RIVERS IN DANGER

Rivers in Danger 1

RIVERS IN DANGER

The Impact of Development onWater Quality in New Jersey

Travis MadsenDouglas O’Malley

Dena Mottola

New Jersey Public Interest Research GroupLaw & Policy Center

April 2003

2 NJPIRG Law & Policy Center

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For additional copies of this report, send $15 (including shipping) to:

NJPIRG Law & Policy Center11 N. Willow St.Trenton, NJ 08608

The NJPIRG Law and Policy Center is a 501(c)(3) organization working on environmentalprotection, consumer rights, and good government in New Jersey. For more informationabout the NJPIRG Law and Policy Center, please call 609-394-8155 or visit the NJPIRGweb site at www.njpirg.org

The NJPIRG Law and Policy Center gratefully acknowledges Eileen Murphy at the NewJersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Division of Science, Research,and Technology; Brian Marsh at the New Jersey Field Office of the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService; Tom Johnson at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Patrick Center for Environmen-tal Research; Tim Dillingham at the American Littoral Society; Kirstin McPolin at CleanOcean Action; Gloria Gledhill at New Jersey-American Water Company; Ross Kushner atthe Pequannock River Coalition; and Andrew Riehl at the Hunterdon Coalition for reviewingdrafts of the report. Additional thanks to Tony Dutzik and Brad Heavner at the Center forPublic Interest Research for editorial guidance, and thanks to the many individuals acrossthe state working to protect local waterways who provided information for this report.

Report designed by Jasmine Vasavada, Elizabeth Ridlington, and Design for Social Impact.

This report was made possible by the generous support of the William Penn Foundation andthe Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation.

The authors alone bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are thoseof the NJPIRG Law and Policy Center. The views expressed in this report are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders.

© 2003 NJPIRG Law and Policy Center

Cover photo credits: Wanaque River, reservoir, and construction photos courtesy of PierreJaborska. Aerial view of development in the Oldmans and Raccoon Creek watersheds cour-tesy of Dan Grenier and the South Jersey Watershed Alliance.

Rivers in Danger 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 4

Introduction 6

The Connection BetweenLand Use and Water Pollution 8

Development and WaterQuality Degradation Across New Jersey 12

New Jersey’s Top Waterways to Save 17

Policy Findings 35

Appendix: Development and WaterQuality By Region 37

Methodology 40

Notes 41


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Runoff and wastewater effluent can re-duce groundwater recharge and contami-nate underground aquifers.

Water quality declined in 35% of water-sheds during the 1990s.

Water quality declined in 14 major river sys-tems measured by the NJDEP in the earlyand late 1990s. The rivers that showed a de-cline were located in the Northwest, Cen-tral, and Atlantic coast areas of thestate—areas that are experiencing rapid de-velopment. They include:• The Wallkill, Pequest, and Musconetcong

Rivers in Northwest New Jersey.

• Lockatong Creek, Lawrence Brook, andthe Neshanic and Millstone Rivers in Cen-tral New Jersey.

• The Navesink, Shark, Manasquan,Metedeconk, and Toms Rivers along theAtlantic Coast.The case of Lawrence Brook and the Mill-

stone River illustrates the connection betweendevelopment and declining water quality. Theland surrounding these rivers includes six ofthe top 20 municipalities with the most newdevelopment between 1986 and 1995, includ-ing West Windsor Township (Mercer County),Franklin Township (Somerset County),Manalapan Township, Millstone Township(Monmouth County), South BrunswickTownship, and Monroe Township (MiddlesexCounty). During this period, increasing ur-ban area claimed 6.6% of the LawrenceBrook watershed and 7.5% of the MillstoneRiver watershed, yielding a 12% water qual-ity decline in both rivers in the 1990s.

Continued development in pristine wa-tersheds threatens water quality acrossthe state.

Building permit data shows that developmentactivity continues in Central New Jersey andsouthward along the Jersey Shore. Six mu-nicipalities each issued more than 2,000 build-ing permits for residential homes between

Many of New Jersey’s most pristinewaterways face the risk of con-tamination from rapidly expanding

development. These waterways provide cleandrinking water for millions of New Jersey citi-zens, replenish the state’s groundwater sup-plies, provide ecologically critical habitat forthreatened and endangered species, and re-gionally important recreational opportunities.

New Jersey is using up its land faster thanany other state in the country. The Centerfor Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis atRutgers predicted the state would run out ofavailable land within 30 to 50 years if devel-opment rates seen in the last two decadescontinue. These rapid changes are having astrong negative impact on water quality, es-pecially in the most pristine parts of the state.During the 1990s, water quality declined in athird of the state’s waterways—in watershedsat the fringes of major development activity.

This report explores the link between de-velopment and water quality degradation inthe state and highlights a set of valuable butvulnerable rivers that need protection.

Urban land use is a primary factor in wa-ter quality degradation.

An analysis of land use and water quality datacollected by the New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection indicates that poorwater quality is associated with increasinglyurban land use. Replacing as little as 5% ofthe land in a watershed with paved surfacesresults in observable water quality decline.

Development harms water quality by in-creasing levels of runoff and treated sew-age discharge.

• Runoff from paved or disturbed land de-livers fertilizers, sediment, oil, grit, and otherpollutants to water bodies.

• Treated sewage from commercial andresidential developments contaminateswaterways with nutrients and other chemi-cal pollutants.

Rivers in Danger 5

1996 and 2001, including Dover Township,Manchester Township, Jackson Township(Ocean County), Monroe Township(Gloucester County), South BrunswickTownship (Middlesex County), and MarlboroTownship (Monmouth County). In addition,widened roads are increasing developmentpressure in areas like the New Jersey High-lands. Rivers in these areas are at risk for fur-ther water quality declines.

