The Shore at Risk: the Threats Facing New Jersey's Coastal Treasures

Home , Jersey Shore, Shore Region

The Shore at Risk The Threats Facing New Jersey’s Coastal Treasures, and What it Will Take to Address Them The Shore at Risk The Threats Facing New Jersey’s Coastal Treasures, and What it Will Take to Address Them

Environment New Jersey Research & Policy Center

Tony Dutzik, Frontier Group

Doug O’Malley, Environment New Jersey Research & Policy Center

December 2010 Acknowledgments

Environment New Jersey Research & Policy Center thanks Michael Kennish of the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University; Tim Dillingham, executive director of the American Littoral Society; and Heather Saffert, staff scientist at Clean Ocean Action for their review of this document, as well as their insights and suggestions. Thanks also to Susan Rakov and Elizabeth Ridlington of Frontier Group for their editorial assistance.

Environment New Jersey Research & Policy Center thanks the Sunup Foundation for making this report possible.

The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of Environment New Jersey Research & Policy Center. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review.

Environment New Jersey Research & Policy Center is a 501(c)(3) organization. We are dedicated to protecting our air, water and open spaces. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public and decision-makers, and help the public make their voices heard in local, state and national debates over the quality of our environment and our lives. For more information about Environment New Jersey Research & Policy Center or for additional copies of this report, please visit www.environmentnewjersey.org/center.

Frontier Group conducts independent research and policy analysis to support a cleaner, healthier and more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate information and compelling ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and federal levels. For more information about Frontier Group, please visit www.frontiergroup.org.

Cover: Richard A. McGuirk, Shutterstock.com Design and layout: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1 Introduction 5 Trouble at the Shore 7 Water Quality 8 Impacts on Sea Life 17 Impacts on People 22

Saving the Shore 26 Notes 33

Executive Summary

he Jersey shore is an incomparable • The population of Ocean County has recreational resource and natural more than doubled since 1970, with Ttreasure. But the health of the shore 370,000 new residents moving into is in jeopardy. The warning signs are the county over the last four decades. clear: declining populations of hard clams During the summer, the population of and seagrasses, increases in harmful algae the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Har- blooms and jellyfish, continued problems bor watershed doubles from 500,000 with bacterial contamination at beaches, people to more than 1 million. and problems with low dissolved oxygen levels in our near-shore waters. • Development brings with it an in- There is no single cause of the problems crease in “impervious surfaces”— facing the shore, but scientists have nar- roads, parking lots, roofs, etc.—that rowed in on one culprit that is at the root channel rainwater contaminated of many of these challenges: the rapid de- with fertilizers, pesticides and other velopment of houses, businesses, highways pollutants into waterways. In 1972, and parking lots in shore counties over the development covered 18 percent of the past several decades. Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor wa- New Jerseyans have rallied time and tershed, which includes most of Ocean again to save the shore. By taking action County and a sliver of Monmouth now to reduce the environmental im- County. Now, development covers pacts of development and address other more than 30 percent of the watershed. ecological threats, New Jersey can protect the health of the shore for generations to • The U.S. Geological Survey esti- come. mates that 66 percent of the nitrogen pollution flowing into Barnegat Rapid development in counties along Bay-Little Egg Harbor estuary comes the shore is a major contributor to water from surface water, with most of the quality problems. surface water discharge coming from

Executive Summary 1 the Metedeconk River and Toms • The entire Atlantic coast of New Jer- River basins, which have experienced sey, from Sandy Hook to Cape May, intensive development in recent years. along with some coastal bays, has been Nitrogen is a key nutrient pollutant designated as “impaired” for dissolved that fuels harmful algae blooms. oxygen by the New Jersey Depart- ment of Environmental Protection. • Development also alters the natural Low dissolved oxygen levels have the flow of water along the shore. Each potential to harm sea life—a low dis- year, for example, 25 billion gallons of solved oxygen episode off the Jersey freshwater is withdrawn from surface shore in 1976, for example, generated water and groundwater sources in a 3,000 square mile “dead zone,” re- the Barnegat Bay watershed, with 14 sulted in a federal disaster area decla- billion gallons of that discharged as ration, and caused $1.33 billion in lost treated wastewater into the Atlantic sales in the seafood industry. Ocean. Excessive water withdrawals can contribute to changes in the • The number of beach closing days salinity of estuaries such as Barnegat has risen in recent years, from 79 Bay, while depletion of groundwater days in 2005 to 180 days in 2009. in coastal communities can lead to Most closures are due to detected or saltwater intrusion of drinking water anticipated bacterial contamination. supplies, as has already occurred on In addition, New Jersey experienced Cape May. medical waste wash-ups on beaches in each of the three summers from 2007 Waterways along the shore experience to 2009, after many years in which nutrient pollution, low levels of dis- such incidents were rare or solved oxygen, bacterial contamination non-existent. and other problems that jeopardize wildlife and human recreation. • The Oyster Creek Nuclear Generat- ing Station at the southern end of • Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Barnegat Bay imposes its own damage and New Jersey’s more southerly on coastal ecosystems. Since 1992, at inland bays from Great Bay (at the least 15 endangered or threatened sea mouth of the Mullica River) south turtles have been found dead at the to Cape May are considered by intakes to the plant’s cooling system. the National Oceanic and Atmo- Those impacts are in addition to the spheric Administration (NOAA) to regular discharge of heated water to be highly eutrophic—meaning that the bay. they are susceptible to nutrient-fueled algae blooms that harm aquatic Water quality problems on the shore ecosystems and have the potential to are damaging wildlife and have the deprive waterways of oxygen. Water potential to harm recreation and New quality conditions in Barnegat Bay- Jersey’s economy. Little Egg Harbor have worsened over the past decade, while NOAA • Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor has projects that nutrient related symp- lost much of its seagrass and shell- toms in the southern coastal bays fish population. Hard clam harvests are likely to worsen in the years to in Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor come. declined by more than 99 percent

The Shore at Risk between the early 1970s and 2000, and Atlantic has harmed New Jersey’s bay scallops—which sustained a busy once-vibrant fishing industry. The fishery in the 1950s—are virtually number of clammers in Barnegat Bay absent from the bay today. Seagrasses has reportedly fallen from 250 to eight such as eelgrass, which provide shelter since the 1950s, while the state’s total and food for a variety of fish species commercial catch from all fisheries in in the bay, have experienced a simi- 2008 was just 30 percent of its peak lar steep decline, with aboveground level in the 1950s. eelgrass biomass in the bay having declined by 50 percent between 2004 • Threats to water quality and wildlife and 2006. along the shore also imperil the state’s tourism industry, which creates $28 • New Jersey’s coastal waters have seen billion in economic impact in the state regular blooms of harmful algae, annually. New Jersey’s four coastal including “red tides,” “green tides” counties account for six out of every and “brown tides” that trigger oxygen 10 tourism dollars spent in the state. depletion and can be toxic to sea life More than 400,000 jobs statewide are and, in some cases, humans. Brown linked to the tourism industry, includ- tide, which appeared in Barnegat Bay- ing a growing number of jobs linked Little Egg Harbor for the first time in to “ecotourism,” such as hunting, fish- 1995, is particularly hazardous to bay ing and wildlife watching. scallops. New Jersey must take strong and imme- • Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor has diate action to protect the shore. Among also seen repeated “eruptions” of the most important steps are: stinging sea nettle jellyfish since they first arrived in the bay in 2000. Re- • Curbing nutrient pollution of shore search suggests that nutrient pollution waters by reducing the nutrient con- can enhance jellyfish blooms, which tent of fertilizer; encouraging proper have periodically driven swimmers fertilizer application; establishing from the water in recent summers. strong numerical standards for nitrogen pollution in waterways to accom- • Numerous species of fish—including pany the state’s narrative standards; many migratory fish such as winter requiring the use of best practices to flounder and weakfish—depend on limit pollution from new develop- Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor and ment; and moving forward with the New Jersey’s near-shore waters as establishment of enforceable limits on spawning or nursery grounds. The the amount of nitrogen allowed into impact of the ecological decline of Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor and Barnegat Bay and other Atlantic coast- New Jersey’s ocean waters. al bays on the declining populations of these fish is unknown. The same • Protecting coastal waterways from is true of the many migratory birds excessive runoff by requiring new that use New Jersey’s coastal bays as a development to create no new net flow stop-over on their migrations. of stormwater into rivers, streams, and bays; establishing stormwater utilities • The decline of shellfish and finfish to improve the management of storm- stocks in coastal bays and in the water near the shore, including the

Executive Summary 3 upgrading of outdated pollution con- indicators of water quality and biologi- trol basins; upgrading shore-bound cal health; and moving toward daily, waterways to Category 1 status, which same-day testing for bacterial con- requires the preservation of vegetated tamination at New Jersey’s beaches. buffer zones alongside waterways to slow runoff and filter pollution; and • Enforcing existing laws, including preserving existing stormwater and requiring counties to finally complete coastal protection rules. wastewater management plans that lay out how they plan to address their • Reducing the ecological threat future water and sewer needs and from the Oyster Creek Nuclear address environmental impacts from Generating Station by finalizing a stormwater. new water discharge permit for the plant that requires the construction of • Curbing sprawl by encouraging cooling towers within the next three redevelopment in urban areas and years—a step that will dramatically ensuring that new development occurs reduce fish kills and thermal pollution in ways that use land efficiently and from the plant. reduce the addition of impervious surfaces. • Increasing monitoring and study of coastal pollution problems and • Protecting land to preserve water their impacts by ramping up water quality, by developing a long-term monitoring efforts in New Jersey’s funding source for New Jersey’s popu- near-shore ocean waters; assessing lar and environmentally critical land coastal waters for a full range of preservation programs.

The Shore at Risk Introduction

f there is one thing most New Jersey resi- development along the coast. When medi- dents share, it’s an appreciation for—and cal waste washed up on our beaches in the Ifierce pride in—our shore. 1980s, we became national leaders in beach While in much of America, the Jersey monitoring, pursued upgrades to our sew- shore brings to mind images of casinos, age treatment systems, and cracked down beauty pageants, kitschy seaside amuse- on water polluters, while our representa- ments and now MTV reality shows, we tives in Congress led the drive for a long know that our shore is much more than overdue ban on the dumping of sewage and that. It is also a place of incomparable medical waste into the Atlantic Ocean. beauty, a place where anyone can simply Over the past few decades, New Jersey get away from it all for a few hours or a has invested billions of dollars to preserve few days, something that has special value land, upgrade sewage treatment systems, for residents of the nation’s most densely and make other improvements—all with populated state. the goal of protecting the shore. The state We also know that the shore is an eco- invested $5 billion in sewage treatment logical treasure. Its back bays and coastal systems alone between 1972 and 1999.1 estuaries are home to an amazing assort- Now, however, the shore faces a new ment of fish, birds and other creatures. Its set of threats. Scientists warn that the coves and sand beaches host nesting and Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estu- migratory birds. Our ocean waters have ary—New Jersey’s largest coastal bay and long been productive fishing grounds, a critical ecological resource not just for sustaining generations of fishers. New Jersey but also the nation—is feeling So, it’s no surprise that when the shore the effects of an influx of pollution from is threatened, New Jersey residents fight the new suburban developments that have back. When rampant, uncontrolled devel- sprouted up over the past several decades opment along the shore and filling of wet- in Ocean and Monmouth counties. Even lands threatened the beauty and ecological beyond Barnegat Bay, there are signs that vitality of the shore, we passed legislation coastal waterways are under strain. in the early 1970s to better plan for future This time, the threats facing the shore

Introduction 5 are less dramatic than needles washing up The most recent scientific research sug- on a beach. Today’s threat to the shore re- gests that New Jersey needs to take urgent sults from polluted runoff from dozens of action to protect water quality at the shore. tributaries across hundreds of square miles. This report summarizes much of that evi- It is a direct result of rampant development dence and describes actions the state can in New Jersey’s coastal counties over the take to protect the shore. last several decades, which has upset the New Jerseyans have a long history of delicate ecological balance of our coastal rallying to protect the shore. Now, it’s time waters. to do it again.

