RARITAN BASIN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
A Work In Progress!

New Jersey Water Supply Authority

31 December 2002

Submitted to the NJ Department of Environmental Protection, Watershed Planning Program by the NJ Water Supply Authority, on behalf of the Raritan Basin Council, North & South Branch Raritan Watershed Management Area Committee, Lower Raritan Watershed Management Area Committee and Millstone Watershed Management Area Committee

Table of Contents

List of Tables

List of Figures

Link to Acronyms and Glossary

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary (Section A)

Vision Statement

Rationale for the Vision Statement

Implementing the Raritan Basin Watershed Management Plan

Problem Statements, Goals and Objectives (Section B)

Goals & Objectives for the Basin and Watershed Management Areas

Raritan Basin Education and Outreach Goals & Objectives

Goals & Objectives: North & South Branch Watershed Management Area

Goals & Objectives: Lower Raritan Watershed Management Area

Goals & Objectives: Millstone Watershed Management Area

Relationship to Federal and State Government Goals and Objectives

Relationship to Local Government Goals and Objectives

Characterization and Assessment of Key Issues (Section C)

Surface Water Pollution

Loss of Riparian Areas

Biological Impairment of Streams

Loss of Ground Water Recharge

Water Supply Limitations

Stormwater Impacts

Implementation Strategies (Section D)

Highlights of the Implementation Strategies

Basin Transformational Strategies

Education and Outreach

Flooding

Riparian Areas and Surface Waters

Stormwater and Nonpoint Source Management

Water Quality

Water Supply

Summary of Implementation Challenges

Public and Political Understanding and Support Issues

Institutional Capacity Issues

Funding Issues

Legal and Regulatory Issues

Evaluation of Plan Implementation (Section E)

Method for Revising Plan Based on Evaluations

Summary of the Planning and Decision-Making (Section F)

Method of Strategy Development

General Categories of Strategies

Strategy Options

The Strategy Description

Search Engine and Index

Top

List of Tables

  1. Basin Education & Outreach Goals, Objectives and Strategies

  2. North & South Branch Raritan Watershed Management Area Goals, Objectives and Strategies

  3. Lower Raritan Watershed Management Area Goals, Objectives and Strategies

  4. Millstone Watershed Management Area Goals, Objectives and Strategies

List of Figures

  1. Municipalities and Road Networks within the Raritan Basin

  2. Raritan Project Organizational Chart

  3. Topography and Major Landforms within the Raritan Basin

  4. Nonpoint source dominated subwatersheds of the Raritan River Basin

  5. Example point/nonpoint source loading graphs

  6. Riparian area losses in the Raritan Basin

  7. Difference in Average Ground Water Recharge Values in the Raritan Basin, 1986-1995

  8. Population Change Between 1990 and 2000 in the Raritan Basin

  9. Water Balance

Link to Acronyms and Glossary

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

The Raritan Basin Watershed Management Plan was funded by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New Jersey Water Supply Authority, working in cooperation under two Memoranda of Agreement (1999 and 2000). Hundreds of people were involved in the development of this plan and the associated characterization and assessment reports over a four-year period from 1999 through 2002. We wish to acknowledge the enormous effort of all individuals and organizations that gave of their time, expertise (and more time), during this period. While there are too many people to name individually for their efforts, the following stakeholders were involved in the following components of this large project:

Characterization and Assessment Project Team:

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey Water Supply Authority, North Jersey Resource Conservation and Development Council, Rutgers Center for Environmental Communication, South Branch Watershed Association, Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association, United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Geological Survey, Upper Raritan Watershed Association

Characterization and Assessment Phase:

Planning Phase:

NJ Water Supply Authority, Watershed Protection Programs:

New Jersey Water Supply Authority Commissioners:

Bradley M. Campbell

Commissioner, NJ Department of Environmental Protection

Serves as Chair of the Authority, ex officio

Gary Sondermeyer, Chairman pro tem

Susan Blew

Donald L. Correll

Peggy Haskin (1981-2002)

Shing-Fu Hsueh, PhD, PE (2002-)

Louis C. Mai

Steven Picco (2002-)

Warren H. Victor (-2002)

Executive Director:

Thomas G. Baxter, P.E. (1995-2002)

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (2002):

 

Bradley M. Campbell, Commissioner

Ernest Hahn, Assistant Commissioner, Land Use Management

Lawrence J. Baier, Administrator, Watershed Management

Kerry Kirk Pflugh, Chief, Raritan Region Bureau

Table of Contents

 

RARITAN BASIN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN

Executive Summary (Section A)

The Raritan Basin Watershed Management Plan has been developed by stakeholder participants from the Raritan River Basin, including the North & South Branch Raritan Watershed Management Area (WMA 8), the Lower Raritan WMA (WMA 9) and the Millstone River WMA (WMA 10). The New Jersey Water Supply Authority provided staff and project management services to the stakeholders under a Memorandum of Agreement with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, with funding provided by both State agencies. This agreement was developed in response to requests in the mid-1990’s by region stakeholders for Department assistance in protecting water resources of the Raritan River Basin.

Stakeholders played a great role in the development of this management plan, through a variety of committees and subcommittees. There are four major committees that focused on policy and planning issues, and these committees are in turn assisted by other committees, subcommittees and work groups (see Figure 2, Organizational Chart; see Public Involvement in Plan Development). The four major committees are:

The plan includes the following major components:

Many objectives and implementation strategies are applicable to the entire Raritan River Basin but have some components that are specific to a Watershed Management Area or watershed. Other objectives and implementation strategies respond to issues unique to a Watershed Management Area. For instance, only the North & South Branch WMA has Trout Production streams, which have specific management needs. Only the Lower Raritan WMA has tidal streams.

While there are many goals, objectives and implementation strategies, the following list summarizes the major changes contemplated in the Raritan River Basin and how our natural resources are protected and restored, if implementation of the Raritan Basin Watershed Management Plan is successful.

Raritan stakeholders representing the Raritan Basin Council and all three Watershed Management Area Committees agreed on 2 December 2002 to initiate implementation of the Raritan Basin Watershed Management Plan. Initially, a coordinating structure similar to the 2002 structure will be used, with a basin coordinating body and three WMA Committees, plus the Technical Advisory Committee and Basin Education & Outreach Committee. The focus will be on building the constituency, partnerships, funding and commitments for implementation.

The Raritan Plan will change over time, in response to implementation efforts and new thinking. Currently, most strategy implementation plans include recommendations regarding which parties could take responsibility for planning, designing, implementing and providing oversight for implementation. In addition, recommendations are made regarding implementation resources. An organization or funding source is listed as “Committed” only if there is an ongoing project or a clear commitment to action. Over time, the expectation is that more and more “Recommended” parties and funding sources will move to the “Committed” section, showing a broadening support for Raritan Plan implementation.

Table of Contents

Vision Statement

We envision a Raritan River Basin in which the following occurs as quickly as possible but no later than within a generation:

Table of Contents

Rationale for the Vision Statement

The 1,100 square miles of the Raritan River Basin constitute the largest watershed entirely contained within the state of New Jersey. With a combination of highly valuable resources and challenging impairments, the Raritan River Basin reflects the impact of several centuries of intensive land use. Over time, land use patterns and the use and management of natural resources have reflected the changing needs and expectations of society.

Although initially the Basin was mainly forest, clearing permitted the expansion of agricultural land usage in most of the Basin. Larger industries developed quickly along the main stem of the Raritan River, while smaller industries used tributaries to provide water and power for mills. In more recent years, however, development of concentrated urban centers and small communities has extended into formerly rural lands where agricultural uses have declined and forests have re-emerged.

Today, the Basin plays a critical role in meeting the demands of a growing population. With its rich, natural diversity, the Raritan River Basin contains important water-related natural resources and some of New Jersey’s premier surface water supplies. Major wetlands areas still exist in Lower Raritan watersheds. The North & South Branch Raritan watersheds and parts of the Millstone watershed have extensive habitats for endangered and threatened species. The Coastal Plain areas include exceptional aquifers, while trout production streams are common in the Highlands area.

Land use decisions by their very nature can continually have a detrimental effect throughout the Basin. Ground water demand from some of our poorest aquifers is increasing, while increasing amounts of impervious surfaces are diminishing recharge capability. Pollution of surface and ground water is of great concern. Streams in the Basin are frequently under stress and often impaired due to reduced flows during dry periods, increased flows during storms, and the continued loss of vegetative riparian corridors that are so critical to stream health.

