existing literature

sources and through actual data gathered from monitoring programs designed

for targeted waterbodies. It will be necessary for the State to develop

sampling methodoloo, for application in high priority areas as the program

is implemented.

The most difficult technical problem to resolve is the toxicity of

various types of NPS pollution to various organisms. Toxicity data

available and methods of evaluating availability are not adequate. The

chemical characteristics of urban runoff are only imperfectly known, and

data are not adapted to determine effects on the ecology of small streams.

The observed severe envirormental damage.to most urban streams is not

fully explained by existing data and theory. In particular, the effects

of particulate pollution upon filter feeders such as mayfly and caddisf ly

larvae does not appear to be correlated with the characteristics of urban

runoff. Some controlled experiments will be necessary before the relative

effectiveness of various control alternatives can be evaluated.

Therefore, an aquatic toxicity research project of this nature will be

111-15

necessary unless adequate information can be obtained elsewhere. it would

be appropriate for the USEPA to fund such research.

Another important technical problem is,the fate of particulate

hvdrocarbons when trapped in wet or dry detention basins. The extent to
which such contaminants biodegrade in place without contaminating ground
water needs to be determined. Again, this is a problem of national rather

than state impact. However, New Jersey will need to make decisions

relative to such processes, and will have to fund a study if no

information is forthcoming.

111-16

Chapter IV. Procram-ImDlementation

A. A-Phased Approach

The NJDEP anticipates that implementation of the KPS program will

occur through a-Phased approach. Four phases of implementing NPS controls

are discussed below.

Phase I will be a period of planning for future program

jmplementation and is expected to require two years. Initiating this

phase is an education program, beginning with the public involvement used
in finalizing this strategy as described in Chapter 111, which will
continue as the preparation and implementation phases of the KPS

management program proceeds. The NJDEP will concentrate on developing new

and revising existing regulations to address KPS as an adjunct to other

Programs. , Financing of the XPS program will need to be established in

this phase which will enable 'Che XJDZP to develop procedures for issuing

grarts. As KPS involves considerable interagency coordination, agreements
between QDt-P and the Departments of Transportation and Agriculture will

:be negotiated.

Also, during this phase, Statewide initiatives establishing programs
and BMAPs for the control and disposal of used crank-case oil, household
chemicals, pesticides, and lawa and garden fertilizing will be prepared
end, where necessary, additional statutory authority will be sought.
Stormwater management requirements currently implemented on a voluntary
'basis under the Municipal Land Use Law will become mandatory in
developing areas and for s-tormwater discharges into environmentally
sensitive waters where water quality control is critical. Preparations

IV-2

will be made t-0 irrplement USEPA's regulations for storm water control,

when issued.

During Phase 1, the UDEP will develop.a methodology to determine

pricirity areas for monitoring and source control that will be bddressed in

Pbase 11. This second phase will begin with intensive surveys of existing

stormwater sewerage systems in h3gh priority areas to identify illegal

sanitary sewer connections as well as significant nonpoint sources of

pol I uti on. In addition, a system for monitoring which will involve

bpprop4rlate governmental agencies at various levels will be developed and

initiated. As the results of these surveys and monitoring activities
become available, Water Quality Management Plans for NPS control will be

req,Q4-red of responsible management agencies. The NJDEP will require
additional. Statewide water a-uality BKPs in developing areas as technical
information becomes available. Phase II is also predicted to last two

years.

Phase III will begin with the implementation of control -practices in
developed urban areas with priority placed on meeting water quality
standards in identified important waterways. Selective retrofitting of
stormwater sewerage systems in areas draining to environmentally sensitive
waters in conjunction with remedial abatment actions at significant
sources will be the focus of this phase. As source and discharge permit

programs are implemented, enforcement will begin to assume a greater
Prominence through its function of ensuring permit compliance.

Phase IV of the K-PS Management Program will continue implementation
with additional focus on operation and maintenamce of management
practices. Phase IV will involve continued program implementations
assessment of progress, and adaptation of programs, where necesswIY_

IV-2

B. institutional and Economic Considerations

Developing an effective institutional arrangement for NTIS management

is as important as the actual management practices. Because of the

potential number of programs and agencies that may' be involved in S*PS

management, definitions of programs and objectives and means of

coordination are critical. It is important that criteria be established

for determining which categories of NPS may be subject to regulatory

requirements through the issuance of eitJ)er individual or general permits

and which categories will only need to comply on aL voluntary basis or

under local control; determine if new rules need to be developed or

existing rules should be modified; establish enforcement and maintenance

requirements; and determine which responsibilities and authority can be

delegated to county and municipal agencies.

The general planning and much of the regulatory action of the KPS

control program will be by the Division of Water Resources. The Hazardous

Waste and Coastal Resources Divisions will play appropriate roles in the

programs for which they are responsible. Interdepartmental agreements

will be necessary wit-h Departments of Transportation and Agriculture to

obtain essential compliance with hTS objectives, both as regards ground

and surface water. Additional regulatory authority will be needed to

establish that municipal and county planning agencies consider h"PS

criteria and standards in their decision making. An advisory co=cil will

be constituted including represe&tatives of various affected interests,

and partAcipated in by staff of the major state agencies concerned. Most
of the reguiatory and funding action will be carried by exis-lCing agencies.

Because of the broad based nature of XPS pollution, implementing aLn
effective control program will require significant amounts of funding.

IV-3

For example, a portion of the S33.5 million which has been appropriated in

the recently enbcted Sewage Infrastructure Impro%,entent Act will be

available for storm sewer mapping and monitoring for NPS control in four

coastal cowities.

Additional funding for KPS surveys and planning throughout the State

could originate through a bond issue. These tYpes of programs could make
funds available to county and municipal governments for the deim,elopment of
local NPS management programs. In addition, consideration must also be
given to the development of other funding sources to guarantee continued
implementation of these management programs. This m6y be accomplished
through fee generating mechanisms such as permitting programs, user fees

J.0t, storm sewer systems or special taxes either independently or in

combination. The complete implementation of XPS control throughout the

state will be a task for man), years.

C. Education Program

A portion of h7PS pollultion originates from the activities of the
ordinary citizen. Therefore, the need is in1herent for public awareness
and education in the identification and implementation of BMP's and other
KPS reducing practices. Educational efforts currently being developed by
the Department will stress good housekeeping practices that will help
reduce runoff pollutants. Requiring good housekeeping at commercial and
industrial establishments could be a local tool for minimizing

contaminated runoff.

The education program is designed to address various audiences
including the media, business community, elected local officials, formal
education and adult education. Coordination of this education effort will

IV-4

involve watershed associations, enx,ironmentbl commissions, health

departments, soil conservation districts and other organizations

interested in improving water quality.

As an integrbl part of this education program, New Jersey Water Watch

is a fast-growing citizen participation network that can, at the very

least, visually identify local NPS problems and sources and potential,ly

.serve as a monitoring arm of state and local government. Presently there

are fifty organized Water Watch groups that have "adopted" local streams,

ponds or la),es. By coordinating Water Watch groups closely with county

and municipal officials, NJDEP can aid in convincing local governments to

utilize accepted BMPs to resolve identified problems.

D. State Demonstration Projects

The NJDEP is involved in a number of new and continuing demonstration

projects which will provide baseline data and information for implementing

the State KPS Management Program. The projects will be.used to determine

which Mals are most effective for controlling specific categories of KPS

pollution for different waterbody types. These projects will also focus

on developing new monitoring programs, identifying pollution sources and

impacts, and recomoending management options for the protection of

priority waterbodies. KPS control programs will be prepared in many cases

through results of federal and state funded demonstration projects.

1. 1988 Toms River,Bacteriological Study:

The objective of this study is to evaluate the bacterial water

q-uality of the Toms River estuar@y and identify possible sources of

bacterial contamination that kept several bathing beaches in the estua rY

IV-5

closed during the summers of 1986 and 1987. The study is a cooperative

effort. of the Njr,Ep,
A./ Ocean County Health Depbrtment. and seven

municipalities in Ocean County. Water samples collected in the Toms

River, and in barnegat Bay will be analyzed for fecal coliform

concentrations. Sampling was completed in August of 1988.

2. NavesiiA, River Shellfish Pollution Control Project:

All A1,662 acres of shellfish harvesting areas in the Navesink River

(.Monmouth County) have been closed to direct harvest and marketing of

clams, ovsters and mussels for more than twenty years. This is a result

of high bacterial levels in excess of the standard limits set for

shellfish growing waters in New Jerse.y. Since no significant point

sources of bacterial pollution exist in the Navesink River watershed, the

present study was initiated to identify and isolate probable N*PS

contamination to the estuary. The findings of this study indicate that

the primary bacterial loading originates from animal, rather than human,

feces that emanate from horse farm operations proximal to upstream

tributaries of the Navesink River, as well as from urban/suburban

stormwater runoff. Appropriate Best Management Practices (B.4ps) for

control of identified bacterial sources are identified by the project.
The Navesink- River project is a continuing cooperative effort of
inter-governmental agencies. The project's latest phase is a stormwater

survey. The purpose of this study is to measure fecal coliform,

concentrations over time in stormwatir outfalls to the Navesink, River.

Selected stormwater outfalls will be sampled when storm events begin and

at short intervals thereafter to establish concentration versus time

IV-6

curves. The dbta will be used to evalubte stormwater impacts to the

rivcr.

Tidiil Tuclahoe River:

This pruject involves coordination and assistance with the Atlantic

and Cape Mav County Health Departments in studying high bacteria levels in

the Tuckahoe River. Twenty-nine st&tions have been sampled four times per

month between Julie and September 1988 for temperature, pH, fecal coliform,

and fecal streptococci. Dye testing will be conducted in areas with high

bacteria concentrations to determine potential sources.

4. Coastal Water Quality Management Project:
Degradation of estuarine water quality is the result of increased

residential and commercial development throughout New Jerse\'s coastal

region. N.onpoint sources and stormwater runoff are the primary pollutant

sources from this development, as point sources have generally been

eliminated in the back bays. This has resulted in the restriction of

important water uses such as shellfish harvesting and primary contact

recreation in waterways that were formerly of great economic and

recreational value. Therefore, the NJDEP realized that existing water

quality management programs were not adequate from the standpoint of

controlling stormwater runoff and other nonpoint sources. The NUDEP has

developed a water quality and shellfish resource assessment methodology

that defines past and current conditions of specific estuarine waterways.

The results are used to determine the degree and type of water quality and

designat-ed uses. Management programs are coordinated through State,

county and municipal planning activities. The assessment methodology can

be applied to a variety of water uses and waterbody types.

IV-7

5. Cook College St.Ldy on Watershed Protection:

The Cook Colle@e study on watershed protection is investig!.8til)g tile

relationsh3p between land uses and surface xaters in the state of New

Jersey. The final report due this December will make clear concise

recommendations to UDEP on various mechanisms for abating nonpoint source

pollution. The research team is examining the merits of buffer areas or

setbacks around headwater areas and reservoirs that are above the lowest

intalze pipe of water comp&nies for water source protection for drinking

water purposes and for water cruality purposes. It is expected that the

draft report will include information on what is available from other

states in terms of watershed management.

The report will also include information on best management practices

in urban areas. The study will explore stormwater detention, retention,

and infiltration basins; identify watershed-sensitive land, which includes

bedrock, soil conditions and slope; make recommendations on stormwater

management districts and look at the best institutional arrangement for

working with septic systems. This s`@_-ud.v is being funded by the Water

Supply Bond Act of 1981.

6. New jersey Floatables Study:

Floatables are solid wastes that float or remain suspended in the

water column. When these wastes are inadvertently or purposefully

disposed of and transported in open waterways, they represent a source of

pollution that degrades the aesthetic quality of waterways and may become

st'randed on beaches. Sources of floatables may include beach use,

overflows from sewage treatment plants, combined sewer overflows,

commercial shipping and recreational boating, illegal dumping, marine

municipal refuse transfer, ocean dumping, wharf decay and natural sources.

Because of this problem, the NJDEP and the USEPA have collaborated to

design and implement a flotables study. The ojectives of the four tasks

of the study are to:

i. Determine the distribution of floatables on selected beaches by
categorizing and quantifying the types and numbers of objects on each
baech
ii. Identify possible sources of the materials
iii. Identify specific sources of floatables as accurately as possible for
each beach through assessments of potential transport routes based on
circulation patterns and currents in the New York Bight
iv. Test the probability of potential floatable transport routes by
releasing indentifiable surface drifters which passively indicate water
current pathways from possible floatables sources to target beaches (NJDEP
and USEPa, 1987).

7. New Jersey/New York Harbor Clean-up Program:

The New Jersey/New York Harbor Clean-up Program is a cooperative

program with the Corps of Engineers designed to remove shoreline blight

and potential sources of wooden drift before it breaks loose and floats

out into the harbor. New Jersey's harbor clean-up has been a massive

undertaking with over $50 million being spent over the last ten years to

remove old piers, piling, bulkheads, and abandoned vessels. Much of the

material has been burned at the woodburning site. The State of New Jersey

views the harbor clean-up as a vital element and a catalyst to the

economic rebirth of the State's urban waterfronts (NJDEP, Janurary 1988e).

8. County Demonstration Studies:

A number of county demonstration studies are also in progess. Like

the Cook College study on watershed protection, they are all funded by the

Water Supply Bond Act of 1981.

IV-9

Mercer County:

Mercer County is investigating how to control NPS runoff in the

Shabankunk Creek which drains into the Delaware River. Chemical samples

taken at storm sewer outfalls will be analyzed. The composition of the

macroinvertebrate community will be analyzed to gauge the health of the

stream. Mercer County will analyze urban best management practices (means

or performance standards) which prevent or reduce impacts upon surface

waters will help identify the appropriate techniques for this stream type.

The most important aspect of this program may be NPS education directed at

grades K-6, the media and government officials.

Sussex County:

Sussex County is working on a septic system study involving new

Chapter 199 regulations. New septic systems will have to meet Chapter 199

requirements for design, inspection and maintenance. An institutional

framework for maintaining septic systems will be explore by three

municipalities which are currently using different institutional scenarios

for managing residential septic systems. Sussex County was selected

because of its past history of failing and chemically contaminated septic

systems. Septic system discharge is a nonpoint source of pollution. High

loads of nitrates and phosphates and doses of chemical contaminants like

trichloroethane are nonpoint sources of pollution that have proven to be

health hazards to the residents of Sussex County.