The Shore at Risk Trouble at the Shore

hen New Jersey residents think of delicate and vital ecosystems. Most New “the shore,” images come to mind Jersey beachgoers now understand this. Wof sandy beaches, fishing, boating Conscientious shoregoers don’t leave trash and other water sports, and perhaps board- on the beach, walk on sand dunes, or dump walks and other seaside attractions. waste over the side of their boats. But the shore is more than just a play- Other human activities, however, some ground for people. It is comprised of of them taking place far away from the

New Jersey’s shore counties have experienced rapid development over the past several decades, resulting in an increase in runoff pollution that carries nutrients and other pollutants into coastal waters. Credit: K.L. Kohn, Shutterstock.com

Trouble at the Shore 7 shore, are putting the ecological health of Jackson is also one of the most rapidly the shore at risk. There are increasingly developing municipalities in fast-growing strong signs that the quality of water and Ocean County. In 1960, Jackson Township the health of plant and animal communities was home to fewer than 6,000 people. By in the state’s coastal waters are in jeop- 1970, the population had tripled, and by ardy, threatening the progress New Jersey 2007, it had nearly tripled again, to 53,000 residents have made in recent decades to people. Across Ocean County as a whole, preserve the health of the shore. population has more than doubled since 1970, with the county adding 370,000 people and becoming the fastest-growing county in New Jersey.2 During the summer, the population of the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor watershed—which Water Quality includes most of Ocean County and a sliver of Monmouth County—doubles again, Intensive Development Leads to from roughly 500,000 to more than 1 Troubled Waters million.3 Jackson Township is a good place to start As Ocean County’s population has when seeking to understand the problems increased, forests and fields increasingly now facing the Jersey shore. have been replaced by houses, driveways, Jackson—which is known as the home of roads, parking lots and landscaped lawns. Six Flags Great Adventure—is not located In 1972, development covered 18 percent along the shore. At its nearest point, the of the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor township is more than 10 miles away. But watershed. Now, development covers more Jackson does sit astride the watersheds of than 30 percent of the watershed.4 the Metedeconk River and the Toms River, Development in Jackson and other both of which flow into Barnegat Bay, towns like it in Ocean County has upended an ecologically vital nursery for fish that the delicate ecology of the shore region in populate the waters off the Jersey shore. several ways:

Figure 1. Changes in Land Use in New Jersey Coastal Counties, 1986-20075

Atlantic Cape May Monmouth Ocean

100% 100% 100% 100%

90% 90% 90% 90%

80% 80% 80% 80% Wetlands 70% 70% 70% 70%

60% 60% 60% 60% Forest

50% 50% 50% 50% Barren Land 40% 40% 40% 40%

30% 30% 30% 30% Agriculture

20% 20% 20% 20% Urban Land 10% 10% 10% 10%

0% 0% 0% 0% 1986 1995 2002 2007 1986 1995 2002 2007 1986 1995 2002 2007 1986 1995 2002 2007

The Shore at Risk Figure 2. Urban Land in Coastal New Jersey (dark=urban)6

1986 2007

Increase in Impervious Surfaces land cover are at greater risk of ecological With more development comes more pave- damage to streams.8 ment. Impervious surfaces such as roofs, Research has shown that waterways roads, parking lots and driveways channel in areas of the Barnegat Bay watershed stormwater into detention basins and storm that have experienced greater levels of sewers that discharge into the area’s rivers development also tend to have higher con- and streams. Along with that water comes centrations of nitrogen—a nutrient that pollutants such as sediment, chemicals triggers unhealthy blooms of algae.9 More and fertilizers. In the Metedeconk River development could be around the corner: watershed at the northern end of the Bar- a 2001 analysis by Rutgers University re- negat Bay watershed, impervious surfaces searchers showed that existing zoning laws now cover 17 percent of the land area.7 would allow a further 50 percent increase Scientific evidence shows that watersheds in impervious surface in the watershed with greater than 10 percent impervious compared with 1995 levels.10

Trouble at the Shore There are several ways to minimize the As a result, nutrient enrichment can damage development can cause to water- result in serious damage to important ways. One way is by using features—such ecosystems. In the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg as permeable pavement and rain gardens— Harbor watershed, nutrients from subur- in new or existing developments that allow ban lawns and farm fields combine with rainfall to percolate into the ground or to discharges from sewage treatment plants, be efficiently absorbed by plants. Another animal waste and septic system discharges way is to preserve vegetated land along to affect the health of the area’s rivers and streambanks, known as “buffer zones.” streams and, eventually, its coastal waters. Vegetated buffer zones reduce the flow of The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that runoff into waterways, and plants along 66 percent of the nitrogen flowing into the streambanks can effectively absorb excess Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary nutrients, such as nitrogen, that would comes from surface water, with most of that otherwise damage ecosystems.11 discharge coming from the Toms River and In the Barnegat Bay watershed, however, Metedeconk River basins, which have ex- much of this crucial streamfront habitat perienced intensive development in recent has already been developed. Between 1995 years.13 (See Figure 3.) Another draft study and 2006, more than 150 acres of forests estimates residential fertilization alone is or wetlands along streams were converted responsible for between 8 and 15 percent of to urban development each year in the the nitrogen pollution in Barnegat Bay.14 Barnegat Bay watershed.12 Nutrients can find their way into New Jersey’s coastal bays via another path: Increased Nutrient Pollution groundwater. Southern New Jersey is Development also brings with it increased a flat, coastal plain with sandy soils. Its use of chemical fertilizers used to keep main aquifer—the Kirkwood-Cohansey grass green and plants growing. These aquifer—sits close to the surface, supplies fertilizers contain nutrients—such as freshwater to rivers and streams, and has nitrogen and phosphorus. Nutrients are a direct hydrological connection with the indispensible to the growth of plants—in- state’s coastal bays. Direct groundwater cluding phytoplankton, the microscopic discharge to Barnegat Bay is responsible for plants (many of them forms of algae) that approximately 12 percent of nitrogen de- are the base of the marine food chain. Just livery to the bay. However, unlike surface as applying fertilizer contributes to faster runoff, which can deliver nutrients to the and more vigorous plant growth, so too bay quickly in the wake of a heavy rainfall, does increasing the amount of nutrients in nitrogen can take years to decades to find waterways fuel the growth of algae. its way to the bay via groundwater.16 Nutrient enrichment of waterways can have major, negative impacts on aquatic Changes in Freshwater Flows ecosystems. Nutrients can fuel “blooms” of Development also impacts the water cycle algae that reduce the amount of light that in ways that damage waterways. The eco- can penetrate the water, keeping seagrasses logical health of New Jersey’s coastal bays from receiving the sunlight they need to depends on a fine balance of freshwater grow. In addition, when large amounts of and saltwater. In Barnegat Bay-Little Egg algae in a bloom die, the process of decom- Harbor, for example, the salinity of the position can consume much of the oxygen water varies from the northern, freshwater in a waterway. This oxygen depletion can influenced part of the bay to the southern trigger fish kills or force marine creatures end at Little Egg Harbor. The bay depends to flee to more oxygen-rich waters. upon infusions of freshwater from rivers

10 The Shore at Risk Figure 3. Sources of Nitrogen Loading to Barnegat Bay15

Toms River 23% Atmospheric Deposition Metedeconk Surface Water 22% River Discharge 13% 66% All Other Rivers Direct and Direct Groundwater Stormwater Discharge Discharge 12% 30%

and streams—as well as from groundwater directly into the ocean, entirely by- recharge—to remain in balance. passing local rivers and Barnegat Bay. Prior to large-scale development of Keeping treated wastewater out of the shore area, rainfall would be taken up coastal bays reduces the potential for by trees and plants, with the remainder pollution of those waterways, but it recharging underground aquifers and pro- results in the diversion of freshwater viding a source of freshwater for streams from the bay to the ocean. and bays. Development, however changes the flow of water along the coast in several Development in the Barnegat Bay wa- ways. tershed has profoundly altered the flow of water in the region. In 1999, for example, • Impervious surfaces channel storm- 25.9 billion gallons of freshwater were with- water runoff directly into rivers drawn from groundwater and surface water and streams before it can seep into supplies in the Barnegat Bay watershed, the ground to recharge the aquifer, with the vast majority of that water—22.5 reducing groundwater availability billion gallons—used to supply potable and carrying pollutants directly into water to the region’s growing population. waterways. At the other end of the pipe, about 14.4 billion gallons of treated wastewater were • Increasing amounts of water are discharged into waterways, almost all of it removed from the aquifer to sup- into the Atlantic Ocean.17 This 14.4 billion ply clean water for residential and gallons of treated wastewater is water that commercial needs, further depleting would otherwise have maintained water groundwater supplies. levels in aquifers or flowed into Barnegat Bay. • The water that goes down the drain During the summer, when water use in in homes or businesses is then treated the region increases along with its popula- and, in Ocean County, is released tion, as much as 60 million gallons per day