The management approaches of the past are no longer sufficient to address present needs, and future land use will only result in further problems unless changes are made. Ensuring the viability and productivity of the Basin's natural systems and resources for future generations, and mitigating the effect of our current social and economic practices on them, requires thoughtful and carefully considered management initiatives. The mandate for this kind of management stems not only from legislative and regulatory requirements, but also from a recognition and acceptance of the responsibility of all Raritan River Basin citizens to act as its stewards.

The expectation of this plan is that the Raritan River Basin will one day have streams, lakes, reservoirs and estuaries that uniformly function as healthy and diverse ecosystems and whose waters are safe to drink with limited treatment. New Jerseyans should actively plan for a Basin that can maintain sufficient resources for human and ecological needs and benefit all of society.

This plan transcends political boundaries by asserting that management of land and water resources in any one community imposes cumulative impacts on all communities. It also affirms our belief that all communities and individuals have a recognizable interest in acting in concert to maintain and improve the health and functions of the Basin’s natural systems.

This plan is intended to be a living, dynamic document, one that the Basin’s stewards can utilize today and adapt to future conditions and experiences, and to new technologies, knowledge and information.

The Vision Statement reflects the general consensus of stakeholder participants. Specific needs of the Basin are spelled out in more detail in the Goals, Objectives and Management Strategies contained in following sections of this Plan.

Table of Contents

Implementing the Raritan Basin Watershed Management Plan

Many stakeholders from diverse interests developed the Raritan Plan, with assistance from the NJ Water Supply Authority and funding from the NJ Department of Environmental Protection and the Authority. Implementation of the Raritan Plan requires continued stakeholder involvement. In addition, the NJDEP and NJWSA roles during the implementation process are different from their roles during the planning process. During Raritan Plan implementation, NJDEP will serve as a funding source and regulatory agency, and will also provide some assistance with specific projects that are identified as NJDEP priorities. NJWSA will become a stakeholder rather than project manager, focusing on protection of its water supply resources.

During the Fall 2002, stakeholders developed an approach to ensuring effective implementation of the Raritan Plan. They envision that most plan implementation will occur through existing organizations and new partnerships. Successful Raritan Plan implementation will require coordinated effort. Therefore, the Raritan stakeholders propose that a coordinating approach should be established:

CONSENSUS ON ORGANIZATIONAL PURPOSE – There should be a Basin-wide, coalition-based structure to perform the following functions, with the caveat that the Basin-wide structure should not duplicate or preempt the work or capabilities of others, nor disrupt funding for them:
  1. Keep the Raritan Plan current and continually improving – track progress, update, adapt, ensure that the strategies are scientifically defensible, and react to new circumstances, policy changes and environmental conditions
  2. Create public and official support for Plan implementation
  3. Create coalitions/partnerships for Plan implementation and assist with acquisition of financial and other resources where requested
  4. Encourage and support implementation efforts and assist with project planning
  5. Maintain and enhance technical knowledge and capabilities of the Basin and ensure dissemination to those who need it
  6. Do the abovewith the minimum resources necessary

A key point in this consensus is that the coordinating approach should in no way duplicate the capabilities or work of others – competition is to be avoided because the success of the Raritan Plan depends on increased capacity and desire to act by municipal, county, regional, State, non-profit and private sector entities.

The next issue was the nature of the coordinating structure. Stakeholders did not feel that it would be feasible to move from the stakeholder involvement structure used during the planning process to a full-fledged, formal implementation structure. Therefore, they recommend:

CONSENSUS ON ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE – There should be an evolution from one structure to another as Raritan Plan implementation gains strength, following these steps:
  1. Continue the existing RBC/TAC/WMA Committee structure, with open membership at the WMA Committee level as it is now (informal coalition). Ensure involvement of existing non-profit organizations. Have some organization(s) (preferably a non-profit, and not a State agency) serve as a fiscal agent or provide staff support functions, office space, etc.
  2. Build stakeholder involvement in the Committees
  3. Build formal commitments to the Plan’s intent and implementation
  4. Build over time a formal organization to coordinate and champion Raritan Plan implementation, starting with a formal coalition (each entity must be committed to the Plan intent) and eventually a non-profit organization

Foundation funds and other contributions will be sought to fund this approach for the first one to two years, at a cost of up to $100,000, using an existing non-profit organization as fiscal agent. This level of funding (probably starting at the low end and building) will allow for the Raritan Plan implementation process to have a single staff person dedicated to coordinating the six organizational purposes described above. Many stakeholders envision that the coordinating process will be lodged within its own non-profit organization within two years, but the general consensus was to not formalize that approach until some time into the implementation process.

Implementation funds will also be required for success of the Raritan Plan. The cost of strategy implementation ranges from very low – essentially, the use of existing resources or volunteers – to very high. Such activities as land acquisition, stormwater system improvements, restoration of lost ground water recharge, and pollutant load reductions to meet water quality standards could each consume tens of millions of dollars, basin wide. In some cases, such as land acquisition, funding sources exist and can be expanded due to the broad public support. In other cases, little or no funding exists to meet a major need. In nearly all cases, as noted above, implementation will occur through a wide variety of existing (and possibly new) entities, but the coordinating structure described above will not conduct major implementation projects. Instead, it will encourage and facilitate projects by others.

Table of Contents

Problem Statements, Goals and Objectives (Section B)

The WMA Committees developed their components of this management plan using a specific approach. First, Problem Statements were developed that succinctly stated the issues facing the Watershed Management Area, using the Raritan Project characterization and assessment Technical Reports as a basis. Then, goals were developed that if achieved would address the issues identified in the problem statements. Goals are defined as “A qualitative description of a desired future condition.” One textbook definition is: “A goal is a purpose or end stated in general terms without criteria of achievement.” In turn, objectives were developed that would achieve each goal, if all objectives related to a specific goal were implemented successfully. An objective is a purpose or end stated in specific, measurable terms, and as such includes a sense of time and of a specific environmental, organizational or other conditions that can be assessed. Finally, implementation strategies have been developed for the highest priority objectives. Strategies describe an “action plan” for successfully achieving the objectives, and address the “who, what when, where, how” questions to some level of detail. However, this plan does not include detailed scopes of work or work plans for the strategies for a specific reason. Knowledge of watershed management techniques will improve over time as implementation occurs in the Raritan River Basin and other watersheds. Broad implementation strategies allow for flexibility, so that new approaches can be used within amending the watershed management plan. Links to the Goals, Objectives and Strategies Tables are found below.

Goals and objectives are stated as “end state” conditions – they describe where stakeholders want the Raritan River Basin to be at some point in the future, rather than describing a process. In other words, “Educating the public” is not a goal or objective – it is a (very) general strategy. A goal for education is more properly stated as having “Residents, landowners and businesses who are educated and informed about the basic aspects of water resources and critical watershed management issues in the Raritan River Basin…”

Each management issue faced by the Raritan River Basin is addressed by at least one goal, but often more than one goal is necessary to fully address the issue. Likewise, it is common to have more than one objective for a goal, and more than one strategy for an objective. Considerable effort was given to developing strategies that could help meet more than one objective, and in developing strategies that could apply equally well in all three Watershed Management Areas. Even so, there is a wealth of implementation strategies contained within this plan, and coordination of implementation efforts will be necessary to ensure success.

Goals & Objectives for the Basin and Watershed Management Areas

For the most part, the goals, objectives and strategies are presented by Watershed Management Area. The major exception is for education and outreach goals, where stakeholders recognized the close similarity among goals and objectives developed for the three Watershed Management Areas, and work on goal and objective consolidation began soon enough to allow completion. Time did not permit consolidation of other goals and objectives where they were similar, because the Raritan Project was ended early. In addition, stakeholders for the most part decided that having unique goals and objectives for each Watershed Management Area would not be a significant problem, as most interests would focus within their area and as such would not see the overlaps. Consolidation is still a possibility over time, though little focus will be given to it. With plan completion, the major focus is on implementation of the strategies. Even with regard to education and outreach goals and objectives, some WMA Committees identified additional goals and objectives to use along with the basin-wide consolidated statements.

