2011 Strategic Plan New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route

Home , Allaire State Park, Barnegat Lighthouse, Bass River State Forest, Belleplain State Forest, Fort Mott (New Jersey), Glades Wildlife Refuge

National Park Service2011 Strategic Plan U.S. DepartmentNew of the Interior Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route

Northeast Region Office Division of Interpretation and Education

PDF, Part 1 of 2

August 2, 2011

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA™ New Jersey 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route CoastalU.S. Department of the Interior Trail Rout e Northeast Region Office Division of Interpretation and Education

2011 Strategic Plan New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route NPS 2011 Strategic Plan New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route

New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route 389 Fortescue Road; PO Box 568 Newport, NJ 08345

After September 30, 2011, communication should be directed to:

New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route c/o Division of Interpretation and Education National Park Service, Northeast Region U.S. Custom House 200 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106

Opposite: East Point Lighthouse, Cumberland County, New Jersey. Paul Leakan, Pinelands Commission Contents

Executive Summary 5

Introduction 11

Vision and Mission 13

History and Current Status of the Trail 15

Trail Accomplishments 23

Issues 35

Organizational Options Summary 41

Public Engagement Process 51

Acknowledgments 59

Appendices Appendix A: Legislation, 1988-2008 61 Appendix B: Trail Implementation Guide 69 Appendix C: Staffing History and Administrative Review Recommendations, 2003 149 Appendix D: Funding History, Construction and Operations 151 Appendix E: Budget Analysis−Implementation Plan vs. Actual Appropriations 153 Appendix F: List of Trail Partner Destinations 155 Appendix G: Public Engagement Process: Meeting Agenda and Organizations/Agencies Represented 159 Appendix H: Resolutions, Written Comments, and Correspondence 163 Appendix I: Meeting Announcements and Media Coverage 189

Opposite: Batona Trail, Pinelands National Reserve.

Right: Harold N. Peek Preserve, Cumberland County, New Jersey. Steve Eisenhauer, Natural Lands Trust © Steve Eisenhauer, NEW YORK

95 CITY

PERTH AMBOY

Sandy Hook Raritan Bay Gateway National KEYPORT Recreation Area Welcome 36 Center

Sandy Hook Navesink River D Region SEA BRIGHT e RED BANK la w a r e 18 LONG BRANCH 295 36 R i ve 18 ASBURY PARK r M an a OCEAN GROVE TRENTON River sq u a Shark River 195 n

476 276 T 34 Sandy Hook/Barnegat Bay om Region boundary s Manasquan Inlet

76 Ri POINT PLEASANT BEACH 295 ve 95 r e ik New Jersey p rn u Pennsylvania T Intracoastal Waterway y e rs e J 70 PHILADELPHIA CAMDEN w TOMS RIVER 37 e Walt Whitman N SEASIDE PARK Bridge

a y 70 w

k a r CHESTER a B Barnegat Bay P

Commodore e t Region t Barry a t a Bridge S g

42 n e 72 e n d r r d s a 9 a Barnegat Inlet a n G B WILMINGTON 322 55 e l BARNEGAT LIGHT 295 i n DEEPWATER P

Delaware MANAHAWKIN 95 47 Memorial G y Bridge r e e 40 a s t r E SHIP BOTTOM Welcome g g e Center H J a Mu Fort Mott rb A llic o tl a State Park r a n R i R ti v i c e v C r w e i r t y SALEM e E N x HOLGATE N p 47 re ss 49 322 w A 40 ay Barnegat Bay/Absecon 50 9 Region boundary E M

D a BRIDGETON u e r C i Absecon Region c l e a 55 GREENWICH 40 w O

BRIGANTINE a MILLVILLE r hanse R e o y R. i 49 C v R e ATLANTIC CITY r iv e 553 r MARGATE CITY C I Absecon/Cape May Region boundary 13 Delsea Region T 50 OCEAN CITY Intracoastal Waterway PORT WOODBINE N FORTESCUE NORRIS Cape May Region A L DOVER Welcome Center 47 Ocean View Service Area, T Garden State Parkway A

Delaware Bay Intracoastal Waterway Delsea/Cape May Region boundary Delaware STONE HARBOR 9

Cape May-Lewes Ferry Terminal Designated cities and towns are for directional purposes only and may or may not be CAPE MAY ofﬁcial Trail destinations. 0 10 Kilometers New Jersey Coastal

Ferry to Delaware Heritage Trail Route Area 0 10 Miles NPS

4 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Executive Summary

Background

Enabling Legislation and Original Intent and Habitats, Wildlife Migration, Relaxation & Mission Inspiration, and Historic Settlements—are The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route used to explore the heritage of the New Jersey (hereafter Trail) was established by federal leg- coast. The Trail has been organized as a public islation under Public Law 100-515 (Appendix driving trail that links non-contiguous destina- A) in 1988 to promote awareness, stewardship, tions under the five themes. and protection of natural and cultural resources along nearly 300 miles of New Jersey The Guide called for an initial five-year imple- coastline using interpretation and promotion mentation period with the NPS and state of rather than federal ownership. The legislation New Jersey cooperatively managing the Trail, authorized the Secretary of the Interior to des- followed by a diminished role by the NPS and ignate a vehicular tour route linking important an expanded role by the state of New Jersey. natural and cultural sites, to provide technical assistance in the development of interpretive Legislative History materials and conservation methods, to pre- Congress made various changes to the Trail’s pare and distribute informational material for legislation and funding over the years. Cur- public appreciation of sites along the route, rent legislation calls for a strategic plan and a and to erect signs to guide the public. sunset date. According to the legislation, the strategic plan should describe both “oppor- The National Park Service (NPS) has had the tunities to increase participation by national lead responsibility from the beginning with and local private and public interests in the assistance from three state of New Jersey planning, development, and administration of agencies [Department of Environmental Pro- the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route;” tection, Division of Parks and Forestry (that and “organizational options for sustaining the includes the New Jersey Historic Preservation New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route.” Six Office); Division of Travel and Tourism; and public meetings and additional briefings have the Pinelands Commission (significant por- been held about the future of the Trail, and tions of the Pinelands National Reserve over- a set of four organizational options has been lap with the Trail)]. developed.

Project Area As of July 2011, the Trail has a sunset date of The enabling legislation defined the Trail’s September 30, 2011, beyond which the NPS project areas as generally to the east of the will no longer have authority to manage or Garden State Parkway, from Sandy Hook to participate in the Trail. Cape May and south of State Route 49 along the Delaware Bay. The project area (see Fig- Status of Trail Implementation ure 1) was expanded later to include a portion The Trail has five interpretive themes (Mari- of the coast along the Raritan Bay from Sandy time History, Coastal Habitats, Wildlife Migra- Hook westward to the City of Perth Amboy. tion, Relaxation & Inspiration, and Historic The Trail includes portions of eight counties Settlements). The first three of these themes (Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Burlington, are in operation. Planning is incomplete for Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland, and Salem) the remaining two themes. There are nearly and six Congressional districts (2, 3, 4, 6, 12, sixty locations or facilities associated with the and 13). The project area is divided into five Trail as “Sites,” “Points of Interest,” “Welcome regions. Centers,” and “Local Information Centers.” Two of the proposed five welcome centers Implementation Plan have been fully developed. The Implementation Guide, New Jersey Coastal Figure 1. The map opposite Heritage Trail Route (Appendix B) was com- Staffing and Funding shows the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route’s project pleted in early 1993. Five interrelated inter- Trail Staff: During the initial years of Trail area (green). pretive themes—Maritime History, Coastal implementation, the staff consisted of 5-6 NPS

National Park Service 5 full-time equivalents (FTE). Current staffing May County. An interim welcome center is consists of 2.5 FTE. Due to a deteriorating located at the Sandy Hook Unit of Gateway financial situation, the New Jersey Division National Recreation Area. Except for Sandy of Parks and Forestry has only been able to Hook, Trail welcome centers are owned and provided one and occasionally two part-time staffed by non-NPS partners with all operat- seasonal positions most years to supplement ing costs covered by the partner agencies. The NPS staff. Trail has provided exhibit design and installation while partners rehabilitated the exhibit Trail Funding: Overall actual NPS construc- facilities. tion and operational support between FY 1993 and FY 2011 has been closer to $4.5 million Promotional Brochures compared to planning projections of $10.9 An NPS full-color unigrid brochure provides million. This explains, in part, why the initial a general introduction to the Trail with a map implementation has yet to be completed. of the overall project area and the location of welcome centers. In addition, the Trail has Partnerships developed a series of regional brochures with The Trail works through partnerships with detailed information on individual destinations. federal, state, and local government agencies; nonprofit organizations; and corporate inter- Website Presence ests. All destinations are owned and managed The Trail has its own NPS webpage at www. by partners; the Trail neither owns nor man- nps.gov/neje. This website includes all of the ages any land or resources directly. The Trail information found in the Trail’s general and Managing partner logos: (1) New demonstrates the potential of public/private regional brochures and includes links to part- Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Parks and partnerships that allow the National Park ner destinations. Forestry; (2) New Jersey Division of Service to meet its core mission of natural Travel & Tourism; and (3) New Jersey Pinelands Commission. and cultural resource preservation along with Research/Resource Publications interpretation and public education in a cost- Three reports were researched and published efficient manner through technical assistance that consolidated important historical infor- while reducing operational responsibilities. mation related to the Trail’s five themes for the benefit of the public and to provide the basis Trail Accomplishments for Trail interpretation.

The Trail has provided partner destinations Highway Directional Trailblazer Program with various forms of technical assistance in In cooperation with the New Jersey Depart- collaborative efforts to protect and promote ment of Transportation (NJDOT), an ap- significant natural and cultural resources in proved Trail logo was developed for use on the Trail’s project area. highway trailblazers. The Trail has always provided the trailblazers, some highway sign Wayside Exhibit Program posts, and the accompanying panels identify- With over 1,000 wayside exhibits provided to ing the type of destination. NJDOT installed partners, the Trail manages the largest such the initial trailblazers in the early-to-mid 1990s program in the entire National Park System. on state highway locations, and the counties The NPS has generally provided the majority installed signs on county and local roads. of new interpretive wayside exhibit panels and frames at no cost to the partner. In return, the Interpretive Training and Other Assistance partner destination agreed to display Trail ori- The NPS Trail staff has provided training to entation waysides and to install and maintain destination staff on interpretive principles wayside exhibits. and wayside exhibit development. The New Jersey Division of Parks and Forestry adopted Welcome Center Partnerships statewide the NPS model for developing man- Two of the proposed five welcome centers agement and interpretive plans. The Trail has (one for each Trail region) have been fully de- assisted through a variety of other state and veloped: one at Fort Mott State Park in Salem federal programs such as: Pinelands Interpre- County and one at the Ocean View Service tive Program, National Historic Landmarks Area on the Garden State Parkway in Cape Program, New Jersey Scenic Byways Program,

6 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Wild & Scenic Rivers Program, Park Flight Highway Signs Program, and National Underground Railroad The system of highway signs guiding travel- Network to Freedom Program. ers to Trail destinations has never been fully satisfactory, due to budget shortfalls, the com- Issues plexity of partners and sites, and design/installation challenges. The Trail has proven popular with partners and the public. However, as a large and com- Size of Project Area plex project, a number of issues have influ- The size of the Trail’s project area has been enced Trail management and implementation another management challenge. It can take over the years. as long as three hours to get from one portion of the Trail to another. This, as well as the Financial Support, Projected Versus Actual breadth of themes and resources, limits regu- Projected operational support was initially lar interaction among Trail management and close to $5.8 million; actual between FY 1993 destination managers. and FY 2011 was approximately $3.7 million. Projected construction appropriations to Organizational Options to Sustain complete initial Trail implementation were es- the Trail timated at $5.1 million; actual federal line item construction expenditures were $0.8 million. This plan presents basic management options as requested in P.L. 109-338. Staffing Limitations Due to budget shortfalls, both NPS and state Option 1: No further NPS management of staffing have been less than projected through the Trail after sunset date of September 30, most of the Trail’s history. 2011. The Trail’s current federal legislation includes Changes to Legislative Authority a sunset date that precludes direct NPS man- Unlike permanent units of the NPS, the Trail agement of the Trail after September 30, 2011. is an affiliated area without permanent NPS In the absence of renewed authorization, management authority. The sunset clauses in Trail partners and supporters could consider the Trail’s legislation have affected Trail imple- establishing a nonprofit organization or state mentation. Twice, sunset provisions have gone or local government management of the Trail. into effect and brought NPS management of Locally-managed scenic byways now cover the Trail to a standstill for 3.5 out of the last portions of the Trail and could be used as a seven years. model for creating new byways that would assume a role similar to that of the Trail.

Visitors studying a wayside exhibit at the Glades Wildlife Refuge, Cumberland County, New Jersey, a remote location with limited electronic acces- sibility. NPS

National Park Service 7 Option 1 is the only option that would not re- Pinelands National Reserve to enable the NPS quire new legislative action by Congress. to provide technical and/or operational assistance to portions or all of the Trail’s project The NPS retains authority under its Pinelands area outside the boundary of the Pinelands National Reserve legislation to provide inter- National Reserve. pretive and technical assistance to resource destinations within the Pinelands National Option 4: Permanent authorization for the Reserve. This would include those significant Trail. portions of the Trail’s project area that are As with Options 2 and 3, this option of perma- within the Reserve. nent authorization for the Trail would require Congressional action. Such action would give Option 2: Limited time NPS management to the Trail an additional level of security and transition to a new management framework. continuity by eliminating the periodic sunset This alternative would allow the NPS to con- and authorization issues. There was public tinue temporarily its leadership role in Trail support for this option. Again, it is unlikely management and operations to assist with the that Congress would have time to take the transition to a new management structure that necessary legislative action to reauthorize the would not include long-term NPS manage- NPS Trail authority before September 30, 2011. ment of the Trail. There was significant public It is very likely that a lapse in NPS Trail au- support for this option. It would require ac- thority will occur. tion by the U.S. Congress to reauthorize the NPS role in managing the Trail for a limited In the meantime, the NPS will continue to fa- time frame. However, it is unlikely that Con- cilitate discussions about future management gress would have time to take the necessary options up until the September 2011 sunset legislative action before September 30, 2011. It date. In the absence of new authorization, the is very likely that a lapse in NPS authority to NPS will be implementing contingency plans manage the Trail will occur. to close the Trail’s New Jersey field office by September 30, 2011, reassign staff, and distrib- Option 3: A new federal role for or within ute materials associated with the Trail. There the Trail project area. remain, however, other NPS conservation and This option would involve establishment of preservation assistance programs to which lo- possible new and different federal authorities cal communities and agencies in the Trail area for all or a portion of the Trail project area. can apply. Such new authorities would generally require a prior study, public support, and Congressional Public and Partner Input on the review and authorization. Future of the Trail

The most likely prospect would be the estab- During the strategic planning process, eight lishment of a new National Heritage Area. meetings were held to obtain input from Trail This would involve a study to determine eligi- partners and the public. Responses were very bility of resources within all of or a portion of positive regarding the benefits of the Trail to the Trail project area. Congress could autho- partners and the public, and the excellence rize a new study−or a private study could be of Trail products. People said that the Trail undertaken−to determine if National Heritage facilitated partnerships, bringing agencies and Area designation would be appropriate. An organizations with shared missions together effort to seek National Heritage Area designa- and enabling them to share resources. Par- tion is already under way for the portion of ticipants said the Trail has promoted tourism the Trail along the Delaware Bay. and economic development. The “cachet” of the NPS “brand” was mentioned often. A variation on the idea of new federal authori- Participants valued the presence of the NPS ties would be to add new NPS authorities and its contribution to increasing the region’s to an existing NPS project area or unit. The visibility on a national level. Partner sites ap- Pinelands National Reserve has areas of signif- preciated the funding and technical assistance, icant overlap with the Trail. Congress could, which sometimes leveraged additional state for example, give additional authorities to the funding at certain sites.

8 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan People said the Trail mission was still valid and People emphasized repeatedly the impor- important. Meeting participants observed tance of continued NPS involvement with the that while the conservation aspect is difficult Trail. There was a strong preference for con- to measure, the Trail educates and creates tinued, if not permanent, NPS management awareness, and that the tourism draw of the of the Trail. Most agreed that in the current Trail does help support conservation. People economic climate, no state agency or single pointed out that no other entity is doing any- non-profit organization will be able to take on thing like the Trail, and that there is much the role that the NPS has played, and for this more that can be achieved. reason, Trail partners need the NPS presence more than ever. Partners had suggestions for The use of new technologies came up repeat- assisting with or gradually transitioning to a edly in each of the public meetings. Many new management structure. These included recommended using podcasts, cell phone links forming an advisory or steering committee; and smart-phone applications for Trail inter- organizing the counties and/or various non- pretation to attract younger audiences and profit partners into a task force or consor- to save on the cost of printed materials and tium; or perhaps forming a new organization exhibits. There were also many good sugges- headed by a major existing non-profit partner. tions for special events to draw more people In any of these cases, however, people thought to the Trail. that continued NPS assistance, even if temporary, was essential for guiding a transition and maintaining the Trail in the meantime.

New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail volunteers help participants sign in as they arrive at the March 1, 2011, afternoon public strategic planning meeting in Monmouth County, New Jersey.