Trouble at the Shore 11 of treated wastewater is released into the But all of the challenges that currently ocean. During times of drought, that diver- affect Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor sion of freshwater can amount to as much have the potential to affect other New Jer- as one-third of the freshwater that would sey coastal bays. The intense development otherwise flow into the bay.18 A 1997 study of Ocean County over the past 30 years has by the U.S. Geological Survey estimated not yet been matched in Atlantic or Cape that water withdrawals have reduced the May counties. (See Figure 1, page 8.) More- base flow of some streams by as much as over, preservation of the Pinelands—one 12 percent in the Toms River, Metedeconk of New Jersey’s signal environmental ac- River, and Kettle Creek watersheds from complishments of the 20th century—has pre-development levels, and that projected thus far succeeded in protecting the quality increases in groundwater withdrawals of groundwater and surface water flowing would likely reduce river flow further.19 to the shore and has reduced development The diversion of freshwater from aqui- pressure inland. fers and streams can have several important The watershed of the Mullica River impacts. Reduced flow of freshwater into and Great Bay, just south of Barnegat Bay, Barnegat Bay can alter the salinity of the provides a useful contrast. As noted above, bay, disrupting bay ecosystems.20 In ad- 30 percent of the Barnegat Bay watershed dition, aquifer depletion can enable the is now developed.23 In the Mullica Bay intrusion of saltwater into groundwater watershed, however, 88 percent of the land supplies, rendering them unusable for was in an unaltered state as of 2000, with drinking water. Saltwater intrusion has urban development covering less than 7 already affected wells in Seaside Heights percent of the land.24 Accelerated develop- and Point Pleasant Beach.21 ment along the Mullica River, or in other Changes in water flows have affected South Jersey watersheds, could result in shore communities beyond Barnegat Bay. similar challenges to those now facing In Cape May County, depletion of ground- Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor, making water supplies has become so severe that it imperative that efforts to address water saltwater has begun to intrude into drink- quality problems at the shore also include ing water wells.22 The city of Cape May efforts to prevent similar problems from was forced to build a $5 million desalina- occurring elsewhere. tion plant, completed in 1998, to meet its drinking water needs. Evidence of Water Quality Problems Today Barnegat Bay, Tomorrow the The evidence of water quality problems Entire Coast? along the shore is growing. Water quality The examples above were drawn primarily problems begin in the tributaries that feed from the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor New Jersey’s coastal bays, and progress to Estuary. Barnegat Bay is, in many ways, the the bays themselves. Near-shore ocean “canary in the coal mine” for all of New waters also exhibit water quality prob- Jersey’s coastal bays. The bay’s watershed lems, such as low dissolved oxygen, which has experienced more intense development scientists are working to understand and than other coastal watersheds over the address. past several decades. In addition, the bay is relatively shallow, and is infrequently Tributary Rivers and Streams flushed with sea water due to its few, narrow Nutrient pollution of rivers and streams openings—making it a prime candidate for is not always obvious. Water testing can ecological damage. detect elevated levels of the nutrients

12 The Shore at Risk themselves, or can measure the effects of bacteria, some of which can cause nutrient pollution, such as low dissolved health problems on their own, while oxygen or high levels of biological oxygen others may be indicators that fe- demand. Nutrients fuel the growth of al- cal waste from humans or animals is gae, which then decompose, reducing the present in the water. Malfunctioning amount of dissolved oxygen in the water. sewer and septic systems, farms, and Low dissolved oxygen can make it difficult polluted stormwater are all potential for fish or other organisms to thrive—it can sources of harmful bacteria, otherwise even create so-called “dead zones” in which known as pathogens. there is so little available oxygen that fish cannot survive. Rivers and streams in the Many water bodies in New Jersey’s coastal region also experience other water coastal areas have been listed as “im- quality problems—from excessive bacteria paired” for pathogens, including the counts to toxic pollution—that can affect Toms River, the Metedeconk River, the health of local ecosystems. the Forked River, the Batsto River, Many important tributaries to New the Mullica River and the Great Egg Jersey’s coastal bays have been impacted Harbor River.27 by nutrient pollution to the extent that they have been designated as “impaired” Excessive levels of pathogens can lead for aquatic life by the New Jersey Depart- to beach closings or to the closure of ment of Environmental Protection. In the estuaries for shellfish harvesting. Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor watershed, parts of the Metedeconk River and • Toxic substances – New Jersey’s Forked River have been declared impaired industrial and agricultural legacy— due to low dissolved oxygen, while sections combined with the ability of dirty air of the Toms River and Muddy Ford Brook to deposit pollutants in our water- have been declared impaired due to exces- ways—has left the state with many sive concentrations of phosphorus, which, waterways that are impaired due to along with nitrogen, is a key nutrient ca- the presence of toxic chemicals. Per- pable of fueling algae growth.25 sistent toxic chemicals such as PCBs In the Mullica River/Great Bay wa- and DDT, despite having been banned tershed, sections of the Mullica River for decades, continue to be present in are impaired for dissolved oxygen and sediments in many shore-area water- phosphorus, while sections of the Wad- ways and in the tissues of fish caught ing River, Indian Cabin Creek, Landing in New Jersey waters.28 Similarly, Creek, Oswego River and other waterways mercury deposited from air pollution are impaired for dissolved oxygen. Further drifting over New Jersey from coal- south, the Great Egg Harbor River (and fired power plants in other states has Great Egg Harbor Bay) similarly exhibit resulted in statewide fish consumption low dissolved oxygen.26 advisories. Other water quality problems in rivers and streams near the coast include: Coastal Bays New Jersey’s coastal bays from Sandy • Pathogens – Bacteria are found Hook to Cape May are extremely sensi- throughout nature, but certain types tive to nutrient pollution delivered from of bacteria can cause human health upstream. Estuaries such as Barnegat problems. Environmental agencies Bay-Little Egg Harbor are narrow, shal- test waterways for several types of low, tend to be poorly flushed and receive

Trouble at the Shore 13 Bacteria from polluted stormwater, malfunctioning sewer and septic systems, and farms trigger periodic closures of some New Jersey beaches. Credit: Richard A. McGuirk, Shutterstock.com

waters from large, highly developed wa- blooms such as brown tide (see page 19). tersheds.29 Bacterial contamination is also a sig- Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor and nificant problem in some coastal bays. New Jersey’s more southerly inland bays Portions of Barnegat Bay have been listed from Great Bay south to Cape May are as impaired due to pathogens, and the bay considered highly eutrophic—meaning has experienced both beach closures and that they are susceptible to nutrient-fueled the closure of shellfish areas due to the algae blooms that harm aquatic ecosystems presence of harmful bacteria. and have the potential to deprive waterways of oxygen.30 According to a 2007 National Impacts of the Oyster Creek Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Nuclear Generating Station report, water quality conditions in Barne- The Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating gat Bay have worsened over the past decade, Station, located near Barnegat Bay in while the agency projects that nutrient Lacey Township, poses its own unique related symptoms in the southern coastal ecological threats. The plant, which is bays are likely to worsen in the years to the oldest operating nuclear plant in the come.31 United States, and which recently had its Nutrient pollution isn’t the only prob- operating license extended for another lem facing coastal bays. The diversion of 20 years, draws vast amounts of water surface and ground water for human con- from Barnegat Bay for cooling. Indeed, sumption has reduced freshwater flows to the plant’s cooling system is capable of Barnegat Bay, which has the potential to consuming a volume of water greater than alter salinity in the bay. Higher salinity 2 percent of the volume of Barnegat Bay levels have been linked with nuisance algae every day.32

14 The Shore at Risk The plant’s impact on the bay in- attracts some species of fish that cludes: would ordinarily migrate out of the area to warmer waters. These fish are • Trapping of sea animals against at risk of dying in the sudden drops in the mesh screens that protect the temperature that result when the plant plant’s cooling intake pipes. Over is shut down for maintenance or un- the course of the plant’s history, doz- planned outages.36 Between 2000 and ens of sea turtles and millions of fish 2006, the plant experienced three such and invertebrates have been trapped “cold shock” fish kills, which were against the screens. Indeed, over a responsible for the death of more than recent two-year period (September 5,000 fish.37 Sudden spikes in water 2005 to September 2007), more than temperatures, as can occur when the 5 million organisms—more than 80 plant’s dilution pump system malfunc- percent of them grass shrimp, sand tions, can also cause fish kills. One shrimp and blue crab—were trapped, 2002 malfunction caused the tem- or “impinged,” against the screens.33 perature of the plant’s discharge canal Between 1992 and 2006, 41 sea to increase to more than 100° F for turtles—all of them listed as endan- several hours, resulting in the death of gered or threatened species—were more than 5,800 fish.38 found (many of them impinged) at the intakes of the Oyster Creek Nuclear • Discharges of chlorine and radio- Generating Station. Of those turtles, nuclides from the plant, which also 15 were found dead, with federal offi- have the potential to affect aquatic cials estimating that nine of those had life in the bay. Chlorine, which is been killed at the intakes.34 used to remove bacteria and other organisms that can foul the plant’s • Killing of eggs, larvae and juvenile cooling system, can be toxic to sea animals that find their way past aquatic organisms. Releases of radio- the protective screens and into the active substances known as radionu- plant’s cooling system. Over a recent clides are also regular occurrences at two-year period, nearly 2 billion the plant, with unknown impacts on organisms entered the plant’s cooling wildlife and humans. In addition, in system, including many creatures that 2009, radioactive tritium was discov- form the base of the bay’s food web, ered leaking into groundwater under such as sand shrimp, blue crab, men- the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generat- haden and bay anchovy.35 These losses ing Station. Tritium from the leak can have an impact on the health of has already reached the Cohansey fish populations in the bay (see below). aquifer and state officials believe that tritium has reached the plant’s intake • Thermal pollution, which affects the and discharge canals, which connect bay’s ecosystem. The cooling water to Barnegat Bay.39 that the Oyster Creek Nuclear Gener- ating Station removes from Barnegat Ocean Water Quality Bay is released, after passing through When people think about water quality the plant, at significantly higher at New Jersey’s Atlantic beaches, the first temperatures. During the winter, the question that usually comes to mind is heat from the Oyster Creek Nuclear whether the water is safe for swimming. Generating Station’s discharge But the safety of swimmers is not the only