Raritan Basin Education and Outreach Goals & Objectives

Basin Education & Outreach Table of Goals, Objectives and Strategies

As discussed above, the only goals and objectives established at the Basin level are for Education and Outreach.  The problem statement is as follows:

“Most residents of the Raritan Basin seem to support water quality and water supply issues.  However, surveys indicate that they are not familiar with fundamental water resource facts, other critical issues of watershed management and the impacts that many of their activities have on our water resources. Efforts by local municipalities, government agencies and environmental groups to inform and involve the public have not been coordinated and are currently insufficient. Public education materials and methods are needed that are available, effective and sufficient.  Many stakeholder participants indicate that they are not comfortable with their current knowledge of watershed management techniques and therefore cannot be as effective participants as they would like. Further, most participants feel strongly that additional public participation is necessary in the planning process.”

This statement was developed in part on the evidence of a major telephone survey conducted by TechnoMetrica for the Raritan Project.  This survey, conducted in September-October 2001, included opinions from 801 randomly selected individuals.  The full report is available from NJWSA. The survey indicated that people generally were very concerned about water issues and strongly supportive of additional expenditures and additional regulation to address many types of water problems and open space preservation.  However, people also showed little actual technical knowledge of the water issues, often misunderstanding the nature of water pollution and pollution sources, the definition of watershed, etc.  Although people are supportive of water protection, the concern is that support may fade if people do not become more knowledgeable about the issues.

The four basin-wide goals for Education and Outreach are as follows:

Goals & Objectives: South Branch Watershed Management Area

N&S Branch Raritan Tables of Goals, Objectives and Strategies

The North & South Branch WMA goals and objectives are linked to this document. They are divided according to the following major issues, which generally correspond with the work group structure established by the WMA Committee: Land Use and Open Space; Headwaters and Stream Management; and Stormwater Management and Hydrology. Education & Outreach relies on the Basin Education and Outreach goals, objectives and strategies, discussed above. Highlights among the goals are:

Goals & Objectives: Lower Raritan Watershed Management Area

Lower Raritan Table of Goals, Objectives and Strategies

The Lower Raritan WMA goals and objectives are linked to this document. They are divided according to the following major issues, which generally correspond with the work group structure established by the WMA Committee: Land Management and Open Space; Land Use, Wastewater and Water Supply; Legal and Institutional; Stormwater; Water Quality Monitoring and Modeling; Water Resources Restoration; and Education & Outreach. Highlights among the goals are:

Goals & Objectives: Millstone Watershed Management Area

Millstone Table of Goals, Objectives and Strategies

The Millstone WMA goals and objectives are linked to this document. They are divided according to the following major issues, which generally correspond with the work group structure established by the WMA Committee: Nonpoint Source Management; Open Space and Riparian Areas; Stormwater and Flooding; TMDLs; Water Supply; and Education & Outreach. Highlights among the goals are:

Relationship to Federal and State Government Goals and Objectives

The Raritan Plan supports a number of key Federal and State goals and objectives. Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NJDEP have a similar focus on surface water quality. The Clean Water Act has a goal of “fishable, swimmable” waters, but beyond that also calls for surface water quality that supports other designated uses such as potable water supply. New Jersey law also has similar requirements for both surface water and ground water. In both cases, NJDEP is responsible for regulating many pollutant sources, but requires assistance from local governments, landowners and others to address nonpoint source pollutants, septic system impacts, stream erosion and other activities that affect water quality.

One cause for reduced stream ecosystem health is the loss of riparian areas along streams. Although NJDEP regulates stream encroachments and wetlands development, it has little authority to regulate land uses outside of these two areas but within the riparian areas. Zoning, subdivision and site design practices, along with land acquisition, can play a major role in protecting riparian areas and, as a result, stream health. In addition, nearly all riparian area and stream restoration occurs through local action, by governmental agencies, non-profits and volunteers.

Water supply is a major concern in New Jersey. Unlike water quality, there is little Federal law that affects water supply quantity. New Jersey law mandates that NJDEP regulate major withdrawals of water from surface and ground water supplies, but again NJDEP needs assistance from local governments to ensure that smaller withdrawals don’t stress limited aquifers. Because many of the Raritan Basin’s poorer aquifers are attracting exurban development that relies on domestic wells, municipal zoning and subdivision practices can have a greater impact on water supply than NJDEP regulations. The Highlands portion of the Raritan Basin is part of a larger region given special recognition by the State Development and Redevelopment Plan and the US Forest Service Highlands Regional Study.

Stormwater management is rising quickly as a major issue, affecting flooding, stream stability and water quality. Linked to stormwater management is the loss of ground water recharge caused by new impervious surfaces. In both cases, the problem is caused by changes in the natural pattern of water flow. NJDEP has and is improving its stormwater management regulations, but municipal and county action is required to implement many of these requirements.

Relationship to Local Government Goals and Objectives

The Raritan Project has been relatively successful in achieving municipal involvement. Many members of environmental commissions, planning boards, governing bodies and municipal staff have participated throughout the planning process. Their involvement was spurred by need – the need to understand how new and existing land uses use, affect and impair water resources, and the need for better tools to manage those impacts. The Raritan River Basin ranges from heavily urbanized to rural. Each municipality has their own issues, but these issues are truly shared by others. Cooperative effort to understand the issues, the management techniques and the costs of success and failure, and cooperative effort to implement the best techniques, will help municipalities address the water resource concerns of their residents and businesses.

Table of Contents

Characterization and Assessment of Key Issues (Section C)

The Raritan Basin Watershed Management Project has produced seven technical and two background reports, written to characterize and assess the condition of the Raritan River Basin. This section summarizes these reports. The characterization and assessment reports do not offer solutions to issues, but rather are a collection of findings about the Basin and a foundation for the development of the watershed management plan. A complete summary of the characterization and assessment reports is found in “Portrait of a Watershed: the Raritan River Basin.” Full details are provided in the seven technical reports and two background reports at www.raritanbasin.org/technical_reports.htm. These reports are:

The Raritan River Basin has many streams that are considered unimpaired and many subwatersheds with a great deal of natural forest cover. Threatened and endangered species find homes in the Basin, and regulatory actions over the last thirty years have stayed or reversed some of the worst surface water and ground water pollution problems. New management practices are being adopted by municipal, County and State government, and implemented voluntarily by some interests such as farmers. The Raritan Basin faces both challenges and opportunities and its residents and decision-makers must act quickly if the Basin’s resources are to be protected.

The Raritan Basin is the largest river basin located entirely within the State of New Jersey and is the watershed for the Raritan River and its many tributaries. Centrally located in New Jersey, the Raritan Basin is bounded by the Passaic River Basin to the North, by the Delaware River Basin to the West, by the Atlantic Coastal Basin to the South, and by the Hudson River Estuary (including the Arthur Kill area - the Metropolitan Watershed Management Area) to the Northeast. The Raritan Basin encompasses 1,100 square miles of land drained by the Raritan River into the Raritan Bay. Portions of seven counties and 100 municipalities are contained within the Basin. Counties partially or wholly within the Raritan Basin include Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Somerset, and Union. Figure 1 presents the Raritan Basin with political (municipal and county) boundaries and major roadways. The northwestern area is within the Highlands region, an area recognized as special within the State Development and Redevelopment Act and federal law.

Raritan Basin with Political Boundaries, Figure 1

Major waterways within the Raritan Basin include the North and South Branches of the Raritan River, the Millstone River, the Stony Brook, the main stem Raritan River, Bound Brook, Green Brook, the South River, Lawrence Brook, and all of their tributary streams. For planning purposes, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) divided the State into five watershed planning regions and twenty watershed management areas. The Raritan Basin contains three Watershed Management Areas: the Upper Raritan, containing the North and South Branches of the Raritan River above their confluence; the Lower Raritan, containing the Raritan River, Bound Brook, South River, and Lawrence Brook; and the Millstone, containing the Millstone River and Stony Brook. Figure 1 indicates the three watershed management areas within the Raritan Basin.

The Raritan Basin ranges in elevation from sea level near the Raritan Bay to over 1,400 feet near Budd Lake in Morris County. In the northern portion of the Basin, the topography is steeply sloped with incised stream valleys. In the southern portion of the Basin, the topography is more gently sloped. The difference in topography of the Basin is related to the underlying geology. The surface and bedrock materials of the Raritan Basin reflect three distinct types of geology of the State of New Jersey: the Highlands, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain Provinces. The geologic composition of the soil and bedrock materials influences the rate of erosion, soil drainage capabilities, surface water runoff, and ground water recharge potential.