POLICY FINDINGS

Preserving pristine waterways requires pro-tecting forests and wetlands, maintainingbuffer corridors, minimizing impervious sur-face additions, and preventing new or ex-panded sewage discharges in vulnerableareas. Each of these steps can promotehealthy streams and good drinking waterquality.

Governor James McGreevey’s adminis-tration has made protecting drinking watersupplies and ecologically significant water-ways a priority. There are many steps whichcould and should be taken to address devel-opment pressures and their water qualityimpacts. One notable step has been the useof the anti-degradation provisions of theClean Water Act to protect waterways fromadditional sewage discharge, runoff pollution,and shrinking buffer zones. Under this partof the Clean Water Act, special waterways(called Category One or C1) are protectedfrom any activity that results in a measur-able decline in water quality.

The administration can help ensure thatNew Jersey’s pristine waterways remain pro-tected for future generations by improvingthe scope and effectiveness of this programwith the following steps:• Officially finalizing Category One protec-

tion for the 15 waterbodies the adminis-tration proposed for Category One statuson Earth Day 2002, and the seven troutstreams proposed for protection in De-cember.

• Extending protection to an inclusive andcomprehensive list of waterways acrossthe state, emphasizing drinking watersources, habitat for endangered speciesincluding coastal areas, headwater areaswith low impervious cover, and tributariesof protected rivers or reservoirs. A goodexample of this type of list was announcedby the governor in March 2003 and is cur-rently posted on the DEP website.

• Integrating Category One protection ef-fectively in regulations for septic systems,groundwater protection, stream encroach-ment, coastal management, water alloca-tion, and wetlands management. Forexample, the Department of Environmen-tal Protection should officially adopt therecently proposed stormwater manage-ment rules, which include a 300-footbuffer zone for Category One waters.

• Strengthening and enforcing existing regu-lations to ensure no measurable degrada-tion in Category One waterways, includingadequate buffer zones and limits on dis-charge from sewage plants and industry.

Vulnerable Rivers

• The Wanaque River, the Ramapo River, tribu-taries of the Rockaway and Pequannock Riv-ers, the Wallkill River and the Vernon Valley,and the Musconetcong River in northwestNew Jersey.

• Holland Brook, the Neshanic River, and otherpristine tributaries of the South Branch of theRaritan River in Central New Jersey.

• Rancocas Creek, Oldmans Creek, theMaurice River, and the Cohansey River inthe Lower Delaware region.

• The Manasquan River, the Great Egg Har-bor River, and the Toms River along the At-lantic Coast.


New Jerseyans need clean water.Over four million New Jerseyansrely on surface water for drinking

supply. Public water companies draw waterfrom 54 different surface water intakes,many located on reservoirs in North Jersey.1

More than four million additional NewJerseyans rely on underground aquifers fortheir water, including the Kirkwood-Cohansey and Magothy aquifer systems un-der New Jersey’s coastal plain.

Much of New Jersey’s clean water flowsfrom pristine corners of the state. Relativelyuntouched areas like the Highlands and thePinelands are home to the headwaters ofhundreds of brooks and streams that fill aqui-fers and reservoirs across the state and even-tually supply New Jersey homes andbusinesses with valuable water. Pristine riv-ers also provide recreational opportunities andcritical wildlife habitat. For example, over 14million people visit the Highlands ever yearfor recreation. Families use rivers and theirsurroundings for canoeing, fishing, and hik-ing. Places like the Highlands are home toover 247 threatened and endangered species,in addition to providing an important waypointfor migrating birds.2

Unfortunately, many of New Jersey’smost pristine waterways are becoming pol-luted. They face contamination from rapidlyexpanding development. According to ananalysis of New Jersey’s growth patterns bythe Rutgers Center for Remote Sensing andSpatial Analysis, New Jersey could run outof developable land within the next 30 to 50years if recent trends continue.3 The state’spopulation has grown by 2.4 million in thelast four decades, and the U.S. Census andstate planners predict that New Jersey’spopulation will increase by close to one mil-lion people in the next 20 years. As a result,the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyclassifies nearly all of New Jersey’s water-sheds as highly vulnerable to further degra-dation.4

Projects like Milligan Farms in HunterdonCounty exemplify this threat. K. HovnanianCo., the state’s largest developer, is workingto build a 292-home subdivision near SidneyBrook in Union Township. Their project wouldrequire a new sewage treatment plant thatwould discharge 88,000 gallons of treatedsewage into the Sidney Brook every day. Thestate Department of Environmental Protec-tion recognizes this waterway as home to thethreatened bog turtle and wood turtle, as wellas brook trout, which only live in the cleanestwater.5

In the face of this rapid growth, New Jer-sey faces the challenge of accommodatingnew residents while preserving the naturalresources that make New Jersey a greatplace to live, including clean drinking watersupplies. The state must protect the waterresources it already has while working toclean up waters that have been degraded.