Trouble at the Shore 15 important issue when it comes to ocean discharge from the Hudson River and water quality. The vibrant array of fish Raritan Bay, which carries vast amounts of and other sea life that dwells off the coast nutrients into Atlantic waters. Freshwater depends on clean water. from the Hudson/Raritan “plume” often The entire Atlantic coast of New Jersey, flows southward along the New Jersey from Sandy Hook to Cape May, has been coast—particularly during the winter and designated as “impaired” for dissolved spring months—as evidenced by the oc- oxygen by the New Jersey Department casional deposits of floatable trash from of Environmental Protection.40 Bouts of New York/New Jersey Harbor that wash anoxia (low dissolved oxygen) or hypoxia up on New Jersey beaches. 44 (no dissolved oxygen) have occurred off A 2008 study suggests that water from the coast of New Jersey for at least the the Hudson/Raritan plume may form a last several decades. In 1976, for instance, recirculating bulge at the mouth of New a massive “red tide” event off the Jersey York/New Jersey Harbor, fueling the shore led to the depletion of dissolved growth of algae that are later carried by oxygen and a die-off of marine life. The currents down the New Jersey shoreline event generated a 3,000 square mile “dead and deposited on the ocean floor, contrib- zone,” resulted in a federal disaster area uting to oxygen depletion off the northern declaration, and caused $1.33 billion in part of the Jersey shore.45 lost sales in the seafood industry.41 Low Farther south, in areas of the coastline dissolved oxygen was also thought to be with recurrent oxygen depletion problems, the culprit behind the massive die-off of including the central and southern portions menhaden in Delaware Bay during 2010.42 of the shore opposite Barnegat Bay-Little Scientists are still working to understand Egg Harbor and the Cape May County what impact the recurrent low dissolved coastline north of the Wildwoods—the oxygen problems off the Jersey shore may movement of ocean waters and meteoro- have on sea life. logical conditions appear to hold greater What causes low dissolved oxygen in sway than human influence.46 Scientists New Jersey’s coastal waters? The culprit, believe that oxygen depletion in these areas as with rivers and coastal bays, is an excess is likely the result of the seasonal upwell- of nutrients, which fuel the growth of algae ing of cold, nutrient-rich water from deep and lead to the depletion of oxygen levels in the ocean, fueling the growth of algae when those organisms die off. Nutrient in coastal waters and reducing oxygen enrichment of coastal waters is a cause of levels.47 algal blooms and oxygen depletion, and Interestingly, despite the oxygen de- the number of coastal waters experiencing pletion problems in many New Jersey these problems has increased over the last southerly coastal bays and the high level several decades.43 of nutrient runoff into estuaries such as The more difficult question facing Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor, scientists scientists is where the nutrients that fuel have not found evidence that nutrients New Jersey’s coastal oxygen depletion are from the bays are a major contributor to coming from. The emerging answer is the dissolved oxygen problem in New that nutrient enrichment of New Jersey’s Jersey’s nearshore ocean waters. In the coastal waters is the result of a mixture of case of Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor, human-caused and natural factors. the bay discharges relatively little water The northern end of the Jersey shore, to the ocean and scientists estimate that from Sandy Hook to the northern end 83 percent of the water that flushes out of of Barnegat Bay, is heavily influenced by Barnegat Bay returns to it on the incoming

16 The Shore at Risk tide.48 Moreover, oxygen depletion has Impacts on Sea Life been found opposite the mouths of rivers, such as the Mullica River, that are relatively Pollution in New Jersey’s coastal waters pristine. is having a dramatic impact on wildlife In short, the oxygen depletion that throughout the shore region—threatening occurs regularly in waters off the Jersey the ecological health of a treasured natural shore has multiple potential causes, which resource. scientists are working to untangle and which may vary in severity from year to year. What is clear, however, is that nutri- What’s Not There But Should Be: ent flows to coastal waters—even from as Seagrasses and Shellfish far away as North Jersey and the Hudson Eelgrass is usually not among the first River Valley—have the potential to con- living things that people say is worth pro- tribute to oxygen depletion over at least tecting along the Jersey shore. But it may portions of the shore. This finding suggests be among the most important. that even efforts to prevent nutrient runoff Eelgrass isn’t pretty, and it certainly from towns or counties in the shore region doesn’t have a pretty name, but it plays an may not be enough to fully protect the essential role in maintaining healthy popu- shore—statewide and even regional efforts lations of fish, crabs and other wildlife in are likely necessary. Barnegat Bay. Eelgrass provides spawning

Bay scallops, which use eelgrass as a habitat, were once abundant in Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor, but have virtually disappeared from the bay in recent decades. Credit: NOAA, Judd Kenworthy

Trouble at the Shore 17 and nursery grounds for several species of from reaching the underwater grasses. fish, and acts as a direct source of food for Algae can even form in thick mats along fish, turtles, ducks and sea urchins.49 Bay the bottom of the bay or form directly on scallops50 and blue crabs51 are among the the grasses themselves, choking off access other species that use eelgrass as habitat. to sunlight.54 In addition, the health of eelgrass and other Eelgrass is not the only important spe- forms of submerged aquatic vegetation cies that is disappearing from Barnegat (SAV) is a potentially important indica- Bay. Shellfish are feeling the effects of tor of ecosystem health, since seagrasses nutrient-related pollution as well. Hard depend on clear water for access to the clams were once abundant in New Jer- sunlight they need to grow. sey waters and represented an important Unfortunately, eelgrass has been in commercial fishery. In the early 1950s, as steep decline in Barnegat Bay-Little Egg many as 1 million pounds of hard clams Harbor—offering a warning signal both per year were harvested from New Jersey about the health of the bay and the health waters.56 Between the early 1970s and 2000, of the many species that depend on SAV. hard clam harvests in Barnegat Bay-Little Between 1975 and 1999, eelgrass declined Egg Harbor declined by more than 99 by more than 60 percent in Little Egg percent.57 Hard clam populations in Little Harbor.52 The loss of seagrass has contin- Egg Harbor were found to have declined ued: between 2004 and 2006, the average by 67 percent between the mid-1980s and aboveground biomass of eelgrass in Little 2001.58 Egg Harbor declined by approximately 88 Bay scallops are another species of percent, with a 50 percent decrease in Bar- shellfish that once thrived in Barnegat negat Bay over the same time period.53 Bay but have since disappeared. Bay scal- Nutrient pollution in Barnegat Bay is lops are highly dependent on eelgrass for suspected of playing an important role in habitat.59 the decline in eelgrass. Algae blooms fueled Bay scallops are also sensitive to the by excessive nutrients can block sunlight “brown tide” events that have occurred in

Figure 4. Decline in Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Coverage in Barnegat Bay (dark=seagrass)55

18 The Shore at Risk Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor over the past 15 years. Brown tide was unknown in Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor until 1995.60 Unlike blooms of other types of algae, which are fueled by nutrient pollution, the role of nutrient pollution in fueling brown tide outbreaks is unclear. Instead, brown tide blooms have been associated with periods of increased salinity, higher water temperatures, and reduced freshwater flows.61 The decline in shellfish isn’t just limited to Barnegat Bay. In recent years, there has been a dramatic reduction in landings of surf clams from waters off the Jersey shore, which represent New Jersey’s biggest shellfish fishery.62 The decline is thus far unexplained, but may be due to warming of ocean waters.63

What Is There But Shouldn’t Be: Stinging sea nettle jellyfish are a new arrival Harmful Algae Blooms and Sea in Barnegat Bay. With three-foot-long stinging tentacles, sea nettles have become a nuisance Nettles to bathers in the bay. Credit: NOAA, Mary Harmful algae blooms can wreak havoc on Hollinger an ecosystem, triggering oxygen depletion, killing sea life and even, in the case of some types of toxic algae, sickening humans and pets. thought to be a contributing factor to Harmful algae blooms have taken sev- red tide blooms. eral forms off the Jersey shore in recent years: • Green tides – Green tides have appeared occasionally along the Jersey • Red tides – Red tide blooms have shore. The first major green tide occurred regularly for at least several bloom in the state occurred in 1984- decades off the coast of New Jersey.64 85, sickening bathers in the Atlantic Red tides result from rapid blooms City area.67 Green tide returned of algae which can be toxic to fish, during 1996-97 in the Atlantic City/ shellfish and, in some circumstances, Ocean City area. Excessive nutrients humans.65 Red tides can also trig- are thought to contribute to the devel- ger oxygen depletion of waterways, opment of green tides. as occurred during the massive 1976 oxygen depletion event off the Jersey • Brown tides, as noted earlier, have shore. Red tides occur regularly off become frequent occurrences in the northern part of the Jersey shore, Barnegat Bay, and have occurred as typically beginning in estuaries, and far south as Great Egg Harbor Bay.68 extending from Raritan Bay down Brown tide organisms harm shell- the coast to as far as Belmar.66 Nutri- fish and shade eelgrass, reducing the ent enrichment of coastal waters is amount of sunlight it can obtain.69 In

Trouble at the Shore 19 2007, a major brown tide event took of the shore and beyond, with the potential place off the shore during Memorial to affect fish populations along the Atlantic Day weekend from Sandy Hook to shelf as well as migratory birds that pass Manasquan. through the area. Barnegat Bay and other New Jersey Harmful algae aren’t the only nuisance coastal bays play a critical role as spawning species becoming more common at the and/or nursery areas for finfish that live shore. Sea nettles have come to be a major in Atlantic waters. Of the fish in Barnegat nuisance for bathers and boaters in Bar- Bay-Little Egg Harbor, only 31 percent are negat Bay. Unheard of in the bay prior to year-round residents. Most fish migrate 2000, the stinging jellyfish have become from the bay to warmer waters during the common in recent years.70 Difficult for wintertime.75 Recent scientific study has swimmers to see, and with stinging ten- found that the fish species that inhabit tacles that are more than three feet long, Little Egg Harbor are largely similar to sea nettles have been experiencing “erup- those in nearby ocean waters, suggesting tions” with increasing regularity in recent that many fish species spend part of their years, further upsetting Barnegat Bay’s year or lifespan in both environments.76 delicate ecosystem and driving swimmers One such fish that spends time both in out of the water. coastal bays and ocean waters is the weak- Research in the Chesapeake Bay sug- fish. Weakfish are migratory fish that exist gests that the increased population of sea along the Atlantic coast from Florida to nettles is linked to nutrient pollution.71 Nova Scotia, and are heavily dependent on Studies of apparent increases in jellyfish estuaries such as Barnegat Bay for repro- worldwide suggest that nutrients may duction. Spawning occurs from mid-May encourage jellyfish reproduction or alter through mid-June, typically in estuaries or food chains in ways that are advantageous in nearshore waters, with young weakfish to jellyfish, and note that some species of abiding in nursery habitats such as estuar- jellyfish are able to survive in waters with ies and the mouths of coastal rivers and low dissolved oxygen.72 Fish that would streams.77 Both juvenile and adult weak- prey on jellies are believed to be driven out fish leave the bay by November to head to by low dissolved oxygen, leaving jellyfish warmer waters. to compete with fish and other organisms Weakfish populations have been crash- for food.73 ing all along the Atlantic seaboard for more Other changes in and around Barnegat than a decade, and are now below the level Bay are also suspected of contributing thought to assure the healthy continuation to the growth of sea nettle populations, of the species.78 Studies suggest that the including changes in salinity levels and problem lies with juvenile weakfish not the construction of more human-made making it to adulthood. While the exact structures (such as docks and jetties) in cause of the decline in weakfish popula- the waterway.74 tions is unknown, there are many potential contributing factors, including increased Beyond the Bay: predation by striped bass, declines in the availability of the smaller fish that make Impacts on Fish and Birds up its diet (such as menhaden), or impacts The decline in water quality and degrada- from nutrient enrichment of coastal wa- tion of ecosystems in Barnegat Bay-Little terways.79 Egg Harbor and other New Jersey coastal Another important fish species under waters have impacts that extend to the rest threat is winter flounder, which inhabits