Ocean County

Ocean County is studying the long term maintenance of stormwater

detention/retention/infiltration basins. The project will look into

IV-10

strategies that will explore the financing possibilities and institutional

frameworl-, for long-term care and maintcriance of the basins. Chromium*, oil

and grease, and animal feces that enter the detention basins contribute to

the NPS problem.

Middlesex County
An Aquifer Recharge Protection-Study is being completed in Middlesex
County. A consultant will produce a manual for statewide application

describing appropriate techniques for protecting aquifers from NPS

contamination. The County has investigated the bedrock and aquifer

conditions that underlie different soils. The County is also 'Updating

maps showing which aquifers are used for various wells. Rooftop runoff,

drainage from residential, commercial, agricultural land, and the

proximity of chemical spills to recharge areas and well heads are sources

04' KPS pollution that have been ident-ified in the study.

Barnegat Bay

The purpose of 'Chis project- is to initiate the development of a

-comprehensive land use and environmental management plan for Barnegat BaN

The intent is to develop a management strategy or alternative strategies,

for consideration I@y all levels of government within the state. The

objectives are to:

- Plan for and manage population growth and development in a manner
compat'ible with preserving the natural environment;
- Identify, assess, and protect natural' and manmade coastal
resources;
I- Improve the process of evaluating development and redevelopment
projects in order to achieve environmentally sensitive land uses which
are coordinated with any services these development projects may
require;

IV-11

-Protect and enhance the quality of life for the residents and
visitors to the Barnegat Bay Area.

IV-12

Chapter V. Integration of the Nonpoint Source Program with Other Programs

A. Division of Water Resources Programs

The NTS management program will be an important adjunct to other

programs within the Division of Water Resources. Among these programs are

stormwater management, lakes management, ground water protection

(including wellhead and equifer protection), toxics control, estuaries

management, and ocean management. The NJDEP intends to coordinate NPS

program activities with these other programs to assist in achieving their

objectives.

The Division of Water Resources (Division) is the Statewide WQM

planning agency, and will be the lead agency responsible for developing

NPS policies and incorporating those policies into WQM Plans. In this

effort, the Division will coordinate with the seven designated areawide

water quality management planning agencies: the Delaware Valley Regional

Planning Commission, end the boards of chosen freeholders of Atlantic

County, Cape May County, Mercer County, Middlesex County, Ocean County,

and Sussex County. The Division will also be responsible for

incorporating the other programs outside the Division of Water Resources

as part of the nonpoint source program.

1. Stormwater Management:

Stormwater management is presently applied primarily to the control

of runoff from new development. Applying proper stormwater management

practices to developing and already developed area will be highly

beneficial for the control of urban runoff. Currently, storwater

management controls in New Jersey are implemented at the time of new

V-1

development and are voluntary. The NJDEP intends to make the stormwater

management regulations mandatory in developing and other high priority

area of the State; it has already identified priority municipalities for

stormwater management.

In New Jersey, the Stormwater Management Program has detailed

procedures for indetifying and implementing BMPs for water quality control

for new development (NJDEP, 1986a): yet this continues to be primarily a

voluntary program. The BMPs outlined in this program include water

quality controls. The rate and volume management techniques are adapted

to reduce NPS pollutants for entering waterways and minimize impacts on

ground water. Volume control through infiltration can reduce NPS in

streams to an even greater extent, though concern for ground water

contamination must be addressed in each situation. Therefore, NPS BMPs

for infiltration should be defined.

A change in regulations will be considered to require a somewhat

higher degree of water quality control by detention/retention or other

means in areas of high environmental sensitivity. Instituting a program

of maintenance, construction and inspection of stormwater management

facilities is essential in the long term. This may be accomplished by

using local management districts or public utilities for the management of

stormwater drainage systems as described in the general strategy in

Chapter III.

Stormwater management ordinances have primarily addressed peak flow

attenuation on a site-by-site basis; however, stormwater planning may be

more effective on a regional basis. To facilitate regional stormwater

planning, funding will be necessary to extend the present system of state

matching grants for regional stormwater management planning. Grants may

V-2

be given to conduct and ultimately implement regional stormwater planning

studies. Such planning requires the cooperation of county government

agencies as well as municipal government officials.

2. Lakes Management:

The NJDEP's Clean Lakes Program is funded by both federal and State

appropriations. Grants are issued by the State to local government bodies

(e.g., counties and muncipalities) for work related to the restoration of

publicly-owned freshwater lakes. As part of the grant application review

process, the NJDEP considers the following factors: present trophic state,

lake use and recreation potential, population served by the lake, local

interest and involvement, pollutant loading sources, areawide planning

priority, and cost-effectiveness and likelihood of success.

The Clean Lakes Program consists of two phases, and grants may be

issued for either one phase or both. The first phase has three

objectives: to accurately define the trophic state of the lake, to

determine the cause of the trophic condition, and to recommend a long-term

management and restoration plan. The second phase consists of

implementation of the controls determined during the first phase of the

program. This phase may last several years.

The NPS management program will be directly involved in two aspects

of the Clean Lakes Program: grant application review, and lake management

and restoration. In determining those lake for which a grant will be

issued, additional resources may be directed to those lakes having water

quality problems due to nonpoint sources. Nonpoint source strategies

which may be implemented during the implementationphase include erosion

controls, shoreline stabilization, etc. The general public will also have

V-3

the opportunity to help restore the lake through such practices as

controlling the rate of lawn fertilization, proper disposal of household

chemicals and detergents in their septic tanks, etc.

3. Ground Water Protection:

In the New Jersey 1988 State Water Quality Inventory Report, the

effect of NPS on ground water quality is recognized as important (NJDEP,

1088d). Such NPS as underground storage tanks, surface runoff,

pesticides, and polluted surface water were cited as probable causes of

ground water degradation. The report cites such municipalities as

Edgewater Park, Delanco, Dennis, Winslow, Howell, and Monroe (Gloucester

County) as believed to have ground water contamination (unacceptable

nitrate levels) due to agricultural fertilizers and/or septic tanks.

To provide ground water quality protection, the Department is

developing a "Ground Water Strategy for New Jersey." That document,

presently in draft form, states that "Best Management Practices must be

established, providing as far as practicable, corresponding levels of

protection for septic tank management, agricultural practices, home lawn

care, nonpoint source pollution control, stormwater management, and other

drainage practices (NJDEP, 1988c)." It is planned that appropriate NJDEP

activities will incorporate the concept of NPS control into their

activities and requirements.

One such example is the wellhead protection program. Among the NPS

controls which may be applied is the restriction of potentially

pollution-causing sources and activities (e.g., gas stations) from the

vicinity of public water supply wells in surface aquifers. Other

potential sources and land uses will also be controlled through the

V-4

application of BMPs. The NJDEP is also in the early stages of its plan to

map and control the ground water recharge areas of the State. It is

expected that it will take approximately two years to develop a

methodology to map the recharge areas with the actual mapping occuring

thereafter. When this future work is completed, NPS controls will be

given priority for application in these areas, which are vital in the

protection of groun water quality. Although no special regulatory

program will be instituted, water supply sources will also be protected

from NPS through controls integrated into existing programs.

4. Toxics Control:

Section 304 (1) of the federal Water Quality Act requires that the

State prepare lists of impaired waterbodies (i.e, mini list, short list,

and long list). The waterbodies in those lists are impaired, in part, due

to the toxic effects of nonpoint sources on water quality. Waterbodies

impaired by nonpoint sources of toxic will be considered for higher

priority in NJDEP permitting and NPS management efforts. As discussed in

Chapter III, the toxicity of urban contaminants to the aquatic ecosystem

needs to be better understood. Research addressing this question is a

vital technical component of the NPS Management Program.

5. Estuaries Management:

Under the provisions of section 320 of the Clean Water Act, the

Governor of a State may nominate estuaries of national significance to the

program, or the USEPA Administrator may convene a five year Management

Conference in order to develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management

Plan (CCMP) for the estuary. On July 18, 1988, Administrator Thomas, at

V-5

the request of Governor Kean, designated the New York-New Jersey Harbor

Estuary of the Delaware Estuary to the program.

One of the purposes of the Management Conference will be to bring

together the government and the public in order to:

" develop the relationship between the inplace loads and point and
nonpoint loadings of pollutants to the estuarine zone and the
potential uses of the zone, water quality, and natural resources (33
U.S.C. 1330(b)(3)).

The CCMP will include recommendations regarding:

" priority corrective actions and compliance schedules addressing
point and nonpoint sources of pollution in order to restore and maintain
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the estuary, including
restoration and maintenance of water quality, a belanced indigenous
population of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and recreational activities in
the estuary, and assure that the designated uses of the estuary are
protected " (33 U.S.C. 1330 (b)(4).

Both point and NPS pollutioin have been identified as problems in the

New Jersey/New York Harbor (Harbor and Delaware estuaries. Although the

goals and obejectives for the programs have not yet been determined, both

the Harbor and Deleware Estuary programs will be addressing this task in

the next year. The nonpoint source/stormwater quality management planning

may include program development with an assessment of nonpoint sources,

general and site/watershed-specific assessment, in-field monitoring for

nonpoint source identification, and permitting nonpoint sources/stormwater

facilities. With regard to these goals, the areas which may be impacted

by this program are defined below.

The core area of the Harbor study in New Jersey will include the

upper and lower bay of the Harbor, Newark Bay, Raritan Bay, Sandy Hook

Bay, the Bight Apex, Hackensack River, Raritan River, Passaic River,

Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, Hudson River to Piermont Marsh, Navesink, and

Shrewsbury Rivers.

V-6

In the Harbor, biological and physio-chemical water qualit\

parameters bssock&ted uith point and ijunpoint sources of pollution include

coliform, biochemical oxygen demand, disso.1ved oxygen, nitrogen,

phosphorus, residubl chlorine, toxic compounds, and hvdrocarbons. These

Pollutants emanate from numerous sources such as wastewater treatment

plants, combined sewer overflows, urban runoff, and landfill leachate

(NJDEP, October 1987b).

In the Delaware, the study area may include the Delaware Bay, the

Delaware River up to Trenton, and all the major tributaries to the head of

tide in the entire basin from Trenton to Cape May. Nonpoint sources such

as contaminated precipitation, hazardous waste sites, ground-water

discharge, spills, and combined sewer overflows also may contribute to

riverine nutrient inputs on the lower estuary and toxic contamination in

the water column of the Delaware Estuary and its tributaries from Trenton

to Liston Point. (KJDEP, MaY 1988b).

6. Ocean Management:

As discussed in the assessme nt, chapter of this report, the ocean

Pollution plaguing the New Jersey shore is a special State concern that

has Prompted action from the@Legislature and the Governor's Office, as

well as within KjDEP. Since much of the degradation stems from KIPS

Pollution, coordination between the overall statewide h1PS management

program and the Governor's plan is essential.

In his 1987 State of the, State Address, Governor Kean announced his

proposal of a 14-point Action Plan to preserve the quality of New Jersey*s

ocean and beaches. The proposal is the Governor's response to the

V-7

environmental management and economic development needs which have been

brought into focus by pollution problems along the New Jersey Shore.

The Governor identified fourteen measures that munciplaities, the

State and Congress must do to stop the degradation of the ocean and

beach of New Jersey; these are outlined below:

A. Municipal Action
1. Control beach litter
2. Sweep streets and clean stormsewers
B. State Action
1. Increase funding for marine police
2. Control stormwater pollution
3. Improve operation and maintenance of sewage treatment plants
4. Extend Monmouth County sewage outfalls
5. Fix combined sewer overfalls
6. Accelerate Industrial Pretreatment Program
C. Congressional Action
1. End ocean dumping of sludge in five years
2. Immediately close six-mile dredge spoil site
3. Deny approval of commercial woodburning site
4. Implement MARPOL (an international agreement
regulating solid waste disposal, orginating from
ships, into the ocean)
5. Require manifest system for hospital waste
6. Increase Coast Guard funding.

According to the Governor the effectivness of the 14 measures

would be compromised without comprehenseive coastal management. The

establishment of a New Jersey Coastal Commissionis an essential element

of the Governor's proposal. The Coastal Commission would have

jurisdiction over the entire coastal region as defined in New Jersey

Coastal Facility Review Act. The appropriate Division of Coastal

Resources personnel and functions will be transferred to the Commission.

The Commission would develop a comprehensive Shore Master Plan which can

streamline the regulatory and planning framework for the coast, address

water quality and shore protection, and delegate permitting authority to

localities. The Commission would also be responsible for the funding

needed to support necessary programs (NJ Office of the Governor, 1987).

V-8

Reporting to the Commissioner of NJDEP on the ocean pollution events

of 1987, the "Blue Ribbon Panel" desribed a number of recommendations to

abate ocean pollution emphasizing control of development and other

potential nonpoint sources. The panel recognized intensive public

education as the long-term solution to the problems of the State's costal

zone. The Panel suggested that a number of its recommendations be

addressed by the proposed Coastal Commission. As such, the proposed New

Jersey Coastal Commission will provide the regulatory framework for the

long-term protection of our beaches and water. However, the preparation

of an NPS control strategy must be initiated, as a means of accomplishing

these objectives not only for the coast but for elsewhere in the State.

7. Total Maximum Daily Load Program

In order to attain and maintain the Surface Water Quality Standards,

the total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) need to be developed for both

conventional and toxic pollutants. TMDLs must eventually be developed for

waterway segments within the state. In setting TMDLs for a waterbody,

recognition must be given to nonpoint, as well as point, sources of

pollution. As a part of the process of setting TMDLs, the assimilative

capacity of the waterbody must be determined by an integrated assessment

of the point and nonpoint source contributions of the pollutant of

concern. Depending on the pollutant of interest, a major portion of, and,

in some cases, the entire background loading of a waterbody, may be due to

nonpoint sources of pollution. This program will help to indentify and

quantify these background sources of nonpoint pollution.