Below: Representatives from the public and partner destinations discuss the future of the Trail in Toms River, New Jersey, on March 24, 2011. NPS NPS

National Park Service 9 Mid-Atlantic Center for the Arts

10 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Introduction

The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route partners and the public, and to discuss various (hereafter Trail) was established by federal alternative management futures for the Trail. legislation in 1988 to promote awareness, stewardship, and protection of natural and cultural The following strategic plan documents the resources along nearly 300 miles of New Jer- history and accomplishments of the Trail; sey coastline using interpretation and promo- explains the key management issues that have tion rather than federal ownership. influenced the Trail during NPS leadership; presents four organizational options for sus- The National Park Service (NPS) has had the taining the Trail; and describes public and lead responsibility from the beginning, with partner views on the Trail’s mission, accom- assistance from three state of New Jersey plishments, and possible future organizational agencies: Department of Environmental Pro- structure. tection, Division of Parks and Forestry (that includes the New Jersey Historic Preservation As of summer 2011, it appears that the “sun- Office); Division of Travel and Tourism; and set” provision in the Trail’s current legislation the Pinelands Commission. will take effect on September 30, 2011, and the NPS will cease to manage or be involved Following an Implementation Guide developed in the Trail. While the NPS was charged, in 1993 (Appendix B), the NPS organized the through federal legislation, with developing a Trail as a public driving trail that links non- strategic plan for the Trail, at this writing it is contiguous destinations under five interre- unknown who will manage the Trail or carry lated interpretive themes: Maritime History, out the plan. It will be up to whatever group, Coastal Habitats, Wildlife Migration, Relax- organization, agency, or partnership takes on ation & Inspiration, and Historic Settlements. some or all of the Trail’s management, to re- The Trail has provided voluntary partner visit the Trail mission and determine what is destinations with various forms of technical most desirable and feasible with the available assistance in collaborative efforts to interpret, resources. protect, and promote significant natural and cultural resources in the project area.

The U.S. Congress made various changes to the Trail’s legislation and funding over the years. Current legislation (enacted 2006 and modified 2008; see Appendix A) calls for a strategic plan and a sunset date of September 30, 2011, which would end NPS involvement in the Trail. According to the legislation, the strategic plan should describe both “opportunities to increase participation by national and local private and public interests in the planning, development, and administration of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route;” and “organizational options for sustaining the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route.” In the absence of any further action from Congress, after September 30, 2011, the NPS will no longer have authority to manage or participate in the Trail.

During 2010 and 2011, an NPS planning team conducted a public engagement process. The purpose was to get a sense of the Trail’s suc- Opposite: Cape May Lighthouse, Cape May County, New Jersey. cess and value from the point of view of Trail

National Park Service 11 NPS

12 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Vision Mission

[From Implementation Guide, 1993] The mission of the Trail is to enhance public “With the blossoming of spring, New Jerseyans’ awareness, appreciation, understanding, and thoughts turn to the Jersey Shore. This stretch conservation of the natural and cultural heri- of Atlantic coastline is a study in contrasts—a tage of coastal New Jersey by assisting with mixture of crowded beaches and secluded coves, developing educational materials and conser- colorful boardwalks and remote wildlife refuges, vation methods for the sites along the route. teeming casinos and quaint historic villages. Each year these attractions draw city dwellers not only from New Jersey but also from New York City, Philadelphia, and beyond for seasonal rest, recreation, and inspiration.

Nearby there is a second Jersey Shore—an undiscovered and relatively untouched area along the Delaware Bay. This is a quiet land that invites visitors to appreciate the flight of an osprey, the richness of the coastal marshes and wetlands, and the spirit of hard work and ad- venture behind the fishermen’s boats and homes that are an integral part of the setting. Experi- ences here are very different from those along the coast. Pristine rivers and streams empty into the bay, wildlife abounds, and small towns, farms and fishing villages provide evidence of living and working with nature.

The resources of both Jersey Shores will soon be interpreted as part of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail. The trail concept will provide the context for discovery, and the resources within these two distinct areas will offer visitors the op- portunity to choose from experiences as varied as the landscape.”

When Congress first authorized the New Jer- sey Coastal Heritage Trail in 1988, its vision was of enhanced public understanding and enjoyment of sites and resources associated with the coastal area of New Jersey. The Trail was conceived and developed as a cooperative effort in which local, state, and federal agencies and numerous private entities would work together to recognize and promote the natural and cultural heritage of the New Jersey coastal region. Inherent in the vision was the concept that greater public awareness and appreciation would lead to improved stewardship and protection of that heritage. It was also envisioned that promoting New Jersey’s coastal heritage and making sites more accessible year-round would bring more visitors from both near and Opposite: Great Bay Boulevard Wildlife Management Area, Ocean far, thus contributing to local and state eco- County, New Jersey. nomic development.

National Park Service 13 Laurie Pettigrew, New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife Laurie Pettigrew,

14 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan History and Current Status of the Trail

Enabling Legislation and Original Intent/Mission

The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route The Trail is prohibited from funding major (hereafter Trail) was established by federal building construction, and the act specifies legislation (P.L. 100-515, October 20, 1988; see that no funds were to be used for the “opera- Appendix A) to promote awareness, steward- tion, maintenance, or repair of any road or ship, and protection of natural and cultural re- related structure.” (P.L. 100-515). sources along nearly 300 miles of New Jersey coastline. Project Area

The legislation authorized the Secretary of the The enabling legislation (P.L. 100-515, October Interior to designate a vehicular tour route in 20, 1988) defined the Trail’s project areas as coastal New Jersey and to prepare an inven- follows: tory of sites along the route. An interpretive program was also mandated to provide for The route shall follow public roads, which are public appreciation, education, understand- generally located to the east of the Garden State ing, and enjoyment of important fish and Parkway, linking the New Jersey portion of wildlife habitats, geologic and geographical Gateway National Recreation Area, known gen- landforms, cultural resources, and migration erally as the Sandy Hook Unit, with the national routes in coastal New Jersey. The Secretary historic landmark in Cape May and that area was authorized to provide technical assistance north and west of Cape May in the vicinity of in the development of interpretive materials Deepwater, New Jersey. The Secretary may, in and conservation methods, to prepare and the manner set forth in section 1, designate ad- distribute informational material for sites ditional segments of the route from time to time along the route, and to erect signs displaying as appropriate to link the foregoing sites with the Trail logo to guide the public. other natural and cultural sites when such sites are designated and protected by Federal, State, The Trail links national wildlife refuges, or local governments, or other public or private national parklands, National Historic Land- entities. marks, and National Register sites with important historic communities, state parks, natural The project area (see Figure 1) was expanded areas, and other resources to tell the story of later to include a portion of the coast along New Jersey’s role in shaping U.S. history and the Raritan Bay from Sandy Hook westward in providing internationally important habitats to the City of Perth Amboy. The Garden for bird and other migrations. The Trail is one State Parkway and State Route 49 along the of the first efforts by the National Park Service Bayshore region serve as the main access cor- to use interpretation alone rather than federal ridors for the Trail. The project area has also ownership to protect important resources. been defined to include the area one mile west of the Parkway and one mile north of Route Unlike the situation for National Heritage 49. The Trail includes portions of eight coun- Areas, the Trail’s enabling legislation did not ties (Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Burling- specify a managing entity such as a formal ton, Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland, and commission or nonprofit organization. The Salem) and six Congressional districts (2, 3, 4, NPS has had the lead responsibility from the 6, 12, and 13). beginning with assistance from three state of New Jersey agencies [Department of Envi- ronmental Protection, Division of Parks and Forestry (that includes the New Jersey His- toric Preservation Office); Division of Travel and Tourism; and the Pinelands Commission (because significant portions of the Pinelands Opposite: Heislerville Wildlife Man- National Reserve overlap with the Trail)]. agement Area, Cumberland County, New Jersey.

National Park Service 15 Implementation Plan and staffed by non-NPS partners with all operating costs covered by the partner agencies. Following passage of the 1988 enabling legisla- The Trail’s role has been to provide the exhibit tion, the National Park Service began a multi- designs and fabrication, and promotional year planning process on how best to imple- literature. The five regional welcome centers ment the federal legislation. A Trail planning are supplemented by local information cen- office was established and a planning team ters that may not themselves be Trail resource designated through the Denver Service Cen- destinations but can be sources of information ter. The resulting Implementation Guide, New and literature about Trail destinations and

NPS Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route (Appendix activities. Examples include county tourism B) was completed in early 1993. offices, museums, ferry terminals, etc.

The plan specifies five interrelated interpretive Participation in the Trail is voluntary with themes to explore the coastal heritage of the interested site owners/managers submitting New Jersey coast: Maritime History, Coastal an application to the state of New Jersey for Habitats, Wildlife Migration, Relaxation & review and determination of the applicant’s Inspiration, and Historic Settlements. Each level of significance. The application is then theme illustrates the interaction of natural and passed to the National Park Service for further cultural influences and the coastal environ- review, selection, and official designation, if ment. The Trail has been organized as a public appropriate. Selection is based on evaluation

© Dwight Hiscano driving trail that links non-contiguous destina- against approved criteria for location, signifi- Top: Twin Lights State Historic Site, tions under one or more of the five themes. cance, ability to assist in interpreting one or Monmouth County, New Jersey. The Trail’s official name is frequently confus- more of the Trail’s themes, public access, re- Bottom: The Nature Conservancy’s ing to visitors, as it is neither a pedestrian hik- source protection, and management. Cape May Migratory Bird Refuge, Cape May County, New Jersey. ing trail nor does it follow a specific route. Trail information includes a general Trail-wide Because of its length, the project area has been brochure in the form of a traditional NPS park divided into five regions (Figure 1). North to “unigrid” brochure explaining the project south, the regions are: Sandy Hook, Barnegat area and overall theme concept, and regional Bay, Absecon, and Cape May that explore the brochures with expanded theme informa- Raritan Bay and Atlantic Coast portions of tion and descriptions of all Trail destinations the Trail; and the Delsea Region that covers within each region. Each destination is also the portion of the Trail project area along the evaluated for the need/appropriateness of in- Delaware Bay and River. terpretive wayside exhibits or other interpretive media to be developed in partnership with Trail destinations and facilities are classified as destination managers and staff. “Sites,” “Points of Interest,” “Welcome Cen- ters,” and “Local Information Centers.” Sites The Implementation Guide also called for are defined as full service destinations, usually highway directional signs/trailblazers to guide with staff, exhibits, restroom facilities, and a visitors to resource destinations, welcome minimum number of regular hours that the centers, and local information centers. Signs facility is open to the public. Points of interest guide visitors from major local intersections are generally unstaffed destinations with fewer to each destination. Highway signs consist or no visitor services. of two components—a Trail logo trailblazer (approved by NJDOT) and a secondary panel The 1993 Implementation Guide calls for the identifying the type of destination (“Site,” establishment of five welcome centers, one for “Point of Interest,” “Welcome Center,” etc.). each region. Each welcome center is designed It was decided early on that it would be too to have orientation materials (videos, bro- costly to identify individual destination names chures, and exhibits) about the Trail overall as on the highway signs. well as expanded exhibits that explore in more detail one of the five Trail themes. Sign location and installation responsibility are determined in consultation with the New Except for the interim welcome center at Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) Sandy Hook, Trail welcome centers are owned and the appropriate county road department.

16 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan NPS

Cape May Region Welcome Cen- The Trail has provided the highway sign trail- NPS presence in the north and potentially in the ter in Ocean View, New Jersey, on the Garden State Parkway. blazers, secondary panels, and some sign posts. south will provide a federal base for the trail. Installation costs were initially absorbed by NJDOT and the individual county road depart- Following initial implementation, the Guide ments, although this became an issue with NJ- called for a diminished role by the NPS and DOT as the state’s fiscal situation deteriorated. an expanded role by the state of New Jersey. Unfortunately, almost from the beginning The Implementation Guide called for an initial and long before the current economic crisis, five-year implementation period with the NPS the state has not had the financial resources and state of New Jersey cooperatively manag- to provide the level of support anticipated. ing the Trail. At the end of the implementa- Budgets and staffing for all three lead agencies tion period, there was to be an assessment of have been diminishing year after year. The the Trail and the state’s ability to manage it. Pinelands Commission, for example, has had According to the approved 1993 Guide: its budget cut by 25% and its staff reduced by 31% in the past five years. The Park Service will provide long-term sta- bility for the trail by anchoring it in the north As noted below in the Legislative History sec- at the Sandy Hook unit of Gateway National tion, Congress also made changes to the Trail’s Recreation Area; special trail-related exhibits legislation, including the addition of a sunset will eventually be located there. In addition, a clause that imposed a deadline for NPS in- special resource study of the Delaware Bay that volvement in managing the Trail. is currently being conducted by the Park Service may recommend long-term NPS involvement Legislative History in southern New Jersey, providing another trail anchor site. A trail headquarters may eventual- The initial 1988 Trail legislation (P.L. 100-515) ly be located at one of the two anchor sites. The described above did not include a sunset date.

National Park Service 17 The May 4, 1994, legislation (P.L. 103-243) The change caused by the loss of authoriza- The change caused by modified the original legislation as follows: tion was not obvious to the public because the the loss of authoriza- Trail essentially remained “open.” Wayside tion was not obvious 1. Increased the authorized appropriations exhibits stayed in place at partner destina- to the public because ceiling to $1 million. tions, highway signs continued to direct visi- the Trail essentially re- 2. Specified that funds were to be used solely tors, and Trail brochures remained available. for technical assistance and the design and The Trail’s field office remained open with the mained “open.” fabrication of interpretive materials, devices, focus of work switched to Pinelands issues. and signs and prohibited the use of funds (In fact, current staff position descriptions for operation, maintenance, repair, or con- remain assigned to the Pinelands rather than to struction except for construction of inter- the Trail). With no authorization to continue pretive exhibits. work on the Trail, there was no progress on 3. Limited the federal share of project funds completing initial implementation of the Trail, to 50 percent and allowed the non-federal including development of the remaining Trail share to be in the form of cash, materials, themes or remaining welcome center facilities. or in-kind services. 4. Extended the authorities provided by the The October 12, 2006, reauthorization of the act for five years to May 4, 1999. Trail occurred as part of the National Heritage Areas Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-338) and made the The next legislation was passed on April 8, following changes to the Trail legislation: 1999 as P.L. 106-18. It made two changes to the legislation: 1. Removed the $4 million authorization ceiling and replaced it with authorization of 1. Increased the authorized appropriations “…such sums as are necessary to carry out ceiling from $1 million to $4 million. this Act.” 2. Extended the authorization of the Trail for 2. Extended the authorization of the Trail for an additional five years to May 4, 2004. less than one year to September 30, 2007. 3. Called for the development of a strategic New Trail legislation was not passed by Con- plan for the future of the Trail “Not later gress in time to meet the May 2004 sunset than 3 years after the date on which funds date. The next legislation was not passed until are made available…” October 12, 2006. During this interim period of two-and-a-half years while the Trail had According to the 2006 legislation, the strategic lost its authorization, the Trail staff and fund- plan should describe both “opportunities to ing were transferred to focus attention on the increase participation by national and local Pinelands National Reserve and implementa- private and public interests in the planning, tion of components of the 1994 Pinelands In- development, and administration of the New terpretation Plan. Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route”; and “or-

The Nature Conservancy’s Cape May Migratory Bird Refuge, Cape May County, New Jersey. NPS

18 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan ganizational options for sustaining the New Following another lapse in authorization be- Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route.” tween October 1, 2007, and May 8, 2008, the Trail was reauthorized (P.L. 110-229) most re- This 2006 reauthorization of the Trail pre- cently in May 2008 as Section 475 of the Con- sented three problems that made it impossible solidated Natural Resources Act of 2008. The for the NPS to comply with the strategic plan legislation made the following changes: requirement: 1. It reauthorized the Trail through September 1. It was recognized that the extension of the 30, 2011. Trail’s authorization for less than one year 2. It authorized the use of federal funds for to September 2007 did not allow sufficient the preparation of the strategic plan. time for strategic plan development. 3. It exempted the strategic plan from the re- 2. The use of appropriations was limited by quirement for matching non-federal funds. the Trail’s legislation to providing technical assistance and funds for the design and This report meets the strategic plan require- fabrication of interpretive materials, ment. devices, and signs. It was determined that the authority did not include using funds Status of Trail Implementation for the strategic plan. 3. The Trail’s legislation also required that all Three of the Trail’s five interpretive themes are federal funds be matched one-to-one by in operation with destinations selected and non-federal funds. interpretive assistance provided for the Mari- time History, Coastal Habitats, and Wildlife On July 12, 2007, Janet Snyder Matthews, then Migration themes. Planning is incomplete for NPS Associate Director for Cultural Resourc- the remaining two themes (Relaxation & In- es, testified before the House Subcommittee spiration and Historic Settlements). There are on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, nearly sixty locations or facilities associated Committee on Natural Resources regarding with the Trail as “Sites,” “Points of Interest,” proposed legislation (H.R. 1815) to reauthorize “Welcome Centers,” and “Local Information the Trail once again. The NPS acknowledged Centers.” that additional time was needed to complete the strategic plan and supported amendment Two of the proposed five welcome centers of the draft legislation “…to authorize the (one for each Trail region) have been fully de- Secretary to use federal funding to complete veloped. Welcome centers are located at Fort the strategic plan since the current authoriza- Mott State Park in Salem County (exhibits tion does not allow for funds to be used for focusing on the Maritime History theme) and this purpose.” at the Ocean View Service Area on the Garden State Parkway in Cape May County (exhibits

Examples of publications produced by the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route. NPS

National Park Service 19 associated with the Relaxation & Inspiration struction and operational support between FY The NJCHTR connects theme). The Sandy Hook Unit of Gateway 1993 and FY 2011 has been closer to $4.3 mil- individual sites’ stories National Recreation Area hosts an interim lion compared to planning projections of $10.9 with sites that would welcome center for the Sandy Hook Region. million (see “Budget Analysis—Implementa- not otherwise interact Expanded exhibits (Coastal Habitats theme) tion Plan vs. Actual Expenditures,” Appendix with each other. “The are pending development of a new visitor E). NPS annual line item ONPS operational center/administrative facility. Welcome center appropriations and construction funding for whole is greater than locations have not been designated for the the Trail have also been supplemented over the sum of its parts.” Barnegat Bay Region or Absecon Region. the years with other internal NPS project funds (i.e. Challenge Cost Share Program and The Trail has provided technical assistance Park Flight Migratory Bird Program) and ex- to destinations through brochures (such as ternal grants (e.g. National Park Foundation, the new 2010 color Guide to Delsea and Cape National Recreational Trails Program, state May Regions), historic resource publications (3 of New Jersey transportation enhancement completed; one nearly done), outdoor wayside grants, Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, exhibits, regional welcome center exhibits, Delaware River & Bay Authority, Sandy Hook interpretive training, etc. The Trail manages Foundation, and others). The Issues chapter the largest outdoor wayside exhibit program of the report has a more detailed examination of any park in the entire NPS system with of Trail funding and the effects of sunset dates over 1,000 exhibits located at its 60+ desti- and the temporary losses of authorization. nations. The NPS website at www.nps.gov/ neje includes and promotes destinations, and Partnerships highway directional trailblazer signs guide visitors to destinations. The Trail has supplied the The Trail works through partnerships primar- majority of the wayside exhibits and highway ily with federal, state, and local government signs, with the individual destinations respon- agencies and nonprofit organizations. Only sible for installation and maintenance. More two businesses are destination owners be- detail on each of these Trail activities is includ- cause of the specialized circumstances associ- ed in the Trail Accomplishments chapter. ated with the Belford Seafood Cooperative and the Public Service Enterprise Group’s Staffing and Funding (PSEG) Estuary Enhancement Program.