20 The Shore at Risk Atlantic waters from Labrador to Geor- in the bay by 12.4 percent.87 In addition, gia.80 Winter flounder once represented research has shown that low levels of dis- an important fishery off the mid-Atlantic solved oxygen can kill anchovy eggs and coast, but experienced a steep decline due larvae.88 to overfishing. While winter flounder The fish and other sea life of Barnegat have shown some signs of recovery in the Bay and New Jersey’s near-shore waters northern waters of the Gulf of Maine, that also serve as a source of food for migra- has not been the case in the mid-Atlantic tory birds. New Jersey’s Atlantic Coast is region.81 Commercial landings of winter a major stopover point for migratory birds, flounder in southern New England and while Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor the mid-Atlantic declined by 90 percent hosts numerous colonies of nesting birds between 1966 and 2005, when they expe- such as black skimmers, least terns, ibises rienced a record low.82 There are a range and egrets.89 of potential causes for the decline of winter A case study in the delicate interaction flounder and its failure to recover in the between the life patterns of migratory birds mid-Atlantic, but the condition of estuar- and their prey is the decline of the red ies—where winter flounder spawn during knot, a ten-and-a-half inch long shorebird the winter months and juveniles can be that stops annually in Delaware Bay on its found year-round—is one potential fac- annual migration from the southern tip of tor.83 Juvenile winter flounder live among South America to northern Canada.90 In submerged aquatic vegetation—including Delaware Bay, the red knot feasts on the eelgrass—using the vegetation to hide from eggs of horseshoe crabs, providing it with predators.84 As noted earlier, Barnegat Bay the energy it needs to complete the ardu- has experienced significant declines in eel- ous journey. However, in recent years, the grass beds in recent decades. In addition, number of horseshoe crabs in Delaware Bay contaminated sediments and damage from has declined by approximately 75 percent, nuclear plants such as the Oyster Creek in large part, it is thought, to overfishing. Nuclear Generating Station may also play The red knot has experienced a similar a role. A 1989 study, for example, estimated decline in population, of about 50 percent that the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generat- since 1997.91 Despite recent efforts to limit ing Station’s cooling system could cause harvesting of horseshoe crabs, the red knot the adult population of winter flounder in continues to decline. The birds, which Barnegat Bay to decline by 2.1 percent.85 once descended on Delaware Bay in the The decline of forage fish—such as bay hundreds of thousands—are now listed as anchovy and menhaden—also has danger- threatened by the state of New Jersey.92 ous implications for Atlantic finfish. Bay The red knot is not the only migratory anchovy have historically been the most shorebird whose populations in Delaware common fish found in Barnegat Bay-Little Bay have declined in recent years. The Egg Harbor in terms of sheer numbers, sanderling and semipalmated sandpiper and they are an important source of food are among five other species that have seen for many larger fish. Bay anchovy have their numbers in Delaware Bay decline by been documented to be on the decline in about 65 percent.93 All of these species, in- Delaware Bay, and face several threats in cluding the red knot, have also been known Barnegat Bay.86 The Oyster Creek Nuclear to use Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor as a Generating Station’s cooling system causes stopover on their migratory path.94 the loss of approximately 137 million adult The loss of crabs and other sea life that bay anchovy every year, reducing the provide food for migratory and nesting amount of anchovy that serve as forage birds is not the only threat these birds

Trouble at the Shore 21 Impacts on People For many New Jerseyans, the shore area is an incomparable natural playground—a place to relax and enjoy nature. Declining water quality and threats to wildlife have the potential to erode New Jerseyans’ ability to enjoy the shore, while also damaging the state’s economy.

Beach Closings The public image of the Jersey shore was badly damaged by the medical waste spills of the late 1980s, which made the shore Eggs of the endangered black skimmer, which nests along the synonymous with pollution. Since then, Jersey shore, have potentially harmful levels of toxic mercury. state and federal governments and many The number of black skimmers in Barnegat Bay has been falling individual New Jersey residents have un- for years, though it is unknown whether toxic contamination dertaken painstaking efforts to protect has contributed to the decline. Credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife and restore the shore. The ocean dump- Service, Gary Kramer. ing of sewage sludge was banned in 1992, sewage treatment plants up and down the shore improved their operations, and the face. Development along the shoreline; state undertook more aggressive efforts to disturbance from boats, jet skis, humans protect the crucial wetlands and shorefront and pets; and beach replenishment projects habitats that are the foundation of the can all damage bird habitat. Moreover, shore’s vibrant ecosystem. birds are susceptible to contamination with Those efforts have paid off, but the toxic chemicals that accumulate up the Jersey shore still faces its share of pollution food chain. For example, one study found problems that cause beaches to be closed that the black skimmer—a beach nesting or the enjoyment of beachgoers to be re- bird that is listed as endangered by the duced. The number of beach closing days state of New Jersey—has higher levels of increased in recent years from 79 days in toxic mercury in its eggs than other birds 2005 to 180 days in 2009.96 Indeed, while in Barnegat Bay and that the mercury New Jersey’s beaches once seemed on a concentrations found in the eggs were high path toward continual improvement, old enough to cause harmful effects. Black problems have re-emerged and others have skimmers, unlike the other birds studied, been insufficiently addressed. eat only fish, particularly large fish, which The problem of medical waste washing tend to have the highest concentrations up on the shore was one that was thought of toxic chemicals. The number of black to be solved years ago. Between 1991 and skimmers in Barnegat Bay has been falling 2002, there was not a single beach closing for years, though it is unknown whether in New Jersey caused by floatable debris.97 toxic contamination has contributed to Yet, each summer from 2007 to 2009 saw the decline.95 medical waste again wash up onto the These examples show that the decline Jersey shore. of coastal ecosystems such as Barnegat In 2007, trash, including syringes, Bay has far-reaching effects on life in New caused the shutdown of scattered beaches Jersey’s ocean waters and beyond. from Raritan Bay to Sea Isle City.98 A

22 The Shore at Risk medical waste wash-up occurred again in does not mean that there was a lack of posi- 2008, though that incident was the result tive tests for bacterial contamination. Ac- of illegal dumping of waste by a Pennsyl- cording to the Natural Resources Defense vania dentist.99 In 2009, medical waste of Council, six New Jersey beaches—Beach- unknown origin washed up on beaches wood Beach West (Beachwood), Maxon from North Surf City to Barnegat Light.100 Ave. Beach (Pt. Pleasant), Central Beach Each year, New Jersey removes approxi- (Island Heights), West Beach (Pine Beach), mately 4 million pounds of garbage from and Angelsea Ave. Beach (Ocean Gate), its beaches, including trash that washes along with the area near the Wreck Pond onto the beaches from the New York/New outfall in Spring Lake, had levels of bacte- Jersey Harbor area.101 ria that exceeded safety standards in more Bacterial contamination of the state’s than 25 percent of tests in 2009.105 ocean beaches is not nearly as big of a New Jersey and other states are working problem as it once was, but closures still to develop and implement rapid methods occur. Public health authorities routinely of testing that would allow for same-day close down beaches in Sea Girt and Spring detection of elevated bacteria levels along Lake for precautionary reasons after even beaches. moderate rainfalls due to the discharge of pathogens from Wreck Pond, a tidal Economic Impacts waterway just off the shore that serves A healthy shore is critically important for as a sink for wastewater discharges from a healthy New Jersey economy. Pollution the highly developed surrounding area.102 of shore waters has a number of direct Bacterial contamination of the Wreck Pond economic impacts. watershed is so severe that tests undertaken of several tributary streams during one Tourism study found fecal coliform and enterococ- Tourism is a major economic engine for cus bacteria “too numerous to count.”103 New Jersey. The tourism industry had a Rainfall causes pathogens from Wreck total economic impact of $28 billion for Pond to wash into the ocean, triggering the state in 2008, with nearly two-thirds precautionary beach closings. of tourism expenditures coming from Beach closings, however, are not neces- out-of-state visitors.106 More than 400,000 sarily the best way to judge the threat posed jobs statewide are linked to the tourism by bacterial contamination. The state of industry.107 New Jersey samples most beaches once For New Jersey’s coastal areas tourism a week during the summertime, and the is even more important. The state’s four most common method of testing for bacte- coastal counties—Monmouth, Ocean, rial contamination requires approximately Atlantic and Cape May—accounted for six 24 hours to deliver results. When a test out of every 10 tourist dollars spent in New reads positive for unsafe levels of bacteria, Jersey, with tourism accounting for more the water is retested, and only after a retest than 40 percent of the total economies of shows elevated bacteria counts is a beach Atlantic and Cape May counties.108 required to be closed.104 In other words, Major pollution incidents can make a a mandated beach closing undertaken by dramatic impact on tourism at the shore, New Jersey (or other states) tells how safe as the medical waste wash-ups of the late the water was to swim in a couple of days 1980s demonstrate. previous to the closing being issued, not Summer visits to the beach (as well as how safe it is to swim that day. visits to the Atlantic City casinos) are likely Moreover, an absence of beach closings the major drivers of the region’s tourism

Trouble at the Shore 23 economy. But “ecotourism”—tourism Preservation of the shore’s wildlife and aimed specifically at enjoying the natural water quality is, therefore, essential to environment—is a significant and grow- maintaining a strong tourism economy— ing part of the shore economy. The state’s benefiting both shore communities and marine recreational fishery drew 7.4 New Jersey as a whole. million visits from anglers in 2008, the second-highest number of any state along Fishing the Atlantic coast, behind only Florida.109 Commercial and recreational fishing are Wildlife-related recreation—which in- economically important industries in cludes hunting, fishing, and wildlife watch- the shore area. New Jersey’s commercial ing—accounted for $1.6 billion in spending fishery industry brought in $169 million in New Jersey in 2006.110 Accounting for in revenue in 2008.113 But New Jersey’s indirect economic benefits, a study by the fishing industry has been struggling for state of New Jersey estimated that ecotour- decades. The state’s 2008 catch of 162 mil- ism has a $3.1 billion economic impact on lion pounds is less than a third of the record the state, sustaining about 37,000 jobs.111 catch of 540 million pounds in 1956.114 It In particular areas of the shore, eco- is also down by approximately 20 percent tourism can have an even more important since 1994. New Jersey’s fishing industry impact. Cape May, for example, is an inter- now relies on just two fisheries—the At- nationally recognized birding hot spot. As lantic sea scallop and clam fisheries—for far back as 1991, 100,000 birders per year 72 percent of annual revenue.115 were visiting the area, providing a $10 mil- Key fisheries in New Jersey have disap- lion boost to the local economy.112 peared or gone into serious decline. Bay

New Jersey’s marine recreational fishery drew 7.4 million visits from anglers in 2008, the second- highest number of any state on the Atlantic coast, behind only Florida. Credit: NOAA, Edward J. Pastula

24 The Shore at Risk scallops, which once inhabited eelgrass one estimate, Barnegat Bay supported meadows in Barnegat Bay, drew as many approximately 250 hard clam fishermen as 100 to 150 boats during the heyday of in the 1950s; by 2002, their numbers had the scallop fishery in the late 1950s and dwindled to roughly eight.118 As noted 1960s.116 By 1974, the bay scallop harvest earlier, warmer ocean temperatures are had declined to a small fraction of its previ- suspected in the decline of surf clams off ous level, and today bay scallops are all but the Atlantic coast, one of New Jersey’s last absent from Barnegat Bay. remaining major fisheries. The hard clam fishery in Barnegat Bay New Jersey’s coastal fisheries are al- has followed a similar trajectory. According ready far less productive than they were to one Rutgers University researcher, the decades ago. Continued pollution in the state has lost more than 900 clammers in shore area threatens even those fisheries the last two decades, with many of those that survive. losses in Ocean County.117 According to