Scientists have shown that key parts ofwaterways need special protection, includ-ing stream corridors, floodplains, and wet-lands. These areas filter out pollutants,minimize flooding, and recharge undergroundwater supplies. Headwater streams providea continuous flow of clean water and thenatural landscapes which surround them slowdown and absorb stormwater.6

The McGreevey administration haslaunched a smart growth agenda to meet thesechallenges. In addition to extending new pow-ers to municipal governments to managegrowth within their borders, the administra-tion has consistently made clean water a pri-ority. One of the many tools available to theadministration is the anti-degradation provi-sion of the Clean Water Act. Waterwaysgiven the highest level of protection underthis law are protected from any changes thatwould measurably harm water quality, includ-ing additional sewage discharge, runoff pol-lution, and shrinking buffer zones. On EarthDay 2002, the administration proposed ninereservoirs and six streams for protection un-

INTRODUCTION

Rivers in Danger 7

der this provision, known as Category Onedesignation. In March 2003, the governor an-nounced a comprehensive statewide list ofwaterways currently under consideration forincreased protection.

Because New Jersey’s pristine water-ways are so important—for drinking, recre-ation, and wildlife habitat—the administrationshould protect as many of them as possiblewhile they still remain clean. The adminis-

tration should implement the Clean Water Actto ensure that stream corridors, wetlands,and flood plains remain in their natural state.The outcome of these efforts will play a majorrole in determining which way New Jerseyis going to grow—toward intelligent growthand healthy waterways supporting high qual-ity of life in the state, or toward the gradualpollution of the last clean waterways in thestate by overdevelopment.


surfaces. These changes deliver more sedi-ment, organic nutrients, pesticides, and otherchemicals to rivers and lakes.

Development NearRivers Harms WaterQualityEncroaching development increases theamount of runoff and treated sewage reach-ing waterways, making water less sanitaryand less able to support a full range of life.Development that shrinks or bypasses thenatural buffer zone surrounding a river hasthe strongest impact on water quality. Bufferzones act to filter water before it reachesthe river, removing sediments and chemicalsthat can kill fish, cause algae overgrowth, andmake water less suitable for drinking.10

Impervious Surface and RunoffRainfall and snowmelt travel across all typesof land on the way to surface streams or un-derground aquifers. On the way, this runoffpicks up a variety of pollutants. Soil, fertil-izer, and pesticides travel from farmland,lawns, and construction sites. Fragments oftires, shreds of brake lining, salt, and oil con-taminate runoff from roads. Even pollutionfrom industry smokestacks and car and truckexhaust pipes fall back to the ground throughsnow and rain. All of these pollutants even-tually end up in streams, rivers, and lakes.

Developing land causes increased runoff.The process of building a home or a com-mercial facility replaces porous soils and plantlife with impervious surfaces like concretesidewalks and driveways, asphalt roads andparking lots, and rooftops. Instead of flow-ing into the ground to recharge undergroundaquifers, water flows off rooftops and alonggutters. High volumes of this runoff quicklyreach nearby lakes, rivers, and streams, ei-ther directly or through a storm sewer out-fall.11

Human use of land affects water qual-ity in New Jersey more than anyother factor.7 A range of activities

cause water pollution, from pesticide appli-cation on agricultural land to sewage dis-charge from residential developments.

Over the past several decades, urban de-velopment in New Jersey has grown dramati-cally. Steady development has transformedfarms, wetlands, and forests into residentialand commercial areas. According to theRutgers Center for Remote Sensing and Spa-tial Analysis, New Jersey added 144,000acres of urban area from 1986 to 1995. Atthis rate, New Jersey builders develop 26acres of farmland, cut back 12 acres of for-ests, and fill 7 acres of wetlands every day.8

In simpler terms, new developments claim33 football fields of land daily.

Pristine parts of the state have beensteadily infiltrated by new developments spill-ing outward, driven by new and expandedroads and sprawl-inducing zoning policies. Asthis development expands into previously un-developed areas, New Jersey’s pristine wa-terways—those that supply clean drinkingwater, recreational opportunities, and wild-life habitat—are facing increased pollution.

The connection between development andwater pollution is intuitively easy to under-stand. New development brings increasingwater use, growing discharge from sewagetreatment plants, and higher levels of runofffrom roads, rooftops, and other man-made

THE CONNECTION BETWEEN

LAND USE AND WATER POLLUTION

Major Factors in DecliningStream Quality9

• Increased human activity and chemi-cal use.

• Increased paved surface.

• Increased runoff and increased vari-ability of stream flow.

• Decreased forests and wetlands.

Rivers in Danger 9

Treated Sewage Discharge andFailing Septic SystemsEvery development needs either a septic sys-tem or sewage line to dispose of waste wa-ter and feces. These systems can havesevere impacts on water quality. Treatedsewage discharge from sewage treatmentplants serving commercial and residential de-velopments adds phosphorous and nitrogencompounds and industrial pollutants to wa-terways. Organic pollutants can also leakfrom failing septic systems and contaminategroundwater.

The federal Clean Water Act passed in1972 required sewage treatment plants to im-prove their technology. As a result, theseplants are now able to remove at least 85%of the solids and oxygen-depleting pollutantsin sewage.16

However, despite these improvements,treated sewage discharges remain a prob-lem. In fact, treated sewage makes up most

of the flow in some rivers in heavily devel-oped areas. For example, there are over 50sewage treatment plants on the PassaicRiver.17 On an average day, over half of theflow of the Passaic River is sewage dis-charge at the Passaic Valley Water Com-mission public drinking water intake, witheven higher levels during drought conditions.18

Impervious Surface: The Facts

A sewage treatment plant on the NaugatuckRiver in Connecticut.

Trou

t Unl

imite

d, N

auga

tuck

Val

ley

Cha

pter

• Automobile dependent devel-opment patterns in New Jer-sey have increased the amountof pavement needed to servenew developments, especiallyin "sprawl" areas in the sub-urbs.