The Highlands province in the northwestern portion of the Basin contains soils weathered from eroding bedrock and glacial deposits that are generally shallow and stony with frequent rock outcrops. Highland soils are generally well drained, but some poorly draining soils are found in depressions and along streams. The Piedmont province in the central portion of the Basin contains sedimentary rock and is characterized by gently rolling terrain, dissected by broad winding river valleys. Piedmont soils are known as well drained silty soils formed in weathered red shale; however, areas of shallow, poorly drained soils are found in upland areas. The Coastal Plain province consists of sandy aggregates with a wide variety of drainage conditions in the southeastern portion of the Basin. Coastal Plain soils are described as moderately to well drained fine textured sediments with low-lying areas of poor drainage. Figure 3 presents the topography and major landforms of the Raritan Basin.

Raritan Basin with Topography, Figure 3

Six major issues (along with many other issues) were identified through the characterization and assessment process. These issues, addressed in more detail below, are:

Surface Water Pollution

The Clean Water Act, the New Jersey Water Quality Planning Act and the NJ Water Pollution Control Act all focus attention on surface water pollution control. The Raritan Basin has significant levels of surface water pollution – more than other watersheds in NJ and less than others.

NPS Dominated Watersheds, Figure 4

Two key surface water quality problems in the Basin are high levels of phosphorus (a nutrient that comes from fertilizers, animals and human sewage) and fecal coliform bacteria (an indicator of disease-causing bacteria that comes from animals and human sewage). While phosphorus comes from both sewage treatment plants and nonpoint sources (including natural sources), fecal coliform bacteria come almost entirely from nonpoint sources such as septic system failure and animals (both domestic and wild). Other water quality issues in the Basin include hardness and pH, both of which may be natural conditions, and excessive water temperature for trout, usually caused by stormwater runoff and the loss of streambank vegetation. The Raritan Basin has widespread stream ecosystem impairment, usually moderate but sometimes severe. A few pesticides have been found at levels that can harm human health and aquatic life.

Raritan Project reports indicate that nonpoint sources provide the majority of many pollutants in the Basin, and in many locations are the entire issue. However, where they exist and are large relative to river flow, point sources are often important at lower flows when streams are most stressed. Perhaps the most important lesson of these reports is that surface water pollution control plans for many Raritan Basin watersheds will focus entirely on nonpoint sources. Others must address both point and nonpoint sources, and there are none where control of point sources alone will likely be sufficient to correct problems. NJDEP will be developing TMDLs (i.e., surface water pollution control plans) over time, but management measures can be taken now based on simpler methods using graphs (see sidebar example) and a knowledge of land uses and riparian corridor quality.

Example charts showing point and nonpoint source loads, Figure 5

The most common water quality trend for the Raritan Basin is increasing levels of total dissolved solids, chloride and sodium – in other words, salt. While concentrations are still below water quality standards, this trend is a real concern. Sodium is a health hazard and chloride causes taste problems in drinking water. Treatment costs for both are very high. In addition, salt in fresh water places a major stress on aquatic life.

Loss of Riparian Areas

National research shows that the ecological health of a stream depends heavily on its riparian area, the land area on both sides of streams. Engineering solutions and stormwater management approaches are incapable of providing value equal to that of natural riparian areas. The Raritan Project took a close look at this issue.

Raritan Basin Riparian Area Losses, Figure 6

Riparian areas in the Raritan Basin historically covered approximately 28 percent of the Upper Raritan WMA, 37 percent of the Lower Raritan WMA, and 34 percent of the Millstone WMA. Losses within specific subwatersheds range from minimal to over 80 percent as of 1995, with average losses of 32 percent in the Upper Raritan, 31 percent in the Lower Raritan and 28 percent in the Millstone. Historically, most riparian losses were initially to agriculture, and then urban land uses replaced farming. Recently, most losses are to development, and only rarely to agriculture. In the Lower Raritan, most losses are now to urban land, while in the Upper Raritan and Millstone the losses to urban and agriculture are about equal. The heaviest losses are in the urban areas of Union, Middlesex and Somerset County, but the Neshanic River watershed (with some of the worst water quality in the Basin) shows significant losses (over 40 percent), mostly to agriculture.

Biological Impairment of Streams

The ecological health of streams is controlled by many natural and human factors. Soils, recharge, slope, vegetation and other natural factors determine the type of ecosystem each stream can support. Watershed land uses, pollutant loadings, stream channelization, riparian area protection, stormwater management and other human factors determine how far from natural a stream will be.

NJDEP assesses streams for ecological health every five years, while some watershed associations have more frequent biological monitoring. The Raritan Project reports use both data sets. Using NJDEP’s basin-wide work, the number of severely and moderately impaired streams increased from 1993 to 1998, though some streams improved.

Loss of Ground Water Recharge

Ground water is the lifeblood of a watershed, although most people don’t realize it. Not only does ground water provide drinking water to most rural areas and many suburban areas of the Basin, ground water provides as much as 80 percent of stream flow – all the natural flow that is in streams during dry periods. Though stormwater runoff is important for short periods, it is ground water that keeps stream ecosystems – and surface water supplies for people – healthy.

For these reasons, the Raritan Project used a NJ Geological Survey model to assess ground water recharge rates in 1986 and 1995. The recharge assessed by this method may flow quickly to streams (over days to months) or may flow slowly to aquifers and reach streams much later – even decades later. The assessment results were startling – one of the biggest surprises in the project. Two subwatersheds showed estimated losses of over 20 percent in just 10 years, and many others showed losses between 15 and 20 percent. These losses can have a major impact on stream flows and aquifer stability.

Raritan Basin Ground Water Recharge Losses, Figure 7

The primary reason for recharge declines is the increase in impervious surfaces (buildings, pavement, sidewalks, compacted soils, etc.). Paved areas like this rarely provide for ground water recharge (because runoff is usually routed to stormwater systems that discharge to surface water), and so each square mile of impervious surface results in a loss from 120,000 to over 600,000 gallons per year of recharge, imperiling streams and aquifers. New regulations of the NJDEP promise to significantly change new development practices, but not existing losses.

In addition to ground water recharge, we must be concerned about the quality of ground water. Urban and rural areas of the Raritan Basin both have many contaminated ground water sites. These sites are usually the result of historical discharges, from a time when ground water quality was not well regulated. We can expect fewer such cases in the future, due to intensive NJDEP regulations. Cleanups are occurring, though some problems will require decades to remedy.

One type of discharge to ground will continue, however. Rural and many suburban areas do and will rely heavily on septic systems to treat human sewage from individual houses and small businesses. Septic systems can play a valuable role in recharging ground water that comes from on-site wells. However, septic systems can damage ground water quality if they are concentrated too densely within a subwatershed. While septic systems discharge many types of pollutants, nitrate levels are used as a good indicator of septic system impacts.

The Raritan Project used a NJ Geological Survey model to estimate the number of septic systems that could be supported in each subwatershed, based on a nitrate target level of 5.5 milligrams per liter. While this level is lower than the State water quality criterion of 10 milligrams per liter, it is considerably higher than natural levels. Using this target, no Basin subwatershed can support septic systems at average densities higher than 1.6 acres per septic system. A lower nitrate target – as advocated by many who wish to preserve better ground water quality – would increase those average lot sizes, reducing the amount of development allowed.

Water Supply Limitations

Water supply is a foundation of civilized life. We build with it, bath with it, drink it and do practically everything else with it. On average, water use in the Basin is more than 100 gallons per day per resident, near the norm for this region of the country. This figure covers in-home and office use, lawn irrigation, agriculture, manufacturing and municipal uses such as firefighting. Parts of the Basin and the majority of homes and businesses rely on surface water supplies, but the majority of the Basin geographic area relies on ground water supplies using both public and on-site wells.

Everyone is aware of droughts. It is easy to see the impacts on surface waters, such as the Spruce Run and Round Valley Reservoirs and local streams. It is much harder to see declining ground water levels. The question then is one of carrying capacity – how much water use can the Raritan Basin sustain over time, both for people and ecosystems?