Trouble at the Shore 25 Saving the Shore

he threats facing the Jersey shore today are different from those of Reducing Nutrient Pollution Tthe past. Highly visible sources of The first critical task to protecting the pollution—such as sewage dumping and shore is to reduce the flow of nutrients into medical waste—are largely (though not shore waters. Among the steps the state entirely) relics of the past. Instead, the should take include: current ecological crisis facing coastal bays such as Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor • Reducing nutrient content of fertil- and the larger shore region is the result izer and ensuring proper applica- of human activities far upstream—from tion. Fertilizer is a key contributor to the application of fertilizer on suburban elevated nutrient levels in Barnegat lawns to the construction of new roads and Bay and other New Jersey waterways. parking lots. New Jersey has several tools to reduce In addition, we now know that a healthy the flow of nutrients from fertilizer ecosystem means more than just clean into waterways. First, the state should beaches. Where once New Jerseyans fo- adopt limits on the nutrient content cused on preserving swimmable beaches of fertilizer, severely restricting the or economically important fish species, amount of phosphorus (which is science now tells us that preserving species generally unnecessary for the growing such as eelgrass or small, forage fish can be of healthy lawns in New Jersey) and equally important to preserving a healthy reducing the amount of nitrogen. A ecosystem. study in Michigan found that ordi- New Jersey has come a long way in nances to reduce phosphorus content the effort to protect our shore. Now, it is in fertilizer can have significant, rapid time for New Jersey to take strong action effects in reducing phosphorus levels to protect the ecological and recreational in streams.119 In addition, state or local resources of the shore for generations to governments can establish reasonable come. restrictions on fertilizer use to reduce

26 The Shore at Risk nutrient runoff—for example, by waterways. The state should adopt prohibiting fertilizer applications dur- strong numeric criteria for nitrogen ing the winter months or immediately to complement its existing narrative adjacent to waterways. standard and retain its criteria for phosphorus. Many New Jersey municipalities have adopted, or will soon adopt, fertilizer • Establishing total maximum daily ordinances to improve water quality in loads for nutrient-contaminated local streams. Adopting strong rules waterways and ocean waters. The on a statewide basis would ensure that federal Clean Water Act requires such improvements take place state- states to adopt plans to return water wide and would ease compliance. quality in polluted waterways to a level that supports their “designated • Establishing strong numeric uses” (e.g., fishing, swimming, drink- standards for nitrogen pollution ing water supply, etc.) A key tool for in waterways. Currently, there is no achieving waterway restoration is numeric standard for the acceptable the establishment of total maximum level of nitrogen pollution in New daily loads (TMDLs), which are Jersey’s waterways. Instead, the science-based limits on the amount state has a vague narrative standard of a given pollutant that a waterway intended to prevent nutrient pollution can sustain while still supporting its that “render[s] the waters unsuitable designated uses. Once a TMDL has for the existing or designated uses been established, the pollutant load due to objectionable algal densities, can be divided among known sources nuisance aquatic vegetation, abnormal of pollution and trigger a host of ac- diurnal fluctuations in dissolved tions—from reductions in the level oxygen or pH, changes to the of pollution allowed from industrial composition of aquatic ecosystems, facilities to programs to reduce runoff or other indicators of use impairment pollution—designed to achieve the caused by nutrients.”120 target.

The U.S. EPA has long recommended New Jersey has adopted TMDLs for that states adopt numeric standards phosphorus pollution in a number for nutrient pollution, on the grounds of waterways, and these TMDLs are that they “provide measurable, objec- already driving action to reduce phos- tive water quality baselines against phorus pollution. New Jersey is mov- which to measure environmental ing forward, along with New York, progress” and make it easier to estab- with development of a TMDL for lish and implement pollution reduc- nutrients for New York/New Jersey tion goals.121 Harbor to address the low dissolved oxygen problems there (which also New Jersey currently has both nar- have the potential to affect the Jersey rative and numeric standards for shore), but has not proceeded with the phosphorus—an approach that both development of TMDLs to address sets a firm, measurable benchmark for the low dissolved oxygen conditions phosphorus levels while also acknowl- in Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor edging that different levels of nutri- despite mounting scientific evidence ents have different impacts in different pointing to the role of nitrogen in

Saving the Shore 27 fueling algae blooms in the bay. Both The use of perforated pavement, rain Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor and gardens, rainwater storage and other New Jersey’s near-shore ocean waters features can dramatically reduce have been given a “medium” priority stormwater runoff from a develop- for TMDL development by the state ment. Developers should be required of New Jersey.122 to adopt these or other features in new developments. And all forms of con- Development and enforcement of TM- struction and development should be DLs are technically complex and long- required to follow best management term tasks that should not detract from practices to reduce runoff pollution. other efforts to reduce nutrient pollution of coastal waters. However, New • Establish stormwater utilities to Jersey should proceed with develop- improve management of storm- ment of a TMDL for nutrient pollution water near the shore. Over the last of Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor in several decades, New Jersey has made order to guide future efforts to reduce great progress in improving anti- nutrient pollution and provide a basis quated sewer infrastructure in the for evaluating progress. shore region. Much less progress has been made in improving stormwater management facilities—the storm drains and culverts that carry stormwater directly to rivers and streams as Protecting Coastal Water- well as the detention basins and other facilities that are intended to protect ways from Excessive Runoff waterways from uncontrolled runoff. Reducing the runoff from developed areas Proper design and maintenance of near the shore reduces the flow of nutrients stormwater facilities is critical, but re- and sediment into coastal waterways and sponsibility for maintaining the facili- ensures the recharge of aquifers, helping ties is usually held either by developers to stabilize freshwater flows into Barnegat or by cash-strapped municipalities. Bay and other coastal estuaries. New Jersey Creation of dedicated “stormwater can take several measures to protect coastal utilities” would result in organizations waterways from runoff: whose job it is to properly maintain existing stormwater facilities and build • Adopt “net zero impact” require- new ones to reduce the flow of runoff ments for stormwater runoff from into waterways. New Jersey should new development. Scientific evidence make the replacement or repair of fail- links increases in the amount of im- ing stormwater management facilities pervious surfaces in a watershed with a top priority. degradation of water quality. In places such as the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg • Upgrade shore-bound waterways Harbor watershed that have experi- to Category 1 status. New Jersey’s enced rapid development in recent Category 1 waters are those with decades, the problem of runoff pollu- “exceptional ecological significance, tion has become acute. There are ways exceptional recreational significance, in which new developments can be de- exceptional water supply significance, signed to reduce—or even eliminate— or exceptional fisheries resources.”123 their production of stormwater runoff. Category 1 waters enjoy strong

28 The Shore at Risk protection against any backsliding in Review Group, including changes that water quality. Development along the would make it easier to develop along- banks of Category 1 waterways is also side streambanks. severely restricted, with many kinds of development prohibited within • Promote alternatives to sprawling a 300-foot buffer zone around the development. New Jersey’s shore waterway.124 Many waterways in the counties have experienced dramatic shore region already enjoy Category 1 growth in the past several decades— status, including Barnegat Bay itself. most of it in the form of low-density However, because of the unique eco- sprawl. Sprawling, car-dependent de- logical value of New Jersey’s coastal velopment requires large amounts of waters, and the urgent need to reduce pavement for roads and parking lots, runoff pollution of those waters, all and also devotes large amounts of land shore-bound waterways should enjoy to lawns. Local and state governments Category 1 status and the state should should encourage forms of development enforce and uphold protections for that are more compact and less car-de- current Category 1 waters that feed pendent, thereby reducing the impact of the shore. sprawl on New Jersey waterways.

• Don’t weaken existing stormwater and coastal protection rules. Gov. Christie’s Red Tape Review Group has recommended considering end- Reducing the Ecological ing the state’s role in ensuring that municipalities follow New Jersey’s Threat from the Oyster stormwater management rules. State Creek Nuclear Generating review, rather than being duplica- tive, acts as an important backstop to Station ensure that municipalities are carry- The Oyster Creek Nuclear Generation ing out their responsibilities to protect Station has a massive impact on the eco- the state’s waterways. Indeed, a recent logical health of Barnegat Bay, destroying review by Delaware Riverkeeper of vast numbers of marine creatures and re- one township’s implementation of turning heated water to the bay. The state stormwater regulations found many should act to reduce the ecological threat episodes of non-compliance with the posed by Oyster Creek. rules—non-compliance that can result in additional contaminated runoff • Finalize the water discharge per- reaching rivers, lakes and ocean mit for the Oyster Creek Nuclear waters.125 To protect the shore, New Generating Station and require Jersey needs more aggressive enforce- the construction of cooling towers ment of stormwater regulations, not within the next three years. The less, and the state should preserve and New Jersey Department of Environ- improve upon its current framework mental Protection has proposed a for stormwater management. water discharge permit for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station In addition, the state should refrain that would require replacement of the from weakening other water qual- facility’s current “once-through” cool- ity rules targeted by the Red Tape ing system with a “closed loop” system

Saving the Shore 29 that would include the use of cooling nor to provide a complete picture towers. Closed-loop cooling reduces of the progress the state is making water intake and outflow for cooling toward ensuring safe swimming at all by roughly 70 percent, with corre- of its beaches. In contrast to the state’s sponding declines in the number of weekly testing, the EPA recommends sea creatures that are damaged by the daily testing for pathogens at high- facility’s cooling system.126 Moreover, priority beaches.127 As a state that has closed-loop cooling reduces thermal historically demonstrated leadership pollution, curbing the plant’s eco- in taking action to protect swimmers, logical impact on the bay. The state New Jersey should move toward test- should move forward with approval of ing its most popular beaches at least 2 the permit, but, recognizing the im- to 3 times per week, with the ultimate minent threat that the Oyster Creek goal of providing daily testing to Nuclear Generating Station’s opera- protect beachgoers. In addition, the tion poses to the health of the bay, the state should continue to explore the state should require the construction use of rapid testing methods that can of cooling towers at the plant on a tell the public whether a particular faster-than-proposed schedule, within beach is safe for swimming that day, three years. rather than having to wait 24 hours for results.