• Replacing a meadow with aparking lot increases runoff byabout 16 times.12

• A typical suburban develop-ment with 23% imperviouscover diverts over 40 milliongallons of water per square mile awayfrom underground aquifers annually.13

• Covering as little as 5% of a watershedwith concrete and rooftops causes observ-able stream degradation. More severeproblems begin above 10% impervious sur-

face cover, with very severe problemsabove 25% impervious cover.14

• Highly developed areas in New Jerseyhave more impervious surface area andworse water quality than less developedareas.

Mar

k R

ausc

hkol

b

Union Township, Hunterdon County, August 13, 2001—After a 1.1 inch rainstorm, stormwater runoff carriedpollution from a housing development built by TollBrothers into the headwaters of Mulhockaway Creekand Spruce Run Reservoir. The reservoir hosts adrinking water intake for the New Jersey Water SupplyAuthority.15


Septic systems can cause problems forgroundwater quality. In areas where centralizedsewage treatment is not available, householdwastewater from toilets, garbage disposals, andsinks is treated in a septic system and dischargedinto the ground or held for transfer to a treatmentplant. Without proper maintenance, septic sys-tems can fail and release harmful bacteria and nu-trients into the groundwater, or through surfacespills. The U.S. Census estimated that 40% ofnew housing built between 1996 and 2000 hadon-site septic systems, and the U.S. EPA esti-mates that 10% of all septic systems malfunctionduring a given year.19

Negative Effects on Water Quality

Increasing runoff and sewage discharge damagewater quality by increasing pollution levels, in-creasing the variability of stream flow, and reduc-ing the ability of a stream to support a full andhealthy range of aquatic life.

Increased PollutionRunoff and sewage discharge contain a varietyof harmful pollutants, including organic nutrients,bacteria, atmospheric pollution, road particulates,oil, pesticides, and pharmaceutical drugs.

Nutrients like phosphorus, nitrate and relatedorganic compounds come from fertilizer runoffand feces. Human activity can disrupt the naturalbalance of these nutrients in waterways, promot-ing excessive growth of harmful aquatic vegeta-tion like algae. As this vegetation dies and decays,it consumes oxygen from the water, which con-tributes to the death of local species of aquaticplants and fish. This process is known aseutrophication, and it makes waterways less ableto support activities like fishing, recreation, in-dustry, and human consumption.20

High levels of nitrates in drinking water cancause blue baby syndrome in infants under sixmonths of age. Nitrates can reduce the ability ofan infant’s blood to carry oxygen to cells, whichcan be life-threatening in extreme cases. The U.S.EPA has set a 10 milligram per liter limit on thenitrate content of drinking water.21

Runoff picks up a variety of additional pollut-ants through atmospheric deposition of the com-bustion byproducts of fossil fuels, by passingover areas where chemical pesticides have beenused, and by gathering up oil, salt, sediment, andbits of rubber from roadways. Some of thesechemicals are toxic to living organisms, from thepesticides used on agricultural fields to the vola-

tile organic compounds that come from automo-bile exhaust pipes. They can make waterwaysunsafe to drink and reduce their ability to sup-port a healthy range of life.

Sewage discharge can contaminate water-ways with fecal bacteria from human waste. Thesebacteria, if ingested, can cause sicknesses likegastroenteritis in humans. Bacterial contamina-tion can make rivers, lakes, and the ocean unsafefor swimming, as well as contaminating shellfishbeds in harbors and estuaries. Even relativelysmall areas of urban development can producehigh levels of bacteria that cause authorities toclose coastal shellfish waters.22

Drinking water treatment plants often use chlo-rine to kill the bacteria in the water before pump-ing it into homes and businesses. While this stepprotects the public from bacterial infections, chlo-rine treatment can produce byproducts when itreacts with organic pollutants and sediments thatare also in the water. These chlorinatedbyproducts, such as trihalomethanes andhaloacetic acids, are suspected to contribute tobirth defects, miscarriages, and cancer.23

Sewage discharge can also contain chemicalsfrom personal care products, antibiotics, and phar-maceutical drugs that are used in the home orpass through the human body. In 2002, the U.S.Geological Survey released a study showing thaturban streams contain a variety of chemical pol-lutants, including caffeine, birth control hor-mones, pain medications, insect repellent,perfumes, and blood pressure medications.24 Na-tionally, they found 22 different antibiotics, 14prescription drugs, 11 reproductive hormones,seven plasticizing chemicals, seven insecticides,five non-prescription drugs, five detergents, foursteroid-type compounds, and an insect repellent.Four waterways in New Jersey—the AssunpinkCreek near Trenton, the Whippany River in Mor-ris County, the Singac River in Passaic County,and the Hohokus River in Bergen County—con-tained chemicals like acetaminophen, caffeine,antacids, nicotine metabolites, and drugs to treatangina and hypertension. More recently, scien-tists at the New Jersey Department of Environ-mental Protection and the Rutgers Environmentaland Occupational Health Sciences Center foundsmall amounts of a variety of industrial and house-hold chemicals in drinking water systems, includ-ing the preservative BHT, fuel oil, drugs, andpesticides.25

Very little is known about the potential hu-man health effects of low doses of pharmaceuti-

Rivers in Danger 11

cally active compounds in mixtures. However, sci-entists suspect that hormone-like pollutants areinterfering with reproductive development in wild-life, contributing to declining sperm counts andreduced fertility in humans, as well as potentiallycausing or promoting cancer and other diseases.26

Decreased Stability of Stream FlowRunoff diverts water away from the undergroundaquifer and toward rivers, lakes and streams. Asa result, it increases the amount of water reach-ing a waterway after a storm and disrupts thestability of stream flow. Reduced stability ofstream flow leads to higher flood vulnerability inareas around a waterway, destabilizes the banksof the stream, and reduces the rate at which rain-fall replenishes aquifers.