So let’s look at supplies. Surface water supplies are relatively easy to measure, because they rely on both stream flows and reservoir storage of known size. The Spruce Run/Round Valley Reservoir Complex plus the Delaware & Raritan Canal, all operated by the NJ Water Supply Authority, have a safe yield of 225 million gallons per day. Safe yield is the quantity of water that could be delivered reliably during a repeat of the drought of record (the 1960’s drought unless the current drought gets worse), and is derived using models of storage levels, river flow and demands. Ground water supplies, on the other hand, are spread out, hard to measure and extremely variable from area to area. Perhaps 85 to 135 million gallons per day are available.

Map showing population changes, Figure 8

For these reasons, the population density increases in rural and suburban areas is a water supply concern. These areas are usually dependant on ground water – care must be taken to ensure that demand does not outstrip supply. Providing public supplies to rural areas is extremely expensive and substituting surface water for ground water in public supply areas may create conflicting demands for a limited resource.

Another water supply issue relates to wastewater sewers. The Raritan Project mapped the sewer service areas for municipal systems.  Sewage treatment plants in much of suburban Hunterdon, Morris, Mercer, Monmouth and Somerset Counties discharge within the Basin, allowing the water to be reused or at least to support stream flow. Most of these plants are small – only one exceeds 10 million gallons per day. Much of the public water in Union and Middlesex Counties is used once and then discharged to the Raritan Bay through treatment systems that are among the largest in the State.

Stormwater Impacts

All land provides some runoff in a heavy storm. However, natural lands are capable of absorbing nearly all stormwater runoff during light storms, ensuring that the rain is recharged or used by plants. Pavement, on the other hand, causes stormwater runoff in all but the very lightest storms and allows no recharge or plant use. Compacted lawns can create similar conditions. The result is more stormwater in our streams, causing problems.

Most of the urban land that we will have in 2010 already exists. Some historic urban areas have essentially no stormwater controls – the priority then was getting water into the streams as fast as possible. Since the 1970’s stormwater controls have gradually improved, to control stormwater quality and discharge rates from new development sites. However, we still don’t correct most old systems and rarely maintain systems properly even when they are well built. Finally, we rarely manage stormwater on a watershed basis. Unfortunately, uncoordinated site-specific controls don’t provide sufficient environmental protection in most cases.

One of the major impacts of urbanization on streams is disrupted stream hydrology. Stream hydrology is defined as the study of the movement or flow of water, and understanding water balance is essential to understanding the impact of development on urban streams. New impervious cover generally causes an increase in runoff and decrease in both recharge and evapotranspiration from a site.

Floods are a bit more complicated than stormwater, but flood damages have a similar cause. Putting people and urban uses in harms way, attempting to address watershed problems through site-specific solutions, and controlling stormwater in ways that can actually make flooding worse (especially on small streams) have typified our approach. While site-specific stormwater management probably had minimal impact on Hurricane Floyd damages, the costs of smaller storms can be affected by how we manage the land.

Figure 9

This diagram shows how development and its corresponding increase in impervious cover disrupts the natural water balance. In the post-development setting, the amount of water running off the site is dramatically increased.

From Center for Watershed Protection “Impacts of Urbanization"

 

Table of Contents

 

Implementation Strategies (Section D)

The Goals, Objectives and Strategies Tables list the implementation strategies necessary to achieve the priority objectives in each Watershed Management Area. Additional work is needed on many implementation strategies, but could not be performed by December 2002. The Vision Statement, goals and objectives in many ways can be seen as the “heart and soul” of the Raritan Basin Watershed Management Plan, but the implementation strategies are the real “muscle” – they are the means by which this basin will move from the present to a better future. It is critical to note that the Raritan Plan is not a regulatory document – every strategy requires voluntary actions at some level before it is implemented.

Highlights of the Implementation Strategies

There are too many implementation strategies to list here. This section summarizes some of the key strategies that will change how water and water-related resources are managed in the Raritan River Basin. They are grouped according to the six major issue categories, which in turn related to the eleven issue categories identified by stakeholder participants early in 2001. An appendix of this plan also categorizes strategies by the recommended lead entity for their implementation (e.g., NJDEP, other state agencies, county government, municipal government, non-profit sector, profit sector).

NOTE: Each Strategy has a unique identifier based on the Watershed Management Area or Basin Committee (e.g., NS, LR, M or RB), the subcommittee or work group that developed it, and then the number of the strategy. For example, the Lower Raritan Land Management Subcommittee’s strategies are all denoted LRLM. LRLM-S1C5 is the fifth Strategy (the “5”) related to the third Objective (the “C”) of Goal #1 (the “1”). This numbering system allows ready reference back to the master tables.

Basin Transformational Strategies

Some strategies were identified through the three WMA Committees that would involve major changes in how Basin water resources are perceived, protected and managed. These strategies are termed “transformational” because of their enormous potential, if implemented. A small number of these strategies were developed by panels of experts who met with NJWSA to discuss the issues. NJWSA then developed the strategy worksheets. The transformational strategies are:

RB-S1 – Focus land preservation on high priority lands to protect lands that are critical to the quality and quantity of Basin ground and surface water resources

RB-S2 – All municipalities adopt land use provisions in their master plans and ordinances requiring that developments preserve critical areas for water resource protection.

RB-S3 – Develop an integrated water budget system (ground and surface water, graded from subwatershed to regional aquifers) that accurately defines available supplies for human and ecological uses and identifies stressed areas based on current and future needs. Allocate water yields within sustainable levels as determined by water budgets for each geographic unit.

RB-S4 – Finance and construct a new Raritan Basin surface water supply facility in conformance with the NJ Statewide Water Supply Plan to meet projected reasonable and necessary demands in surface water supplies.

RB-S5 – Create a policy and planning “toolbox” for municipalities and developers that can be used to control development impacts, including environmentally sensitive zoning and site design techniques such as low impact development and smart growth methods. Provide training for municipalities (e.g., municipal and consultant planners and engineers and land use boards) and developers (e.g., engineers, planners, architects and landscape architects) and provide technical and planning assistance to municipalities in using the toolbox.

RB-S6 – Develop local institutional capacity to ensure implementation and proper operation, maintenance, upgrades and replacement of stormwater management systems for the purposes of flow control and pollutant loading controls, in a manner that assists with implementation of municipal stormwater NJPDES permits to be required by NJDEP and is consistent with a comprehensive, regional stormwater management program.

RB-S7 – Develop and implement watershed-based stormwater management plans for all watersheds with major existing or anticipated development, to ensure no degradation of stream ecosystems or increase in flooding and mitigate existing impacts.

RB-S8 – Implement a ground water recharge restoration pilot project in each physiographic province in subwatersheds that have lost significant recharge due to past land use changes.

Education and Outreach

RBEO-S1A5 – Improve education of students (and through them, their parents) about water and Raritan Basin issues through increased training of teachers using existing programs (e.g., Project WET, NJ Audubon Society’s WATERS curriculum, teacher training programs offered by watershed associations) and additional programs as the need is identified.

RBEO-S1B2 - Improve education of residents and homeowners (especially those within or near riparian areas and significant ground water recharge areas) through replication and expansion of the Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association’s River Friendly Resident program or other similar programs. Encourage residents and homeowners to take personal actions beneficial to the watershed

RBEO-S3B1 – Coordinate and promote participation in implementation projects that will interest a larger variety of stakeholders, resulting in their active involvement

Flooding

NSSM-S1A1: Implement a federal level flood damage reduction study to:

MSW-S1B1: Conduct watershed based analyses for flood reduction projects.

NSSM-S1B7: Develop & implement watershed-based stormwater management plans for all watersheds with major existing or proposed development areas with evidence of localized flood damages.

LRSW-S4A2:  Provide assistance to municipalities and counties to develop and implement local and regional stormwater management plans that incorporate the following:

LRSW-S3B1:  Establish voluntary and regulatory measures that will minimize future flood damages. Require state, county and municipal regulation of stormwater from new development and redevelopment to accomplish the following:

MSW-S1A2: Create a public process to solicit opinions on acceptable levels of flood damage reductions and acceptable flood damage reduction solutions. Determine public demands and government requirements for flood damage reductions.

Riparian Areas and Surface Waters

NSLU-S1B4: Promote the preservation of open space by promoting the use of the Raritan Basin water resources protection open space criteria by land preservation entities and municipalities.

MOR-S1B: Work with SBMWA to get all 26 municipalities to incorporate water resources open space planning and riparian area protection into their master plan.

MOR-S2A1: Get all open space and land trust organizations in the Millstone WMA to use the water resources protection open space criteria or the like to achieve and coordinate with their broader organizational purposes.