Trail Staff All destinations are owned and managed by During the initial years of Trail implementa- partners; the Trail neither owns nor manages tion, the staff consisted of 5-6 NPS full-time any land or resources directly. The Trail dem- equivalents (FTE). The Trail lost two posi- onstrates the potential of public/private part- tions in 2002 and a third in 2004, leaving just nerships that allow the National Park Service two full-time positions. Since 2008, staffing to meet its core mission of natural and cultural has consisted of 2.5 FTE (Project Director, resource preservation along with interpreta- Program Assistant, and half-time NPS sea- tion and public education in a cost-efficient sonal). The New Jersey Division of Parks and manner through technical assistance while re- Forestry has, in spite of its own fiscal difficul- ducing operational responsibilities. No Feder- ties, provided one and occasionally two part- al funds are used for operations, maintenance, time seasonal positions most years to supple- or repair of any road or related structure. ment NPS staff as part of the required matching non-federal support. A more detailed The Trail’s legislation allows technical assis- discussion of Trail staffing and its implications tance with welcome center exhibits, outdoor can be found in the Issues chapter. wayside exhibits, highway signs, brochures, etc., but prohibits funding of major capital Trail Funding construction projects such as visitor centers. Funding for the New Jersey Coastal Heritage In these situations, partners have rehabilitated Trail Route began in FY 1990 with initial plan- facilities to serve as Trail welcome centers (see ning and construction line item support (See Trail Accomplishments chapter), and the NPS “Funding History, Construction and Opera- role has been to design and install exhibits for Opposite: Orientation panel created for the Pinelands National Reserve, tions”, Appendix D). Overall actual NPS con- these spaces. Bass River State Forest.

20 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan NPS

National Park Service 21 Sporting Pursuits Game Fish of Island Beach Relaxation & Inspiration

Fishing for Striped Bass in the Surf on the New Jersey Coast (1882) by Arthur Burdett Frost.

Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) Reproduction courtesy of Bentley Publishing Group. Striped bass are the most sought after fish along the ten-mile beach at Island Beach State Park. The best “striper” fishing occurs in late April, May, June, and again in October and November when the bass are migrating. Trophy striped bass can grow to over 50 pounds.

Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) Weakfish, named for their There is nothing more exciting to surf anglers weak, almost paper- thin mouths, are primarily than a bluefish “blitz.” Large schools of Summer Flounder an excellent bay and river fish. Their occasional (Paralichthys dentatus) marauding bluefish chase bait, churning the presence in the surf, however, makes them a Summer flounder, commonly surf into a froth. Nearly every cast lands a fish! sporty game fish. Commonly called “sea trout,” referred to as “fluke,” are a bottom-dwelling, flat Bluefish prefer warmer water in the mid-60’s to weakfish arrive in New Jersey in late April and fish. They are relatively sedentary fish that lie 70’s and usually arrive at Island Beach in late May and spread out into the local rivers and waiting for their prey to come within striking April and stay through June. They also show up bays. The best weakfish action is during the distance. The best time to catch summer in the surf again in October and November as summer and early fall. flounder in the surf is in late summer or early the water temperature begins to fall. fall when they begin to migrate offshore. Thank you to Paul ‘Pete’ McLain and the Rutgers University Marine Field Station for the research and review of this text.

National Park Service State of New Jersey State of New Jersey The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route and cultural heritage. Look for NJCHTR signs (NJCHTR) is developing as a partnership during your travels and discover how New U.S. Department of the Interior Department of Division of Parks & Forestry among the National Park Service, the Jersey’s inhabitants—plant, animal, and Environmental Protection State of New Jersey, and many organizations human—have evolved from their unique working to preserve the state’s natural coastal resources.

Aids to Navigation A Guiding Light Maritime History

he East Point Lighthouse guards the eastern After nearly a century of service for commercial T shore of the Maurice River Cove. This lone oyster fishing operations, East Point was sentinel once provided hundreds of Delaware Bay deactivated in 1941. Local pressure convinced the oyster schooners with a guiding light to the ports Coast Guard to reactivate it in 1980, making it the at Port Norris and Port Elizabeth. only functioning “onshore” lighthouse on the Delaware Bay. Constructed in 1849, it is the second oldest lighthouse still standing in New Jersey—only the The “Cape Cod” design used at East Point also Sandy Hook lighthouse on the North Jersey shore influenced eight of the first nine lighthouses built is older. on America’s west coast in the late 1800s.

East Point Lighthouse as it appeared in 1913. Note the developed porch areas at the entry door and in front of the kitchen, as well as the use of window shutters. The Maurice River Historical Society actively maintains the structure. (Photograph courtesy of the Maurice River Historical Society)

The 1894 Annual Report of the Lighthouse Board made the 500 sailing vessels are engaged in the oyster trade on the following remark concerning the need for navigational aids Maurice River during the season, and that they give at the mouth of the Maurice River: “It is claimed that some employment on an average to 1500 men...”

National Park Service State of New Jersey The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail the state’s natural and cultural heritage. Look for other Route (NJCHT) is developing as a NJCHT signs during your travels and discover how U.S. Department of the Interior Division of Parks & Forestry partnership between the National Park New Jersey’s inhabitants—plant, animal, and Service, the State of New Jersey, and human—have evolved from their unique coastal many organizations working to preserve resources. NPS

22 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Trail Accomplishments

It has been twenty-three years since the Trail • Wayside exhibits are cost effective, with a was initially authorized in 1988 and eighteen life expectancy of 5-10 years or more, years since the Trail’s first theme trail (Mari- depending on fabrication method and spe- time History) and first welcome center at Fort cific exposure to the elements, including Mott State Park were opened to the public sun and sand. Depending on size, material, in 1993. This chapter outlines a range of and number of exhibits and frames pro- Trail accomplishments in providing partner duced at one time, costs can range from destinations with various forms of technical under $100 to under $1,000 per exhibit. assistance in collaborative efforts to protect The Trail has relied largely on fiberglass and promote significant natural and cultural embedments of paper prints that are then resources along the 300 miles of New Jersey mounted in standard NPS anodized alumi- coastline included in the Trail’s project area. num frames.

Wayside Exhibit Program Since 1993 when the first wayside exhibits were provided to initial destinations, the Trail In its use of interpretation as a means to pro- has developed over 200 different designs for mote awareness, stewardship, and ultimately orientation and interpretive wayside exhibits. protection of natural and cultural resources, The exhibits range from small 12” x 9” nature the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route trail identification panels to 36” x 48” orienta- has relied heavily on the use of outdoor in- tion panels. Eighty (80) different plants and terpretive and orientation exhibits (known as animals are included in the nature trail panels wayside exhibits) located at partner destina- that can be used by destinations to create in- tions. This form of interpretive technical as- dividualized, site-specific nature trails for visi- sistance has been used for a variety of reasons: tors. Larger 36” x 24” wayside exhibit panels are the standard interpretive exhibits used. • The majority of Trail destinations have limited or no interpretive staff available to As the Trail introduced each theme, staff de- provide one-on-one guided interpretive veloped accompanying wayside exhibits for experiences for visitors. destinations to use. The majority of these • More remote sites, such as along the New exhibits are associated with the Maritime His- Jersey shore of the Delaware Bay have lim- tory, Coastal Habitats, and Wildlife Migration ited or sporadic cell phone service that themes that are the Trail’s three most fully would limit the use of wireless forms developed interpretive themes. The Trail of social media communication. staff has created exhibits specific to a single • The Trail has never had funding to provide destination and generic exhibits that explore NPS Park Ranger interpretive staff for the broader concepts or resources found at mul- purpose of providing one-on-one guided tiple locations. experiences to visitors. • Outdoor wayside exhibits provide infor- The majority of the designs and layouts for mation to visitors twenty-four hours per these wayside exhibits have been created in- day. As budgets and interpretive staff have house by Trail interpretive staff in consulta- been reduced at many destinations, partners tion with destination managers and resource have cited the increasingly important role specialists. In other instances, partners have that these outdoor wayside exhibits play in provided varying levels of assistance, ranging educating visitors about resource issues. from photographs, resource data, draft text, • Wayside exhibits can provide a high quality and occasionally draft layouts. and consistent resource message to visitors. • Wayside exhibits can explain not only what A range of funding sources has been used to people may be seeing in front of them at develop and fabricate these wayside exhibits, the moment, but also what visitors might with the majority of Trail staff labor covered expect to see at other times of the day, in by NPS funds. Overall funding sources have included NPS operational and competitive Opposite: Sample Trail outdoor other seasons, etc. interpretive wayside exhibits.

National Park Service 23 project funds, NPS Challenge Cost Share experience throughout the entire project area In fact, as the inter- Program partnership grants, 20% fee program of the Trail. In fact, the Trail currently man- pretive signs provide funds, National Park Foundation grants, New ages the largest program of wayside exhibits wonderful artwork, Jersey state recreational trails program grants, in the entire National Park Service system. photography, and de- state transportation enhancement grants, etc. The NPS has provided over 1,000 copies of tailed information, the In a few instances, the New Jersey Division of wayside exhibits to the Trail’s destinations—all Parks and Forestry has provided direct fund- contributing to the visitor experience and to NJCHTR signage is the ing for creation of specific exhibits, and one resource awareness and protection. primary source of infor- corporation (the utility, Public Service Enter- mation at the EEP sites. prise Group or PSEG) has funded fabrication Welcome Center Partnerships [Brenda Evans, PSEG Estuary of wayside exhibits customized to include the Enhancement Program (EEP), March 22, 2011, letter (see Ap- corporate logo. Because of its size, the Trail project area pendix H)]. is divided into five regions (Figure 1). The In addition to wayside exhibits for the Trail Implementation Guide calls for the establish- and its destinations, the office has developed ment of five welcome centers, one for each wayside exhibits for other NPS programs. region. Each welcome center is designed to These include the Pinelands National Reserve have orientation materials (videos, brochures, (under the Pinelands Interpretive Program) and exhibits) about the Trail overall as well as and the NPS Wild & Scenic Rivers Program expanded exhibits that explore in more detail (with orientation waysides created for the one of the five Trail themes. The Trail is au- Maurice River Scenic and Recreational River). thorized in its legislation to provide interpre- Both projects overlap portions of the Trail’s tive exhibits, but is prohibited from funding project area. In addition to creating and pro- major building construction. The welcome viding wayside exhibits directly, the Trail has centers are all about partnerships. provided some interpretive training to destination managers to help make them more self- Delsea Region Welcome Center, Fort Mott sufficient in wayside exhibit development. State Park Day-to-day management and operation of the In consultation with partner destinations, the Delsea Region Welcome Center at Fort Mott NPS has generally provided the majority of State Park rest with the New Jersey Division of new interpretive wayside exhibit panels and Parks and Forestry that maintains the facility, frames at no cost to the partner. In return, provides necessary staffing, and covers utilities the partner destination agreed to display Trail and other operating costs. The welcome cen- orientation waysides, to work collaboratively ter is located in the historic ordnance building on any new site-specific waysides, and to install at Fort Mott State Park in Salem County. and maintain wayside exhibits. The Trail has maintained a significant inventory of back-up The New Jersey Division of Parks and For- and replacement wayside exhibits. The NPS estry and the NPS worked collaboratively on design center at Harpers Ferry, WV, maintains development of the partnership facility. The an even larger inventory of back-up paper Division of Parks and Forestry organized prints of wayside panels available to be embed- and funded the renovation of the building, ded in fiberglass and distributed as needed. while the Trail staff developed, fabricated, and installed the initial exhibits with design as- In the early 1990s before the Trail started sistance from the NPS Harpers Ferry Design working with partners, visitors traveling to Center. The design includes a reception area, state wildlife management areas found little to office area, multi-purpose theatre/meeting welcome them or to explain why the resource space, and exhibit area. In addition to orien- had been protected. They now find Trail way- tation exhibits about the Trail and about Fort sides, auto driving trail orientation waysides, Mott, there are other exhibits focusing on and other additional waysides created by the the Trail’s Maritime History theme. Visitors partner destination. can view two audiovisual programs. One is an orientation to the Trail, and the other is an For a relatively modest investment, the Trail’s introduction to the region in an abridged ver- program of wayside exhibits has had a signifi- sion of the film, “Down Jersey” created in a cant impact on interpretation and the visitor partnership among the NPS, Citizens United

24 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan to Protect the Maurice River and Its Tributar- whaling, early settlement of the Cape May ies, and New Jersey Network (NJN). Region, development of vacation communities and religious retreats, to contemporary Cape May Region Welcome Center, Ocean recreational activities and even casinos. The View Service Area, Garden State Parkway Trail created and installed these exhibits along The Cape May Region Welcome Center is with the audiovisual equipment. The Division located at the Ocean View Service Area (Mile- of Travel and Tourism provides the staff, and post 18.3) on the Garden State Parkway in the Trail has no responsibility for day-to-day Cape May County. This is a more complicated operating costs. partnership arrangement than that at Fort Mott State Park. The Garden State Parkway Sandy Hook Region Welcome Center, Sandy is now managed by the New Jersey Turnpike Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Authority. The Ocean View Service Area fa- Area cilities are leased by the Turnpike Authority to An interim welcome center for the Trail’s San- HMS Host that operates the concession. dy Hook Region is located at the Sandy Hook Unit of Gateway National Recreation Area in In turn, HMS Host has provided a portion Monmouth County and is co-located with the of the facility to the New Jersey Division of park’s visitor center in the historic Spermaceti Travel and Tourism that staffs and operates Cove Life Saving Service Station. Staffing and a visitor center in the space in collaboration all operational expenses are provided by the with the Cape May County Chamber of Com- Sandy Hook Unit of Gateway. merce. The Division of Travel and Tourism agreed to provide a portion of the available The Sandy Hook Unit has planned a new ad- space to the Trail to function as the Trail wel- ministrative and visitor center facility in the come center. As at Fort Mott, there are ori- historic Fort Hancock Building #25. The Trail entation exhibits about the Trail and the same participated in a design and planning process two audiovisual orientation programs. in 2003 and 2004 with Sandy Hook staff and the design firm, Whirlwind and Company. An adjoining room to the original visitor cen- The visitor facility was planned to function, in ter was made available to the Trail as exhibit part, as a regional welcome center for the Trail. space for the Trail’s Relaxation & Inspira- The long-term plan calls for the Sandy Hook tion theme. Installed in 2000, these exhibits Region Welcome Center to have exhibits that explore everything from Indian settlements, focus on the Trail’s Coastal Habitats theme.