Increased runoff causes higher peak flows af-ter storms and raises the elevation of the floodplain surrounding a river. After Hurricane Floyddropped 11 inches of rain on the New Brunswickarea in 1999, the Raritan River escaped its banksand inundated part of the city. Upstream, devel-opment had added more than 2,700 acres of im-pervious surface (an 18.8% increase) in theprevious 15 years.27 The extra water diverted intothe Raritan River by this development undoubt-edly made the flooding damage in New Brunswickmore extensive. A recent analysis by The Recordnewspaper showed that 11,000 homes were addedin floodplains across the state since the 1980s,raising concerns that future floods will be moredamaging.28

Greater variability in stream flow causesstream channels to erode and banks to destabi-lize, increasing the amount of sediment in thewater.29 These changes disrupt habitat for aquaticorganisms, making the streams less able to sup-port a full and healthy range of aquatic life.

Runoff diverts water from the aquifer and intosurface waters. As a result, less rainfall makes itback into the ground to replenish the waterpumped out for human use. The water supply inSouth Jersey comes mainly from undergroundaquifers. Reducing the rate at which they rechargelimits the water supply for the region.

Decreased Diversity of Aquatic LifeWater quality degradation can be measured bythe response of aquatic organisms living in a riveror stream. Increased pollution and degraded habi-tat will tend to weed out the sensitive speciesand lead to a shift toward more pollution-tolerantinsects and aquatic weeds.

Waterways in New Jersey surrounded by ur-ban areas and with high levels of treated sewagedischarge tend to have an impaired aquatic com-munity, with a narrow range of pollution-tolerantspecies.30 Waterways fed by land with a largeamount of forest and wetlands are more likely tohave a full and healthy aquatic community. For-ests and wetlands help to maintain a healthy sup-ply of water, food, and habitat for sensitivespecies, as well as providing a buffer from humanactivities that can affect water quality.31

Ecological Integrity:A Measure of Water Body Impairment

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protec-tion (DEP) monitors stream quality by tracking changesin communities of insects and other small organisms atover 700 sites across the state. This program, known asthe Ambient Biomonitoring Network (AMNET), pro-vides a set of information DEP uses to decide whichrivers and streams are impaired. Streams that are intheir natural condition and not subject to runoff or pol-lutant discharge almost always have healthy communi-ties with a wide variety of insect species. Because someof these species are less tolerant of pollution and habitatdegradation, polluted rivers have fewer sensitive typesof organisms and a narrower range of species. DEPmonitors these sites every five years to keep an eye onlong-term environmental changes.

Based on the types of insects found, DEP assigns animpairment score to each site, ranging from 0 (com-pletely degraded) to 30 (unimpaired).32 The DEP makesthe results available to the public, forming the basis ofthis report.


Spanning the distance between two ofAmerica’s largest cities, New Jersey is ex-periencing rapid population growth. As a re-sult, nearly every town in the state has feltpressure to build new homes and commer-cial areas to serve new residents and peoplemoving away from struggling urban areas.During the period between 1986 and 1995,this new development replaced 144,000 acresof farmland, forests, and wetlands, claiming2.8% of New Jersey’s overall area.33

Unfortunately, these changing land usepatterns are encroaching upon the relativelypristine parts of New Jersey, the corners ofthe state that supply clean drinking water formillions of people and provide habitat forthreatened and endangered wildlife. Accord-ing to a U.S. Geological Survey study of the

New Jersey and Long Island area, urbangrowth in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s wastied to declining water quality.34 During the1990s, water quality in New Jersey declinedat the fringes of growth due to the negativeimpact of poor land-use practices.

Water Quality Declined atthe Fringes of GrowthWater quality declined in 35% of watershedsmeasured by the New Jersey Departmentof Environmental Protection (DEP) duringthe 1990s (Figure 1). These watersheds weregenerally located in the Northwest, Central,and Atlantic coast areas of the state—areasof high growth with fair to moderate, and

DEVELOPMENT AND WATER

QUALITY DEGRADATION ACROSS NEW JERSEY

Figure 1B. Water Quality in theLate 1990s

Figure 1A. Water Quality in theEarly 1990s

Rivers in Danger 13

thus vulnerable, water quality, near the fringesof the state’s sprawl corridor (Figure 2).35

The rivers showing water quality declineinclude:• The Wallkill River, the Pequest River, the

Musconetcong River, and PapakatingCreek in Northwest New Jersey.

• The Middle Passaic River in northeastNew Jersey.

• Lockatcong Creek, Lawrence Brook, andthe Neshanic and Millstone Rivers in Cen-tral New Jersey.

• The Navesink, Shark, Manasquan,Metedeconk, Upper Great Egg Harbor,and Toms Rivers along the Atlantic Coast.

• Rancocas Creek on the Lower DelawareRiver.

The connection between developmentand declining water quality is best illustratedby the cases of the Upper Toms River,Lawrence Brook and the Millstone River.

Lawrence Brook and the Millstone Riverflow through some of the most rapidly de-veloping areas of the state. The land sur-rounding these rivers includes six of the top20 municipalities with the most new devel-opment between 1986 and 1995, includingWest Windsor Township (Mercer County),Franklin Township (Somerset County),Manalapan Township, Millstone Township(Monmouth County), South BrunswickTownship, and Monroe Township (MiddlesexCounty). During this period, increasing ur-ban area claimed 6.6% of the LawrenceBrook watershed and 7.5% of the MillstoneRiver watershed, yielding water quality de-clines in both rivers of over 12%.