NSLU-S1D4: Encourage the implementation of municipal ordinances (e.g., tree protection, stream corridor) that require reforestation of publicly owned lands and personal property along water resources of the WMA.

NSHW-S1C1: Provide specific guidance to encourage municipalities to implement headwaters protection and enforcement.

NSHW-S2B1 and LRWR-S1C1: Establish and carry out a coordinated, watershed based, governmental and private sector effort to plan and implement restoration activities that will improve the function and quality of headwater streams.

MOR-S3B1: Create an “Adopt-a-Stream” program of stream bank restoration and reforestation opportunities for businesses, schools, and environmental groups.

Stormwater and Nonpoint Source Management

NSSM-S2B2: Require project designs that minimize impervious surface and retain native vegetation for landscaping. Designs should utilize the pervious landscape to naturally filter and infiltrate runoff before it leaves the development site where possible.

NSSM-S3A1: Create financial or other incentives for incorporating BMPs, reducing NPS loads, etc. beyond current standards in development and redevelopment projects.

NSSM-S3A2: Adopt requirements for new development to protect water quality. Project designs shall:

LRSW-S1B2:  Improve the effectiveness of new stormwater management systems to protect and restore watershed health through restored baseflows and controlled storm flows. Require regulation of stormwater from new development and redevelopment to accomplish the following:

LRLU-S3A4:  Adopt site plan provisions mandating minimum disturbance of lands that have attributes likely to exacerbate NPS loadings if developed, such as highly erodible soils, steep slopes, acid producing soils.

MSW-S2A1: Determine the cause of scour, erosion and sedimentation in degraded stream channels and identify and design projects to remedy.

LRSW-S1A2: Improve the effectiveness of existing stormwater management systems to protect and restore watershed health through restored base flows and controlled storm flows. Establish methods, priorities and projects for retrofit of existing systems to accomplish the following:

MNP-S1B6: Implement a campaign to reduce excess lawn fertilizer use, including a phosphorus fertilizer ordinance

MNP-S1E2: Implementation of agricultural nutrient management plans and integrated crop management

MNP-S1A4: Implement pilot watershed measures, under US Fish and Wildlife Eastern US Migratory Bird Control Program, to reduce resident and non-resident geese waste impact on water quality

NSSM-S2B4 and LRSW-S4B1: Create local funding capacity (e.g., stormwater utility, municipal or county department, or private utility), to ensure adequate, ongoing funding for stormwater management activities and to provide funding to contribute to regional stormwater management projects.

Water Quality

LRWQ-S1A1: Develop and implement an initiative for each subwatershed to maintain water quality from 2004 forward in water bodies that meet water quality standards.

LRWQ-S1A3: Develop and implement an initiative to temporarily improve point source discharge quality for specific parameters of concern during extreme low flows where such actions are determined to be significantly beneficial to the water body.

LRWQ-S1C1: Develop and implement an initiative to improve point source and nonpoint source discharges to treat key pollutants that lack criteria but raise substantive health issues.

LRWQ-S1D3: Develop and implement a citizen water quality monitoring network in each subwatershed to allow for reassessment every four years, at a minimum.

LRLU-S4A3: Develop and implement zoning provisions and ordinances and resolutions regulating the siting, design, density and maintenance of septic systems in order to maintain no additional net negative impact to water resources. These provisions shall include, but not be limited to:

Water Supply

MWS-S1A1: Develop an integrated water budget system (ground and surface water, from subwatershed and local aquifer to Raritan River Basin and major aquifer) by 2005 that includes updated definition (including modifications based on provisions to reduce the need for drought declarations through a more conservative estimate of safe and dependable yields) and estimates of safe and dependable yields (both from within the target area and available through inter-watershed transfers), current water uses and water allocations, adopted through either Statewide Water Supply Plan (advisory document) or Water Quality Management Plans (regulatory).

MWS-S1A2: Determine reasonable potential water supply needs of future land uses, availability relative to the water budgets, and equitable allocation relative to category of water user, using water supplies of quality and dependability that correspond to the legitimate needs of the user (i.e., highest quality and dependability for sensitive ecosystems and potable water supply), and adopt through either Statewide Water Supply Plan (advisory document) or Water Quality Management Plans (regulatory).

MWS-S1A3: Develop and implement actions to bring into balance water use demands in specific subwatersheds, watersheds, local aquifers and regional aquifers where the water budget indicates that internal demands exceed available safe and dependable supplies (both from within the target area and available through inter-watershed transfers).

LRLU-S4B1: Implement and enforce water supply capacity limits for suppliers based on the water budgets developed for the WMA so that entities within the WMA will not be permitted to exceed their water supply capacity limits.

MWS-S1C1: Implement ground water restoration pilot project in at least one subwatershed in the Coastal Plain and the Piedmont that has experienced significant loss of estimated ground water recharge, to determine the most appropriate methods and most significant limitations to recharge restoration

MWS-S1D2: Develop and implement site- and watershed-specific beneficial reuse and creative, alternative or non-traditional supply projects to maximize the benefits of used water, within the sustainable capacity identified in the water budget.

MWS-S1D5: Implement an incentive-based program to retrofit existing buildings and landscapes to reduce water use and to provide for rapid and targeted drought conservation.

LRLU-S2A3: Develop and implement programs to reduce peak daily and average annual per capita water withdrawals through water conservation and re-use.

Table of Contents

Summary of Implementation Challenges & Recommendations

The greatest challenge to successful implementation of a watershed plan derives from its greatest strength – the comprehensive and integrated coverage of important issues. The Raritan Basin Watershed Management Plan addresses resource issues in context. Each issue and the methods used to resolve it will affect other issues and the implementation strategies used for them. There are many implications to a comprehensive and integrated approach, but two stand out:

Public and Political Understanding and Support Issues

The Raritan Project public opinion survey, performed by TechnoMetrica in September/October 2001, clearly shows a very high level of public support for water resources protection(1). “The water resource issue of the most importance to residents is quality of water--drinking, ground, and surface (79%, 67%, and 65%, respectively). A majority of residents (62%) also feel that the development of forests, wetlands, and farmlands is an important issue facing Central Jersey. ”At the same time, many residents are not really knowledgeable about water issues. Even so, action on water resources protection is highly desired. The TechnoMetrica survey report noted:

Finally, TechnoMetrica noted, “The public tends to be critical of government efforts to protect water resources from development. Communications to educate the public on what the government is doing and what it plans to do could help to change this perception.” The survey participants scored government efforts as very poor, poor or fair 63% of the time. The survey results raise several concerns. The combination of high concern with relatively low detailed knowledge means that the public is relying on perception of issues, primarily drawn from their reading of newspapers and watching of television news. Misinformation is possible.

Watershed management is a fairly complex field, in part due to the interconnected issues and in part because much of the science is new or evolving. When experts disagree, the public will tend to rely on people that they perceive as authoritative sources or opinion leaders, or will fall back to their own perception of environmental changes or government competence. Other opinion surveys have indicated a generally low perception of government competence overall, even in areas where the public truly understands the issues.

A second and related concern about the public opinion survey results is that support, while high and seemingly stable over time, could be fragile in that people often do not understand the detailed issues. A concerted public campaign could change that support in many ways, depending on the nature of the campaign. People could be convinced that the issues and answers are simpler than reality allows, and thus expect quick and decisive results where few are possible. The TechnoMetrica survey clearly shows that people generally believe that large dischargers have the dominant impact on water resources, and that people in general have little impact, even though evidence from the Raritan Project and other technical studies clearly shows the importance of nonpoint source contributions (and the total dominance of NPS pollution in some watersheds where there are no wastewater treatment plants). Those interested in downplaying a problem might be able to convince people that a problem is less severe than in reality (although this might be the harder sell).

Public officials have not been surveyed for their level of support for watershed improvements and protection. However, practical evidence from the Raritan Project and similar efforts indicates that many municipal and county officials are at least somewhat concerned about these issues and at least somewhat willing to address them. Given the level of public support for water resources protection, and given that local officials are drawn from the ranks of the general public, this concern and interest is understandable. The reasons for action vary – growth management, rehabilitation of recreational facilities along urban rivers and estuaries, flood damage reductions and infrastructure management are all raised by various local leaders. There are many reasons why local action is slow, however. Lack of funding, lack of technical knowledge and access to expertise, time constraints, and opposition from those who might be harmed in some fashion by watershed management all have been cited as constraints. In each case, the underlying common issue is competition – for time, money, attention, etc. The Raritan Plan will be successful only to the extent that key aspects of the plan provide justification for reallocating resources and attention, whether through voluntary action, incentive-based action, or regulatory action.