Delsea Region Welcome Center, Fort Mott State Park, Salem County, New Jersey. NPS

National Park Service 25 Barnegat Bay Region Welcome Center Absecon Region Welcome Center Early on in the planning and implementa- The Absecon Region of the Trail includes a tion of the Trail, Double Trouble State Park in portion of Atlantic County. A Trail welcome Ocean County near Toms River, New Jersey, center has not been designated for this region, was initially designated as the future location although the Trail theme to be addressed was for the Barnegat Bay Region Welcome Center. to be the Wildlife Migration theme. Informal The state’s Division of Parks and Forestry was discussions were held with the U. S. Fish and investing over $2.0 million in restoration of Wildlife Service about the possibility of co- the Cranberry Sorting and Packing House and locating a shared visitor center at the Edwin B. Sawmill in the historic Double Trouble vil- Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge. lage. A new visitor center building was being planned that would serve jointly as the park Except for the interim welcome center at visitor center, Barnegat Bay Region Welcome Sandy Hook, Trail welcome centers are owned Center for the Trail, and eastern gateway fa- and staffed by non-NPS partners with all op- cility for the Pinelands National Reserve’s erating costs covered by the partner agencies. approved Pinelands Interpretation Plan. This The Trail’s role has been to provide the exhibit center was to highlight the Trail’s Historic designs, exhibit fabrication, and promotional Settlements theme. literature.

A location for the new building was selected, Promotional Brochures Pinelands Commission approval obtained, and preliminary conceptual designs for the space The use of brochures has been one of the realized through a collaborative planning pro- primary mechanisms for promoting both the cess with assistance provided by the Trail staff Trail and individual destinations. From the and the Harpers Ferry Design Center. State time the Trail opened its first theme trail to transportation enhancement funding of nearly the public in 1993, there has been an NPS full- $1 million was awarded to the Pinelands Com- color unigrid brochure. This brochure has mission for the proposed exhibits. Just as the provided a general introduction to the Trail Division of Parks and Forestry was about to with a map of the overall project area and the solicit bids from architectural firms to design location of welcome centers. The five regions the building, the state’s long-term fiscal crisis and five themes were described, but there was reared its head, and progress was halted. No no information about individual destinations. alternate site has been designated or devel- A completely new and expanded NPS unigrid oped to serve as the Trail’s Barnegat Bay Re- brochure was created through the Harpers gion Welcome Center. In the meantime, the Ferry Design Center in 2002 and revised and transportation enhancement funding for the reprinted in 2007. planned exhibits was withdrawn. In addition to the general, full-color unigrid

Guide to Delsea and Cape May brochure, the Trail has developed a series of Regions produced in 2010. regional brochures with detailed information on individual destinations. These brochures included a brief description of each destination along with hours of operation, directions, and a contact phone number. The five Trail regions were covered by four regional brochures with the Cape May and Absecon regions combined in a single brochure because of the limited number of destinations in the Absecon Region. Up through 2009, the Trail created three different versions of these regional brochures.

The latest version of the regional brochure was developed in 2010 with a full-color guide combining destinations in the Delsea and NPS

26 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Cape May regions. This guide has the overall website link gives Trail destinations, large or Trail map of the project area along with maps small, national and international exposure that of the two regions showing the locations of might not be available to the destination itself. destinations. The descriptions of individual destinations have been expanded to include a Research/Resource Publications website address, GPS coordinates, and a web search address to assist with mapping travel In the early stages of development, Trail staff routes and determining travel times. found that background resource information associated with the Trail’s five interpretive Distribution of brochures has been controlled themes was scattered, fragmented, and incom- because of limited funding. Welcome centers plete. Three Trail publications consolidated have been supplied with the Trail’s general this historical information for the benefit of unigrid brochure as well as all of the regional the public and provided the basis for interpre- brochures. Individual destinations and local tive efforts: information centers have been given only the general brochure and the one regional bro- 1. Historic Themes and Resources within the chure for the region in which the destination New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, South- or local information center is located. New ern New Jersey and the Delaware Bay: Cape Jersey partner agencies (Division of Travel and May, Cumberland, and Salem Counties, 1991 Tourism, Pinelands Commission, and Division (reprinted 1995 with support from the Dela- of Parks and Forestry) have also been supplied ware River and Bay Authority). with brochures for distribution. 2. Resorts and Recreation, an Historic Theme Study of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Website Presence Route, The Atlantic Shore: Middlesex, Mon- mouth, Ocean, Burlington, Atlantic and Cape One of the benefits of being linked with the May Counties, 1995, (printed with support Trail that is frequently cited by destination from the Sandy Hook Foundation). managers is the credibility and cachet of the 3. From Marsh to Farm: The Landscape Trans- association with the National Park Service. formation of Coastal New Jersey, 1992. One place where this is particularly true is the NPS website. The general NPS website, The first publication on the Delaware Bay www.nps.gov, has links to individual parks and region spurred development of a subsequent projects. The Trail has its own NPS webpage film on the region, “Down Jersey,” in partner- at www.nps.gov/neje. This website includes all ship with Citizens United to Protect the Mau- of the information found in the Trail’s general rice River and its Tributaries, Inc. and New and regional brochures, including specific Jersey Network (NJN). Additional support details on individual destinations. The NPS was provided by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and

New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail NOAA-Local Coastal Planning Grant, PSE&G, Route website home page. and the NPS Challenge Cost Share Program. Citizens United went on to develop a teachers’ guide to accompany the film and provided training and copies of the publication to teachers throughout the region. An abbreviated version of the half-hour film was adapted for use as orientation films at the Fort Mott State Park (Delsea Region) and Ocean View Service Area (Cape May Region) welcome centers.

As part of its partnership with New Jersey Audubon, the Trail provided Challenge Cost Share Program funding to support revision and reprinting of Audubon’s Delaware Bay- shore Birding & Wildlife Trails guide. Two other publications were initiated but have NPS

27 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan not been completed at this writing. One is a In addition, each destination was asked to install maritime history focusing on the Delaware trailblazers on its property to tell visitors that Bay region. The contracted vendor did not they have arrived at a destination. complete the project to the satisfaction of the NPS within the time frame of availability of Because of limited funding, the highway the funds obligated for the project. The sec- signs do not include the names of individual ond of these publications, The Abel & Mary destinations. Instead, a separate sign panel Nicholson House: A Charette for a National defining the type of destination accompanies Historic Landmark, is close to completion by each trailblazer. Depending on size of the the Northeast Region Preservation Assistance trailblazer (large or small), each sign would say team staff. Funded through the NPS Chal- “Site” (or “Historic Site”), “Point of Interest,” lenge Cost Share Program, it uses the 1722 Abel “Welcome Center,” or “Info” (or “Informa- & Mary Nicholson House NHL as a proto- tion”) for local information centers. type for engaging gatherings of specialists for a three-day intense charette to develop alterna- The Trail has always provided the trailblazers, tives and options for the future of important some highway sign posts, and the accompa- vernacular architectural resources. nying panels identifying the type of destination. Initial trailblazers were fabricated using Highway Directional Trailblazer opaque inks on reflective sheeting. They had Program a short life before the colors faded, and they were not reflective at night because of the The NPS, in cooperation with the New Jer- opaque inks. Subsequent trailblazers were sey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), produced using transparent inks on engineer- developed a Trail logo and a highway sign ing grade reflective sign material. They have system. The plan was to guide visitors from been much longer-lasting and provide the de- the nearest major intersection to each destina- sired reflectivity at night. tion. This is important because the Trail is not a continuous single defined route, but links NJDOT installed the initial trailblazers in the discrete destinations. early-mid 1990s at no cost to the NPS on state highway locations, and the counties installed Representatives of the Trail, NJDOT, and indi- signs on county and local roads. As the state’s vidual county road departments met to review fiscal difficulties increased, NJDOT indicated destinations county by county and to determine for a time that it could not install new signs both the best locations for highway directional without an outside source of funding (which signs and which agency would install each sign. the Trail did not have). County road depart-

Sample “Site” panel mounted below the Trail’s road sign trailblazer. NPS

28 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan ments have generally been very responsive to Assistance with Resource requests for assistance, but have been reluc- Protection through Other tant for liability reasons to do installations (or Programs replacements) on state highway locations. See the Issues section for additional discussion of The Trail staff has supported resource aware- challenges associated with the highway direc- ness and protection in southern New Jersey tional signs. through a variety of other state and federal programs: Interpretive Training and Other Assistance Pinelands Interpretive Program In addition to managing the New Jersey Another goal of the Trail has been to provide Coastal Heritage Trail Route, the Trail office direct training to partner organizations to give has also been responsible for the interpretive staff members the necessary skills to improve program for the New Jersey Pinelands Na- interpretive services and make them more self- tional Reserve. The Reserve was established sufficient. in 1978 (P.L. 95-625, Section 502) as the nation’s first National Reserve and designated The NPS Trail staff has provided training to as a U.S. Biosphere Reserve in 1983. It is the destination staff on interpretive principles largest open space on the eastern seaboard be- and wayside exhibit design and development. tween Boston, MA, and Richmond, VA. Cov- Assistance was provided to the New Jersey ering 1.1 million acres or 20% of New Jersey’s Division of Parks and Forestry on the devel- land area, it is home to over 850 plant and 500 opment of both a general management plan animal species, including many threatened or and interpretive plan for Double Trouble State endangered species. The Reserve protects an Park. This process was subsequently adopted important aquifer containing an estimated 17 as a model for developing similar plans in oth- trillion gallons of water, enough to cover the er state parks. The Trail assisted with interpre- state to a depth of 10 feet. tive training for staff from other NPS units and projects including Statue of Liberty/Ellis Is- The Reserve includes portions of seven coun- land, Edison, Gateway, and the Maurice River ties, fifty-six municipalities, and four Con- Scenic and Recreational River. Unfortunately, gressional districts. There are over 700,000 with the loss of interpretive staff positions, the permanent residents living within the Re- Trail has been unable to provide similar train- serve. Approximately 53% of the land within ing in recent years. the Reserve is permanently protected. The Pinelands National Reserve overlaps with the

Canoeists exploring the world-class resources in the Pinelands National Reserve. New Jersey Division of Parks and Forestry

National Park Service 29 Joseph Elliott, photo for Salem Old House Foundation

1722 Abel and Mary Nicholson House Trail’s project area along both the Delaware NPS unigrid brochure was completed under National Historic Landmark, Salem County, New Jersey. Bay and Atlantic Coast. Trail staff management in 2008, thirty years after the Reserve was established. Six state for- Congress amended the Pinelands enabling ests and parks have been designated as initial, legislation in 1988 (P.L. 100-486) to direct the official Pinelands interpretive destinations and NPS to develop an interpretive plan for the have been provided with outdoor orientation Reserve. The Pinelands Interpretation Plan and interpretive wayside exhibits managed by was developed by Trail staff jointly with the the Trail office. In 2010 a new brochure was Pinelands Commission and New Jersey De- developed for the Batona Trail, a fifty mile hik- partment of Environmental Protection, Divi- ing trail linking three state forests. Currently, a sion of Parks and Forestry and was approved project funded by the Trail office is under way in 1994. The 1988 legislation authorized to develop a modest visitor center at the Pine- $3,000,000 to implement the recommenda- lands Commission headquarters as an interim tions of the study, “the Federal share of which step in the absence of funds to develop the may not exceed 75 percent of the total cost.” gateway facilities and major interpretive center called for in the Pinelands interpretive plan. The U. S. Congress has never provided regular annual funding to carry out the interpretive National Historic Landmark Program plan. The annual Pinelands National Reserve There were no National Historic Landmarks appropriation of $297,000 goes to the Pinelands along the New Jersey shore of the Delaware Commission to support resource monitoring Bay until the Trail participated in the desig- (including water quality studies). Limited imple- nation of the 1722 Abel and Mary Nicholson mentation of the plan has been accomplished House as a National Historic Landmark in through state transportation enhancement funds 2000. This important Quaker patterned-end and whatever support has been possible periodi- brick house is the only NHL in either Salem cally through the Trail office. County or Cumberland County. Subsequent to this designation, it has received both New A Pinelands National Reserve logo was devel- Jersey Historic Preservation Trust and na- oped and appears on highway signs marking tional Save America’s Treasures grants. It Reserve boundaries. The first ever Pinelands was also the subject of a planning charette

30 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Bayshore Discovery Project

The historic oyster schooner, A.J. funded through the NPS Challenge Cost Share istration (FHWA) for interpretation, visitor Meerwald, also New Jersey’s official tall ship, sails within sight of the Program that used this NHL as a model for support, and tourism promotion. Funding is East Point Lighthouse, Cumberland planning studies to protect vernacular archi- in place to proceed with the corridor manage- County, New Jersey. tecture. The report on this charette should ment plan, the next step on the way to desig- be completed shortly by the NPS Northeast nation as a National Scenic Byway. Once the Region Preservation Assistance team. corridor management plan is completed, the byway could seek National Scenic Byway des- Save America’s Treasures Program ignation and be eligible for capital construc- As noted above, designation of the 1722 Abel tion projects not possible through the Trail. and Mary Nicholson House in Salem County made it eligible for support from the Save Wild & Scenic Rivers Program America’s Treasures Program (SAT). The SAT The Maurice Scenic and Recreational River program funding has supported stabilization and the Great Egg Harbor Scenic and Rec- including exterior masonry re-pointing of the reational River are both located in southern entire structure. SAT funds are also support- New Jersey and overlap in places with the ing installation of some monitoring wells to Pinelands National Reserve and Trail. Limited evaluate the impact of localized flooding from a assistance has been provided including devel- breached dike nearby that threatens the house. opment of an interpretive plan and orientation The SAT funding serves as matching funds for a wayside exhibits for the Maurice Scenic and state grant from the New Jersey Historic Trust. Recreational River. The Trail maintains the inventory of replacement Maurice orientation New Jersey Scenic Byways Program wayside exhibits. The Trail office initially proposed and assisted with the designation of the Bayshore Heritage Park Flight Program Byway Scenic Byway, a 122-mile scenic byway The Trail has participated in the NPS Park along the New Jersey Bayshore that is largely Flight Program since 2001 through a partner- in the Trail’s Delsea Region. Designated in ship with New Jersey Audubon. The partner- 2009 as a state scenic byway by NJDOT, the ship has supported studies and international Byway opens the door to alternative funding volunteer intern exchanges related to shore- from the Federal Highways Works Admin- bird and songbird migrations and habitat

National Park Service 31 protection. One study involved the use of in support of resource awareness, conserva- Doppler radar and acoustical sound recording tion, education, tourism, etc. Comments were to track nighttime songbird migrations. In FY nearly universally positive in supporting the 2010, the Trail was one of only thirteen NPS specific means and partnership efforts made parks nationwide participating in the Park by the Trail to promote resource awareness Flight Program. and protection and to expand tourism opportunities. Numerous additional ways were National Park Foundation, Park Stewards proposed for the Trail to enhance and expand Program its efforts. Participants repeatedly cited the In FY 2010 and FY 2011 the Trail and New Jer- importance of a continuing role by the NPS sey Audubon have also been partnering with in Trail management. One individual sug- support from the National Park Foundation gested that “…the NJCHTR has exceeded its through its Park Stewards Program. Under mission” and that “The loss of the NJCHTR this project, high school and middle school at any level would be devastating to the indi- teachers were provided with professional vidual sites and to the general public.” See the development through a summer institute to Public Engagement Process chapter for a more provide teachers with a solid foundation in detailed discussion of public and partner the park’s resources and in developing service comments on accomplishments. learning projects. High school students have been engaged in learning about park resources and in developing their own service learning projects for middle school students. The students and teachers are from the Toms River School District and are exploring Trail resources within the Barnegat Bay Region.

National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Program New Jersey played a significant role in the Underground Railroad, but it had no sites designated in the NPS National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Program until the Trail office assisted with designation of the Abigail and Elizabeth Goodwin Home in Salem, New Jersey, as the first New Jersey site accepted into the program. As a result of this designation, Salem County is developing a driving trail called “Seven Steps to Freedom” that explores sites in the county associated with the history of slavery, the abolitionist movement, and the Underground Railroad. Podcasts supported by New Jersey Network (NJN), an exhibition (both onsite and virtual) supported by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) using photographs to interpret history, a website, and a curriculum compo- nent are all planned.

Public and Partner Comments on Accomplishments

All of the public and partner agency meetings

Opposite: Abigail and Elizabeth included discussion of Trail accomplishments Goodwin House, Salem County, New and benefits. Meeting participant were asked Jersey, a designated site for the NPS National Underground Railroad specifically what has worked or not worked Network to Freedom Program.