Figure 2B. Acres of NewDevelopment, 1986-1995

Figure 2A. Change in Water Quality,Early to Late 1990s


The Upper Toms River flows throughJackson and Dover Townships in OceanCounty and Freehold Township in MonmouthCounty. Between 1986 and 1995, thesetownships each added over 1,700 acres ofnew development, ranking in the top 13 mostrapidly developing areas of the state. Thisdevelopment claimed 6% of the Toms Riverwatershed area, yielding a water quality de-cline of 14%. Results for additional water-sheds are listed in Table 1.

Recent negative impacts of developmenton water quality overlay water quality im-provements driven by stronger clean waterlaws passed during the last three decades.Thanks to the federal Clean Water Act of1972, New Jersey sewage treatment plantshave been required to upgrade technology,resulting in cleaner discharge. State laws likethe Clean Water Enforcement Act of 1990enforced mandatory penalties for permit vio-lations, resulting in less discharge. These lawsare likely responsible for the improving con-

ditions in the most densely urban parts ofthe state.

Development PatternsThe heaviest locations for development ex-tended around the Camden area toward At-lantic City, and from the northern end of theJersey Shore, through Central Jersey and uptoward Sussex County. Between 1986 and1995, some townships developed more than10% of their land area, including Washing-ton Township in Gloucester County, WestWindsor Township in Mercer County, andMount Laurel Township in Burlington County(Table 2).

A lack of coordinated land use planningcharacterized much of this growth. A recentstudy of the New Jersey and New Yorkcoastal areas by the Natural Resources De-fense Council found poor land-use planningat all levels of government. For example,state and federal agencies approved morethan 98% of development projects subject

% of Land Impervious Water Acres Acres of Testing Sites Sites withDeveloped Surface in Quality Developed Impervious Showing Severe

River 1986-1995 Watershed Decline 1986-1995 Surface Impairment Impairment

Shark River 4% 21% 14% 1,700 8,200 100% 43%Lawrence Brook and Millstone River 7% 18% 12% 6,700 11,600 95% 20%Metedeconk River 4% 12% 10% 1,600 6,000 82% 9%Manasquan River 6% 10% 4% 3,100 5,600 77% 8%Navesink River 6% 10% 3% 2,600 6,000 100% 20%Great Egg Harbor River above Hospitality Brook 4% 8% 11% 1,900 3,550 58% 0%Rancocas Creek, North Branch 3% 8% 29% 620 2,000 100% 40%Toms River above Oak Ridge Pkwy 6% 5% 14% 2,200 1,900 40% 0%Neshanic River 6% 4% 6% 2,100 1,200 85% 0%Wallkill River and Papakating Creek 3% 4% 16% 2,600 3,100 80% 0%Musconetcong River 4% 4% 6% 1,800 1,700 70% 0%Pequest River and Bear Creek 2% 3% 11% 1,100 1,250 70% 0%

Table 1. Development and Water Quality Degradation in 12 Major New Jersey Watersheds36

to wetland permits in the years1995-1997, making the permitprocess little more than a for-mality.37 Dover Township andMount Laurel Township eachissued building permits formore than 5,000 residentialhomes and apartments from1986 to 1995.

Increasing ImperviousSurface CoverageAlthough water qualitychanges from developmentare subtle, they are progres-sive and extremely difficult toreverse. The overall trend canbe seen in the relationship be-tween the water quality withineach watershed and theamount of impervious surface(Figure 3). Increased impervi-ous surface within a watershedresults in more nutrient pollu-tion, more sedimentation, anda river less able to support ahealthy range of aquatic life.

Figure 3B. Water Quality and Impervious Surface in Watersheds withDeclining Water Quality39

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Figure 3A. Total Impervious Surface Cover, 1995

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Impervious Surface

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Wat

er Q

ualit

y S

core

Pristine

Degraded

Rivers in Danger 15

Figure 4. Permits Issued forSingle-Family Homes andApartments, 1996-200140

Recent Urban ExpansionBuilding permit data shows that developmentactivity continues to be heavy in Central NewJersey and especially southward along theJersey Shore (Figure 4). Dover, Manches-ter, and Jackson Townships in OceanCounty, Monroe Township in GloucesterCounty, South Brunswick Township inMiddlesex County, and Marlboro Townshipin Monmouth County each issued more than2,000 building permits for residential homesand apartments between 1996 and 2001.Rivers in these areas are at risk for furtherwater quality declines.

In addition, the attractiveness of theHighlands area is making it the target of newprojects. The opening of Interstate 287 andthe expansion of Route 15 to three lanesare making this area more accessible andincreasing the pressure to develop availableland.

Table 2. Top 20 Townships with Fastest Rate ofDevelopment (1986-1995)38

Acres of New % Area PermitsTownship County Development Developed Issued

West Windsor Mercer 2,717 16% 2,614Raritan Hunterdon 2,266 9% 1,807Readington Hunterdon 2,176 7% 1,592Washington Gloucester 2,071 15% 1,399Mount Laurel Burlington 2,032 14% 5,868Jackson Ocean 1,975 3% 3,347Franklin Somerset 1,905 6% 1,962Manalapan Monmouth 1,878 10% 2,486Millstone Monmouth 1,782 8% 1,042Dover Ocean 1,782 5% 5,238S. Brunswick Middlesex 1,773 7% 4,855Montgomery Somerset 1,773 9% 2,716Freehold Monmouth 1,706 7% 1,592Hillsborough Somerset 1,704 5% 2,280Howell Monmouth 1,690 4% 2,845Galloway Atlantic 1,605 2% 4,009Evesham Burlington 1,483 8% 2,286Winslow Camden 1,440 3% 2,895Bridgewater Somerset 1,399 7% 3,367Monroe Middlesex 1,394 5% 3,604


Rivers in Danger 17

Many of New Jersey’s most pristinewaterways face the risk of con-tamination from rapidly expanding

development. These waterways provideclean drinking water for millions of New Jer-sey citizens, replenish the state’s groundwa-ter supplies, provide ecologically criticalhabitat for threatened and endangered spe-cies, and represent regionally important rec-reational opportunities.