Institutional Capacity Issues

There are many organizations, agencies, governments and private institutions that have fully qualified staff, stable or increasing resources, a sound mission and competent management, capable of implementing the Raritan Plan. Institutional capacity is created by the combination of legal authority to act, knowledge and skills, sound leadership and management, sufficient qualified staff or volunteers, sufficient financing, and a means of assuring cooperation on the part of those affected. Many of these attributes (though certainly not all) require funding.

No entities, individually or in combination, can successfully implement the entire Plan at their current level of staffing, capital funding and, in some cases, statutory authority.

It is clear that successful implementation of the Raritan Plan requires efforts far in excess of current programs. As one example, several non-profit organizations and government agencies know how to stabilize and restored stream banks and reforest riparian areas. However, working at their current pace, it would likely take these organizations and agencies decades to address all of the existing restoration needs, by which time more streams will need work and some streams will need a second restoration. Further, they would need a completely new approach to addressing restoration needs on private lands where the landowners are not willing cooperators. Finally, many restoration efforts will fail unless stream flows from stormwater are better controlled.

This one example – stream restoration – is repeated for many issues within this plan. What entities can address stormwater systems retrofit issues? Who will develop watershed-based stormwater management plans to address the majority of the Raritan River Basin that needs them? What institution could restore ground water recharge to replace losses of 25% or more of total recharge? Can we acquire enough forested lands to play a major role in water quality protection? Who can effectively reduce phosphorus pollutant loads from land uses such as suburban lawns?

Every level of New Jersey government, in consultation with the non-profit and private sectors, needs to consider methods of improving institutional capacity for water resources management, including watershed management. No one level of government or any one sector can address the entire need; NJDEP regulatory mandates can achieve much but cannot possibly achieve all. In some cases, existing capabilities can be expanded – no new institutional structure will be needed, just an improvement to current agencies and organizations. In other cases, entirely new entities will be needed. Key institutional needs identified by the Raritan Plan include:

Funding Issues

The issues of institutional capacity and funding are inextricably linked. Institutional capacity requires funding, although the provision of funding alone is not adequate, as noted above. The Raritan Plan does not include a detailed budget, and it may be impossible to develop such a budget basin-wide. However, it is clear from the various implementation strategies that the capital costs are large for land acquisition, stormwater system retrofits, increased water protection measures in new development and redevelopment, etc. Organizational costs (both public and non-profit) will also be high, given the need for many additional practitioners who are trained and competent in the various aspects of watershed management. It would not be unreasonable to estimate total costs over two to three decades in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Resources are currently available to cover some of these costs, but certainly not all. Current resources include open space and farmland preservation funds, compliance costs covered by development sales prices, existing water supply and wastewater utilities, and the availability of low-cost loans for water infrastructure projects. Some of these funding sources can be increased to cover new needs, or the new needs can be met by decreasing other costs.

The largest unmet costs of the Raritan Plan will involve improved management of existing land uses. Funding will be needed to improve agricultural management practices, management of urban and suburban land uses (e.g., lawns and streets), stormwater systems, ground water recharge, monitoring and assessment, public education, etc. In addition, there are costs involved in improving land use planning and development controls that cannot be charged to developers; municipalities, counties and other watershed partners will need to raise resources – either internally or externally – to cover these necessary costs.

A relatively small but important need will be the annual cost of up to $100,000 for maintaining the Basin-wide coordination of Raritan Plan implementation.

Legal and Regulatory Issues

The Raritan Plan relies to a great extent on cooperative, voluntary actions by self-interested parties. The philosophy behind the plan is that regulatory measures only make sense where voluntary action is infeasible or insufficient, and where failure to implement voluntary actions will create, exacerbate or sustain a problem. Such situations exist. There are a number of proposals in the Raritan Plan for increased regulatory actions at various levels of government.

It is worth noting that in each case, some voluntary action is necessary for the regulatory effort to begin. If NJDEP is to mandate some action, NJDEP must voluntarily decide to adopt the regulation. If NJDEP is mandated to adopt a regulation, it is because the Legislature voluntarily decided to place that mandate in State law. If the Raritan Plan proposes improved management of development impacts, municipalities and counties must decide that they will adopt the appropriate ordinances or resolutions to do so.

In essence, implementation of the Raritan Plan (and every other management initiative) is entirely based on voluntary decisions at some level – individual, private organization, municipal, county, State, Federal – to move forward, whether the method of moving forward results in voluntary action, incentives or regulatory mandates.

In most cases, existing State laws authorize the regulatory actions called for in the Raritan Plan. The strategies anticipate that some governing body or agency will use those existing authorities in ways new to them or new in general, but news laws are not needed. However, the Raritan Plan does identify several cases where new or modified statutory authorities would assist plan implementation. They are:

Table of Contents

Evaluation of Plan Implementation Progress (Section E)

The Raritan Plan includes a wide variety of evaluation methods for the various strategies. In the long term, the most important evaluation relates to actual environmental quality – water quality, ecosystem health, aquifer levels and stream flow, etc. Evaluation of available surface water quality data showed clearly that the current monitoring network is limited in its utility. Combining that network with modeling to estimate water quality and flows along intermediate stream reaches can overcome some limitations of the water quality monitoring network, but not all. Ground water data are even sparser, both for ground water levels and quality, and intensive regional modeling is probably not cost-effective. Therefore, the use of indicator locations and parameters will be needed to determine whether the Raritan Plan is effective. In addition, monitoring partnerships will be needed – no one agency or entity can accomplish all needs.

It is also important to note that the Raritan Plan cannot and will not operate in a vacuum. State, national and local initiatives (e.g., economic, infrastructure, environmental, social) will occur, completely separate from the Raritan Plan, that will have an effect on the Raritan Plan’s success in many ways. The Raritan Plan must adapt to changing circumstances, and evaluation of its success will change with the Plan. This is one of the functions anticipated for the coordinating structure discussed in Implementing the Raritan Basin Watershed Management Plan.

Method for Revising Plan Based on Evaluations

The Raritan Plan is a collection of goals, objectives and strategies that will be implemented by a wide array of interests, from the State to landowners. As such, it is inappropriate for the Raritan Plan to be “adopted” per se by any entity. Rather, various interests should identify key aspects of the Raritan Plan that they will implement and make a commitment to that end, using any appropriate approach (e.g., policy statement, regulation, ordinance, resolution, purchase decision).

The Raritan Project stakeholders recognize that no plan is static. Changes will be needed in response to new ideas, circumstances, funding changes, regulatory mandates, etc. The anticipated coordination structure for Implementing the Raritan Basin Watershed Management Plan will provide an avenue for changing the plan as needed, in the same manner that it was developed – stakeholder consensus.

Table of Contents

Summary of the Planning and Decision-Making Process (Section F)

The Raritan Basin Watershed Management Project was developed by Raritan Basin stakeholders in the mid-1990’s, and formally began through a Memorandum of Agreement between the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and the NJ Water Supply Authority (NJWSA). The Memorandum of Agreement was signed in February 1999 and addressed the process of developing a Characterization and Assessment of the Raritan River Basin. The two agencies developed a second Memorandum of Agreement, signed in October 2000 and lasting through FY 2003, which addressed the development of the Raritan Basin Watershed Management Plan. Due to a reorientation of NJDEP’s watershed management process, the project was ended six months early and did not receive its full allocation of funds, but did complete the Raritan Plan.

The characterization and assessment process involved a wide variety of stakeholder interests through a single Characterization Committee (somewhat equivalent to a Technical Advisory Committee as used in other projects, but with broad membership) and an Executive Committee that helped provide project oversight but was not a “Policy Advisory Committee” as used elsewhere. Upon signing of the second Memorandum, a more intensive and structured stakeholder involvement structure was developed that more closely reflected “standard” practice. Unlike other watershed projects in New Jersey, the Raritan Project includes three watershed management areas instead of one. Therefore, for the planning process, participants decided to form a two-level structure (see Organizational Chart, Figure 2). In both phases, though, stakeholders reviewed the issues and directed generally the work of committees, subcommittees and NJWSA staff. The details of the public involvement process are described in “Raritan Basin Watershed Management Project: Public Involvement and Decision Making Process.”