B. Programs Outside of the Division of Water Resources

V-9

1. Stream Encroachment Program:

This program regulated construction and other developmental

activities in stream channels and in areas subject to flooding. The

regulations which govern this program were established to protect private

and public interest by controlling land uses and channel modification

activities that result in increased flooding; by protecting against

damages caused by materials being swept onto nearby or downstream lands

during time of flooding; by minimizing the degradation of stream quality

from point and nonpoint source pollution, and by protecting wildlife and

fisheries through the preservation and enhancement of water quality and

the environment within stream channels and flood plains in the State.

The mechanisms and BMPs that are utilized to attain these goals are

set forth in the NJDEP's Technical Manual for Stream Encroachment (NJDEP,

August 1984). This manualj contains general provisions for protecting and

minizing impacts to the environment during all stream encroachment

activities as well as specific requirements for activities occuring in

areas of special concern such as trout associated water, wetlands and

acid producing soils. The manual also discusses mitigation methods when

habitat destruction is unavoidable.

2. Freshwater Wetlands Permit Program:

Effective July, 1988, activities proposed in or around freshwater

wetlands that are determined to be regulated under the terms of the

Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (N.J.S.A. 13:9B-1 et seq.) must first

obtain a Freshwater Wetlands Permit. The purpose of the permit is to

prohibit the unnecessary or undesirable alteration or disturbance of

freshwater wetlands in the State.

V-10

Currently, the Freshwater Wetlands Permit is being issued in

C(1))-*U1JLt-JO11 %,itll the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers uhich still nibilitails

Jurisdiction over wetlep-lds ill the State through its 404 Permit Program.

Eventublly, the Department intends to assume the Corps' 404 Permit Program

for all eligible freshwater Aetlands within the State, thereby eliminating

the need for a Corps permit in these areas. Details for merging the two

programs are presently being negotiated between the Corps and the

Department.

Under the current regulations certain activities are exempted from

obtaining a Freshwater Wet-lands Permit including: activities that are part

of all established ongoing farming, ranching, or silviculture operation

which are eligible for or receive farmland assessment; activities and

projects in areas under the jurisdiction of the New Jersey Pinelands

Commission or the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission and areas

regulated as a coastal wetland pursuant to K-.J.S.A 13:9A-1 et seq. Even

though these activit-3es are exempted from the Freshwater Wetlands Permit

requirements, at the 'present time approval from the Corps is still

required.

Rather then strict prohibition of all activities within freshwater

wetlands,.there are certain activi-ties that will be allowed and are

approved through the issuamce of "Statewide General Permits". Presently,

TJ several such permits exist under the regulations with more being proposed.

In addition, provisions also exist in the regulations to allow other

activities in freshwater wetlands requiring the issuance of individual

permits when no other practicable alternative exists such as when the

activity is water dependent or represents a compelling public need.

The BMPs that will be employed during all of these activities will vary

greatly depending on the details of each project and will be specified

during the permitting process. However, at a minimum, and as required by

USEPA for assumption of the Corp's 404 program, BMPs that have been

established is USEPA's 404(b)1 Guidlines have been adopted into the

regulations and will be utilized.

3. Coastal Area Facilities Review (CAFRA) Program, Coastal Wetlands

Permit Program, and Waterfornt Development Permit Program:

These program together regulate activities occuring within the

State's designated costal zone. Each of these programs is administered

in accordance with the Rules on Coastal Resources and Development

(N.J.A.C. 7:7E-1.1 et seq.) whic establishes the Department's coastal

policies by which permit decisions are made. The decision making process

is a three step process that takes into consideration location, use and

resource policies. Under these policies many activities are prohibited.

Where development is approved based on locatio and use criteria the

resources of the coastal zone must still be protected. Water resource

protection in the coastal zone is evaluated according to the policies

etablished for Surface Water Use (N.J.A.C. 7:7E-8.5), Groundwater Use

(N.J.A.C. 7:7E-8.6), Marine Fish and Fisheries (N.J.A.C. 7:7E-8.2),

Shellfisheries (N.J.A.C. 7:7E-8.3), Water Quality (N.J.A.C. 7:7E8.4),

Stormwater Runoff (N.J.A.C. 7:7E-8.7), Vegetation (N.J.A.C. 7:7E8.8),

Important Wildlife Habitat (N.J.A.C. 7:7E8.9), Buffers and Compatibility

of Uses (N.J.A.C. 7:7E-8.13) and Flood Prone Areas (N.J.A.C.7:7E-8.19).

The BMPs that are used in the costal zone for controlling NPS pollution

are described in these policies. In addition, all applicable activities

V-12

must also comnl\. with the standards adopted by local Soil Conservation

Districts or municipalities pursucut to the Soil and Sediment Control Act

(K-3-S.A. 4:24-39 et sec.).

4. Land Disposal Programs:

Land disposal-related nonpoint pollution sources may be divided into

three categories: sanitary landfills, hazardous waste s (including those

facilities and bctivities subject to the jurisdiction of the Environmental

Cleanup Responsibility Act and/or the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act), and individual subsurface sewage disposal systems. Each of these

sources is discussed below, including the manner by which they are managed.

and the agencies providing that management. The specific BIMP's employed

to control the nonpoint sources are determined as part of the applicable

regulatory process.

i. Sanitary Landfills: A sanitary landfill is defined in the N.J.

Administrative Code as a 1. solid waste facility, at which solid waste is

deposited on or into the land as fill for the purpose of permanent

disposal or storage for a period of time exceeding six months, except that

it shall not include any waste facility approved for digposal of hazardous

waste (N.J.A.C. 7:26-1.4). Landfills are managed primarily through

two mechanisms: a program of State-issued permits and associated

requirements as contained in the New Jersey Administrative Code, and solid

waste management plans.

The New jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C. 7:26-1.1 et seg.)

includes several provisions which regulate landfills. Among the

regulation's requirements are:

V-13

-No new sanitary landfill shall be constructed or any
existing landfill continue to operate where solid waste is
or would be in contact with the surface or ground waters.
-Leachate from any sanitary landfill shall not be allowed to
drain or discharge into the surface water or ground water
except as permitted pursuant to the NJPDES regulations.
-No new sanitary landfill shall begin construction or
operation without first obtaining a NJPDES permit pursuant
to N.J.A.C. 7:14A and approval of its Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan pursuant to N.J.A.C. 2:90.
-The owner or operator of an existing sanitary landfill shall be
required to design and after Department approval of the design,
construct, operate and maintain a leachate control collection and
treatment system when leachate is determined to be impacting the
quality of the surface and ground waters of the area.
-The owner or operator of any existing sanitary landfill shall be
required to deisgn and after Department approval of the design
is determined that soil erosion and sedimentation will result in
substantial soil losses and negative impacts upon the quality of
the surface and groun water of the area.

The regulations also discuss, in detail, the NJDEP's requirements

pertaining to permits to construct and operate a sanitary landfille, the

proper siting and configuration of a sanitary landfill, the placement of

an impervious liner, lechate collection etc.

Solid Waste Management Plans constitute the other major mechanism by

which sanitary landfills are regulated. The Solid Waste Management Act

(N.J.S.A. 13:1E-1 et seq.) requires that the county boards of chosen

freeholders (in the case of counties) and the Hackensack Meadowlands

Development Commission (in the case of the Hackensack Meadowlands

District) develop solid waste management plans. The required plans were

developed, and received NJDEP approval, in the time period of 1980-1982

(Sondermeyer, March 1988). The solid waste management plans are in effect

for a period of 10 years. Upon expiration of a plan, a new plan must be

developed.

A solid waste management plan contains certain required information,

among which are:

V-14

-An inventory of the sources, composition, and quantity of solid
waste generated within the solid waste management district in the
YE a 1) A)jich the report is prepbred,
-Pro
Jections of the amounts and compusition of solid waste to be!
generdted within the district in each of the 10 years following the
year in which the report is prepared,
-An in%,entory and appraisal, including the identity, location, and
life expectancy, of &11 solid waste facilities within the solid
waste management district,
-The designation of a body to supervise the implementation of the
solid waste management plan,
-A statement of the solid waste disposal strategy to be applied in
the solid waste management district, and
-A site plan, which includes all existing solid waste facilities
located within the solid waste management district.

The solid waste management plan is enforceable through the permit

process, since a permit for a new facility or a renewal permit may not be

issued unless the proposed permit is in compliance with the applicable

approved solid waste management plan.

ii. Hazardous Wastes: The two major mechanisms for controlling

pollution from hazardous waste sources are the Environmental Cleanup

Responsibility Act (EECRA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA). The NiDEP's programs for the implementation of these laws are

discussed below.

The 'Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act (ECRA) is a New Jersey

law which imposes preconditions on the sale, transfer, or closure of

industrial establishments involved in the generation, manufacturel

refining, transportation, treatment, storage, handling, or disposal of

hazardous substances or wastes. 7be goal of the NJDEP in implementing

this Act, is to ensure that industrial establishments are environmentally

acceptable upon sale, transfer, or closure.

In ensuring that the facilities are environmentally sound,

"precondi-L@ionsll are imposed. Preconditions include such possibilities as

the execution of an approved cleanup plan detailing the measures necessary

to detoxify and restore contaminated property, the NJDEP's approval of a

negative declaration that there have been no discharges of hazardous waste

on the property (or that such discharges were cleaned up to the

satisfaction of the NJDEP), and the execution of an Administrative Consent

Order between the owner/operator and the NJDEP allowing the sale to be

consummated prior to full ECRA compliance.

In the period of January 1984 to September 1987, approximately 300

sites were remediated with private funds, 12,500 negative declarations and

122 cleanup plans were approved, and $ 11.5 million of private party funds

were spent on cleanup operations (NJDEP, October 1987a).

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is a federal act,

passed by Congress in 1976, which was designed to regulate hazardous

wastes from their point of generation to their final disposal location.

This concept is often referred to asa "cradle-to-grave," due to the

comprehensive nature of the program. In 1984, the Act was amended by the

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to expand the authority of RCRA.

Those amendments include provisions that require remediation of any latent

contamination emanating from a RCRa-regulated facility before it may

receive NJDEP approval of a proposed closure.

In order to relieve the State's industries form the burden of both

federal and state hazardous waste requirements, the NJDEP petitioned the

USEPA to consolidate the federal program into the state program. In

February, 1985 New Jersey received final authorization from the USEPA to

achieve this consolidation.

The heart of the program is the manifest systemj for tracking of the

waste, and other requirements applicable to both the generators and

V-16

transporters of hazardous waste. All handlers of the hazardous waste

Complete tile n1dilifest fol-Ills (peiieraturs, transporters, and disposal

facilities) and send them to the State. The manifests specify the amounts

and types of waste and the route of movement. Discrepancies in the

manifest forms are evaluated and considered for enforcement action. New

Jersey processes over 100,000 manifests annually VJDEP, October 1987a).

iii. Individual Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems: Individual

subsurface sewage disposbl systems are regulated through the Standards for

the Construction of Individual Subsurface Sewage Disp2sal Systems

(k.J.A.C. 7:9-2.1 et seq.). Those rules discuss technical aspects related

to the design and siting of individual septic t&rAs and specify the

responsibilities of the administrative authority having jurisdiction over

them. These regulations have been proposed for amendment. The pu blic

comment period for the proposed new rules concluded October 14, 1988.

(Individual Sewage Disposal System Alternate Designs are regulated by the

Division of Water Resources.)

Among the subjects addressed by the proposed rules are:
administration, site evaluation and system location requirements,
determination of soil suitability, permeability testing, general design

and construction requirements, pretreatment units, effluent distribution
networks, disposal fields, seepage pits, and operation and maintenance*.
The Standards contain@ many requirements regarding the siting of
individual sewage disposal systems. For example, there are restrictions
pertaining to locating a system in the vicinity of the following features:.

bedrock outcrops or areas with excessive stones,
sink-holes,

V-17

-steep slopes showing signs of unstable soil such as
landslide scars, slump blocks, fence posts or lower trunks
of trees bending downslope,
-bare eroded ground, denuded of vegetation, or with deep
wheel ruts,
-highly disturbed ground indicated by such features as
remnants of foundations or pavements, buried building
debris or buried plant remains,
-sand dunes,
-mine spoils, borrow pits, dumps, or landfills,
-lCJw-lying coastal areas exhibiting signs of tidal
inundation or tidal mbrsh vegetation such as cordgrass,
salt-meadow grass or spike grass,
-low-IN-ing inland areas showing signs of ponding or wetland
vegetation such as skunk cabbage, tussock sedge, cat-tails,
alders, or white cedar, and
-flat low-lying areas adjoining streams (N.J.A.C. 7:9A,
propc;sed).

The proposed regulations also include several other restrictions and

requirements, such as the minimum distances which components of individual

subsurface sewage disposal systems must be from reservoirs, wells, suction

lines, water service lines, watercourses, occupied buildings, property

lines, disposal fields, existing seepage pits or cesspools, and in-ground

swimming pools.

C. Federal Financial Assistance and Development Program Review

'Pursuant to Executive Order No. 12372, as in effect on September 17f

1983, Table 2 lists those Federal Assistance and Federal development

projects that the State has determined need to be reviewed for consistency

with the N-PS management program. This list was developed utilizing the-,

most recent catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.

Table 2. AGENCY PROGRAM INDEX

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

AGRICULTURE RESEARCH SERVICE

Agricultural Research - Basic and Applied Research

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

Plant and Animal Disease and Pest Control

AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATIOIN SERVICE

Community Loans and Purchases
Dairy Indemnity Program
Emergency Conservation Program
Storage Facilities and Equipment Loans
Water Bank Program
Agricultural Conservation Program
Forestry Incentives Program
Rural Clean Water Program
Conservation Reserve Program

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION

Farm Operating Loans
Resource Conservation and Development Loans
Soil and Water Loans
Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Loans

EXTENSION SERVICE

Cooperative Extension Service

FOREST SERVICE

Forestry Research
Cooperative Forestry Assistance

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

Resource Conservation and Development
Soil and Water Conservation
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
River Basin Surveys and Investigations
Rural Abandoned Mine Program

V-19

National Water Resources Research Program
Geological Survey - Research and Data Acquistion

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Outdoor Recreation - Acquisition, Development and Planning
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Highway Planning and Construction
Highway Beautification - Control of Outdoor Advertising,
and Control of Junkyards

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF WATER

Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works
Water Pollution Control - State and Interstate Program
Support
State Public Water System Supervision
State Underground Water Source Protection
Water Quality Managment Planning
Comprehensive Estuarine Management

OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Environmental Protection - Consolidated Research
Pesticides Control Research
Solid Waste Disposal Research
Water Pollution Control - Research, Development, and
Demonstration
Safe Drinking Water Research and Demonstration
Toxic Substances Research

OFFICE OF PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

Pesticides Enforcement Program
Toxic Substances Compliance Monitoring Cooperative
Agreements

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Hazardous Waste Management State Program Support
State Underground Storage Tanks Program

V-21

Chapter U. Local Apencv nd Public Involvement in the KPS Prorram

The public has been involved in the SJDEP's KPS protection

initiatives prior to the development of this document. In November 1985,

for example, the New Jersey Clean Water Council, an advisory body to the

Commissioner of the NJDEP, held a hearing to obtain public comment on the

.issue of NPS pollution. As a result of that hearing, recommendations

related to NI'S pollution were made and subsequently presented to the

Commissioner. These included recommendations pertaining to \PS-related

water quality monitoring, completion of the Chapter 199 septic system

regulations, and NPS-related public education.