32 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Salem County Historical Society

National Park Service 33 NPS

34 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Issues

The Trail has proven popular with partners on projected support in the neighborhood of and the public. However, as a large and $450,000 - $500,000 in annual ONPS support complex project, a number of issues have for a total of closer to $5.8 million through FY influenced both Trail implementation and 2011. public perception of the Trail over the years. Development and implementation of facilities, Review of annual ONPS appropriations in themes, publications, and services for the New the NPS Green Book budget requires some Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route have not additional clarification. Starting with FY met the ambitious timeline and funding pro- 2006, what were previously separate Trail and jections proposed within the Implementation Pinelands line items in the Green Book have Guide (Appendix B). The Guide included, for been combined as a single line item. Again, example, a timeline that showed initial estab- this occurred during the period when the lishment of all five interpretive themes and five Trail’s authorization had lapsed from May interim regional welcome centers within three 2004 to October 2006. Funding has varied years. The timeline also projected completion slightly from $702,000 to $709,000, with ap- of three fully-developed regional welcome proximately $245,000 (35%) designated for the centers in years four and five. This section of Trail, $297,000 (42%) transferred directly to the strategic plan report outlines a number of the Pinelands Commission for resource moni- issues and factors that have affected Trail de- toring (particularly water quality studies), and velopment or perceptions: the balance of 23% reallocated for other purposes by the NPS Northeast Regional Office. • Financial support, projected versus actual. • NPS and state of New Jersey staffing, pro- An even larger difference exists between projected versus actual. jected construction development and actual • Breaks in and changes to legislative authority. line-item add-ons. Implementation Guide pro- • Implementation status and partnership jections estimated the need for $5.1 million in management issues. construction funding to complete initial Trail • Trail name. implementation. In reality, actual line item • Highway sign system. construction add-on appropriations between • Size of project area. FY 1993 and FY 2010 totaled only $1.4 million. However, of this amount, $600,000 was with- Financial Support drawn and reprogrammed for the FY 2003 national fire fighting shortfall during the FY Funding for the New Jersey Coastal Heritage 2004 – FY 2006 time frame when the Trail had Trail Route (see Appendix D, Funding His- lost its authorization. tory, Construction and Operations) began in FY 1990 with initial planning and construction Overall actual NPS construction and opera- line item add-ons. FY 1993 was the first year tional support between FY 1993 and FY 2011 the Trail was base-funded with ONPS dollars. has been closer to $4.3 million compared to Between FY 1993 and FY 2011, approximately planning projections of $10.9 million. This $3.7 million was appropriated in ONPS sup- is important in understanding the success of port. This does not include appropriations for the Trail in achieving major portions of the FY 2005 and FY 2006 when the Trail had lost planned initial Trail implementation with its authorization for 2.5 years when the P.L. limited staff and funding (see the Trail Accom- 106-18 sunset went into effect on May 4, 2004. plishments chapter), but it also explains, in During this period, staff members were reas- part, why the initial implementation has yet to signed to the Pinelands Interpretive Program be completed with two themes, three welcome as described above in the Legislative History centers, etc. incomplete eighteen years after section of the History and Current Status the initial Maritime History theme trail was chapter. By comparison, the Trail’s Implemen- opened to the public in 1993. tation Guide funding estimates (see Budget Analysis – Implementation Plan vs. Actual NPS annual line item ONPS appropriations Opposite: Trailblazer logo signs help guide visitors to Trail destinations. Expenditures chart, Appendix E) were based and construction funding for the Trail have

National Park Service 35 also been supplemented over the years with ciated with one of the Trail’s five interpretive other internal NPS project funds (i.e. Chal- themes, Relaxation & Inspiration. All opera- lenge Cost Share Program and Park Flight tional costs are provided by these Trail part- Migratory Bird Program) and external grants ners and count toward the required match. (e.g. National Park Foundation, National Rec- reational Trails Program, state of New Jersey NPS and State of New Jersey transportation enhancement grants, Partner- Staffing ship for the Delaware Estuary, Delaware River & Bay Authority, Sandy Hook Foundation, The Implementation Guide (Appendix B) pro- etc.) Eligibility for internal NPS project fund jected Trail staffing during a proposed initial sources has been quite limited because most implementation phase of five years between require federal ownership or direct manage- 1993 and 1997 as ranging from six to eight full- ment of land or resources to qualify. One time positions. Following initial implementa- example is the NPS 20% Fee Program that tion, staffing needs were projected as six full- distributes a portion of admission income time positions that would be split between the from parks nationwide among parks that do NPS and state of New Jersey. not charge admission. Eligibility has been limited to projects on federal land, so the only In reality, initial staffing was provided by the time the Trail has been able to apply was for NPS with 5-6 full-time positions from 1993 projects on National Wildlife Refuge proper- up into 2002. Included were a Project Direc- ties that are Trail destinations. tor, Trail Manager, Chief of Interpretation, Administrative Officer, Interpretive Specialist, The Trail’s legislation (Appendix A) was modi- and for a time, administrative assistant. In fied in 1994 (P.L. 103-243) to include a require- 2002 the Trail lost two positions with the re- ment for a 1:1 match of non-federal funds for tirement of the Superintendent/Project Direc- every federal dollar spent. The match was tor and transfer of the Chief of Interpretation. allowed as cash or in-kind services. Over An Administrative Review at that time (2003) the years, much of this match has been met recommended that the Trail have six (6) FTE through partner operation and staffing of to accomplish its mission (see Appendix C, facilities that serve as welcome centers for Staffing History and Administrative Review the Trail. There are two such Trail welcome Recommendations, 2003). The Trail Manager centers. One is in the historic ordnance build- position was not filled when the person in that ing at Fort Mott State Park in Salem County slot was appointed Project Director in 2002. operated by the New Jersey Division of Parks and Forestry. The state renovated the building The Administrative Officer position became and continues to staff and operate the facility. vacant and was eliminated in 2004, leaving just The NPS through the Trail provided a design two full-time positions (Project Director and for the interpretive spaces and most of the Interpretive Specialist). The Interpretive Spe- exhibits. cialist retired in early 2007, leaving the Project Director as the sole full-time position for much The other welcome center is located at the of the year. In 2008 a new position of Program Ocean View Service Area on the Garden State Assistant was created to combine administra- Parkway in Cape May County above Cape tive and interpretive functions along with a May. The management partnership is more part-time seasonal Office Clerk position. Since complicated here. The facility is owned by then, staffing has consisted of 2.5 FTE (Project the New Jersey Turnpike Authority and leased Director, Program Assistant, and half-time NPS to HMS Host that has the concession there. seasonal). Thus, the Trail has operated between HMS Host, in turn, has made available to the 2004 and 2011 with only about one-third of the New Jersey Division of Travel and Tourism recommended full-time staff. a portion of the space for a visitor/welcome center facility. The center is staffed by the The state of New Jersey has only been able to Division of Travel and Tourism with some sup- provide limited staff support to the Trail from port from the Cape May County Chamber of the mid-1990s to the present in response to Commerce. HMS Host made available an ad- a deteriorating state financial situation. The ditional adjoining room for Trail exhibits asso- New Jersey Division of Parks and Forestry is

36 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Breaks in and Changes to Legislative Authority

The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route was established at a time when Congress was exploring alternative ways to protect and promote natural and cultural resources without the traditional federal approach of government ownership and direct management. Congress was establishing National Heritage Areas at the same time, but the Trail had its own unique legislation that was—and continues to be—unlike any designated group of NPS projects or affiliated areas such as National Trails, National Heritage Areas, etc. Although unique and not subject to the same guidelines, the Trail has frequently been lumped together with National Heritage Areas whenever it came time for new legislation.

Unlike official, permanent units of the NPS,

NPS the Trail is an affiliated area without permanent NPS management authority. At national Fort Mott State Park, Salem County, currently operating at only 41% of projected parks where the NPS has direct responsibility New Jersey. staffing needs. The position of Director for for maintenance and protection of facilities, the Division was vacant or only filled in an historic resources, and natural resources, there acting capacity through another existing posi- is a mandate and priority to maintain these tion for a period of over four years. A new resources “for the enjoyment, education, and lead position as Assistant Director was ap- inspiration of this and future generations.” In pointed in 2011. times of fiscal constraints and existing maintenance backlogs, it is fully understandable that In spite of its internal staffing and funding priority might go to protect resources under challenges, the Division of Parks and Forestry direct NPS ownership and management. has still been a significant partner and con- tributor to the Trail. The largest block of Trail The addition of a sunset clause in 1994 (see destinations is staffed and managed on a day- History and Current Status of the Trail chap- to-day basis by Division staff. Staff members ter) to the Trail’s initial enabling legislation from individual parks and forests continue to has affected both internal and external per- develop publications, wayside exhibits, and ceptions of the Trail. The sunset clauses in other interpretive media that serve Trail visi- the Trail’s legislation have also affected and tors. In spite of its own fiscal limitations, the slowed Trail implementation. There have Division has continued for many years to pro- been two different time periods totaling nearly vide one—and sometimes two—part-time sea- half of the time between 2004 and 2011 when sonal positions that are recruited and funded these sunset provisions have gone into effect by the state, but assigned to work exclusively and brought NPS management and develop- on Trail projects at the direction of Trail staff. ment of the Trail to a standstill.

The New Jersey Pinelands Commission, as Loss of authorization and/or impending sun- another of the leading Trail partner agencies, set dates have also affected the availability of has also faced financial difficulties. It has re- project funds to advance Trail implementation duced its staff by 31% since 2007. The third components. New internal NPS project fund- lead managing partner for the Trail is the New ing was understandably not awarded to the Jersey Division of Travel and Tourism that has Trail during periods without legislative autho- also faced significant staff and budget cuts rization. Activity was focused on the office’s over the years. additional responsibility for implementation

National Park Service 37 of the Pinelands interpretive program that Highway Sign System continued under alternate Pinelands National Reserve authority (P.L. 100-486, October 13, The highway sign system has been one of the 1988). Most recently, 2011 project funds in- more problematic aspects of the Trail. Desig- tended for exhibit development at two exist- nation of highway sign locations, the inability ing Trail welcome centers were withdrawn to list individual destination names, installa- when it was realized that the work could not tion, maintenance, and replacement have all be completed by the upcoming September been issues. 2011 sunset date. Another concern has been the potential pro- Implementation Status and liferation of signs for destinations that are Partnership Management Issues associated with multiple programs. A single site could be a destination for the Trail, Pine- The reductions in NPS staffing and funding lands National Reserve, Watchable Wildlife, for the Trail, comparable changes within the scenic byway, etc. The Trail did some initial Trail’s three leading management partners experiments with signs that combined logos (Parks & Forestry, Pinelands, and Travel & for multiple designations on a larger sign, but Tourism), and the effect of two significant did not have the resources to transition to a lapses in legislative authority have resulted in new overall sign system. Responsibility for a clear loss of momentum for the Trail. Major Trail highway signs will continue to be an issue components of the Trail remain incomplete in the future. with only two of the five projected welcome centers in place and two of the five themes not Size of Trail Project Area fully developed. Of the original state of New Jersey partner agency personnel who partici- The size of the Trail’s project area (Figure 1) pated in initial planning for the Trail and com- has been another management challenge. It mitted to its development, all have moved on can take as long as three hours to get from one to other positions or retired. portion of the Trail to another. This limits the ability for regular interaction by Trail manage- Trail Name ment with destination managers and opportunities for them to know and interact with one Even its official name, New Jersey Coastal another and to develop an overall apprecia- Heritage Trail Route, has been a source of tion for and understanding of other sections confusion and problems for the Trail. The of the Trail. The designation of five different word “Trail” implies to many that we are talk- Trail interpretive themes including both natu- ing about a project involving a pedestrian ral resource and historical categories also links hiking trail rather than an automotive tourism very different resource management and pro- initiative. The word “Route” similarly has tection constituencies that may not normally been confused by many who assume that the overlap or see areas of shared concern. This Trail follows a specific defined set of roads has distinct implications for establishment that link the destinations. Instead, the Trail of a new management entity responsible for links discrete destinations by theme rather linking this breadth of themes, resources, and than sequential physical proximity along a distance. defined road corridor. Visitors are encour- aged to get away from major highways to In spite of these issues and limitations, signifi- explore back roads and byways as part of the cant accomplishments (see Trail Accomplish- visitor experience. Highway signs are placed ments chapter above) have been achieved for at major intersection to guide visitors to indi- the Trail, for the additional responsibility of vidual destinations. Placement of signs is not managing the implementation of the Pinelands intended to guide visitors along a continuous, Interpretation Plan (1998), and for other NPS specific route. In this way, the Trail is very dif- programs and projects in southern New Jersey. ferent than a scenic byway that depends upon a defined road corridor.

Opposite: Tuckahoe Wildlife Management Area, Cape May County, New Jersey.

38 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Laurie Pettigrew, New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife Laurie Pettigrew, National Park Service 39 Joseph Elliott, Photo for Salem Old House Foundation

40 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Organizational Options Summary

This plan presents four basic management op- following choices to continue operation of the tions for the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Trail without NPS management or funding: Route strategic plan as requested in P.L. 109- 338. The legislation requested that the plan Option 1 (A): Establish a nonprofit organization describe: to assume or support Trail management. Such a new nonprofit could seek funding from (A) opportunities to increase participation by sources where government partners are ineli- national and local private and public interests gible to apply. Alternatively, an existing non- in the planning, development, and administra- profit organization could step up and expand tion of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail its current mission. Route; and Instead of continuing the Trail in its current (B) organizational options for sustaining the format, a nonprofit organization could also New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route. seek state of New Jersey Scenic Byway and eventual federal National Scenic Byway desig- The four options are: nation for all or parts of the Trail project area. Portions of the Trail project area are already Option 1: No further NPS management of included in the state-designated Pine Barrens the Trail after sunset date of September 30, Byway and Bayshore Heritage Byway. 2011. Option 1 (B): Establish state or local govern- Option 2: Limited time NPS management to ment management of the Trail. transition to a new management framework. This could be accomplished through:

Option 3: A new federal role for or within • A new management structure with repre- the Trail project area. sentation from state agencies and other interested local agencies and organizations. Option 4: Permanent authorization for the • Management of the Trail through an exist- Trail. ing state agency or department. • Management of the Trail through an exist Organizational Options, Explana- ing local government agency or coalition of tion and Analysis agencies.

Option 1: No further NPS management of State and local government agencies or non- the Trail after sunset date of September 30, profit partners could apply to the NPS Rivers, 2011. Trails and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program for assistance with organizational de- Note that this is the only option that would velopment and trail management planning or not require new legislative action by Congress. to NPS preservation assistance programs.

The Trail’s current federal legislation includes a Note that the NPS retains authority under sunset date that precludes direct NPS manage- its Pinelands National Reserve legislation to ment of the Trail after September 30, 2011. This provide interpretive and technical assistance will mean the end of NPS funding and NPS to resource destinations within the Pinelands staff positions assigned to the Trail. NPS web- National Reserve. (Section 502 of the Na- site promotion of Trail destinations will end tional Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Public along with project funding to assist partners Law 95-625, as amended by Public Law 100- with interpreting Trail resources to visitors. 486, October 1988). This would include those significant portions of the Trail’s project area In the absence of renewed authorization, Trail that are within the Reserve.

Opposite: Elaborate brickwork design partners and supporters could consider the at the 1722 Abel and Mary Nicholson House National Historic Landmark, Salem County, New Jersey.

National Park Service 41 Analysis of Option 1 Reserve or Maurice or Great Egg Harbor I would like to see the Under this option, the NPS role in providing Scenic and Recreational Rivers (part of the CHT (Coastal Heritage management and leadership for the continued NPS Wild & Scenic Rivers Program) con- Trail) reauthorized. I implementation and long-term management tinue. believe the work done of the Trail would end. Without any action by • Loss of NPS ability to support related re by NPS on behalf of the the U.S. Congress, this NPS management role source protection activities in areas that fall will end on September 30, 2011, when the Con- outside other continuing federal designa- CHT is important in gressional authorization for NPS involvement tions [such as New Jersey Revolutionary helping raise awareness expires. Without authorization, the NPS will War resources outside the Crossroads of of New Jersey’s amazing have no legal authority to continue any activi- the American Revolution National Heritage history, our rich mari- ties associated with the Trail after this date. Area). time heritage, our cultural contributions, and The end of NPS management would mean: If state or local interests choose not to--or are unable to--establish a new nonprofit or our varied and plentiful • Loss of direct NPS funding, management, government management entity for the Trail, natural resources. (Laurie and technical support to destination part- implications include: Pettigrew, New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, March 27, ners (except as available or granted 2011, letter) through other continuing NPS authorities/ • No entity to oversee completion of the programs). Trail’s implementation, leaving two theme • Loss of NPS support as the state of New trails and three welcome center facilities Jersey struggles with its current fiscal crisis. absent or incomplete. • Loss of NPS promotion of destinations • No entity to manage inventories of replace- through the NPS website. ment wayside exhibits and frames, highway • The end of access by most Trail partners directional signs, brochures, resource pub- to NPS partnership programs such as Park lications, etc. Flight, Park Stewardship, Challenge Cost • Gradual deterioration of over 1,000 outdoor Share Program, etc. Local entities could wayside exhibits and dozens of highway apply for assistance through other NPS ex- directional signs in the field if left isting authorities. unmanaged. • Loss of the “cachet” or recognition associated with being linked with the NPS. Input from Agency Briefings and March 24th • Loss of the NPS presence in much of the Public Meetings on Option 1 project area, except where other authorities The management options for this strategic (such as through the Pinelands National plan had not been developed at the time of either the September 2010 public meetings in Cumberland County or the March 1, 2011, Cedar swamp, Cheesequake State Park, Middlesex County, New Jersey. meetings in Monmouth County. They were, however, presented in draft form at the March 24, 2011, Ocean County meetings and at two agency briefings in Trenton, New Jersey.