The Raritan Project made extensive used of stakeholder interviews (to determine their issues and resource needs), meeting evaluations and mid-course evaluations. NJWSA developed an extensive and well-regarded Web site at www.raritanbasin.org. Extensive reliance on email and the Web site (with hard copy equivalents for those without computer access) eased the project process.

The stakeholder participants determined the scope of issues and detailed methods for the characterization and assessment reports, reviewed draft reports, structure of the plan, and essentially all other aspects of the planning process. NJWSA staff provided research on options, “white papers” for consideration, and (where requested) drafted materials for stakeholder review.

The planning phase continued from October 2000 to December 2002, approximately six months less than originally planned. The schedule change was in response to NJDEP’s decision to completely revamp its approach to watershed management, balanced by the Raritan Basin stakeholders’ interest in completing a plan. The comprehensiveness of the plan was also affected by delays in the development of surface water quality models, caused by both national and state rule making regarding the TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) process. During the process, up to 22 committees, subcommittees and work groups operated simultaneously, with over 125 participants actively involved and many more involved less frequently. These people included organizational and government representatives, but also included many who gave of their time as individuals. Use of the Raritan Project Web site continued and intensified, with the addition of on-line slide presentations and other low and high intensity uses.

The WMA Committees and Raritan Basin Council used Operating Principles to guide stakeholder conduct in and outside of meetings regarding the Raritan Project, and to establish a framework for decision making. Recognizing that most stakeholder decisions would result in recommendations, rather than self-executing decisions, the stakeholders decided to operate on the basis of full consensus where possible (all participants agree), followed by consent (most agree and those that don’t are willing to live with the decision), followed by separate views (no consensus or consent possible, leaving decisions to others). Through process there were no instances where any stakeholder invoked the “Separate Views” provision. However, the rapid pace of strategy development from August through December 2002 stressed stakeholder resource to and sometimes beyond their limits, reducing the extent to which they were able to identify issues with the strategies. For this reason, the implementation strategies must be considered “works in progress” rather than final products with comprehensive stakeholder support.

Table of Contents

Method of Strategy Development

Stakeholders worked with NJWSA staff to develop detailed strategy descriptions. The value of these strategy worksheets is that any agency, organization, interest group or individual should be able to read the strategy worksheet in years to come and understand its relationship to specific goals and objectives, the purpose and overall approach of the strategy, and the method by which the strategy is to be implemented. While difficult to develop, these worksheets constitute a valuable source of “institutional memory” so that plan implementation is more successful.

General Categories of Strategies

Achievement of each objective will require some set of strategies. There are two basic ways to view strategies.  First, they can be seen as mandatory or voluntary. Mandatory strategies are those that are required by either law or regulation, or are chosen to achieve objectives required by law or regulation. Voluntary strategies will be implemented only if the “responsible party” agrees to do so. Because stakeholders sought to have a “change-oriented” plan, most strategies emphasize actions that are not currently mandatory, or that complement existing mandates.

Second, strategies can be seen according to the type of action required to implement them. Strategies can involve physical implementation (e.g., streambank stabilization), which will in turn involve project design stages. Strategies can involve regulatory action (e.g., stream corridor ordinances affecting new development, stormwater system maintenance). There are a wide variety of non-regulatory strategies (e.g., financial and other incentives, education). Finally, strategies can involve investigations to develop a better understanding of issues. A more detailed list is below.

Categories of Implementation Strategies
Physical  Regulatory  Non-regulatory 

Investigation
Acquisition Performance Standards by Site Financial Field Assessments
Restoration Performance Standards by Geographic Area Education/Training Scientific Research
Enhancement Technology Standards Liability Changes Monitoring
Construction Threshold Standards Technical Assistance Opinion Surveys
  Procedural Standards Planning Assistance Options Development
  Land Use Controls    

 Strategy Options

Early into the strategy development process, NJWSA and the stakeholder participants recognized that a great deal of duplication of effort could occur if each subcommittee tried to develop general strategy ideas from scratch, even if the participants had the experience to generate such lists. While no New Jersey guidance documents exist, there are resources available from USEPA and other states. Therefore, NJWSA developed a number of “Strategy Options” papers to assist the stakeholders in their discussions. These options papers were not intended to guide decisions in any direction, but rather to provide a complete spectrum of ideas on major issues, from voluntary to regulatory, and across the range of methods discussed in the previous section. The Strategy Options papers are as follows:

The Strategy Description

Detailed strategy descriptions provide the depth of information that anyone will need to understand how the plan will be implemented and their roles. Some strategies may be used to help achieve multiple objectives. The Strategy Descriptions include the following items. Committees developed strategies in committee, via email, by review of staff drafts, by individual committee members, etc. The following information is included in strategies:

Strategy Name: An easy-to-understand name to help people remember the strategy.

Objectives Addressed: All strategies should help achieve at least one objective.

Narrative Description: A brief overview of the strategy itself, to help people understand the general intent of what follows. Is responsibility for this strategy mandatory or voluntary?

Areawide Water Quality Management Plan Consistency Determination: This section specifies which components of the strategy should be mandatory for NJDEP decisions on permits, funding, etc. This information will help NJDEP in its “consistency determination” process as required by the Water Quality Planning Act and the Water Quality Management Planning Rules, if the Raritan Basin Watershed Management Plan, or any component thereof, is adopted within those plans. It is placed up front to help NJDEP with implementation.

Priority: A general sense of relative priority, High, Medium and Low.

Action Plan: The steps or tasks necessary to implement the strategy. Tasks at this point are fairly general in scope, not down to the level used in “day planners” and other highly detailed task-tracking systems. For example, “Draft legislation” or “Develop school contacts” are appropriate tasks; “call Senator X” or “schedule a presentation at School Y” are not.

Responsible Party(ies) for Planning and Design/Implementation: Where further planning is needed, the lead and support planning entities would be listed here. (The strategy description should indicate whether this responsibility is mandatory or voluntary.) Similarly, if a step in the action plan is ready for design and implementation, the responsible party for the step should be listed here. These projects can be physical, educational, etc. Responsible parties can be governments, utilities, non-profit organizations, private organizations, foundations, etc. In each case, the parties are identified as Committed (or C: as used in the worksheets) or Recommended (R:). “Committed” is used only where a party has made a formal commitment to the action, and therefore is rarely used as of December 2002 because the plan is new. The expectation is that more commitments will be generated over time.

Responsible Party(ies) for Oversight: Who will make sure that the tasks/strategy gets done if the responsible party for planning, design or implementation declines, delays or reneges? This could be the same entity that is responsible for implementation, but often there will be some other entity responsible for oversight. As for the prior column, Committed and Recommended are used.

Resource Needs: This information is developed to the extent possible for each strategy, to provide information for an implementation budget for the overall management plan. At the least, rough estimates are used, such as Minimal (volunteer or a few thousand dollars), Low ($5,000 to $50,000), Moderate ($50,000 to $250,000), High ($250,000 to $1million), Very High (Over $1 million)

Potential or Secured Resources: Where will the resources (money and personnel, plus physical resources) come from? Have commitments been made or not? As for the Responsible Party columns, Committed and Recommended are used.

Major Challenges and Opportunities: A frank discussion of the key difficulties that strategy implementation will face, and opportunities to overcome those difficulties.

Evaluation Methods and Indictors: How will we know whether the strategy was implemented, and if implemented was successful? The evaluation methods can involve progress tracking, surveys, periodic review meetings or many other approaches. The indicators can focus on process steps (e.g., ten meetings held, one hundred people educated), implementation steps (e.g., one mile of streambank stabilized), or environmental improvement (e.g., exceedances of phosphorus criterion reduced by 50 per cent).

Schedule & Milestones for Strategy Implementation: The “schedule” is essentially the due date for completion of the strategy implementation. “Milestones” are interim dates and what should be achieved by those dates.

Search Engine and Index

For the Web-based version of the management plan, a search engine could be devised to allow readers to find information within the document by key word or phrase searches, regardless of whether that information is in an issue matrix, strategy or other part of the document. Budget cuts have prevented the development of a printed version.

Table of Contents

(1) The TechnoMetrica survey of 801 residents occurred shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It is interesting to note that even in time of heightened security awareness, water resource issues still were considered a great concern.