Initial local agency input during the development of this draft

Non- -
joint Source Assessment and Management Program was gathered from an NPS

questionnaire which was sent to the State Soil Conservation Committee,

county and regional planning departments, and field offices of the

Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife. These bodies served as "coordination

and distribution" agencies for obtaining local nonpoint source information

from local governments and other public and private agencies. The State

Soil Conservation Committee distributed the questionnaire to all of the

Cric-116-s in the State for completion
soil conservation disl All of the soil

conservation disitricts responded with completed questionnaires. The

county planning boards were requested to complete their questionnaires

based on their knowledge of the waters in their geographic areas in

consultation with other local agencies (e.g., health departments, county

engineering departments etc.). Most. of the county planning departments

submitted completed questionnaires.

The questionnaires requested information regarding categories of

nonpoint source(s) believed to be impacting waterboides in 150 watersheds;

the severity of the problem, trends etc. This inforamtion was compiled

and discussed in the draft 1988 State Water Quality Inventory Report, and

the NPS assessment in this report. In addition, these same agencies

involved with completing the questionnaires are also being given the

opportunity to comment on the draft document.

Presently, the availability of the draft State Nonpoint Source

Assessment and Management Program for review is being announced in three

regional newspapers within the State (Newark Star Ledger, Cherry Hill

Courier Post, and Trenton Times). Through those advertisements, the

public is being invited to comment on the document, copies of which are

available for inspection at State depositories as well as at Division of

Water Resources offices and the Department library. The list of State

depositories is included in Appendix F. The Division will hold three

public meetings, which are being held in northern, central, and southern

New Jersey at which the public can present comments on the document.

To ensure further involvement with local agencies and the public, the

NJDEP will form a "Nonpoint Source Advisory Council." This body will meet

periodically to discuss issues related to NPS management. The specific

functions of this council will be to advise the Department on a broad

range of issues related to the control of NPS. The group will consist of

appropriate representation of environmental, economic and public

interests.

VI-2

REFERENCES

Maryland Department of the Environment. July 1987a. Design Procedures for
Stormwater Management Detention Structures. Sediment and Stormwater
Division.

Ibid. July 1987b. Design Procedures for Stormwater Management, Extended
Detention Structures. Sediment and Stormwater Division.

NJ Department of Environmental Protection. October 1987a. Comprehensive
Management Plan 1988-1992. Division of Hazardous Waste Management.
Trenton, New Jersey.

Ibid. 1988a. Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program, 1987 (Draft).
Division of Water Resources, Bureau of Monitoring Management. Trenton
New Jersey.

Ibid. May 1988b. Delaware Estuary Nomination Package for the National
Estuary Program. Trenton, New Jersey.

Ibid 1988c. A Ground Water Strategy for New Jersey (Draft). Division
of Water Resources. Trenton, New Jersey.

Ibid. March 1986a. A Guide to Stormwater Management Practices in New
Jersey. Division of Water Resources. Trenton, New Jersey.

Ibid. October 1987b. National Estuary Program: New York-New
Jersey Harbor. Nomination Document. Trenton, New Jersey.

Ibid. 1988d. New Jersey 1988 State Water Quality Inventory Report (Draft).
Division of Water Resources. Trenton, New Jersey.

Ibid. January 1988e. New Jersey's Coastal Ocean. The Planning
Group, Office of the Commissioner. Trenton, New Jersey.

Ibid. August 1988f. Proposed Amendments to the (P.I. 1954, Chapter
199) Standars for the Construction of Individual Subsurface Sewage
Disposal Systems (Proposed new rules: N.J.A.C. 7:9A-1.1 et seq.).
Division of Water Resources. Trenton, New Jersey.

Ibid. February 3, 1986b. Rules on Coastal Resources and Development
N.J.A.C. 7:7E-1.1 et seq. Division of Coastal Resources, Bureau of
Planning and Project Review, Trenton, New Jersey.

Ibid. August 1984. Technical Manual for Stream Encroachment. Division of
Water Resources, Bureau of Flood Plain Management. Trenton, New
Jersey.

NJ Office of the Governor. 1987. A Proposal for the Coast. Trenton, New
Jersey.

NJ Department of Health. 1988. A Study of the Relationship
Between Illnesses and Ocean Beach Water Quality. Division of
Occupational and Environmental Health. Environmental Health

VI-3

Service. Trenton, New Jersey.

Schueler, Thomas R. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Pratical Manual
for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs. Department of Environmental
Programs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Prepared
for Washington Metropolitan Water Resources Planning Board.
Washington, D.C.

Science Application International Corp. 1987. New Jersey Floatables
Study: Possible Sources, Transport, and Beach Survey Results.
Prepared for NJDEP Bureau of Monitoring and Data Management in
collaboration with US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region
II. Trenton, New Jersey.

Sondermeyer, Gary. March 1988. Status of Solid Waste Management and
Resource Recovery. NJ Department of Environmental Protection,
Division of Solid Waste Management. Trenton, New Jersey.

US Department of Transportation. 1985. Management Practices for
Mitigation of Highway Stormwater Runoff Pollution, Volumes I, II, and
III. Federal Highway Administration.

USEPA. April 1, 1967. Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1988 State
Water Quality Assessment (305(b) Report).

Ibid. 1984. Report to Congress: Nonpoint Source Pollution in the U.S.
Office of Water Program Operations, Water Planning Division.
Washington, D.C.

Ibid. 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Volume
I-Final Report. Office of Water Program Operations, Water Planning
Division. Washington, D.C.

VI-4

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Nonp2int Source Education PrograT_@Lap

Nonpoint source pollution contributes significantly to the existinR
water quality problems of the State's surface and ground waters. Unlike
point source pollution, which is limited to specific discharges, NPS
pollution is more widespread, resulting from the full range of human and

.naturally occurring activities.
NPS pollution originates from agriculture, urban and suburban areas,

construction sites during development, and in man), areas, large
populations of wildlife. The types of pollutants generated by each of
these activities varies from sediments to fecal bacteria, nutrients, toxic

substances and oil and grease. The effects of these pollutants on water
crualitv are often chemical and biological in rature and not readily
apparent to the average person. All of us, often innocently, contribute

pollution to the environment everyday. As average citizens. we use a
variety of household chemicals for cleaning; we fertilize our lawns and
gardens; we operate machinery that either releases vapors or liquids which

contain a variety of hazardous chemicals; we disturb the soil in
development; and we frequently release other pollutants in other everyday

activities.

XJDEP has recently estima ed that 69% of the freshwater streams

and rivers it has monit .n-the State of-New Jersey do not meet the
swimmable and fishable goals established in the Clean Water Act. huch of
the pollution loads in streams are due to NPS pollution. Further, it is
recognized that XPS pollution is the major reason for restrictions being
imposed in New Jersey's shellfish growing areas and for bathing beach
closures in backbays and estuaries. Current investigations into nitrate

A-1

cu.ntbmination of ground w6ter resources in various areas of the State are

pointing towards Q'S pollution as the cause of this contamination;

possibly from agricultural activities and/or extensive septic system use

for honse wastewater disposal. In other areas of the State, K-PS are the

primary contributor of organic chemicals to ground water which have

rendered numerous public and private wells unusable as drinking water

suppl i es.

Public awareness of these water quality impacts caused by NPS

pollution, and the contributions each individual makes to NPS is seriously

lacking. The average person usually associates water pollution with the

more visible and noticeable types of pollution such as floating garbage,

oil slicks, hazardous waste sites or effluent discharged from pipes from
industrial sources and sewage treatment plant-s (point source@). This

perception is probably due to the considerable attention that has been

given to these issues over the past two decades by the media,

environmental groups and government. Until recently little or no

consideration has been given to pollution which originates from human

activities.

In an effort to heighten public awareness of K-PS pollution, the

Division has recently organized a N-PS Education Working Group to develop a

statewide NPS education program to expand and coordinate existing K-PS

educational activities. The group is comprised of individuals from

various offices within the Department and representatives from the Mercer

County Planning Department and the Rutgers University Cooperative

Extension Service. In addition, 'the New Jersey Alliance for Action,

representing the business community has recently expressed an interest in

becoming involved in the education effort by initiating a N'PS awareness

A-2

campaign; working with an advertisinR firm to create a central theme for

-NI'S control throuphout the Stale.

As its mission, the NPS Education Working Group collectively decided

that any education program it would develop must be desip)ed to educate

individuals on their role in creating and preventing NPS Of Pollution.

The goals that have been established by the group include developing and
implementing a statewide XPS education program that strives to educate all

sectors of society on the importance and benefits of reducing pollution

and to encourage citizen involvement in activities that promote voluntary

and regulatory NPS prevention and control. The Group recognized the

importance of tailoring educational efforts to the different audiences

that together would represent the full community. After numerous

discussions and meetings held by the group to determine which audiences

should be targeted in the education program, the following list was

developed:

Selected-Audiences for KPS Education

- Adult (Informal) Education
- hedia.
- Elected Officials
- Business Community
- Formal Education (Grades K-12)

The following sections outline the strategies that have.been

developed by the NPS Education Working Group for educating each of these

audiences. In conjunction with existing Department activities, the
problem of household hazardous wastes and their disposal will be folded

into all strategies.

A-3

It must be 1@ept in mind that these strategies collectively comprise

the first phase c)f a Statewide KPS Educbtion Program Plan. This plan has

been devised to create an education &Dd awareness program for the general

Public with an emphasis on how each individual contributes to water

pollution problems through their current lifestyles and activities. More

important]\, not only will this plan serve to point out the causes and the

problems associated with NPS, it will also attempt to provide some

solutions by emphasizing simple methods that can be used by the average

individual to minimize the impacts we all have on the quality of our water

resources.

A key emphasis of the overall program will be active involvement of

citizens and organizations. A standard maxim in education is that

learning by doing is the best approach for meaningful education. The

Division of Water Resources' Office of Public Participation has already

initiated New Jersey Water Watch, a program of local involvement in water

resource protection. As of July 30, 1988, fifty Water Watch groups have

ffadopted" local water resources. The Water Watch program will be a key

tool for integrating volunteers into local educational and monitoring

activities relating to K-PS and for actually investigating and seeking

resolution of NPS problems.

In addition, active efforts will be made to involve watershed

associations, health departments, environmental commissions, soil

conservation districts and other organizations concerned with water

quality issues. Given the extensive nature of this educational effort, it

will be important 'to utilize and coordinate the institutional and human

resources that are aligned with the goals of h7PS education.

Elected Officials
- ----- ------- -
Gpbls - To educbie local public officials and employees concerning the
importance &I)d benefits of implementing nonpoint source control
activities. ln New Jersey local government, primarilyNnunicipalities,
exercise significiint control over land development activities, zoning and
other planning functiorls and enforcement of building or health codes. In
the long-term local government is also expected to play an important role-
in nonpoint source /stormwater management. Because of this role, educating
local officials and employees in the benefits of nonpoint source controls
should be a important component of a total nonpoint source education
effort.

g@jectiyes
1) Promote the water quality, recreation, water use and aesthetic benefits
of nonpoint source (NPS) controls.

2) Establish a coordinated effort of NPS control at all levels of
government.

3) Encourage counties to expand their environmental management
responsibilities that have been empowered to them through the County
Environmental Health Act to included XPS control.

4) Create a NPS network within the NJD_--p "hat will be responsive to the
needs of local governments.

Activities

-Prepare an educational brochure for widespread distribution to
local officials. A generalized awareness educational brochure
specifically for local elected officials describing what nonpoint
sources are, how they impact water quality, which programs the
State is using for KPS management, the State's overall strategy
for hTS control, the benefits of NPS mtnagement, interfacing with
Water Watch programs, possible funding sources for necessary work,
and how to get additional information and special presentations
(both general and technical). Such brochures could also be
tailored to specific areas/waterways in the State (coastal
waters). (First-year activity)

Develop presentation packages for local council meetings, special
meetings for elected officials, etc. These presentations will
stress the importance of local initiatives in controlling
YPS/stormwater. Presentations would encourage local officials to
support Water Watch activities. (First-year activity)

Conduct education seminars on details of developing hPS/stormwater
management programs/activities. Seminars could be developed for
local administrators, township/county engineers, planners, code
enforcement officers, and health officers that would show how to
manage-NTS/stormwater, their identification, what activities the
State/federal government are performing, and what assistance

progriiins are a%,ailbb)e. Such seminars would be held in
con@unction with government interest groups (Authorities
Asr,oci6tion, LE-bgue of Municipalities, engineers society, planners
association, etc.). (First and second-vear activitv)

- Preparation or gathering of technical resource documents for
distribution to interested officials. Would include documents
such as the Guide to Stormwater Management Practices, Urban B@IPs
Guide, or new documents could be prepared as necessary. The KJDEP
could purchase a large number of-these documents for free
distribution to local offices. (On-going activity)

- Develop a model KPS ordinance which.municipalities/counties could
incorporate into planning ordinances. Ordinance may include
stormwater management, stream corridor/buffers, additional soil
erosion control over Chapter 251, maintenance and inspection of
control structures, dog litter laws, local education of residents,
etc. (Second-year activity in conjunction with State planning
program)

- As needed, special education seminars would be held for local
governments adjacent to waterways identified by the Department as
a.statewide Priority for the control of KPS to protect important
water uses or resources. On-going as needed. 7. Provide
technical assistance as requested. Make it be knoum that the
State/county would be willing to have engineers, planners
available to assist local governments in addressing problems
related to NPS pollution/stormwater management. (second-year and
beyond activity)

Adull (Informalj_jLcation

Goal - To raise awareness among the general public as to the nature of
nonpoint sou--ce pollution and what must be done to reduce it, by both
individuals and goverrinent, and to create avenues for citizen involvement
in investigation and addressing nonpoint source pollution problems in
local communities.