• Assess coastal waters for pollution levels and ecological health. Increasing Monitoring and As described in this report, the health Study of Coastal Pollution of certain species—such as eelgrass or shellfish—is a key indicator of the Problems and Their Impacts health of the ecosystem as a whole. New Jerseyans need better tools to under- Moreover, there are close connec- stand the problems facing the shore and tions between the health of coastal to measure progress toward water quality estuaries, such as Barnegat Bay-Little goals. While research conducted by state Egg Harbor, and that of New Jersey’s and federal government scientists and New near-shore waters. The state of New Jersey-based researchers at Rutgers and Jersey must be much more aggressive other universities has added greatly to our in monitoring New Jersey’s coastal understanding of the threats facing the waters using biological indicators, shore, there is still much work to be done including measurements of the abun- to get a full picture of how human activi- dance of shellfish, aquatic vegetation, ties are affecting the shore. To increase the and healthy communities of organisms public’s understanding of coastal pollution, on the ocean floor. Only by track- the state should: ing the biological health of coastal bays and ocean waters—and setting • Increase the frequency of test- goals for the restoration of healthy ing at New Jersey’s beaches. Cur- ecosystems in these waters—can the rently, New Jersey’s ocean and bay state ensure that it is making progress beaches are tested once a week for toward restoration of the shore. bacteria that can put swimmers at risk of illness. Once a week testing is not It is important to note, however, frequent enough to protect swimmers, that the state should not introduce

30 The Shore at Risk monitoring for biological indicators at Enforcing Existing Laws the expense of traditional measures of water quality. New Jersey must have New Jersey’s existing environmental laws measurements of both the volume of hold many tools to reduce pollution of our pollution in coastal waters and the shore waters, if they are properly enforced. biological impacts of that pollution if The highest priority should be for New it is to chart a course to a cleaner and Jersey to: healthier shore. • Require completion of wastewater • Boost monitoring of offshore wa- management plans. Since 1990, New ters. Only in recent years, and as the Jersey has required municipalities result of a great deal of monitoring to develop wastewater management and study, has New Jersey come to ap- plans that project municipalities’ preciate the magnitude of the threats future growth, the extent and loca- facing coastal estuaries such as Barne- tion of sewer and septic service, and gat Bay-Little Egg Harbor. Yet, there how the municipality plans to meet has not been a similar investment in future water supply needs.128 These monitoring and study of New Jersey’s plans are critical to ensure that future near-shore waters. For example, while development takes place in a way that the state acknowledges the regular is consistent with the protection of appearance of low dissolved oxygen water resources and the sustainability levels off the Jersey shore, only now of water supplies. However, the state are researchers beginning to under- has historically been lax in ensuring stand the effects of oxygen depletion that municipalities carry out their on fish or other organisms that live in responsibility to maintain updated the state’s nearshore waters. wastewater management plans—as of 2005, only 14 such plans were up to The state does operate a Coastal Wa- date, while 55 were never adopted and ter Quality Monitoring Network with 110 were out of date.129 sampling stations in near-shore ocean waters, but sampling at many of these In 2008, the state adopted new rules stations is carried out irregularly. The that assigned counties the responsibil- state is also working with Rutgers ity for adopting and implementing University to undertake remote sens- wastewater management plans, with ing of algae blooms off New Jersey’s a requirement to submit new plans by coast, which will provide additional, April 2009.130 As of late 2009, how- near real-time estimates of algal ever, only one county had an approved blooms. New Jersey should continue wastewater management plan in place. to expand these efforts and conduct Moreover, in 2010, the Christie ad- additional monitoring and study to ministration gave counties yet another determine how pollution is affecting year to comply with the require- the health of New Jersey’s near-shore ment.131 After two decades, it is time ocean waters. for the state and county governments to get serious about planning for New Jersey’s future water needs in a way that ensures the health of our rivers, streams and coastal waters.

Saving the Shore 31 Protecting Land to Preserve land preservation through their approval of bond issues for the Green Acres program, Water Quality with the most recent bond issue for a two- One of the great shining successes of New year extension of the program approved by Jersey’s efforts to preserve water quality voters in 2009. However, Green Acres and along the shore is the protection of the other critical land preservation programs Mullica River watershed, which runs pri- remain without a stable, dedicated, long- marily through the New Jersey Pinelands. term source of funding. To ensure that the The example of Pinelands preservation state has the resources available to protect shows that land preservation can play an lands critical to water quality, the state important role in ensuring the ecological should develop a long-term funding source health of our waterways. New Jersey resi- for its land preservation efforts. dents have repeatedly expressed support for

32 The Shore at Risk Notes

1 New Jersey Department of Environmental Land Use/Land Cover Update, 19 July 2010, Protection, New Jersey’s Environment 1998, and similar land-use land-cover data set for undated. 1986, downloaded from www.state.nj.us/dep/ 2 1970 population: Ocean County gis/lists.html, 18 August 2010. Department of Planning, Historical 7 Metedeconk Source Water Stewardship Population Trends in New Jersey, 1930-2000, Exchange Team, Metedeconk Watershed: Source downloaded from www.planning.co.ocean. Water Stewardship Exchange Team Report, nj.us/databook/01pop30-00NJ.pdf, 4 June December 2003. 2010; 2009 population: U.S. Census Bureau, 8 Marjorie Kaplan and Mark Ayers, American FactFinder, downloaded from www. Impervious Surface Cover Concepts and census.gov, 4 June 2010. Thresholds, downloaded from njedl.rutgers. 3 Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program, edu/ftp/PDFs/1257.pdf, 1 June 2010. Final Comprehensive Conservation and 9 Robert A. Zampella, et al., The Barnegat Management Plan, May 2002. Bay Watershed: A Report to the Pinelands 4 Richard G. Lathrop and Scott M. Haag, Commission on the Status of Selected Aquatic School of Environmental Biological Sciences, and Wetlands Resources, 2006. Rutgers University, Assessment of Land 10 Richard G. Lathrop and Tenley M. Use Change and Riparian Zone Status in the Conway, Grant F. Walton Center for Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor Watershed: Remote Sensing & Spatial Analysis, Rutgers 1995-2002-2006, October 2007. University, A Build-Out Analysis of the 5 Based on summary tables from New Jersey Barnegat Bay Watershed, May 2001. Department of Environmental Protection, 11 See note 4. NJDEP 2007 Land Use/Land Cover Update, 19 July 2010, and similar land-use land- 12 Ibid. cover data sets from 2002, 1995 and 1986, 13 Christine Wieben and Ronald J. Baker, downloaded from www.state.nj.us/dep/gis/ Barnegat Bay Estuary Program, Contributions lists.html, 18 August 2010. of Nitrogen to the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg 6 Based on New Jersey Department of Harbor Estuary: Updated Loading Estimates, 7 Environmental Protection, NJDEP 2007 December 2009.

Notes 33 14 M. Borgatti, Nitrogen Loading in the 27 Ibid. Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary and 28 Richard Horowitz, et al., Routine Watershed: Developing a Conservative Model Monitoring Program for Toxics in Fish: 5 Year for Determining the Contribution to the Total Program, Powerpoint presentation to N.J. Nitrogen Load from Lawn Fertilizers and a Water Monitoring Council, 27 September Review of Existing Data, 4 November 2008. 2006. 15 See note 13. 29 Michael J. Kennish, et al., “Barnegat 16 Robert Nicholson, U.S. Geological Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary: Case Study Survey, USGS Monitoring and Research in of a Highly Eutrophic Coastal Bay Stystem,” the Barnegat Bay Watershed, Powerpoint Ecological Applications 17(5):S3-S16, 2007. presentation to the N.J. Department of 30 S. Bricker, et al., National Oceanic Environmental Protection Barnegat Bay and Atmospheric Administration, Effects of Stakeholder Meeting, 5 May 2010. Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation’s Estuaries: 17 S.E. Domber and J.L. Hoffman, 2004, A Decade of Change: National Estuarine New Jersey Water Withdrawals, Transfers, and Eutrophication Update, 2007. Discharges by Watershed Management Area, 31 Ibid. 1990-1999 (Excel workbook), N.J. Geological Survey Digital Geodata Series DGS 04-9, 32 “2 percent” based on intake of 662 downloaded from www.state.nj.us/dep/njgs/ million gallons per day for cooling water geodata/dgs04-9.htm, 7 July 2010. and 732 million gallons per day for dilution water from New Jersey Department of 18 Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program, Environmental Protection, Draft Surface 2005 State of the Bay Technical Report, August Water Renewal Permit Action, Oyster Creek 2005. Generating Station, Lacey Township, Ocean 19 Robert S. Nicholson and Martha K. County, NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005550, Watt, U.S. Geological Survey, Simulation of 7 January 2010; and 60 billion gallon Ground-Water Flow in the Unconfined Aquifer estimated volume of Barnegat Bay from System of the Toms River, Metedeconk River, and Qizhong (George) Guo, et al., Research Project Kettle Creek Basins, New Jersey, 1997. Summary: Hydrographic Study of Barnegat 20 See note 18. Bay, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, July 2004 21 Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program, The Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program 33 New Jersey Department of Environmental Characterization Report, January 2001. Protection, Draft Surface Water Renewal Permit Action, Oyster Creek Generating Station, 22 Pierre J. Lacombe, et al., U.S. Geological Lacey Township, Ocean County, NJPDES Survey, Future Water Supply Scenarios, Cape Permit No. NJ0005550, 7 January 2010. May County, New Jersey, 2003-2050, 2009. 34 National Oceanic and Atmospheric 23 See note 4. Administration, National Marine Fisheries 24 Richard Lathrop, Scott Haag and Service, Endangered Species Act Section 7 Tenley Conway, Grant F. Walton Center Consultation, Biological Opinion, Re: Nuclear for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis, Regulatory Commission, Proposed Renewal of Rutgers University, Changing Land Use in an Operating License for the [Oyster] Creek the Mullica River Watershed: Past and Future Nuclear Generating Station on the Forked River Trends, May 2003. and Oyster Creek, Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, 22 November 2006. 25 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2008 New Jersey Integrated Water 35 See note 33. Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, July 36 Ibid. 2009, Appendix B. 37 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 26 Ibid. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for