At all of the public meetings there was discussion about the impacts of the current economic climate and the cuts that have been made to existing state and local government agencies and nonprofit organizations. There was consensus that this was a particularly difficult time to consider establishment of a new nonprofit organization (or expansion of the role of an existing nonprofit organization). There was also concern about the ability of such a nonprofit organization to attract members and financial support across such a large distance and across the many different constituencies of the Trail. NPS

42 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan The same issues came up in consideration of 1 “doom and gloom” when compared to the The loss of the NJCHTR state or local government management of the “wine and roses” scenario of permanent reau- at any level would be Trail. A planner from Monmouth County sug- thorization of NPS involvement (see Option devastating to the indi- gested establishing some form of county coun- 4 below). Another participant suggested that vidual sites and to the cil including the eight counties in the Trail’s “Without the federal government, the Trail general public. I have project area. It was thought that greater in- would be a lost resource.” Still another at- volvement of county economic development/ tendee suggested that the loss of NPS manage- seen the benefit from the tourism offices particularly and possibly road ment would be “devastating” and that the Trail NJCHTR both in my departments could engender greater support would fall apart except for a few sites. professional career and and cooperation. personal life. I applaud Potential Next Steps for Option 1 you and your staff’s ef- There was significant discussion about scenic If the September 30, 2011, sunset goes into forts, and look forward byways at most of the public meetings and effect, this would not be the first time the agency briefings as an alternative to provide NPS has lost its authority to manage the Trail. to continuing our long- the types of services currently offered by the There have been two other occasions when standing relationship. Trail. A new scenic byway, however, would the NPS Trail authorization has lapsed. Dur- (Rob Auermuller, Superinten- dent, Wharton State Forest, also face a similar challenge in finding a citi- ing these lapses in Trail authority, the Trail staff April 2, 2011, email) zens group, nonprofit organization, or local and funding were temporarily transferred to government agency as its required manage- work on projects associated with the implement entity. Although the Pine Barrens Byway mentation of the approved Pinelands Interpre- has completed its corridor management plan, tation Plan. On these occasions, the NPS field the Bayshore Heritage Byway is just now be- office in Newport, Cumberland County, New ginning the same process that is scheduled to Jersey, remained open, and Trail materials and take eighteen months or so. Public meeting supplies were maintained until reauthorization participants expressed interest in a scenic occurred. byway along some or all of the Atlantic Coast portion of the Trail (especially for Monmouth In the absence of Congressional action to con- County), but that multi-year process has not tinue NPS management of the Trail beyond been initiated. September 30, 2011, the NPS can continue to facilitate discussions about future manage- There was strong support at all the meetings ment options, but only up until that sunset for continued NPS management of the Trail. date. In the meantime, the NPS is implement- One meeting participant in evaluating the po- ing contingency plans regarding reassignment tential loss of NPS involvement called Option of staff; closure of the Newport, New Jersey, field office; and distribution, management, or disposal of interpretive materials, brochures Rural scene near Newport, Cumber- land County, New Jersey. and publications, highway signs, wayside exhibits, resource files, artifacts, equipment, etc. associated with the Trail.

Considering the difficulty of establishing a new nonprofit organization or the challenge of having an existing agency/organization manage the entire Trail project area, one meeting participant submitted a follow-up email proposing that different organizations share responsibility by assuming management of perhaps a single region of the Trail where that organization is located.

Option 2: Limited time NPS management to transition to a new management framework. Current management responsibility for the Trail rests primarily with the NPS along with support from the three lead managing part- NPS

43 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan NPS

Island Beach State Park, Ocean ners (New Jersey Department of Environmen- from the current state and national eco- County, New Jersey. tal Protection, Division of Parks and Forestry; nomic crisis in order to assume greater New Jersey Division of Travel and Tourism; management responsibility. and the New Jersey Pinelands Commission). • Gradually transfer selected lead respon- This alternative would allow the NPS to con- sibilities, such as promotion (marketing) to tinue its leadership role in Trail management other Trail partners, while focusing and operations, for a limited time frame (per- NPS expertise on completing interpreta- haps 4-5 years, similar to extensions provided tion goals and facilitating the development to some heritage areas) to assist with the transi- of a new management framework. tion to a new management structure that would • Establish an expanded management group not include long-term NPS management of to facilitate more regular and broader the Trail. This option would require action by involvement by Trail partners, and the U.S. Congress to reauthorize the NPS role to assist with the transition to a new man- in managing the Trail for a limited time frame. agement framework. One suggestion from This option could receive NPS/federal support a county representative at the public meet- if authorized and appropriated. ings was to establish greater involvement and designated representatives from each Analysis of Option 2 of the eight (8) counties that include por- A temporary continuation of the NPS man- tions of the Trail project area. agement role for the Trail along with appropriate funding could allow a period of time to: Input from Agency Briefings and March 24th Public Meetings on Option 2 • Complete Trail implementation goals per The same public discussion about impacts the approved Implementation Guide. of the current economic climate and the cuts • Allow NPS interpretive assistance, techni- that have been made to existing state and local cal support, promotion, and project grant government agencies and nonprofit organiza- support to continue. tions applied to this option as it did for Option • Allow time to strengthen partnership rela- 1. There was support for additional time to tionships and transition to another man - make such a transition to another manage- agement structure. ment structure or entity. However, there was • Give partners additional time to recover also sentiment that the NPS role was critical

44 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan ©Salem County Historical Society

Hancock House State Historic Site, and could not be replaced. One state govern- during lapses in authorization, work is under Salem County, New Jersey. ment agency representative suggested that way to close down the NPS field office by Sep- continuing NPS involvement for a limited time tember 30, 2011. under this option would be “just kicking the can down the road”—namely just deferring an Option 3: A new federal role for or within inevitable end of the Trail because of his per- the Trail project area. ception that there would not be any agency or This option would involve establishment of organization able to step up and manage the possible new and different federal authori- Trail without continued NPS involvement. ties (to replace those associated with the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route legislation) Potential Next Steps for Option 2 for all or a portion of the Trail project area. Unlike Option 1, Option 2 would require di- Such new authorities would generally require rect action by the U.S. Congress. Such action a prior study, public support, and Congres- would be needed to reauthorize the Trail for a sional review and authorization—generally a limited time to allow the transition to another multi-year process. management structure as described above. However, it is unlikely that Congress would The most likely prospect would be the estab- have time to take the necessary legislative ac- lishment of a new National Heritage Area. tion to reauthorize the NPS Trail authority Such a designation process would involve before September 30, 2011. It is very likely that conducting a study to determine eligibility a lapse in NPS authority to manage the Trail of resources within all of or a portion of the will occur. Trail project area. Congress could authorize a new study—or a private study could be under- As with Option 1 above, the NPS could con- taken—to determine if National Heritage Area tinue to facilitate discussions about future designation would be appropriate. management options, but only up until the September 2011 sunset date. In the meantime, There was a previous NPS study (Reconnais- the NPS will also be implementing contingen- sance Study: New Jersey Shore of the Delaware cy plans regarding staff and materials associ- Bay, 2001) of the portion of the Trail project ated with the Trail. Unlike previous occasions area along the New Jersey side of the Delaware when the NPS field office was maintained Bay (known as the Trail’s Delsea Region). This

National Park Service 45 study determined that this portion of the Trail Note that as of this writing, the National Heri- was eligible for consideration as a National tage Area program has had its funding cut by Heritage Area should there be sufficient com- 50% in the President’s proposed budget for munity interest in pursuing this option. FY 2012.

A variation on the idea of new federal authori- Input from Agency Briefings and March 24th ties would be to add new NPS authorities Public Meetings on Option 3 to an existing NPS project area or unit. The Support was expressed at the public meetings Pinelands National Reserve has areas of signif- for the idea of turning the Trail into one or icant overlap with the Trail. Again, this would more National Heritage Areas. Participants require Congressional action, but Congress also asked about the possibility of managing could give additional authorities to the Pine- the Trail through another existing NPS unit lands National Reserve that would enable the or project such as the Pinelands National NPS to provide technical and/or operational Reserve, the Sandy Hook Unit of Gateway Na- assistance through its Pinelands authorities to tional Recreation Area or the America’s Great portions or all of the Trail’s project area that Outdoors Program. Someone also raised the fall outside the boundary of the Pinelands Na- question of whether or not the Trail could be tional Reserve. managed through a different federal agency such as the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wild- Analysis of Option 3 life Refuge (part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Exploration of alternate federal authorities as Service). Another participant asked if Barne- a means of providing the sorts of interpretive gat Lighthouse could be designated as an NPS and technical assistance now being provided unit and then serve to oversee the Trail. through the Trail would have both benefits and drawbacks: Potential Next Steps for Option 3 For the possibility of National Heritage Area • Designation of portions or all of the Trail designation to be applied to portions or all of project area as a heritage area would the Trail project area, there would need to be provide an alternate source of NPS sup- local community interest in pursuing a study port through the NHA program that to evaluate the eligibility of the area for such historically has provided up to $10 million a designation. As noted above, such a study in funding over 15 years. could be performed by the NPS, if authorized • NHA designation might provide more by Congress, or it could be performed inde- consistent authorization of support for the pendently. The South Jersey Bayshore Coali- 15 year NHA time frame, unlike the Trail tion is a group of environmental and historical that has been subject to frequent sunset organizations collaborating in the Bayshore re- clauses and interruptions in authorization gion to raise awareness about resource issues. over the past 18 years. One of its priorities is to seek National Heri- • The Bayshore portion of the Trail project tage Area designation for the Bayshore region. area has already met preliminary National Heritage Area eligibility requirements as If it were determined that a portion or all of outlined in the 2001 Reconnaissance Study: the Trail’s project area met the eligibility crite- New Jersey Shore of the Delaware Bay. ria for NHA designation, there would still be • There would, however, be an inevitable the steps required to achieve Congressional interruption in NPS involvement/support designation and to establish the appropriate while awaiting authorization and funding management entity. All of the above would for the initial study (unless completed pri- be a multi-year process. A lapse of NPS in- vately) as well as the time needed to volvement in the region would be inevitable. achieve potential designation by Congress Similarly, a lapse in NPS or other federal in- if a study supports eligibility of resources. volvement would occur for suggestions that • Once designated, National Heritage Areas Congress reassign Trail management respon- are required to have a local managing en- sibilities to another NPS unit or an alternative tity, and this could present the same prob- federal agency. In the meantime as noted lem as finding a new/alternate management above, the NPS is implementing plans to close entity for the current Trail itself. its Newport, New Jersey, field office.

46 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Option 4: Permanent authorization for the • It would eliminate interruptions in the Trail. Trail’s authorization that have been As with Options 2 and 3, this option would disruptive and have stopped progress on require Congressional action to provide per- Trail initiatives. manent authorization for the Trail. Such ac- • It would also change the perception of the tion would give the Trail an additional level Trail as only a temporary project not equiv- of security and continuity by eliminating the alent in stature to those projects or parks periodic sunset issues that have resulted in with permanent authority. Congressional reauthorization actions for the • It would also run counter to current Con- Trail in 1999, 2006, and 2008. Permanent au- gressional intent that the Trail should even- thorization would also eliminate the types of tually become self-sustaining without on- interruptions in authorization that occurred going federal support. from May 2004 to October 2006 and again be- • The Trail is often compared to and treated tween October 2007 and May 2008. as though it were a National Heritage Area, but permanent authority would run counter Analysis of Option 4 to legislation and policies that only provide If authorized by Congress, permanent author- Heritage Areas with limited support for a Bass River State Forest, Burlington County, New Jersey. ity could have the following effect on the Trail: current maximum of fifteen (15) years. Pinelands Commission

National Park Service 47 Input from Agency Briefings and March 24th In the meantime, however, as with other op- Public Meetings on Option 4 tions, the NPS could continue to facilitate Some meeting participants suggested that con- discussions about future management options, tinuing NPS leadership in the management of but only up until the September 2011 sunset the Trail was essential to the Trail’s survival, date. The NPS will be implementing plans especially in the current economic climate. to close the Newport, New Jersey, field of- There was clear support for permanent autho- fice. As this is written, no legislation has been rization of Trail management by the NPS—the introduced in either house of Congress to re- “wine and roses” alternative to the potential authorize NPS management of the Trail either loss of NPS involvement in Option 1. A meet- temporarily or permanently. ing participant suggested that “Permanent status is not the biggest stretch.” Options Considered but Rejected

For more detail, see the Public Engagement Several other options or variations on the Process chapter. above options were considered but rejected following additional review. These include: Potential Next Steps for Option 4 This option would require direct action by the Establishment of additional, new permanent U.S. Congress. However, in the limited time be- NPS sites within the project area of the Trail tween completion/release of this strategic plan The project area includes the Sandy Hook and the September 30, 2011, sunset, it is unlikely Unit of Gateway National Recreation Area, that Congress would have time to take the nec- three National Wildlife Refuges, numerous essary legislative action to reauthorize the NPS National Historic Landmarks, and other re- authority associated with the Trail. It is very like- sources that could be considered for designa- ly that a lapse in NPS Trail authority will occur. tion as NPS units. Congress could create a

Tea Burning Monument, Greenwich, Cumberland County, New Jersey. NPS

48 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan new unit of the NPS consisting of one or more Establishment of a National Historic Trail or sites in the project area if they met established National Scenic Trail criteria. The NPS could assume management This idea was based on the possibility of trans- of the designated sites while also providing forming the Trail’s current authority to that technical and/or operational assistance to oth- of another federal program. Although often er sites and organizations within the corridor. confused with other heritage area or trail An example is the Boston National Historical programs, the Trail’s legislation is unique. It Park or “Freedom Trail”, an association of is not classified as either an official National multiple sites owned and managed by federal, Heritage Area nor is it designated as a Nation- municipal, and private entities. Precedents al Historic Trail or National Scenic Trail. One also exist in several national heritage areas. idea considered was to investigate whether or not the Trail (in total or in part) could be des- In the absence of current clear evidence for ignated as either a National Historic Trail or natural or cultural resources that would meet National Scenic Trail. However, this idea was NPS criteria for significance, feasibility, and rejected when review of eligibility criteria for suitability, this idea was also rejected. This both types of National Trails did not show an is not to say that there are not significant appropriate “fit.” resources in the Trail’s project area, but any such review would include evaluation of the presence of similar resources in the NPS system and the question of whether or not the resources are already receiving protection through other federal, state, local, or nonprofit efforts.

Glades Wildlife Refuge, Cumberland County, New Jersey. © Harry Carl, Natural Lands Trust

National Park Service 49 NPS

50 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Public Engagement Process

Six public meetings were held throughout May 11, 2011 the Trail project area for both Trail partners New Jersey Department of Environmental and the general public. These were publi- Protection, Division of Parks & Forestry, cized by formal email announcements to a Trenton, New Jersey—attended by ten people large mailing list, as well as through press an- (excluding NPS staff), representing manage- nouncements in local media and two radio ment staff from New Jersey Division of Travel interviews. and Tourism, New Jersey Department of Transportation, New Jersey Scenic Byways Two meetings were held at the offices of key Program, New Jersey State Park Service, state agency partners. These were arranged Natural & Historic Resources, and the Pine- through telephone calls and emails. lands Commission. This meeting included the agency leads from the three state agencies The purpose of all meetings was to inform that have been the managing partners with the people about the current status of the Trail NPS from the establishment of the Trail (New and the strategic planning process, to ask for Jersey Division of Parks and Forestry, New input about future Trail management and op- Jersey Division of Travel and Tourism, and the tions for sustaining the Trail and the Trail part- Pinelands Commission). nership, and to alert the public about the upcoming “sunset” in the federal legislation that Summary of Public Meeting would end NPS management of the Trail. (See Comments Appendix G for the public meeting agenda.) Comments on Trail Accomplishments The schedule of public meetings was as Responses were very positive regarding the follows: benefits of the Trail to partners and the public, and the excellence of Trail products. There September 20, 2010 was much praise for the quality of Trail signs, 2-4 pm and 6-8 pm wayside exhibits, welcome centers, the region- Vineland, Cumberland County, New Jersey al brochures, and other printed products. Combined total attendance: 26 people (excluding NPS staff). People said that the Trail facilitated partnerships, helping to link the partner sites, bring- March 1, 2011 ing agencies and organizations with shared 2-4 pm and 6-8 pm missions together and enabling them to share Lincroft, Monmouth County, New Jersey resources. Combined total attendance: 12 people (excluding NPS staff). Participants said the Trail has created good tourism opportunities. They felt that people March 24, 2011 following the Trail map and brochure defi- 2-4 pm and 6-8 pm nitely helped increase visitation at some of Toms River, Ocean County, New Jersey the more remote sites (although this is an as- Combined total attendance: 37 people sumption and not based on specific counts or (excluding NPS staff). interviews). The “cachet” and credibility of the NPS “brand” was mentioned often; the The schedule of state agency meetings was NPS logo on wayside exhibits makes people as follows: stop and pay more attention, and enhances the marketability of sites. Some said the Trail April 21, 2011 helps to bring local citizens, as well as tour- New Jersey Department of Transportation, ists, to partner sites, helping them get to know Ewing, New Jersey – attended by four people places within their communities and also tak- (excluding NPS staff). ing them to places off the beaten track.

Strategic plan agency meeting, May 11, 2011, Trenton, New Jersey.