Obiectives

1) Produce a set of educational materials and programs for general adult
education about KPS problems and solutions.

2) Coordinate the distribution of such materials and programs involving
existing groups and networks whenever possible.

3) Create mechanisms within New Jersey Water Watch for citizen
participat-ion in investigating and addressing XPS problems locally.

Activities

Develop a KPS presentation to take "on the road." Participate in
existing seminar series, attend county fairs, etc. Amend presentation
to focus on how individuals in their area contribute

to NPS and can reduce it. For-example, emphasis for agricultural
communities may be on soil erosion while in urban communities,
street runoff may be highlighted. (First-year activity)

- Produce a calendar listing when and whire the KPS presentations
will be given for peiieral distribition and media ads. (First-year
activity)

- Continue distribution on a large scale of the Clean Water Book.
This 24-p8ge booklet provides a comprehensive overview of what
individuals can do to reduce NPS generated in their homes and
iieighborhoods. A total of more than 30,000 copies have been
printed and distributed; an additional 60,000 are being printed for
distribution over the next two years. (On-going activit@,)

- Distribute videotapes of the 30-minute documentary now being
prepared by New jersev Network TV on NPS. These will be loaned to
all interested organizations for viewing and will be made available
to schools through existing distribution channels. (On-going
activity)

- Continue distribution of the "Water Watcher" brochure inviting
individuals to pledge to reduce NPS generated in their households.
Enlisting Watcher Watchers will be a major focus of New Jersey
Water Watch. (On-going activity) '
- Develop an XPS Education Network with other interested agencies and
organizations. Contacts would be mailed to the full range of
interest groups and other agencies such as the Soil Conservation
Service. Listings of all materials and programs through the network
would be sent to all members. (First-year activity)

- Prepare both as part of the New Jersey Water Watch aand for general
d4stribution to interested groups, a handbook on investigating and
identifying KPS problems and actions that can be undertaken at the
local level to address these problems. For example, in cooperation
with the County Health Departments the handbook would describe how to
ty in locating and describing stormwater discharge
work with the coun%..
pipes along a particular resource (this will be a necessary step for
counties in developing KPS control programs). Where there are
serious stormwater runoff problems, groups can press for stricter
stormwater management ordinances or raise awareness of practices that
can increase the level of contaminants carried by runoff into
waterways. (First-year and beyond activity)

Escalate the visibility of the Water Watcher effort through media
ads,.press releases, appearances of DEP officials on radio and TV
shows, posters, etc. This effort will involve close cooperation
with the Office of Commu@,Ucations and Public Education. It should
be timed so that we can follow up this media campaign with large
numbers of materials and programs. (Second-year activity)

Prepare and distribute a set of mailers and colorful fact sheets
describing various types of h-PS pollution and what can be done to

reduce them. These will be designed so that they can easily be
incorporated by other organizations in their mailings. The fact
sheets will also be designed so that they can be run by newspapers
as a series of articles; a packet of fact sheets will be sent to
all daily and weekly newspapers in the State. (Second-year
activity)

- Prepare and "clean water" survey form with which individuals can
rate their households as to the degree to which it may contribute
to NPS. This will be a way to bring home in a vivid way to
individuals the range and types of activities that can pollute
water. May be incorporated in seminars. (Second-year activity)

Formal Education (Grades K-12)

Goals-To educate school children (K-12) as to the nature of nonpoint
source (NPS) pollution and promote environmental awareness and behavior
that can prevent NPS.

Objectives

1) To produce a set of materials aimed at school age children.

2) To produce materials for use by school teachers in their classrooms.

Activities

-The following materials will be developed:

A comic or coloring book introducing nonpoint source pollution
to be handed out at fairs or by local groups.
Posters and small stickers oriented to young audiences.
(First-year activities)
Bulletin board kit - include posters and activity materials.
(Second-year activity)

-Continue distribution of "My World, My Water, and Me," an activity
book for teachers which covers general water issues with the
addition of specific sections addressing NPS. (On-going activity)

-Develop a videotape on how Water Watch activities can be
incorporated into high school classes and distribute to schools.
(First-year activity)

-Development of "Water Watch" workshops for high school teachers,
demonstrating how their classes can study and monitor lake or
stream segments as a way of learning about water issues. Encourage
participation in specific action projects to reduce NPS as well as
other problems. (First-year activity)

-Presentationj of awards and certificates to teachers who initiate
creative NPS-related programs. Teachers would be invited to send
descriptions of their programs and samples of materials to receive

certificates of appreciation and possible awards. This information
%%Ould then lie summarized and disseminated at educational
aijd other (Second

Mt@d i a

Goals- To inform represent at ives of the media - newspaper, trade journals,
mbgbzines, radio and television - of the existence of rionpoint source
pollution and its acute and chronic public health and environmental
inil)acts as well bs its short- and long-term economic consequences. In
addition, this plan will seek to encourage direct personal involvement by
publicizing cooperating communities and creative citizen initiatives that
have been successful in control of KPS pollution.

PL)jeStives

1) Encourage media coverage of XPS and activities focusing on the
reduction dnd control of NPS.

2) Produce camera-ready programs and visuals about various aspects of KPS.

Activities

- Issue press releases when appropriate on newsworthy nonpoint source
pollution developments and activities. Send schedules of
cledn-up efforts, seminars, etc. to encourage media coverage.
Encourage local interest groups (Environmental Commissions, Water
Watch groups) to contact media directly. (First-year activity)

- Acquaint the media with NPS by preparing a one page summary briefly
defining nonpoint source pollution and explaining its environmental
context and legislative evolution. Include a nonpoint source
glossary and bibliography for further reading. Present
interrelationships of agencies that handle parts of the
nonpoint source pollution program statewide and nationally in a
flow chart format. Make available to reporters who have
demonstrated an interest in N-PS. (First-year activity)

- Develop graphic, colorful advertisements for newspapers and
magazines. (First-year activity)

- Maintain an "open line" of communication with reporters by
acknowledging accurate articles with letters to the editor and
follow-up phone calls. (First-year activity)

- Develop a nonpoint source pollution "experts list" to talk about
stormwater, agriculture, laws, demonstration projects, "cutting
edge" developments and the full spectrum of nonpoint source
research and control. (Second-year activity)

- Develop radio series for distribution as public servite
wmouncements to interested stations. Duration can be as short as
30 or 60 second "commercials.91 Scripts can be sent to newspapers
to use as column filler. (Second-year activity)

A-9

'VrJ.te letters to the editor or Op-Ed commentaries to ),eep Public
htl ention focused on the individubl 's role in reducing noni)oint
source pollution. Increase credibility by having the Commissioner
sign letters. (Second-year activity)

Business Communitv

G2als - To educate business owners, manaRers and employees about nonpoint
source pollution and how their operations contribute to and can
potentially reduce the-problem. A number of industries and businesses
have already begun to recognize the importance of reducing NPS and have
independently organized efforts to address the issue (Shore Foundation,
for example). Many businesses, on the other hand, may not understand the
the nature and extent of nonpoint source pollution. Even if aware, most
lack the fiijbiicial resources and time to investigate and initiate NPS
programs and general pollution control. In addition, businesses through
chambers of commerce and trade associations represent a powerful, untapped
network for promoting efforts to reduce NPS. Persuading businesses that
NPS is an issue involving them will be a challenge. Therefore, an
underlying message in all educational efforts will be how reducing
nonpoint source pollution not only benefits the environment but also means
good business.

O@ @ctij:es

1) Promote good housekeeping practices that can reduce nonpoint source
pollution generated by their business.

2) Encourage businesses to voluntarily control or recycle
hazardous and other waste discharges not currently
addressed in existing regulations.

3). Encourage and coordinate business support, eitherconetary or
material, for community and bitizen group efforts to reduce
nonpoint source pollution.

Activities

- Prepare nonpoint source pollution educational brochures tailored to
various business t@-pes. Distribution of brochures can be through
chamberi of commerce and trade associations, perhaps in conjunction
with already existing newsletters. (First-year activity)

- Conduct presentations about nonpoint source pollution at chambers
of commerce and trade association meetings. 7be scope of these
presentations can range from providing a general overview to
conducting technical seminars on low-cost strategies for reducing
nonpoint source wastes. Presentations can stress improvement
within their own facilit-y and/or illustrate examples of support for
community and citizen group efforts (Water Watch). Encourage
business leade@s to eventually speak for us. (General overview,
first-year activity; technical presentations, second-year
activities)

- Establish a network of communication and support between
businesses, citizen groups and local officials. This could be
accomplished by compiliijR mailing lists of those who have expressed
interest and mbl-ing this master list available to the various
groups. (First-year activity)

- Produce materials for displav, such as stickers and posters,
commending the efforts of business to reduce nonpoint source
pollution. (First or second-year activity)

- Positively promote businesses who support nonpoint source pollution
through njedia coverage (for example, feature stories in
newspapers). (Second-year activity or as needed)

- Establish hotline numbers which businesses may call for direction
on technical questions, taking care to convey that DEP wishes to
work with businesses--not apainst them. Include a network Within
DEP for cruick response. (Second or third-year activity)

- Purchase advertisements in trade magazines, newsl.etters, and other
media that presently reach business groups informing them of
available educational materials and sources of technical advice
(hotline numbers). (Second-year activity)

- Prepare package of materials explaining new developments in KIPS
control in laymen's language, listing various agencies businesses
m
Y -year or beyond activit'% as
e\ contact for assistance. (Second
regulations develop)

KPS is diverse in form and spans so many disciplines and regulatory
programs. Because of this diversity, numerous agencies and offices will be
contacted to assist in the process of developing educational materials and
to participate in this XPS education program. The following list
represents key agencies with potential resources that will be initially
contacted.

RutRers Coo-Derative Extension of New Jersey, New Brunswick

Resources: 1) County Agents
2) Home Economists
3) 4-H Agents
4) USDA staff research
5) Extension Review magazine

USDA Soil Conservation Service, Somerset

Resources: 1) State Conservationist
2) Local District Conservationist
3) State Publit Affairs Specialists
4) Soil and Water Conservation News

Soil Conservation Districts

Resources: 1) 16 local districts in New Jersey handling Chapter 251

A-11

2) District education coordinators

New Jerse\-_Dep@r@ment rif Agriculture, Trenton

Resources: 2) rieusletters
2) Division of Rural Resources
3) State Soil Conservation Committee

Neu, Jersey Dephrtm nt of En\,ironmental Protection, Trenton

Resources: 1) Dt::-)brtment newsletters, bi-monthly magazine and press
conferences
2) Division of Science and Research
3) Office of Public Education and Communications
4) Office of Public Participation
5) Office of Intergovernmental Relations

U.S. Environmental Protection_Apency

Resources: 1) Office of Water Criteria and Standards Division, Nonpoint
Sources Branch
2) Publicatiors Office
3) Press Office
Association of New Jersev Env;ronmental Commissions

Resources: 1) newslet-ter
2) courses
3) conferences
mailing list of 3,000 members

New Jersev Environmental Federation

Resources: 1) 23 environmental groups
2) quarterly newsletter

New Jersev Public Interest Reseerch Gro

Resources: 1) 70,000 members
2) outreach on all New jersey colleges
3) "Citizen Alert" newsletter

National 'Water uality Evaluation Proiect
North Carolina State University

Resources: 1) Konpoint source evaluation project
2) literature reviews
3) conferences and workshops
4) monthly newsletter

Environmental Communication Research Program
New Jersey Experiment Station

Pesources: 1) Publications
conferences workshops

3) research on environment risk - media coverage, public
perceptions and source interactions

Watershed Associations

Resources: various associations throughout the State

Stonybrook-Millstone Watershed Association
Resources: 1) quarterly newsletter
2) K-12 environmental education programs
3) conferences
4) mailing list of 3,000 members
South Branch Watershed Association
Passaic River Coalition
Upper Raritan Watershed Association
Rockaway River Watershed Association

Alliance for Environmental Education

Use available resources

Department of Education

Use available resources

NJEA
Use available resources

NMEA and NJMEA

Resources: Newsletter and K-12 educatioinal materials

Nature Education Centers

Resources: centers located in Essex, Camden, Morris, Ocean, Bergen,
Sussex, Monmouth, Middlesex, Mercer, Somerset, Union and
Passaic counties

A-13

Appendix 13. PRELIMINARY LIST OF WATERWAYS SUSPECTED OF BEING
IMPACTED BY NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION

Rivers and streams that without additional action to control nonpoint sources of pollution cannot
be expected to attain or maintain standars. Categories of nonpoint sources which add signifcant
pollution to the listed waterbodies are provided. Pollution sources are limited to those reported
to us as having a aclerate to severe impact upon the receiving waterway. Pollution categories
listed are most often suspected and preliminary and are not based upon monitored data.

Rivers underlined denote name of major watershed (listed alphabetically). Rivers not underlined
are tributaries within the major watershed listed immediately above.