34 The Shore at Risk License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement Monitoring and Resource Protection, CRC 28, Regarding Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Press, 2004, 96. Station, January 2007. 50 Mark S. Fonseca and Amy V. Uhrin, 38 Ibid. “The Status of Eelgrass, as Bay Scallop 39 Todd B. Bates, “Oyster Creek Nuclear Habitat: Consequences for the Fishery in the Power Plant’s Tritium Leak Still Without Western Atlantic,” Marine Fisheries Review a Cleanup Plan,” Asbury Park Press, 13 May 71(3): 20-33, 2009. 2010. 51 Michael J. Kennish, Barnegat Bay-Little 40 See note 25. Egg Harbor Estuary: Ecosystem Condition and Recommendations, downloaded from www. 41 “3,000 square mile”: Clean Ocean Action, bbep.org/dwnloads/BarnegatBayIndicators. “Clean Ocean Zone: COZ Legislation pdf, 2 June 2010. to Be Introduced in Congress,” Clean Ocean Advocate, July 2006; “$1.33 billion”: 52 “60 percent,” P.A.X. Bologna, et al., Donald M. Anderson, et al., Woods Hole Rutgers Institute of Marine and Coastal Oceanographic Institution, Estimated Annual Sciences, Assessment of the Health and Economic Impacts from Harmful Algal Blooms Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (HABs) in the United States, September from Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey: Technical 2000. Report, July 2000. 42 New Jersey Department of Environmental 53 Michael J. Kennish, Scott M. Haag and Protection, Water Sampling Confirms Low Gregg P. Sakowicz, Demographic Investigation Oxygen Levels in Delaware Bay; DEP Working of Seagrasses in the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg to Speed Removal of Dead Fish from Beaches Harbor Estuary with Assessment of Potential (press release), 12 August 2010. Impacts of Benthic Macroalgae and Brown Tides, downloaded from www.bbep.org/dwnloads/ 43 Donald M. Anderson, et al., Woods SAV.pdf, 13 July 2010. Hole Oceanographic Institution, Estimated Annual Economic Impacts from Harmful Algal 54 See note 29. Blooms (HABs) in the United States, September 55 Based on GIS data from Grant F. Walton 2000. Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial 44 “winter and spring”: Weifeng G. Zhang, Analysis (CRSSA), Rutgers University, John L. Wilkin and Robert J. Chant, Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) and “Modeling the Pathways and Mean Dynamics Bottom Type CRSSA Image Classification of River Plume Dispersal in the New York Within Barnegat Bay, Little Egg Harbor and Bight,” Journal of Physical Oceanography 39: Great Bay, New Jersey, Yr 2003, and similar 1167-1183, May 2009. files for 1968 and 1985-87, all downloaded from www.crssa.rutgers.edu/projects/runj/ 45 Mark A. Moline, et al., “Biological bbdata/index.html, 14 June 2010. Responses in a Dynamic Buoyant River Plume,” Oceanography 21(4) 70-89, December 56 See note 21. 2008. 57 Clyde L. MacKenzie, Jr., Northeast 46 Scott Glenn, et al., “Biogeochemical Fisheries Science Center, Comparison of Impact of Summertime Coastal Upwelling on Invertebrate Abundance in Four Bays of the the New Jersey Shelf,” Journal of Geophysical Northeastern United States: Two Bays with Research, 109: C12S02, 2004. Sparse Quahogs and Two Bays with Abundant Quahogs, August 2003. 47 Ibid. 58 Michael P. Celestino, New Jersey 48 Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Department of Environmental Protection, Foundation, A Reconnaissance of the Barnegat Shellfish Stock Assessment of Little Egg Harbor Bay Watershed, August 2005. Bay, 15 May 2003. 49 Michael J. Kennish, Estuarine Research, 59 See note 50.

Notes 35 60 New Jersey Department of Environmental 74 Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program, Protection, Brown Tide Assessment, “From the Director’s Desk: Unraveling the downloaded from www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/ Mystery of Jellyfishes in Barnegat Bay,” browntide/bt.htm, 4 June 2010. Barnegat Bay Beat, Summer/Fall 2009. 61 Richard G. Lathrop and Scott Haag, 75 Thomas R. Tatham, David L. Thomas Final Report: Brown Tide Assessment Project and Donald J. Danila, “Fishes of Barnegat Years 2000-2004: Developing Indicators of Bay” in Michael J. Kennish and R.A. Lutz Brown Tide Blooms in NJ Coastal Waters, (eds.), Ecology of Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, Rutgers Center for Remote Sensing and 1984. Spatial Analysis, December 2005. 76 James Vasslides and Ken Able, Near- 62 New Jersey Department of Environmental Surface Ichthyoplankton in Coastal Habitats: Protection, New Jersey’s Environmental Trends: Comparisons Between the Ocean and an Estuary Wildlife Populations: Surf Clam, downloaded in the New York Bight During Summer and Fall, from www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/trends2005/pdfs/ abstract of oral presentation to American wildlife-surfclam.pdf, 2 June 2010. Fisheries Society Mid-Atlantic Chapter 63 Richard Degener, “Surf Clam Decline Annual Meeting, 1-2 October 2009. Remains a Mystery,” Press of Atlantic City, 16 77 See note 21. September 2009. 78 Richard Degener, “Weakfish Stocks 64 Mary Downes Gastrich, New Jersey Along East Coast Hit All-Time Low; Ban Department of Environmental Protection, Being Considered,” Press of Atlantic City, 24 Harmful Algae Blooms in Coastal Waters of New August 2009. Jersey, May 2000. 79 Ibid. 65 William Heddendorf, New Jersey 80 Lisa Hendrickson, Paul Nitschke and Department of Environmental Protection, Mark Terceiro, National Oceanic and Annual Summary of Phytoplankton Blooms and Atmospheric Administration, Status of Related Conditions in the New Jersey Coastal Fishery Resources of the Northeastern U.S.: Waters Summer of 2005, February 2008. Winter Flounder, December 2006. 66 Ibid. 81 Antoinette Clemetson, “Issues Affecting 67 Ibid. Winter Flounder Biology in the Northeast,” 68 New Jersey Comparative Risk Project, Tidal Exchange, New York-New Jersey Final Report of the New Jersey Comparative Risk Harbor Estuary Program, Winter 2005. Project, March 2003, Appendix 3. 82 See note 80. 69 See note 64. 83 “spawn … year round”: See note 21. 70 See note 51. 84 See note 81. 71 Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program, 85 See note 33. Jellyfish in Barnegat Bay (Sea Nettles), 86 Jennifer Pyle, “Importance of Forage downloaded from www.bbep.org/jellyfish. Fish in the Delaware River,” New Jersey Fish html, 2 June 2010. & Wildlife Digest, May 2009. 72 Jennifer E. Purcell, Shin-ichi Uye and 87 See note 33. Wen-Tseng Lo, “Anthropogenic Causes of Jellyfish Blooms and Their Direct 88 Chesapeake Bay Ecological Foundation, Consequences for Humans: A Review,” Bay Anchovy, downloaded from www.chesbay. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 350: 153-174, org/forageFish/anchovy.asp, 2 June 2010. 2007. 89 See note 21. 73 Nitrogen Pollution Action Project, 90 Pinelands Preservation Alliance, “Rescue Jellyfish, downloaded from www.nitrogenfree. the Red Knot,” Pinelands Watch, July 2002. com/problem/jellyfish_rise.php, 2 June 2010.

36 The Shore at Risk 91 Ibid. for 2009, May 2010. 92 New Jersey Department of Environmental 105 See note 96. Protection, Division of Fish & Wildlife, Red 106 Kenneth McGill, NJ Tourism: Preliminary Knot—An Imperiled Migratory Shorebird in 2008 Results, Powerpoint presentation to New Jersey, downloaded from www.state. 2009 New Jersey Governor’s Conference on nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/redknot.htm, 2 June 2010. Tourism, March 2009. 93 Ibid. 107 Erik Ortiz, “Shore Business Owners 94 See note 21. Predict Tourism Will Turn Around for 95 Joanna Burger, “Food Chain Differences Memorial Day,” Press of Atlantic City, 30 Affect Heavy Metals in Bird Eggs in May 2010. Barnegat Bay, New Jersey,” Environmental 108 See note 106. Research 90(1): 33-39, September 2002. 109 National Oceanic and Atmospheric 96 Mark Dorfman and Kirsten Sinclair Administration, Fisheries of the United States Rosselot, Natural Resources Defense 2008, undated. Council, Testing the Waters: A Guide to Water 110 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006 Quality at Vacation Beaches, July 2010. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and 97 New Jersey Department of Environmental Wildlife-Associated Recreation, October 2007. Protection, New Jersey’s Environmental Trends: 111 New Jersey Department of Environmental Beach Closings, downloaded from www.nj.gov/ Protection, Valuing New Jersey’s Natural dep/dsr/trends2005/pdfs/beachclosing.pdf, 2 Capital: An Assessment of the Economic Value of June 2010. the State’s Natural Resources, April 2007. 98 New Jersey Department of Environmental 112 Paul Kerlinger, “Birding Economics and Protection, Floatables Impacts to NJ Beaches, Birder Demographics Studies as Conservation August 23 to September 7, 2007, downloaded Tools,” in Deborah Finch and Peter W. from www.state.nj.us/dep/bmw/cleanshores/ Stangel (eds.), Status and Management of floatables2008.pdf, 2 June 2010. Neotropical Migratory Birds, 1993. 99 Laura Craven, “Pennsylvania Dentist 113 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Indicted on Charges of Dumping Waste in Administration, Fisheries of the United States Ocean,” NJ.com, 19 November 2008. 2008, undated. 100 Dan Stamm, “Medical Waste Washes 114 Ibid. Up on Jersey Beaches,” NBC New York, 2 July 2009. 115 Based on data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Annual 101 New Jersey Department of Environmental Commercial Landing Statistics, downloaded Protection, Marine Water Monitoring: Clean from www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/ Shores, downloaded from www.state.nj.us/ landings/annual_landings.html, 2 June dep/bmw/cleanshores/csindex.html, 2 June 2010. 2010. 116 See note 57. 102 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Wreck Pond Restoration Measures, 117 Carla Cantor, “Agents of Environmental May 2004. Change,” Rutgers FOCUS, 24 October 2007. 103 Wreck Pond Brook Watershed Technical Advisory Committee, Wreck Pond Brook 118 See note 116. Watershed Regional Stormwater Management 119 J.T. Lehman, D.W. Bell and K.E. Plan, September 2008, Book 1. McDonald, “Reduced River Phosphorus 104 New Jersey Department of Following Implementation of a Lawn Environmental Protection, Cooperative Fertilizer Ordinance,” Lake and Reservoir Coastal Monitoring Program, Summary Report Management (in press).

Notes 37 120 N.J.A.C. 7:9B, Surface Water Quality 127 See note 96. Standards, as amended 4 January 2010. 128 Association of New Jersey Environmental 121 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Commissions, Clean Water: Sewers, Septics State Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Standards and Sprawl, downloaded from www.anjec. (1998-2008), December 2008. org/pdfs/Sewers_Web_Reader.pdf, 4 June 122 See note 25. 2010. 123 New Jersey Department of Environmental 129 Ibid. Protection, Surface Water Quality Standards, 130 New Jersey Department of downloaded from www.nj.gov/dep/wms/ Environmental Protection, Water Quality bwqsa/swqs.htm, 4 June 2010. Management Planning Rules: Readopted with 124 New Jersey Department of Environmental Amendments July 7, 2008 (Powerpoint Protection, Buffers on Category One Waters, presentation), downloaded from www.nj.gov/ May 2008. dep/watershedmgt/DOCS/WQMP/wqmp_ adopt_presentation.pdf, 4 June 2010. 125 Delaware Riverkeeper Network, New Jersey Stormwater Management Implementation: 131 Scott Fallon, “Bill Vetoed by Corzine A Case Study of Hamilton Township, Mercer is Revived as New Jersey DEP Regulation,” County, May 2010. Herald News, 30 March 2010. 126 See note 33.

38 The Shore at Risk Notes 39 40 The Shore at Risk