Over four million New Jerseyans rely onsurface water for drinking supply. Publicwater companies draw water from 54 dif-ferent surface water intakes, many locatedon reservoirs in North Jersey.41 In 1995, thesecompanies withdrew over 272 million gallonsof drinking water from rivers and reservoirs,58% of the statewide total.42 More than fourmillion additional New Jerseyans rely on un-derground aquifers for their water, includingthe Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system un-der New Jersey’s coastal plain. In 1995, pub-lic water companies withdrew over 195million gallons of water from wells drilled intothese underground storage systems.43

Both of these water sources are highlyvulnerable to contamination. The U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency classifies al-most all of New Jersey’s watersheds as highlyvulnerable to further degradation.44

Clean water for Northern New Jerseycomes from the forested expanse of the NewJersey Highlands. Every year 14 millionpeople visit the Highlands to hike, canoe on500 miles of pristine rivers, and observe wild-life including 247 threatened and endangeredspecies.45 According to a recent report bythe United States Forest Service, over100,000 acres of critical lands in this regionare in immediate danger from development.46

Clean water for Southern New Jersey comes

from areas like the Pinelands PreservationArea, whose streams flow slowly over thecoastal plain and recharge underground aqui-fer systems. The Pinelands are home to over223 threatened and endangered species, in-cluding the bald eagle.47 Because the aqui-fers in this region are close to the surface,they are especially vulnerable to contamina-tion.48

Municipalities across the state are fac-ing one development proposal after another.Large and powerful developers have beenpressing these projects forward using a va-riety of tactics.49 In some cases, local gov-ernments and citizens groups have been ableto prevent inappropriate projects from mov-ing forward, but some projects that woulddamage water quality in pristine rivers havebeen built. More projects that threaten NewJersey’s clean water are proposed every day.

New Jersey’s precious but threatenedwaterways are critically important for thehealth of the people of the state as the state’sdrinking water supply, for the tourism andfishing industries, and for the abundant wild-life they support. Recognizing their value, theNew Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection released a list of waterways nomi-nated for increased protection from the threatof development under the federal Clean Wa-ter Act on March 11, 2003.50 The Depart-ment selected major drinking water reservoirsand their tributaries, headwaters of rivers thatdrain to public drinking water supply intakeswith less than 10% impervious cover, wa-ters with exceptional ecological value, andwaters in open space areas.51

Here we highlight some of the major wa-terways in the state threatened by expand-ing development. Their protection should bea priority.

NEW JERSEY’S TOP WATERWAYS TO SAVE


ough of Wanaque rezoned their largest tractof open space to accommodate this project.While the Wanaque Planning Board hasgiven final approval for the construction of1,190 homes, the DEP has not granted ap-proval for expanded sewage capacity. How-ever, the DEP has granted preliminaryapproval for 755 units at the site. Additionalprojects proposed or under construction in-clude Roaring Brook in West Milford andWest Brook Hills in Ringwood, which willimpact West Brook and Meadow Brook,tributaries of the Wanaque Reservoir.54

Bloomingdale has also proposed rezoning 105acres to accommodate a high-density hous-ing development on an environmentally sen-sitive site draining to the lower Wanaque.55

Projects like these will increase runoff andsewage discharge into the river, harmingwater quality.

The lower stretch of the Wanaque Riverbelow the reservoir needs protection fromthese threats. In addition, the streams andbrooks which supply water to the protectedreservoir deserve protection, including partsof Cupsaw Brook, Erskine Brook, PostsBrook, Belchers Creek, Mine Brook, andBlue Mine Brook. The New Jersey DEP hasnominated parts of these waterways for in-creased protection under the Clean WaterAct because they are a public drinking wa-ter supply and their watersheds have less than10% impervious surface.56

Passaic and HackensackRiver Basins

The Wanaque RiverThe Wanaque River feeds the Wanaque Res-ervoir and provides drinking water for resi-dents of Northeast New Jersey, includingareas of Essex, Passaic, and Hudson coun-ties. In April 2002, Governor McGreeveyannounced strengthened protection forWanaque Reservoir under the Clean WaterAct because of its exceptional significanceas a drinking water source.52 The WanaqueRiver corridor is home to threatened and en-dangered species, including the bog turtle, thewood turtle, the red-shouldered hawk, andthe barred owl. Much of the land in this wa-tershed is covered with lush forests. How-ever, residential developmentclusters along the edge of wa-terways, especially aroundthe Wanaque Reservoir andLake Inez.