STREAM/RIVER POLLUTION CAUSE CATEGORIES (POLLUTANTS) POLLUTION SOURCE

Assicunk Creek Sodimentation, Nutrients Agricultural Runoff, Construction
Urban Runoff

Assunpink Creek Sodimentation, Nutrients Construction, Urban Runoff

Big Timber Creek Sodimentation, Nutrients Agricultural, Construction,
Woodbury Creek Pathogens, Toxics(?), Oils Urban Runoff, Surface Mining
and Grease Landfilles, Septic Systems,
Waste Storage Tanks, Road Runoff

Cooper River Sedimentation, Nutrients, Agricultural Runoff, Construction
Amonia, Pathogens, Pesticides, Septic Systems, Urban Runoff
Herbicides, Chlorides

North Run Nutrients, Oil and Grease Agricultural Runoff, Road Runoff

Appendix B. PRELIMINARY LIST OF WATERWAYS SUSPECTED OF BEING
(cont'd) IMPACTED BY NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION

STREAM/RIVER POLLUTION CAUSE CATEGORIES (POLLUTANTS) POLLUTION SOURCE

Crosswick Creek (Continued)

Doctors Creek Nutrients, Herbicides, Pesticides, Agricultural Runoff, Construction
Siltation Urban Runoff

Elizabeth River Nutrients, Pathogens, Oils and Grease, Urban Runoff, Channelization
Flooding, Loss of Habitat,
Organics, Chlorides

Great Egg Harbor River
(lower) Pathogens, Nutrients Storm Sewers,
Septic Systems

Maple Run Siltation, Habitat Loss Surface Runoff, Construction,
Channelization

Hackensack River Siltation, Nutrients, Toxics (?), Construction, Urban Runoff
Flooding, Habitat Destruction, Landfills, Spills, Inplace
Pathogens Contaminants, Flow Regulation

Manasquan River Nutrients, Pathogens Agriculture (pastureland, animal
Siltation, holdings),
Volatile Organics, Hazardous Waste Site,
Chlorides Road Runoff

Erosion, Siltation, Dan Construction, Flow Regulation,
Loss of Habitat Streambank Modification

Marsh Bog Brook Siltation Nutrients, Agricultural Runoff,
Pathogens (?) Landfills

Appendix B. PRELIMINARY LIST OF WATERWAYS SUSPECTED OF BEING
(cont'd) IMPACTED BY NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION

STREAM/RIVER POLLUTION CAUSE CATEGORIES (POLLUTANTS) POLLUTION SOURCE

Mantua Creek Sedimentation, Nutrients Road Runoff, Agricultural Runoff,
Pathogens, Oils and Grease Septic Systems, Urban Storm Sewers,
Surface Mining

Maurice River Sedimentation, Nutrients Agricultural Runoff, Construction,
Pathogens, Oils and Grease Road Runoff, Landfills
Urban Runoff via storm sewers,
Nacote Creek Sedimentation, Oils and Grease Road Runoff, Construction
Matrix Run

Metedeconk River Pathogens, Turbidity Septic Systems, Urban Surface Runoff

Muddy Ford Brook Volatile Organics, Oils/Grease Landfill

Millstone River Nutrients, Sedimentation, Agricultural Runoff, Urban Runoff,
Pesticides, Pathogens, Septic Systems, Landfills,
Toxics Spill, Construction

Mullica River Sedimentation, Nutrients Agricultural Runoff, Landfills,
Construction, Surface Mining

Wading River Hazardous Waste Site

Musconetcong River Siltation, Nutrients, Pathogens, Construction, Agriculture,
Oils and Grease Road Runoff, Urban Runoff,
Septic Systems

Mine Brook Sedimentation, Chlorides, Construction, Road Runoff,
Habitate Destruction Channelization

Appendix B. PRELIMINARY LIST OF WATERWAYS SUSPECTED OF BEING
(cont'd) IMPACTED BY NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION

STREAM/RIVER POLLUTION CAUSE CATEGORIES (POLLUTANTS) POLLUTION SOURCE

Navesink River Nutrients, Pathogens, Pesticides, Agricultural Runoff, Urban Runoff,
Sedimentation Septic Systems

Swimming River Siltation, Nutrients, Pathogens, Agricultural, Construction,
Oils and Grease Urban Runoff

North Brank Maritan River Sediemnt, Nutrients, Pathogens Agricultural Runoff, Construction
Urban Runoff

Lamington River Sodiment, Nutrients, Agricultural Runoff, Construction, Urban
Pathogens Runoff, Septic Systems

Rockaway Creek Sedimentation Surface Mining

Oldmans Creek Sedimentation, Nutrients, Agricultural Runoff, Construction,
Pathogens, Oils and Grease Urban Surface Runoff, Septic Systems

Oyster Creek Pathogens, Oils/Grease Urban Surface Runoff

Passaic River Siltation, Nutrients, Habitat Construction, Urban Runoff,
Destruction, Elevated Stream Flow Regulation, Spills, Inplace
Temperatures, Toxics, Pathogens Contaminants, Waste Storage
Leaks, Septic Systems

Green Brook Siltation, Habitat Destruction, Silviculture, Channelization
Toney's Brook Stream Bank Modification

Appendix B. PRELIMINARY LIST OF WATERWAYS SUSPECTED OF BEING
(cont'd) IMPACTED BY NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION

STREAM/RIVER POLLUTION CAUSE CATEGORIES (POLLUTANTS) POLLUTIOIN SOURCE

Passaic River (Continued)

Second River Nutrients, Toxics, Oils/Grease Urban Runoff
Pathogens

Mill Creek Oils and Grease Urban Runoff

Notch Brook Siltation, Pathogens, Nutrients, Construction, Urban Runoff
Chlorides, Oils and Grease

Peckman River Siltation, Nutrients, Pathogens, Construction, Urban Runoff
Oils/Grease, Chlorides Silviculture, Road Runoff
Habitat Destruction, Stream Bank Modification
Pathogens

Foulertons Brook Siltation, Nutrients, Pathogens, Urban Runoff, Channelization
Canoe Brook Oils/Grease, Chloride

Primcose Brook Siltation, Habitat Destruction Construction, Road Runoff, Flow Regulation

Taulins Kill Chlorides Landfill, Road Runoff

Appendix B. PRELIMINARY LIST OF WATERWAYS SUSPECTED OF BEING
(cont'd) IMPACTED BY NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION

STREAM/RIVER POLLUTION CAUSE CATERGORIES (POLLUTANTS) POLLUTION SOURCE

Poquannock River Siltation, Nutrients, Organics, Construction, Urban Runoff,
Habitat Destruction, Oils/Grease Surface Mining, Road Runoff,
Pathogens Channelization, Stream Bank
Modification

Kiekeout Brook Habitat Destruction Siltation Construction

Pesqeust River Chlorides, Flooding, Road Runoff, Construction,
Habitat Destruction (within Channelization
Channelized read.)

Pohatcong Creek Oils and Grease Urban Runoff

Pompton River Siltation, Nutrients, Construction, Urban Runoff,
Warming of Stream Temperatures, Surface Mining, Flow Regulation,
Flooding Dredging

Sheffield Brook Erosion, Turbidity,
Destablization of Stream Hazardous Waste Site,
Channel Channelization

Masonicus Brook Siltation, Toxics (?) Urban Runoff, Construction

Raccoon Creek Sedimentation, Nutrients, Road Runoff, Agricultural Runoff,
Pathogens, Oils and Grease Septic Systems

Appendix B. PRELIMINARY LIST OF WATERWAYS SUSPECTED OF BEING
(cont'd) IMPACTED BY NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION

STREAM/RIVER POLLUTION CAUSE CATERGORIES (POLLUTANTS) POLLUTION SOURCE

Balnay River Sediment, Nutrients, Construction, Urban Runoff,
Pathogens, Oil and Grease, landfills, Channelization
Elevated Stream Temperature,
Flooding, Loss of Habitat
Chlorides

Ramapo River Siltation, Warming of Stream Construction, Urban Storm
Temperatures Sewers

Loss of Habitat for Biota Channelization, Dredging

Rancorss Creek Sedimentation, Nutrients, Landfill, Construction, Agricultural
Pathogens, Habitat Destruction Runoff, Urban Runoff, Septic Systems

Raritan River Sedimentation, Nutrients Urban Runoff, Construction, Landfills

Rockaway River Siltation, Nutrients, Pathogens, Construction, Urban Runoff, Flow
Warming of Stream Temperature, Regulation, Streambank Newlification
Habitat Destruction

Jackson Brook Siltation, Pathogens, Nutrients Construction, Urban Runoff, Spills
Beaver Brook

Den Brook Siltation, Nutrients, Habitat Construction
Destruction

Appendix B. PRELIMNARY LIST OF WATERWAYS SUSPECTED OF BEING
(cont'd) IMPACTED BY NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION

STREAM/RIVER POLLUTION CAUSE CATEGORIES (POLLUTANTS) POLLUTION SOURCE

Salem River Sedimentation, Nutrients, Agricultural Runoff, Construction,
Pathogens, Oils and Grease Road Runoff, Septic Systems

Swedes Run Oils and Grease Road Runoff

Shark River Siltation, Nutrients, pH Depression, Urban Runoff, Landfill,
Chlorides Construction, Waste Storage leaks
Shrewsbury River Pathogens, Sedimentation, Horse Race Track (agricultural),
Nutrients, Oils and Grease, Construction, Urban Runoff,
Elevated Stream Temperatures Agricultural Runoff, Septic Systems,
Hazardous Waste Site

South Branch Baritan Sedimentation, Nutrients Spills, Agriculture,
Pathogens Septic Systems

Mullhockaway Creek Siltation Construction

Neshanic River Pathogens, Nutrients, Pasturelands, Feedlots, Septic Systems,
Siltation Construction, Storm Sewers,
Sludge disposal

South River Nutrients, Sedimentation Construction, Urban Runoff,
Streambank, Destabilization

Manalapan Brook Siltation, pH Depression, Agricultural Runoff, Construction,
Matchaquonix Brook Nutrients, Pathogens Urban Runoff, Septic Systems

Appendix B. PRELIMNARY LIST OF WATERWAYS SUSPECTED OF BEING
(cont'd) IMPACTED BY NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION

STREAM/RIVER POLLUTION CAUSE CATEGORIES (POLLUTANTS) POLLUTION SOURCE

Toms River Siltation, Agriculture (crop production),
Pathogens, Nutrients, Septic Systems, Urban Surface Runoff,
Siltation, pH Depression Construction

Manapaqua Brook High Amonia, Nutrients, Urban Surface Runoff,
Turbidity, Pathogens Septic Systems

Wallkill River Sedimentation, Nutrients, Construction, Urban Runoff,
Pathogens Agricultural Runoff

Clove Brook Nutrients, Pathogens Agricultural Runoff
Papakating Creek

Wannaque River Siltation, Warming of Stream Urban Runoff, Road Runoff
Temperatures

Belcher Creek Siltation, Oils and Grease Construction, Urban Runoff

Whippany River Siltation, Nutrients, Pathogens, Construction, Urban Runoff
Oils and Grease Spills, Inplace Contaminants

Appendix C. PRELIMINARY LIST OF LAKES SUSPECTED OF BEING IMPACTED
BY NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION

Lakes, listed by watershed, which are evaluated as being significantly
impacted by nonpoint and point source pollution. Specific pollution problems, categories, and their
sources are listed. Question marks following pollution categories denote suspected categories
based upon pollution sources supplied to us. Lake evaluations are based upon the best
professional judgement of the agencies reporting and not based upon monitoring data.
Watersheds are listed alphabetically.

POLLUTION CAUSE (POLLUTANT) POLLUTION
WATERSHED LAKE CATEGORIES (Suspected) SOURCES

Assunpink Lake Assunpink Nutrients Agriculture, Surburban Runoff
Stone Tavern Lake
Rising Sun Lake
Mercer Lake

Doctos Creek Imlaystown Lake Siltation (severe) Agriculture, (crop production)

Flatbrook Kittantinny Lake Eutrophication Construction, Suburban Surface
Runoff, Septic System (summer
homes being coverted to
year-round homes)

Great Egg Harbor River Collings Lake Eutrophication (?) Septic Sys., Road Runoff

Lake Ienape Eutrophication (?) Agriculture (crop production),
Siltation (?) Road Runoff

Patcong Lake Siltation Constructive, Suburban Runoff

Atlantic City Possibe Contamination of Hazardous Waste
Reservoir Drinking Supply

Appendix C. (cont'd)

POLLUTION CAUSE (POLLUTANT) POLLUTION
WATERSHED LAKE CATEGORIES (Suspected) SOURCES

Mannasquan River Mac's Pond Entrophication Elevated Natural (birds), Road Runoff,
Bacteria Levels Inplace Contaminants

Stockton Pond Entrophication Urban Runoff, Inplace Contaminants,
Natural (birds)

Maurice River Palatin Lake Eutrophication (?) Septic Sys.
Union Lake

Clartis Mill Pond Siltation (?) Point Sources: Industrial and
Mill Pond Municipal STP.
Nonpoint Sources: Urban Runoff,
Landfills, Hazardous Waste Sites,
Dam Construction

Mid-Atlantic Coastal Tuckerton Lake Beach Closings Urban Runoff, Natural (birds,
Region severe)

Millstone River Etra Lake Siltation Agriculture (severe crop
Peddle Lake production runoff)

Mullica River Hammington Lake Eutrophication Urban/Suburban Runoff, Severe
STP Input.

Appendix C. (cont'd)

POLLUTION CAUSE (POLLUTANT) POLLUTION
WATERSHED LAKE CATEGORIES (Suspected) SOURCE

Musconetcong Lake Shawnee Siltation, Eutrophication (?) Construction

Lake Hopatcong Eutrophication Construction, Storm Sewers,
Septic Sys., Fuel Spills and
leaks

Navensink River Swimming River Siltation, Elevated Construction, Urbran Storm
Reservoir Bacteria, Organics Sewers
Shadow Lake
Pocicy Pond

Passaic River Vernon Lake Sediment Bars, Construction, Urban Runoff,
Fishery Impairment Dredging, Flow Population,
Removal of Ripacian Vegetation

Paulins Kill Paulinskill Lake Some Eutophication
Culvers Lake Eutrophication Construction, Suburban Surface
Lake Owassa Runoff, Septic System (Summer
homes being converted to
year-round homes)

Pennsauken River Strawbridge Lake Fish and Duck Kills Urban Runoff (Waterway passes
through highly developed
residential office complexes
and regions of light
industry)

Memorial Lake Siltation Urban Runoff

Rockaway River Dixons Pond Fishery Impairment Urban Runoff (storm sewers)
Kohlers Pond

Appendix C. (cont'd)

POLLUTION CAUSE (POLLUTANT POLLUTION
WATERSHED LAKE CATEGORIES (Suspected) SOURCES

Toms River Bennets Pond Oil and Grease, Siltation Urban Runoff, Construction
Twilight Lake Siltation, Beach Closings Urban Runoff, Natural (birds)
Pine Lake Beach Closings Point Sources: Urban Runoff
(severe)
Manahawkin Lake Beach Closings Urban Runoff, Natural (severe
Ocean Acres Lake problem with birds)

Whippany River Speedwell Lake Siltation (?) Construction (severe),
Black Meadows Urban Runoff (storm sewers)
Troy Meadows

C-4

APPENDIX D. PRELIMINARY LIST OF WATERWAYS SUSPECTED OF BEING IMPACTED BY
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION: Estuaries, Bays, Coastal Waters.