National Park Service 51 Some people thought that the Trail still has ing to it “help people understand human im- One person stated, some unrealized potential, that it can help to pacts.” Although some questioned the extent “There wouldn’t be a draw and retain even more tourists than it al- to which resource conservation has occurred Trail without NPS. No ready does, but that it doesn’t work as well as as a direct result of the Trail, others observed one else could do it.” it could, perhaps due to insufficient marketing that the conservation aspect is difficult to (see “Comments on Trail Mission” below for measure but that the Trail educates and cre- more about this). ates awareness, which many believe leads to conservation. “If people understand, they will Participants valued the presence of the NPS in care.” Some thought the Trail has helped to the region and its contribution to increasing create appreciation of what’s special about the the region’s visibility on a national level. They coastal region as a whole. People pointed out appreciated the funding and assistance with that no other entity is doing anything like the interpretation that wouldn’t otherwise happen Trail, and that there is much more that can be at under-funded and under-staffed partner achieved. sites. In some cases the NPS funding and technical assistance leveraged additional state The mission question elicited a number of funding at certain sites. Some participants comments about the need for increased mar- asserted that the Trail has had a beneficial eco- keting and greater public awareness of the nomic impact on the region, which was one of Trail. Some suggested that the marketing of the original intentions of the Trail. the Trail should overlap with the New Jersey beaches, the commercial aspects of which While participants had some concerns about have significant “marketing machines.” Social the name “Trail” for an unspecific driving media were recommended as another market- route and a number of good suggestions for ing tool. Of all those who attended the public improving marketing of the Trail, their appre- meetings, there was a handful of people who ciation for the accomplishments of the Trail said they had not heard of the Trail until they was enthusiastic without reservation. The saw an announcement for the meeting. Peo- letters and emails received expressed most of ple said that the tourism aspect of the mission these same thoughts in more detail. is important, but that the first audience should be local residents. Comments on Trail Mission Most people said the mission was still valid The use of new technologies came up again and important. One person suggested add- and again in each of the public meetings.

New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route headquarters located within the Glades Wildlife Refuge, Newport, Cumberland County, New Jersey. NPS

52 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan The Trail does have a web presence on the Comments on the Future of the Trail There is no question that NPS website, but many meeting participants Partnership we would like to see the thought that much more could be done with The NPS staff presentation on this topic was Trail continue. (participant site and resource interpretation and part- somewhat different on each of the three pub- at a state agency meeting) ner linkages on the web. The idea of using lic meeting dates. At the September 20 meet- podcasts, cell phone links, and smartphone ings, NPS staff explained that the Trail would applications for Trail interpretation was a “sunset” on September 30, 2011, if Congres- popular theme. People observed that the Trail sional reauthorization did not occur before is somewhat lagging in this aspect, and that it’s then; at this point, reauthorization still seemed essential in particular for engaging young au- possible. At the March 1 meetings, NPS staff diences. They also pointed out that web and explained the “sunset” again, but since no cell phone information are more flexible & reauthorization legislation was pending at easily updated, and may represent significant the time, it appeared almost certain that NPS cost savings over print materials and wayside management of the Trail would end on Sep- exhibits in the long run. tember 30. At the March 24 meetings, NPS staff presented the draft options being consid- At some of the meetings, a number of ideas ered for future management of the Trail. (See bubbled up that would enhance both inter- Organizational Options Summary chapter.) pretation and marketing. Among these were packaging discrete mini-tours or bus tours; of- Key Points from Public Meetings fering more information on camping, cycling, and other facilities; developing a geo-caching Key points from September 20 meetings: program; and holding special events or piggy- There were many ideas about ways the Trail backing on related special events such as could enhance and expand services. Partici- Coast Day and the New Jersey Lighthouse pants suggested an annual forum for sites and Challenge. People suggested making the Trail partners to come together to discuss Trail more tangible with various “give-aways” or status and new ideas. They suggested that collectibles such as puzzle pieces; a passport the NPS facilitate meetings with partners to for collecting stickers or stamps; baseball explore mutual benefits and do cooperative cards; and a scavenger hunt. marketing. They agreed that more cooperation among partners and sites would be helpful, and that no single entity needed to take full responsibility.

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, Atlantic County, New Jersey. U.S. Division of Fish & Wildlife

National Park Service 53 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs U.S. Department of Veterans

Finn’s Point National Cemetery, Salem An advisory committee was suggested for on the need to “brand” and further promote County, New Jersey. sharing information and bringing in new part- the Trail and to involve new social media out- ners. Another suggestion was a regular short reach technologies. Political or media person- email newsletter, using an existing service, to alities were suggested as spokespersons for the keep reminding Trail partners that they’re part Trail. Participants cited the increasing value of the Trail and to help them communicate of the Trail’s interpretive efforts (particularly with each other. One comment was that cities the outdoor wayside exhibits) as destinations and towns, as well as the New Jersey Depart- reduce on-site staff. ment of Transportation, should be more involved and contribute funds. Participants suggested that the partners get together and form an entity to lead the Trail. One person stated, “There wouldn’t be a Trail A county representative said that the counties without the NPS. No one else could do it.” should provide leadership and collaboration. Many participants expressed this sentiment Another person said the major partners and in various ways. Others cited the national county tourism agencies should form a steer- recognition, credibility, and cachet that NPS ing committee. It was pointed out that the involvement brings to the Trail. Participants New Jersey governor is currently supporting were pleased with what the Trail has accom- tourism as an important economic driver in plished, and universally expressed the hope the state, and that there is finally a new execu- that NPS involvement would continue. tive director for the New Jersey Division of Travel and Tourism. Key points from March 1 meetings: Participants talked about the success of the One observation was that NPS has been a Trail in providing a cohesive identity to di- strong leader and needs more time to help verse destinations, increasing visitation, and with the transition to another management providing economic returns to communities. structure. Another was that as long as the They variously described the Trail as a “great NPS has been involved and providing strong idea,” “major accomplishment,” “tremendous leadership, the state and counties did not feel success,” and “cheap” for what it has accom- the need to “step up” and become more in- plished at modest cost. There was emphasis volved. One suggestion for greater partner in-

54 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan NPS

Fortescue State Marina, Cumberland volvement was the establishment of a council portive of eco-tourism and might be a champion County, New Jersey. representing the eight (8) counties within the for the Trail. Trail project area. Suggestions were made, such as: (1) Organize Key points from March 24 meetings: a new group, perhaps headed by a major non- The presentation of the four draft organiza- profit partner such as the Littoral Society or tional options distinguished the March 24th New Jersey Audubon; (2) Get some nonprofit meetings from the previous public meetings. organizations to “partner” and provide leader- Participants were very concerned about the ship; (3) Form an advisory committee or task future of the Trail, saying emphatically that the force for each region, to work on a plan. Trail is too important to let go; that the end of NPS management will be devastating; that the Some thought that the Trail is too broad to be Trail will fall apart except for a few sites. They managed by one nonprofit organization. It stated that the Trail has assisted sites up and was suggested that a new management struc- down the coast. There are even fewer state ture could be a consortium of many organiza- and local resources now (due to the economic tions. (Cited example: The Appalachian Trail recession); attendees suggested that the state has 14 cooperating organizations.) and partner sites need the Trail and the NPS more than ever. There were questions about the possibility of the Trail partnering with or being managed Many people said that NPS maintenance of out of another federal site in the project area, what’s already there is essential. This would such as Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge not be replaced by lower levels of government or Sandy Hook (a unit of Gateway National (or if so, only very minimally). State and local Recreation Area). One person asked if the agencies are unlikely to take on any new proj- Trail might be merged with Gateway in terms ects at this time; if and when finances improve, of coastal awareness and conservation. There the first priorities will be increasing staffing of was discussion of possible partnering and state and local agencies and maintenance of state overlap with the Crossroads of the American and local sites. However, it was noted that the Revolution National Heritage Area. One per- New Jersey Lieutenant-Governor is very sup- son asked about the possibility of designating

National Park Service 55 a new NPS unit, such as Barnegat Lighthouse, whether state agency representatives or non- and possibly managing the Trail from there. governmental partners might be helpful in this regard. In response to the draft organizational options, one participant described Option 1 It was stated that the Trail wayside exhibits (no further NPS management of the Trail) as help New Jersey sites, and that the Trail’s “doom and gloom” and Option 4 (permanent publications are “fabulous.” “There is no reauthorization of the Trail) as “wine and question that we would like to see the Trail roses.” As noted above, there was concern continue.” expressed that the Trail would not survive without continuing NPS involvement. There There was discussion of scenic byway options. was support for maintaining the Trail in its However, the state cannot initiate a scenic by- current form, for making NPS involvement way; there must be a citizen group or private permanent (Option 4) and for maintaining the organization to sponsor the initiative. Trail for a limited time to make a transition to another management structure (Option 2). New Jersey Division of Parks and Forestry is No participants expressed support for Option at 41% staffing level due to budget problems. 1 that would end NPS management of the Trail The agency can partner on events and pro- on September 30, 2011, because of the current gramming but not help financially. The agency legislative sunset date. This is, however, the is willing to consider managing the remaining default option of what will happen without inventory of waysides, other signs, frames Congressional action to reauthorize NPS in- and backup panels, if NPS is de-accessioning, volvement with the Trail. but would rather have the Trail (the NPS) still manage them. Summary of New Jersey Agency Meetings Additional Public Comments and Actions April 21, 2011 New Jersey Department of Transportation, Subsequent to the public meetings and part- Ewing, New Jersey: ner agency briefings, there were some ad- There was much discussion of the New Jersey ditional public comments that can be found Scenic Byways Program and whether any cur- in Appendix H, “Resolutions, Written Com- rent or potential byway efforts could take over ments, and Correspondence.” management of portions of the Trail. State scenic byways are sponsored by citizen or pri- Two counties passed resolutions support- vate groups, so this decision would be up to ing reauthorization of the Trail. The Salem an existing or future byway sponsor. County Board of Chosen Freeholders passed a resolution on June 22, 2011, and the Mon- There was discussion of NJDOT’s dramatic mouth County Board of Chosen Freeholders cutbacks in funding and staffing in recent passed a resolution on June 23, 2011. Copies years. The agency deals with state highways of the resolutions are included in Appendix H. only; funding to install Trail signs is problematic. There may be some funding for maintenance.

May 11, 2011 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Parks & Forestry, Tren- ton, New Jersey: Some participants said that Organizational Option 2, “Limited time NPS management to transition to a new management framework,” made sense. There was considerable discussion about whether any senators or congress-

Opposite: Hereford Inlet Lighthouse, men are addressing the future of the Trail, and Cape May County, New Jersey.

56 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan © www.rbmcgeeportraits.com

National Park Service 57 58 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Acknowledgments

First and foremost, we wish to express our thanks and appreciation for the vision of the many individuals too numerous to mention individually who have supported the development and activities of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route since it was established by federal legislation in 1988. Planning teams, state of New Jersey agency and organization managers, National Park Service staff, volunteers, and members of the public all participated in translating the Trail’s legislative guidance into the reality of the Trail as local residents and visitors experience it today. Nearly sixty Trail destinations support public awareness and understanding of the wonderful natural and cultural resources and fascinating contributions that New Jersey has made to our country’s maritime history and coastal heritage. Staff members at these destinations are the front line and public face of the Trail.

We appreciate that nearly ninety individuals representing Trail destination partners, state agencies, Congressional offices, the National Park Service, and members of both the media and public attended the six public meetings and two agency briefings held as part of this planning process for a strategic plan for the future of the Trail. Still others took the time to respond with written comments and suggestions about the Trail’s accomplishments and future opportunities. Thanks go to the staffs of Cumberland County College, the Monmouth County Park System, and the Toms River Branch of the Ocean County Library for making available the wonderful facilities used for the public meetings. Trail volunteers traveled with the NPS staff to assist with set-up and registration for the meetings.

We appreciate the involvement of staff from the Northeast Region of the National Park Service in Philadelphia for participating in and supporting this planning process. We particularly want to acknowledge Robert Fudge, former Division Chief, Interpretation and Education Division; David A. Lange, Division Chief, Conservation and Recreation Assistance; and Terrence Moore, former Division Chief, Park Planning & Compliance for guidance in structuring this strategic planning process and assistance with crafting the organizational options that are at the core of the report. Karen Saxton of the Trail staff assisted with meeting set-up, registration, and tracking of meeting attendees. Jeanne Covert, the Trail’s Program Assistant, assisted with many aspects of this planning process, including the creative design and layout of the final report.

Philip G. Correll, Project Director NPS, New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route/Pinelands Interpretive Program

Sherry Peck, Community Planner NPS, Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program, Northeast Region

Cover photograph credits: Top left: Jane Galetto; top right: Elinor Veit; bottom left: Craig Terry (Cape May County Tourism); bottom right: Pat Sutton.

National Park Service 59 2011 Stratetic Plan New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route

PDF, 2 of 2, Appendices

August 2, 2011

60 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Appendix A

Legislation, 1988 - 2008

Legislation, Oct. 20, 1988

National Park Service 61 62 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 63 Legislation, May 4, 1994

64 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Legislation, April 8, 1999

National Park Service 65 Legislation, Oct. 12, 2006

66 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Legislation, May 8, 2008

National Park Service 67 68 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Appendix B

Trail Implementation Guide

National Park Service 69 70 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 71 72 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 73 74 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 75 76 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 77 78 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 79 80 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 81 82 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 83 84 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 85 86 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 87 88 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 89 90 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 91 92 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 93 94 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 95 96 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 97 98 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 99 100 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 101 102 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 103 104 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 105 106 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 107 108 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 109 110 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 111 112 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 113 114 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 115 116 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 117 118 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 119 120 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 121 122 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 123 124 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 125 126 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 127 128 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 129 130 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 131 132 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 133 134 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 135 136 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 137 138 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 139 140 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 141 142 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 143 144 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 145 146 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 147 148 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Appendix C

Staffing History and Administrative Review Recommendations, 2003

STAFFING HISTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS

FY 02 Staffing FY 11 Current Staffing Feb. 2003 Admin. Review Recommendations Program Director - GS-0025-14 Project Director - GS-0340-13 Park Manager (Supt.), GS-0025-13 Park Ranger (Trail Mgr.)- GS-0025-12 Park Ranger (Trail Mgr.) GS-0025-12 Park Ranger (Chief of Interp.) - GS-0025-12 Park Ranger (Chief of Interp.) - GS-0025-12 Administrative Officer, GS-0341-11 Administrative Officer, GS-0341-11 Park Ranger (Interp. Spec.), GS-0025-09 Program Assistant - GS-0303-07 Park Ranger (Interp. Spec.), GS-0025-09 NPS Seasonal (1/2 time) Office Support Clerk, GS-0303-05

Excerpt from 2003 Administrative Review

The December 2002 Administrative Review and subsequent February 2003 report resulted from one of the July 2002 T- MAP report recommendations. Below is a brief section of the Administrative Review report summary regarding Trail staffing. Note, however, that the Trail staff has been reduced even further from the 3 FTE the Trail had in FY 2003 to the current 2.5 FTE in FY 11.

In summary, it is clearly evident the park's existing staff of three (3) Full Time Equivalents (FTE) is inadequate to meet its mission requirements. In order to achieve successful mission accomplishment, it is recommended the park's current staffing level be increased, provided that funding is available, from three (3) FTE to six (6) FTE, as follows:

Staffing as of FY 2003 Admin. Review Recommended

Program Director - GS-0340-13 Park Manager (Supt.), GS-0025-13 Administrative Officer, GS-0341-11 Park Ranger (Trail Mgr.) GS-0025-12 Park Ranger (Interp. Spec.), GS-0025-09 Park Ranger (Chief of Interp.) - GS-0025-12 Administrative Officer, GS-0341-11 Park Ranger (Interp. Spec.), GS-0025-09 Office Support Clerk, GS-0303-05

This increase in workforce is recommended in adherence to the Trail Implementation Guide which was approved in 1993. Specifically, the Guide discussed a long-term plan following initial Trail development which called for six (6) positions to be divided between the National Park Service and the State of New Jersey. Since many budgetary challenges lie ahead for New Jersey, it is imperative that the Service rise above its current financial constraints and provide adequate support for the Trail and its team for the duration. Such action is vital in order to ensure the current workforce shaping initiative being undertaken by the National Park Service results in the Trail's staff remaining effective and efficient in accomplishing its mission.

Strategic Plan/Plan Document/Appendices/Admin Review 2003 Staffing recommendation

Revised June 16, 2011

National Park Service 149 150 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Appendix D

Funding History, Construction and Operations

FUNDING HISTORY

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS

NEW JERSEY COASTAL HERITAGE TRAIL ROUTE

Legislation, PL 100-515, established an initial ceiling of $250,000. Legislation PL 103-243 established a second ceiling of $1,000,000 beginning with FY 94. P.L. 106-18 increased the ceiling to $4,000,000. P.L. 109-338 authorized “such sums as are necessary to carry out this Act.”