Bays, estuaries, and costal waters suspected of being or by
nonpoint source pollution. Pollution source categories and cause categories are
as described in Table III-12a.

WATER BODY POLLUTION CAUSE (POLLUTANT)
(Bay, Estuary, Coast) CATEGORIES (Suspected) POLLUTION SOURCE

Hudson River Sediment Hydrologic/Habitat Modification-Dredging

Lower NY Bay Sediment, Landfills Leachate, Heavy Metals Urban runoff, Hydrologic/ Habitat Modification
Pathogens, Oils and Grease Construction, Land Disposal

Raritan Bay Pathogens, Eutrophication, Ph Depression, Suburban Runoff, Natural: Acid Runoff,
Landfill leachate, Petroleum Contamination, Landfill Leachate, Inplace Contaminants,
Benzne and Other Volatiles, ICD's Hazardous Waste Site Leachate.

Sandy Hook Bay Pathogens, Siltation, Oil and Grease, Construction, Suburban Runoff, Septic
Nutrients, Toxic Leachate Tanks, Landfills.

Navesink River Pathogens, Nutrients, Siltation, Oils Agricultural Runoff: Crop and Animal
Shewsbury River and Grease (stored horse manure), Construction,
Suburban Runoff, Septic Tank, Natural
(Waterfowl).

Shark River Pathogens, Siltation, Nutrients Agricultural (crop and animal holding),
Construction, Suburban Runoff, Landfill,
Natural (Waterfowl).

Manasquan River Pathogens, Siltation, Nutrients Agricultural Runoff (cropland and
Metedcconk River animal holding), Suburban Runoff,
Natural (Waterfowl).

D-1

APPENDIX D PRELIMINARY LIST OF WATERWAYS SUSPECTED OF BEING IMPACTED BY
(cont'd) NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION: Estuaries, Bays, Coastal Waters.

WATER BODY POLLUTION CAUSE (POLLUTANT)
(Bay, Estuary, Coast) CATERGORIES (Suspected) POLLUTION SOURCE

Barnegat Bay: including
Kettle Creek Pathogens, Siltation, Nutrients, Oils Construction, Septic Systems, Suburban
Toms River, and Grease Runoff, Landfill Leachate, Natural
South to Tuckerton Creek (Waterfowl).
(Forked River and Oyster Creek:
Channelization, Spills, Inplace
Contaminants).

Great Bay Pathogens, Oils and Grease, Nutrients, Construction, Suburban Runoff, Natural
Siltation (Waterfowl).

Brigantine Pathogens, Oils and Grease, Nutrients Suburban Surface Runoff, Septic Systems,
Reeds Bay Boat Docking Facilities, Natural
Absecon Bay (Waterfowl).

Lakes Bay Pathogens, Nutrients Suburban Runoff, Marinas

Great Egg Harbor Pathogens, Nutrients Septic Systems, Natural (Waterfowl(

Cape May:
Atlantic Estuaries Pathogens Suburban Surface Runoff, Marinas

Cape May:
Delaware Bay Estuaries Pathogens, Nutrients Septic Systems, Natural (Waterfowl)

Delaware Bay Estuaries: Pathogens Septic Systems, Natural (Waterfowl)
(West Creek Maurice
River, Divising Creek
to Cohausey River)

D-2

Appendix D PRELIMINARY LIST OF WATERWAYS SUSPECTED OF BEING IMPACTED BY
(cont'd) NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION: Estuaries, Bays, Coastal Waters. (Continued)

WATER BODY POLLUTION CAUSE (POLLUTION)
(Bay, Estuary, Coast) CATEGORIES (Suspected) POLLUTION SOURCE

Atlantic Ocean:
Chelsea Beach Pathogens Natural (Birds on Pier).
(near Shark River)

Atlantic Ocean:
All other beaches Pathogens Storm Sewers by Suburban Runoff.

D-3

Appendix E. Summary of Existing State and Local Programs
for Nonpoint Source Management

1. State

a. Regulatory Programs

Department of Environmental Protection

-Stormwater Management Program (N.J.S.A. 55D-93 et seq.;
N.J.A.C. 7:8)

Regulates management of storm water from new
development and provides grants to local governments
for development of local storm water management
ordinances and plans.

-Water Quality Management Planning Program (N.J.S.A.
58:11A-1 et seq.; N.J.A.C. 7:15)

Provides regulatory authority for consistent statewide
and regional apporaches for maintaing, improving,
and protecting water quality.

-Water Pollution Control Act (N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 et seq.;
N.J.A.C. 7)

Established the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NJPDES) Permit Program to restrict
and control the discharge of pollutants, including
toxic and hazardous pollutants, and municiapl and
industrial waste, to both surface and groundwater.
Authorized the Department of Environmental Protection
to adopt and enforce rules to prevent, control, or
abate water pollution.

-County Environmental Health Program (N.J.S.A. 26:3A2-21
et seq.; N.J.A.C. 7:1H)

Requires provision of water pollution and other
environmental health services by county health
departments or certified municipal or regional health
agencies.

-Department of Environmental Protection Act of 1970
(N.J.S.A. 13:1D1 et seq.)

Directs the Department of Environmental Protection to
formulate comprehensive policies for conservation,
environmental protection, and pollution prevention.
Authorizes the Department to perform registration,
inspection, and enforcement activities, and to
prepare, administer, supervise, and direct Statewide,

regional, and local programs of conservation and
environmental protection.

-Sewage Infrastructure Improvement Act (L. 1988, c. 90)

Provides for Department of Environmental Protection
supervision of municipal storm sewer and NPS pollution
abatement programs in four coastal counties, and of
abatement of combined sewer overflows Statewide.
Requires that stormwater collection systems built by
State agencies be designed to abate adverse surface
water quality impacts to the greatest extent feasible.

-Pesticide Control Program (N.J.S.A. 13:1F-1 et seq.;
N.J.A.C. 7:30)

Regulates the use, transportation, storage, sale, and
disposal of pesticides.

-Stream Encroachment Program (N.J.S.A. 58:16A-50 et seq.;
N.J.A.C. 7:13)

Regulates structures and activities in the channels
and flood plains of streams.

-Freshwater Wetlands Permit Program (N.J.S.A. 13:9B-1 et
seq.; N.J.A.C. 7:7A)

Regulates activities in freshwater wetlands.

-State Open Water Fill Permit Program (N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1
et seq.; N.J.A.C. 7:7A)

Regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into
most nontidal surface waters other than freshwater
wetlands.

-Dam Program (N.J.S.A. 58:4-1 et seq.; N.J.A.C. 7:20)

Regulates construction, modification, and maintenance
of dams.

-Water Supply Management Program (N.J.S.A. 58:1A-1 et
seq.; N.J.A.C. 7:19)

Regulates diversionof surface and ground waters.
Requires the New Jersey Statewide Water Supply Plan to
include recommendations for protecting watershed
areas.

-Individual Subsurface Sewage Disposal Program (N.J.S.A.
58:11-23 et seq.; N.J.A.C. 7:9-2)

Controls design and installation of individual
subsurfaces sewage disposal systems.

-Solid Waste Management Program (N.J.S.A. 13:1E-1 et seq.;
N.J.A.C. 7:26)

Regulates storage and transport of "solid waste"
(including sludge and liquid waste), and construction,
operation, and closure of solid waste facilities.

-Hazardous Waste Management Program (N.J.S.A. 13:1E-1 et
seq., N.J.S.A. 13:1K-6 et seq., N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11 et
seq., N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 et seq., N.J.S.A. 58:10A-21 et
seq., N.J.A.C. 7:1E, N.J.A.C. 7:14A, N.J.A.C. 7:14B,
N.J.A.C. 7:26, N.J.A.C. 7:26B)

Establishes requirements to prevent, contain, cleanup,
and remove discharges of hazardous substances;
regulates storage and transport of hazardous waste and
construction, operation, and closure of hazardous
waste facilities.

-Coastal Area Facilities Review (CAFRA) Program (N.J.S.A.
13:19-1 et seq.; N.J.A.C. 7:7, N.J.A.C. 7:7E0

Involved in coastal area planning as well reviewing
the sitting of certian facilities in the State's
designated "costal area".

-Coastal Wetlands Permit Program (N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 et
seq.; N.J.A.C. 7:7, N.J.A.C. 7:7E)

Regulated activities in deisgnated "coastal westlands".

-Waterfront Development Permit Program (N.J.S.A. 12:5-3;
N.J.A.C. 7:7, N.J.A.C. 7:7E)

Regulates construction activities in and adjacent to
tidal water bodies of the State.

-Wild and Scenic Rivers Program (N.J.S.A. 13:8-45 et seq.;
N.J.A.C. 7:38)

Provides for designation of wild scenic, or
recreational rivers, and regulation of adjacent areas
of land.

E-3

Departments of Agriculture, Environmental Protection, and
Transportation

-Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act (N.J.S.A. 4:24-39
et seq.; N.J.A.C. 2:90-1, N.J.A.C. 16:25A0

Requires installation of "best management practices"
to control soil erosion and sedimentation during
construction, mining or quarrying, and other land
disturbing activities (other than agriculture or
horticulture).

Other Regulatory Programs

-Pinelands Protection Act (N.J.S.A. 13:18A-1 et seq.;
N.J.A.C. 7:50)

Protects, preserves and enhances the significant
values of the resources of the Pinelands area of New
Jersey.

-Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (N.J.S.A.
13:17-1 et seq.; N.J.A.C. 19-3 et seq.)

Provides for reclamation, planning, development and
redevelopment of the Hackensack Meadowlands.

-Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission (N.J.S.A. 13:13A-1
et seq.; N.J.A.C. 7:45)

Provides for review of State and local actions that
impact on the Delaware and Raritan Canal State Park.

-Beach Erosion Commission (N.J.S.A. 52:9J-1 et seq.)

Protects and preserves the State's beaches and
shorefront.

-Tidelands Resource Council (N.J.S.A. 13:1B-10, 13;
N.J.S.A. 13:1D-18.2)

Issues riparian leases and grants.

-Delaware River Basin Commission (N.J.S.A. 32:11D-1 et
seq.)

Develops and effectuates plans, policies and projects
relating to the water resources of the Basin.

- Interstate Sanitation Commission (N.J.S.A. 32:18-1 et
seq., N.J.S.A. 32:19-1 et seq.)

Formed to abate existing and coi)trol future pollution
in the harbor of New York.

- State Planning Commission (N.J.S.A. 52:18A-196 et seq.;
K.J.A.C. 37:32)

Requires a "State Development and Redevelopment Plan"
which shall, among other things, protect the natural
resources of the State, including wetlands, stream
corridors, aquifer recharge areas, and steep slopes.

b. Voluntary Programs

Department of Environmental Protection

Department of Environmental Protection Act of 1970
(N.J.S.A. 13:ID-1 et seg.)

Authorizes the Department of Environmental Protection
to conduct and supervise Statewide programs of
environmental education, and to prepare educational
bulletins in cooperation with the Department of
Health.

- Water Pollution Control Act (N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 et seg.)

Empowers the Department of Environmental Protection to
cooperate with other State, interstate, and Federal
agencies, political subdivisions, and affected groups
in furthering the purposes of the Water Pollution
Control Act.

- Navesink, River Shellfish Pollution Control Project

An inter-governmental cooperative effort aimed at
restoring water quality and the shellfish resources in
the Navesink River through the implementation of best
management practices designed to control bacteria
caused by hPS pollution.

- Sewage Infrastructure Improvement Act (L. 1988, c. 90)

Provides grants to municipalities in four coastal
counties for inventory and mapping of storm sewer
systems, water quality monitoring at storm sewer
outfalls, and planning and design necessary to
eliminate unpermitted interconnections of storm sewers
and sanitary sewers. Provides grants to public
entities Statewide for planning and design of measures
to abate combined sewer overflows.

-N.J. Wastewater Treatment Financing Program (N.J.S.A.
58:11B-1 et seq.; P. L. 1985, c. 329; N.J.A.C. 7:22)

Provides low interest loans for constructing and
upgrading municipal wastewater treatment systems.

-State Flood Control Facilities (N.J.S.A. 58:16A-1 et
seq.)

Authorizes the Department of Environmental Protection
to acquire, construct, and operate specific flood
control facilities approved by acts of the
legislature.

-State Water Systems (N.J.S.A. 58:1B-1 et seq.)

Authorizes the New Jersey Water Supply Authority to
acquire, construct, and operate water systems.

-Green Acres (N.J.S.A. 13:8A-1 et seq.; N.J.A.C. 7:36)

Authorizes the Department of Environmental Protection
to acquire lands for conservation and recreation
purposes, and to make grants for such purposes to
municpal, county, or other political subdivisions.

Department of Agriculture

-Statewide Soil and Water Conservation Program (N.J.S.A.
4:24-1 et seq.)

Provides technical and financial assistance to
landowners for nonpoint source control.

-Agricultural Retention and Development Program (N.J.S.A.
4:1C-11 et seq.; N.J.A.C. 2:76, N.J.A.C. 2:90-2,3)

Cost sharing program developed for farmers to
implement "best management practices" to reduce
nonpoint source pollution in farmland preservation
areas.

-Right to Farm Program (N.J.S.A. 4:1C-1 et seq., N.J.S.A.
4:1C-26; N.J.A.C. 2:76-2)

Provides for development of a program of recommended
agricultural management practices for water quality
control, for consideration of such practices by State
regulatory agencies, and for immunity of agricultural
operations in legal actions.

Department of Education

- En%-ironmental Education Act (N.J.S.A. 18A:6-80 et seq.)

Authorizes the Department of Education to promote
elementarv and secondary school environmental
education programs.

Department of Transportation

- Highway Programs (N.J.S.A. 27; N.J.A.C. 16)

Authorizes the Department of Transportation to
construct and maintain State highways (including
highway drainage systems), and to establish standards
for construction and maintenance of State-assisted
count), and municipal roads.

C
Telchnical Ass i stance/A6,-isory Agencies

- Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (hT.J.S.A.
52:9B-4)

Formulates proposals for cooperation between New
Je.-sey, other states and the federal government.

- Clean Water Council (N.J.S.A. 58:25-11, 12)

Advises the Department of Environmental Protection on
water pollution control matters.

- Pesticide Control Council (N.'J.S.A. 13:IF-6 et seg.)

Advises the Department of Environmental Protection on
regulation and use of pesticides.

- Water Supply Advisory Council (N.J.S.A 13:IB-49.2 et
seg.)

Advises the Department of Environmental Protection and
the New Jersey Water Supply Authority on water supply
matters.

- Advisory Council on Solid Waste Management (N.J.S.A.
13:IE-7, 8)

Advises the Department of Environmental Protection on
solid waste management.

-Hazardous Waste Advisory Council (N.J.S.A. 13:1E-54 et
seq.)

Advises the Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting
Commission and the Department of Environmental
Protection on major hazardous waste facilities.

-New Jersey Sea Grant Extension

Provides educational and technical advice on coastal
resource issues.

-Rutgers Cooperative Extension

Provides educational and technical support for various
environmental concerns.

-Soil Conservation Act (N.J.S.A. 4:24-1 et seq.)

Provides technical assistance for Best Management
Practices that control soil erosion and sedimentation.

2. Local

a. Regulatory Programs (County/Municipal)

-Statewide Stormwater Management Program (where in
existence under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-93 et seq. and N.J.A.C.
7:8)

Requires municipalities (if grants are made available
by the Department of Environmental Protection) to
prepare stormwater management plans and ordinances
that conform to Federal and State requirements and
that are subject to approval by county planning boards
or county water resources associations.

-Water Quality Management Planning Program (where
designated under N.J.S.A. 58:11A-1 et seq.)

Requires designated county or regional planning
agencies to develop comprehensive areawide Water
Quality Management Plans which describe long term
needs and strategies for protecting and improving
water quality within their planning areas.

-County Environmental Health Act (N.J.S.A. 26:3A2-21 et
seq.; N.J.A.C. 7:1H)

Requires county health departments, or certified
municipal or regional health agencies, to provide
environmental health services (including control of
water pollution) which meet Department of
Environmental Protection standards.

-Sewage Infrastructure Improvement Act (L. 1988, c. 90)

Requires all municipalities with stormwater systems
discharginng into saline waters of Monmouth, Ocean.
Atlantic, and Cape May counties to adopt a storm
sewer/sanitary sewer map, eliminate unpermitted
interconnections between storm and sanitary sewers,
monitor water quality at storm sewer outfalls, and
abate storm water ocntamination disclosed by such
monitoring. Requires all public entities operating
combined sewer systems in New Jersey to provide
abatement measures at combined sewer overflow points.

-Soil Erosion and Sedimnet Control Act (N.J.S.A. 4:24-39
et seq.; N.J.A.C. 2:90-1)

Requires soil conservation districts to control soil
erosion and sedimentation from land disturbing
activities (other thant agriculture or hortculture),
except where such control is provided by qualifying
municipalities.

-Stream Encroachment Program (N.J.S.A. 58:16A-50 et seq.;
N.J.A.C. 7:130

Requires municipalities or other responsible entities
to adopt rule and regulations concerning the
development and use of land in delineated flood fringe
areas.

-Individual Subsurface Sewage Disposal Program (N.J.S.A.
58:11-23 et seq.; N.J.A.C. 7:9-2)

Requires county, regional, or municipal boards of
health (or bodies or officers exercising their powers)
to certify that proposed individual subsurface sewage
disposal systems comply with Department of
Environmental Protection standards and locan
ordinances.

-Solid Waste Management Program (N.J.S.A. 13:1E-1 et seq.;
N.J.A.C. 7:26)

Requires county boards of chosen freeholders to adopt
solid waste management plans, including recycling
plans and provisions for sludge management. Requires
municipalities to establish and implement municipal
recycling programs.

-Hazardous Waste Management Program (N.J.S.A. 13:1E-64)

Requires county health departments or local boards of
health to conduct weekly inspections of major
hazardous waste facilities.

E-9

-Pinelands Protection Act (N.J.S.A. 13:18A-1 et seq.;
N.J.A.C. 7:50)

Requires counties and municipalities to revise and
enforce county and municipal master plans and local
land use ordinances in order to implement the
Pinelands Commission's comprehensive management plan.

b. Voluntary Program (County/Municipal)

-County Environmental Health Act (N.J.S.A. 26:3A2-21 et
seq.; N.J.A.C. 7:1H)

Authorizes the Department of Environmental Protection
to delegate administration of one or more aspects of
the environmental health laws to county health
departments. Authorizes county boards of health to
adopt and enforce environmental health ordinances.
Directs county health departments and certified health
agencies to provide public information and citizen
education services in environmental health matters.

-Water Quality Management Planning Program (N.J.S.A.
58:11A-1 et seq.; N.J.A.C. 7:15)

Authorizes county planning boards to prepare county
water quality management plans.

-Municipal Land Use Law (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et seq.)

Authorizes adoption of master plans, capital
improvement programs, official maps, subdivision
ordianances, site plan ordinances, and zoning
ordinances which may address (and are sometimes
required to address) such NPS-related matters as
drainage, erosion and flood control, sewage disposal,
natural resources conservation, and land use.

-County Master Plans (N.J.S.A. 40:27-2)

Authorizes county master plans to recommend locations
for conservation, water supply, sanitary and drainage
facilities.

-Home Rule Act (N.J.S.A. 40:48-1 et seq.)

Authorizes municipalities to adopt and enforce
ordinances, not contrary to state or federal law, for
the protection of persons and property, and for the
preservation of the public health, safety and welfare
of the municipality.

E-10

- Public Health Siatutes (N.J.S.A. 26:1A-1 et seg.,
@-J-S.k. 26:3-1 et seq., N.J.S.A. 26:3A2-1 et seg.)

Authorizes local boards of health (or other municipal
bodies or officers exercising their powers), regional
health commissions, and county boards of health to
abate public health nuisances, and to adopt and
enforce ordinbnces to protect public health.

- Statewide Soil and Water Conservation Program (N.J.S.A.
41:24-1 et seq.)

Provides funding through a cost share mechanism to
implement soil and water best management practices.

- Agricultural Retention and Development Program (N.J.S.A.
4:1C-1 et seg.; N.J.A.C. 7:26)

Autborizes counties and municipalities to establish
farmland preservation programs; requires
implementation of best management practices in such
programs to reduce erosion and sedimentation and
improve water quality.

- Conservation Operations Program (N.J.S.A. 4:24-1 et seg.)

Provides technical assistance to landowners through
local soil conservation districts.

- County Subdivision/Site Plan Review (N.J.S.A. 40:27-6.1
et seg.)

Authorizes counties to approve subdivisions and site
plans affecting county road or drainage facilities.

- Municipal Sewerage and Drainage Statutes (N.J.S.A.
40:63-1 et seg.)

Authorizes municipalities to construct, acquire,
operate, and maintain municipal sewerage and drainage
systems, to prescribe charges and restrictions as to
connection with and use of such systems, and to
regulate construction of sewers and drains.
I
Local Sewerage and Drainage Improvements (N.J.S.A.
40:56-1 et seg.)

Authorizes municipalities to construct sewerage and
drainage systems as "local improvements" (with costs
or portions thereof assessed upon nearby lands
benefited thereby).

-Municipal Street Cleaning (N.J.S.A. 40:66-1)

Authorizes municipalities to provide for street
cleaning.

-County Drainage Works (N.J.S.A. 40:30-18 et seq.)

Authorizes counties to construct, operate, and
maintain drainage works and control the flow of
surplus and surface waters.

-County and Local Roads (N.J.S.A. 27:13 et seq.)

Authorizes counties and municipalities to construct
and maintain roads, including road drainage systems.

-Animalj Control Programs (N.J.S.A. 26:3-31, N.J.S.A.
40-:48-1)

Authorizes local boards of health and municipal
governing bodies to regulate or prohibit the keeping
of animals.

-Litter Control Programs (N.J.S.A. 13:1E-92 et seq.)

Authorizes grant to eligible counties and
municipalities for litter pickup and removal programs.

-Stream Encroachment Program (N.J.S.A. 58:16A-50 et seq.;
N.J.A.C. 7:13)

Authorizes the Department of Environmental Protection
to delegate administration of the stream encroachment
program to consenting counties. Authorizes counties
and municipalities to review stream encroachments in
small drainage areas.

-County Stormwater Control and Drainage Planning (N.J.S.A.
58:16A-55.4)

Authorizes county governing bodies to prepare
stormwater control and drainage plans for use in the
stream encroachment program.

-County Flood Control Facilities (N.J.S.A. 40:23-34 et
seq.)

Authorizes counties to purchase, construct, and
operate facilities for flood control and management of
surface water.

E-12

-Joint Flood Control Commissions (N.J.S.A. 40:14-16 et
seq.)

Authorizes municipalities and counties to establish
join flood control commissions to alleviate and
prevent floods.

-Water Supply Facilities (N.J.S.A. 40:14B-1 et seq.,
N.J.S.A. 40:14C-1 et seq., N.J.S.A. 40:62-47 et seq.)

Authorizes municipalities, counties, municipal
utilities authorities, and county utilities
authorities to acquire, construct, and operate water
supply facilities.

-Parks and Public Lands (N.J.S.A. 40:37-1 et seq.,
N.J.S.A. 40:56A-1 et seq., N.J.S.A. 40:61-1 et seq.,
N.J.S.A. 40A:12-1 et seq.)

Authorizes municipalities and counties to acquire real
property or interests therein for park or conservation
purposes.

-On-Site Wastewater Systems (N.J.S.A. 40:14A-7, N.J.S.A.
40:14B-20)

Authorizes sewage authorities, municipal utilities
authorities, and county utilities authorities to
inspect on-site wastewater systems and abate nuisances
created by such systems. (Also see "Public Health
Statutes" above.)

-Solid Waste Management (N.J.S.A. 40:14B-1 et seq.,
N.J.S.A. 40:37A-44 et seq., N.J.S.A. 40:66-1 et seq.,
N.J.S.A. 40:66A-1 et seq.)

Authorizes municipalities, counties, municipal
utilities authorities, county utilities authorities,
county improvement authorities, incinerator
authorities, and solid waste management authorities to
provide solid waste services and facilities.

E-13

Appendix F

DESPOSITORY LIBRARIES FOR NEW JERSEY DOCUMENTS
As of July 1988

College Libraries

Camden County College, Blackwood, NJ
Drew University, Madison, NJ
Fairleigh Dickinson University, Rutherford, NJ
Glassboro State College, Glassboro, NJ
Jersey City State College, Jersey City, NJ
Montclair State College, Upper Montclair, NJ
Monmouth College, West Long Branch, NJ
Kean College of New Jersey, Union NJ
Ocean County College. Toms River, NJ
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
Ramapo College of New Jersey. Mahwah, NJ
Richard Stockton State College. Pomona, NJ
Rider College. Lawrence Township, NJ
Rutgers, the State University:
Alexander /Sci Med. New Brunswick, NJ
Kilmer Area. Piscataway, NJ
Douglass College. New Brunswick, NJ
College of Arts and Sciences, Newark. Newark, NJ
Law School, Newark. Newark, NJ.
College of Arts and Sciences, Camden. Camden, NJ
Seton Hall University. South Orange, NJ
Seton Hall University. Law School. Newark, NJ
Trenton State College. Ewing, NJ
William Paterson College of New Jersey. Wayne, NJ
Salem Community College. Penns Groves, NJ

County Libraries

Atlantic Libraries

Atlantic County Library, Mays Landing, NJ
Burlington County Library. Mount Holly, NJ
Camden County Library. Echelon Urban Complex, Voorhees, NJ
Cape May County Free Library. Cape May Court House, NJ
Cumberland County Library. Bridgeton, NJ
Monmouth County Library. Freehold, NJ
Morris County Free Library. Whippany, NJ
Ocean County Library. Toms River, NJ
Somerset County Library. Somerville, NJ
Sussex County Library. Newton, NJ

F-1

Public Libraries

Bloomfield, NJ, Public Library
Cherry Hill, NJ, Free Public Library
East Brunswick, NJ, Public Library
East Orange, NJ, Free Public Library
Elizabeth, NJ, Free Public Library
Hackensack, NJ, Johnson Free Public Library
Jersey City, NJ, Free Public Library
Linden, NJ, Public Library
New Brunswick, NJ, Free Public Library
Newark, NJ, Public Library
Paterson, NJ, Public Library
Phillipsburg, NJ, Public Library
Plainfield, NJ, Public Library
Ridgewood, NJ, The Library
Trenton, NJ, Public Library
Wayne, NJ, Public Library
Woodbridge, NJ, Free Public Library
Woodbury, NJ, Public Library

Out-of-State Libraries

Albany, New York, New York State Library
Chicago, Illinois, Center for Research Libraries
Lexington, Kentucky, Council of State Governments
New York, New York. PAIS/New York Public Library (5th Avenue)
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Free Public Library of Philadelphia
Sacramento, Califronia. California State Library
Washington, DC. Library of Congress

F-2

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

Economic Development-Grants for Public Works and
Development facilities
Economic Development-Business Development Assistance
Economic Development-Public Works Impact Projects
Economic Development-State and Local Economic
Development Planning

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

Floord Plain Management Services
Protection of Essential Highways, Highway, Bridge
Approaches, and Public Works
Flood Control Projects
Navigation Projects
Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control
Protection, Clearing and Straightening Channels

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

Military Construction, Amry National Guard

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants
Community Development Block Grants/Small Cities Program
Urban Development Action Grants
Community Development Block Grants/State's Program

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Non-Sale Disposals of Mineral Material

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Anadromous Fish Conservation
Resource Containment Assessment
Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance
Wildlife Restoration

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Assistance to State Water Resources Research Institues

V-20

A-z@

DATE DUE

GAYLORDINo. 2333 ITED IN U SA

oa 0
Aaw( A
rvw

3 6668 14106 8017