CONSTRUCTION/PLANNING LINE ITEMS ADD-ONS: FY 89: No funds appropriated; Account established for advanced planning

FY 90: ($125,000, probably 402 planning dollars)

FY 91: $398,000 to DSC & North Atlantic Region: 1st line item appropriation

FY 92: $300,000 line item specified out of Nat. Rec. and Pres. (NRP)

FY 93: $205,000 line item construction

Under authority of first bill, Construction/Planning Line Item Add-on $903,000

FY 94: None

FY 95 $348,000 line item construction

FY 96: None

FY 97: None

FY 98: None

FY 99: $411,000 line item construction

FY 00: $92,000 line item construction

FY 01: $338,000 line item construction SUBTOTAL $ 1,189,000**

Total Construction (including NRP) $2,092,000

**NOTE: Please note that $600,000+ in construction funding (the balance when the sunset clause went into effect in May 2004) was taken away and reprogrammed for the FY ’03 fire fighting shortfall. This reduces the actual construction and NRP funding total from $2,092,000. to $1,492,000.

National Park Service 151 152 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Appendix E

Budget Analysis−Implementation Plan vs. Actual Appropriations L 86,200 192,750 (354,000) (623,700) (586,400) (203,000) (390,300) (142,500) (270,250) (292,900) (316,745) TOTAL (1,847,850) (6,983,695) (2,235,000) SHORTFAL 550,000 405,000 425,250 446,500 468,800 492,250 516,900 542,745 782,400 791,300 2,043,850 1,167,700 2,235,000 10,867,695 PLAN(IG) APPROVED SHORTFALL SHORTFALL 0 (Actual less proposed) less (Actual 196,000 196,000 544,000 202,000 618,000 304,000 555,000 222,000 224,000 226,000 196,000 401,000 3,884,000 ACTUAL 196,000 196,000 544,000 202,000 196,000 618,000 401,000 304,000 555,000 222,000 224,000 226,000 3,884,000 TOTALS ACTUAL 196,000 196,000 196,000 202,000 207,000 212,000 217,000 222,000 223,000 226,000 196,000 196,000 2,489,000 SUPPORT ACTUALSTAFF AND FY 96 FY 97 FY FY 95 FY 98 FY FY 94 FY FY 99 FY FY 93 FY FY 2000 FY FY 2001 FY FY 2002 FY FY 2003 FY FY2004 0 92,000 348,000 411,000 338,000 205,000 1,394,000 ACTUALBUDGET TRAIL (APPROVED) FY 1993 to FY2004 to FY1993 ACTUALDEVELOPMENT FY 96 FY 97 FY FY 95 FY FY 98 FY FY 94 FY FY 99 FY FY 93 FY FY 2000 FY FY 2001 FY FY 2002 FY FY 2003 FY FY2004 New Jersey CoastalTrailHeritage Route Jersey New 550,000 405,000 782,400 425,250 791,300 446,500 468,800 492,250 516,900 542,745 2,043,850 1,167,700 2,235,000 10,867,695 TOTALS PROPOSED 550000 467000 550,000 405,000 425,250 446,500 468,800 492,250 516,900 542,745 417,000 488,000 5,769,445 Budget Analysis - Budget Implementation- Plan Analysis vs Actual Expenditures PROPOSED PROPOSED OPERATIONS FY 97 FY FY 98 FY FY 96 FY FY 95 FY FY 99 FY FY 94 FY FY 2000 FY FY 93 FY FY 2001 FY FY 2002 FY FY 2003 FY FY2004 700,700 365,400 303,300 1,493,850 2,549,125 2,235,000 5,098,250 APPROVED IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE PLAN * GUIDE APPROVEDIMPLEMENTATION PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Lump Years YEAR Future Future FISCAL FISCAL FY 97 and and 97 FY * Dollar amounts as approved in Trail Implementation Guide (IG) -1993 inDollarTrailapproved Implementation amountsas (IG) * Guide FY 96 FY FY 95 FY FY 94 FY FY 93 FY non 50% government match per required project. TOTALS DJB;MSOFFICE/OFFICE/EXCEL/BUDGET/2003/BUDGET ANALYSIS.XLS DJB;MSOFFICE/OFFICE/EXCEL/BUDGET/2003/BUDGET

National Park Service 153 154 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Appendix F

List of Trail Partner Destinations

New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route

Destination Region County Type

Allaire State Park Sandy Hook Monmouth Site

Alloway Creek Watershed Wetland Restoration Site Delsea Salem Point of Interest

Barnegat Lighthouse State Park Barnegat Ocean Site

Bayshore Discovery Project Delsea Cumberland Site

Belford Seafood Cooperative Sandy Hook Monmouth Point of Interest

Belleplain State Forest Delsea Cape May Site

Bridgeton-Cumberland Tourist Association Delsea Cumberland Information Center

Cape May Bird Observatory Delsea Cape May Site

Cape May Lighthouse Cape May Cape May Site

Cape May National Wildlife Refuge Delsea Cape May Site

Cape May Point State Park Cape May Cape May Site

Cape May-Lewes Ferry, DRBA-Cape May Cape May Cape May Information Center

Cape May-Lewes Ferry, DRBA-Lewes Delaware Sussex Information Center

Cattus Island County Park Barnegat Ocean Site

Cheesequake State Park Sandy Hook Middlesex Site

Commercial Township Wetland Restoration Site Delsea Cumberland Point of Interest

Corson's Inlet State Park Cape May Cape May Point of Interest

County Connection, Ocean County Mall Barnegat Ocean Information Center

Delaware River and Bay Authority Delaware New Castle Information Center

Delaware River and Bay Authority, Delaware Memori Delaware Information Center

Dennis Creek Wildlife Management Area Delsea Cape May Point of Interest

Dennis Township Wetland Restoration Site Delsea Cape May Point of Interest

Double Trouble State Park Barnegat Ocean Site

East Point Lighthouse Delsea Cumberland Point of Interest

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge Absecon Atlantic Site

Egg Island Wildlife Management Area (Turkey Point) Delsea Cumberland Point of Interest

Eno's Pond County Park Barnegat Ocean Point of Interest

Finn's Point National Cemetery Delsea Salem Site

Thursday, July 14, 2011 Page 1 of 3

National Park Service 155 Destination Region County Type

Finns Point Rear Range Light Delsea Cape May Point of Interest

Forked River State Marina Barnegat Ocean Point of Interest

Fort Mott State Park Delsea Salem Welcome Center

Fortescue State Marina Delsea Cumberland Point of Interest

Frank S. Farley State Marina Absecon Atlantic Point of Interest

Great Bay Boulevard Wildlife Management Area Barnegat Ocean Point of Interest

Green Swamp Nature Area Delsea Cumberland Point of Interest

Greenwich Tea Burning Monument Delsea Cumberland Point of Interest

Hancock House State Historic Site Delsea Salem Point of Interest

Head of the River M. E. Church and Cemetery Cape May Atlantic Point of Interest

Heislerville Wildlife Management Area Delsea Cumberland Point of Interest

Hereford Inlet Lighthouse Cape May Cape May Site

Hereford Inlet, NJ State Police Marine Law Enforcem Cape May Cape May

Higbee Beach Wildlife Management Area Cape May Cape May Point of Interest

Huber Woods Park Sandy Hook Monmouth Information Center

Island Beach State Park Barnegat Ocean Site

Island Beach State Park, Life Saving Service Station Barnegat Ocean Point of Interest

Leonardo State Marina Sandy Hook Monmouth Point of Interest

Maurice River Township Wetland Restoration Site Delsea Cumberland Point of Interest

Monmouth County Dept. of Economic Development/ Sandy Hook Monmouth Information Center

Montvale Information Center Bergen Information Center

Mount Mitchill Scenic Overlook Sandy Hook Monmouth Point of Interest

Natural Lands Trust: Glades Wildlife Refuge Delsea Cumberland Point of Interest

Natural Lands Trust: Harold N. Peek Preserve Delsea Cumberland Point of Interest

Naval Weapons Station, Earle Sandy Hook Monmouth

New Jersey Museum of Boating, Inc. Barnegat Ocean Site

New Jersey Turnpike Authority Middlesex Information Center

NJ State Police Marine Law Enforcement Bureau (He Cape May Cape May

Ocean County Dept. of Public Affairs/Tourism Barnegat Ocean Information Center

Ocean View Visitor Information Center Cape May Cape May Welcome Center

Thursday, July 14, 2011 Page 2 of 3

156 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Destination Region County Type

Office of Leases, Natural & Historic Resources Mercer

Peaslee Wildlife Management Area Delsea Cumberland Point of Interest

Perth Amboy Harbor Walk Sandy Hook Middlesex Site

Salem County Chamber Of Commerce Delsea Salem Information Center

Sandy Hook, Gateway National Recreation Area Sandy Hook Monmouth Site

Steamboat Dock Museum, Keyport Historical Society Sandy Hook Monmouth Point of Interest

Stow Creek Viewing Area/Stow Creek State Park Delsea Salem Point of Interest

Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Delsea Cape May Point of Interest

The Nature Conservancy Delsea Cape May Site

The Nature Conservancy Cape May Migratory Bird R Cape May Cape May Site

The Nature Conservancy Eldora Nature Preserve Delsea Cape May Site

Toms River Seaport Society Maritime Museum Barnegat Ocean Site

Tuckahoe Wildlife Management Area Cape May Cape May Point of Interest

Tuckerton Seaport Barnegat Ocean Site

Turkey Point Nature Drive Delsea Cumberland Point of Interest

Twin Lights State Historic Site Sandy Hook Monmouth Site

U.S. Coast Guard Station, Atlantic City Absecon Atlantic Site

U.S. Coast Guard Station, Barnegat Light Barnegat Ocean Point of Interest

Wetlands Institute Cape May Cape May Site

WheatonArts Information Center Delsea Cumberland Information Center

Wildwood Historical Society, Inc., George F. Boyer Cape May Cape May Information Center

Thursday, July 14, 2011 Page 3 of 3

National Park Service 157 158 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Appendix G

Public Engagement Process: Meeting Agenda and Organizations / Agencies Represented

New Jersey Costal Heritage Trail Route Strategic Plan Public Meeting Agenda (same agenda used for all six public meetings)

Welcome and Introductions Phil Correll, Trail Project Director Sherry Peck, NPS Community Planner

History and Background of the Trail

GROUP DISCUSSION

Accomplishments/Benefits • What has worked or not worked in support of resource awareness and conservation, education, tourism, etc. • Are there audiences not being reached?

The Future of the Trail • Is the mission still valid, or if the mission needs to be changed, what would you change? • Are there more effective ways to achieve the mission as it relates to re source conservation & protection, tourism & economic development, and public education & awareness?

The Future of the Partnership • How can partners become more involved in planning, development, and administration? • How to structure a sustainable partnership.

Next Steps

National Park Service 159 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route Strategic Plan Public Meetings

Organizations / Agencies Represented

September 20, 2010, Cumberland County, New Jersey Office of Senator Lautenberg Cumberland County American Littoral Society Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions Salem County East Point Lighthouse/Maurice River Historical Society New Jersey Audubon New Jersey DEP, Division of Parks and Forestry Delaware River & Bay Authority Bayshore Discovery Project Citizens United to Protect the Maurice River and its Tributaries The Nature Conservancy National Trust for Historic Preservation Wetland’s Institute Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG)

March 1, 2011, Monmouth County, New Jersey Monmouth County Park System Department of Tourism, Monmouth County Planning Board, Monmouth County Tom’s River Seaport Society Cheesequake State Park Island Beach State Park Double Trouble State Park Forked River State Marina Office of Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. Pinelands Preservation Alliance

March 24, 2011, Ocean County, New Jersey Double Trouble State Park Enno’s Pond County Park Tuckerton Seaport Ocean County Cultural & Heritage Commission Ocean County, County Connection New Jersey Parks & Forestry Wharton State Forest Downe Township Sandy Hook, Gateway National Recreation Area U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interpretation and Education, NER Hancock House State Historic Site Cattus Island County Park Ocean County Parks and Recreation Toms River North Park Stewards Program Pinelands Commission Office of Senator Lautenberg Office of Representative Chris Smith

160 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Office of Representative Frank Pallone Toms River Patch New Jersey State Park Service Bass River State Park Atlantic Audubon Society Toms River North High School Pinelands Commission

National Park Service 161 162 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Appendix H

Resolutions, Written Comments, and Correspondence

National Park Service 163 164 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 165 166 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 167 168 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 169 170 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 171 172 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 173 174 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 175 176 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 177 178 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 179 180 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 181 182 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 183 184 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 185 186 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 187 188 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan Appendix I

Meeting Announcements and Media Coverage

National Park Service 189 190 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan

National Park Service New Jersey Coastal 389 Fortescue Road U.S. Department of the Interior Heritage Trail Route P.O. Box 568 Newport, NJ 08345

856-447-0103 phone 856-447-0108 fax

New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route News Release

September 3, 2010 For Immediate Release Philip Correll 856-447-0103

SAVE THE DATE: September 20, 2010 Public Meetings on the future of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route

The National Park Service is inviting public comments and suggestions about the activities of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route and options to improve the services it provides in working with other organizations to protect New Jersey’s important coastal heritage. Meetings will be scheduled this fall for three locations throughout the Trail’s project area. Meetings will be held in Cumberland County, Ocean County, and Monmouth County. Initial public meetings are scheduled for Monday, September 20, 2010 at the Luciano Conference Center at Cumberland County College, 3322 College Drive, Vineland, New Jersey 08360.

There will be two sessions: one workshop session at 2:00 p.m. and a second at 6:00 p.m. The public is invited to attend either session. Directions to Cumberland County College and parking information for the September 20th meetings are available at www.cccnj.edu/CEC.

If the coastal areas of New Jersey are important to you, please attend one or more of the public meetings to share your knowledge, your concerns, and your ideas. Your experience, input, and suggestions are needed.

Desired Project Results: More participation by Trail stakeholders. Ideas for creating a stronger identity for the Trail. Increased cooperation and support for stewardship, interpretation, and education. Ideas for a management structure or agreements for improved management and coordination among Trail partners.

If you are unable to attend these or future meetings about the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, please send your comments to [email protected] or NJ Coastal Heritage Trail Route Strategic Plan, 389 Fortescue Road, P.O. Box 568, Newport, NJ 08345.

BACKGROUND The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route was established in 1988 through federal legislation to raise awareness about and support public stewardship and protection of natural and cultural resources along 300 miles of New Jersey coastline. The Trail’s project area includes the coastal region along the Raritan Bay from Perth Amboy to Sandy Hook, the entire Atlantic coast of New Jersey south to Cape May, and the Delaware Bay and River from Cape May to Deepwater near the Delaware Memorial Bridge.

-more-

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMER ICA The National Park Service cares for special places saved by the American people so that all may experience our heritage.

National Park Service 191

SAVE THE DATE: September 20, 2010 Public Meetings on the future of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route page 2 of 2

The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route works through partnerships with federal, state, and local agencies and nonprofit organizations. There are nearly sixty cooperating locations that serve as Trail destinations. Go to www.nps.gov/neje for more information about the Trail.

-NPS-

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMER ICA The National Park Service cares for special places saved by the American people so that all may experience our heritage.

192 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan

National Park Service New Jersey Coastal 389 Fortescue Road U.S. Department of the Interior Heritage Trail Route P.O. Box 568 Newport, NJ 08345

856-447-0103 phone 856-447-0108 fax

New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route News Release

February 15, 2011 For Immediate Release Philip Correll 856-447-0103

SAVE THE DATES: March 1 and March 24, 2011 Public Meetings: Future of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route

NEWPORT, NJ—The National Park Service is inviting the public to attend one or more of four public meetings held on March 1 and March 24, 2011, to share its concerns and suggestions about the role of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route (the Trail) in working with other organizations to protect New Jersey’s important coastal heritage.

On March 1, 2011, 2-4 pm and repeated at 6-8 pm, public meetings will take place in the Beech Room, Thompson Park Visitor Center, 805 Newman Springs Road (Route 520), Lincroft, NJ 07738. For directions, call 732-842-4000 x4312 or check online at www.monmouthcountyparks.com/page.aspx?Id=2539.

On March 24, 2011, 2-4 pm and repeated at 6-8 pm, the last two public meetings will take place in the Home Town Dairy Conference Room (elevator available), Ocean County Library, Toms River Branch, 101 Washington Street, Toms River, NJ 08753. For directions, call 732-349-6200 or check online www.theoceancountylibrary.org/Branches/tr/tr.htm.

“Public input is welcomed and needed to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route in supporting public stewardship and protection of important natural and cultural resources along the New Jersey coast,” said Project Director Philip Correll.

Topics for discussion will include: Increased support for stewardship, interpretation, and education. Ideas for creating a stronger identity for the Trail. Options for more participation by Trail stakeholders. Ideas for a new management structure or agreements for improved management and coordination among Trail partners.

If you are unable to attend a meeting and would like to participate, please send your comments to [email protected] or NJ Coastal Heritage Trail Route Strategic Plan, 389 Fortescue Road, P.O. Box 568, Newport, NJ 08345. Go to www.nps.gov/neje for more information about the Trail.

-more-

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMER ICA The National Park Service cares for special places saved by the American people so that all may experience our heritage.

National Park Service 193

SAVE THE DATES: March 1 and March 24, 2011 Public Meetings: Future of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route

page 2 of 2

Bay from Perth Amboy to Sandy Hook, the entire Atlantic coast of New Jersey south to Cape May, and the Delaware Bay and River from Cape May to Deepwater near the Delaware Memorial Bridge.

-NPS-

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMER ICA The National Park Service cares for special places saved by the American people so that all may experience our heritage.

194 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 195 196 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 197 198 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 199 200 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, 2011 Strategic Plan National Park Service 201