Water quality in theWanaque River is threatenedby increasing developmentpressure. For example, PulteLifestyle Communities, Inc.is moving to build up to 4,000homes and a nine-hole golfcourse on 440 acres in Pow-der Hollow, just opposite theWanaque Reservoir dam.53

In March of 2000, the Bor-

Pie

rre

Jabo

rska

Rivers in Danger 19

into the Ramapo Mountains above theRamapo River in Oakland. This area used tobe a Boy Scout camp called Camp Todd.There was a trail down the mountain fromTodd Pond to the Ramapo River, following astream with waterfalls, pools, deep shade, andtrout. Now the stream flows through a pipeunder the development.61 Because the homeswere built on steep slopes, runoff pours downinto the Ramapo River. In 1999, disturbedsoil picked up by runoff from a rainstormcaused a damaging mudslide in this area. Theproject earned the Sierra Club’s "Worst De-velopment" title in 2000.62

Other projects in the area include propos-als to build 1,300 housing units on 2,200 acresin Sterling Forest, a stone quarry on 500acres along Torne Brook, two gas-firedpower plants along the Ramapo River in theTorne Valley, and another large housing de-velopment on 2,000 acres in the Tuxedo Re-serve.63 Another recently proposeddevelopment would add 90 homes to the topof a mountain just north of Ramapo Reserve.

The entire length of the Ramapo is threat-ened and needs increased protection fromwater quality degradation. The New JerseyDEP has nominated parts of this waterwayfor increased protection under the CleanWater Act because it is a public drinkingwater supply and its headwaters have lessthan 10% impervious surface.64

The Ramapo River57

The Ramapo River is a source of drinkingwater for two million residents of New Yorkand New Jersey. It flows through the majes-tic Ramapo Mountains, with beautiful scen-ery, wild expanses of forest, and criticallyimportant wildlife habitat in areas like theTorne Valley, the Sterling Forest, and the Tux-edo Reserve. It is home to rare species thatrequire pristine water quality for survival,potentially including the Eastern Lamp Mus-sel, which may be listed by the state as athreatened species.58 From the state line, itextends 15 miles until it joins the PequannockRiver in Wayne Township.

Development pressure is the main threatto water quality in this relatively pristine river.In 1995, most of the developed areas in thewatershed were located on the east side ofthe river.59 The construction of I-287 has sig-nificantly increased the accessibility of thisarea and increased the pace of development.

Nearly 4% of the land area was developedbetween 1986 and 1995, leading the NewJersey Department of Environmental Protec-tion to note in 1996 that "new development isextensive in many areas of the watershed,"resulting in "both a loss of habitat for biotaand an apparent decline in water quality."60

Now, development is beginning to spreadacross to the western side.

The construction of the Ramapo Reservedevelopment, the first on the western bankof the river, exemplifies the threat facing theregion. Baker Residential Co. built 400townhomes on 300 acres of ledges blasted

Oak

land

Env

ironm

enta

l Com

mis

sion


Several recent development efforts ex-emplify the pressure facing this area:• In 1997 the Denville Council was consid-

ering rezoning 435 acres of former Jer-sey City watershed land in the BeaverBrook watershed to accommodate a hous-ing developer.67

• The Green Acres program was not ableto purchase all of an 879-acre propertynear Buck Mountain in Kinnelon. This areawas slated for 2,000 homes and a golfcourse. After the Green Acres purchase,256 acres remained for the housing de-velopment.68

• On the east side of the Farny Highlands,the Department of the Army owns 6,000acres of land called the Picatinny Arse-nal. The site is mostly forested. However,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reportedin 1997 that the arsenal may be phasedout and sold in the near future.69

Although the state has used the GreenAcres program to protect some sensitivelands in this area, other lands remain unpro-tected, including the Beaver BrookGreenway, the Waughaw MountainGreenway, Mase Mountain, the Buck Moun-tain corridor, and the Stony Brook extensionof Pyramid Mountain. Many rivers in thisarea are tributaries to the Rockaway Riverand deserve additional defense from poten-tial development threats. These rivers includeTimber Brook, Stony Brook, and BeaverBrook, as well as waterways near the bor-der between Sussex and Passaic County likeHolland Brook and Russia Brook.

The Farny Highlands65

The Farny Highlands in northern MorrisCounty is a regionally important recreationalarea, where people go to enjoy fishing, hik-ing, and viewing wildlife. The area also formsthe headwaters of five rivers and containsover 150 different waterways. The FarnyHighlands surrounds the Boonton and SplitRock Reservoir system which supplies drink-ing water to 300,000 people in Jersey City,Hoboken, West Caldwell, and Lyndhurst.

The main threat to water quality in theregion is overde-velopment. Ac-cording to aregional study ofthe New Yorkand New JerseyHighlands con-ducted by theU.S. Forest Ser-vice, the High-lands regionloses more than5,000 acres ayear to develop-ment. The studyi d e n t i f i e d100,000 acres ofsensitive and vul-nerable lands inthis area, includ-ing SpartaMountain in theFarny High-lands.66

Threatened Drinking WaterReservoirs in the Passaic and

Hackensack River Basin

• Lake Tappan Reservoir – Adrinking water source for North-ern Bergen County, this reservoiris facing increasing developmentpressure around its shores. Gov.McGreevey announced in March2003 that Lake Tappan andWoodcliffe Lake and theirtributaries would be proposed forincreased protection under theClean Water Act.76

• Point View Reservoir in Wayne• Canistear Reservoir (Vernon/

Hardyston)• Echo Lake (West Milford)• Oak Ridge Reservoir

(Jefferson/West Milford)• Clinton Reservoir (West Milford)

The Split Rock Reservoir and FarnyState Park in Morris County

New

Jer

sey

Sie

rra

Clu

b

Rivers in Danger 21

of high-density housing. Development in thissite would affect a tributary of thePequannock that runs through the property.The Weber Tract has steep, heavily woodedslopes that descend to the river, and is proneto elevated runoff and high erosion when dis-turbed by construction. The same level ofdevelopment at nearby "Kinnelon Ridge"caused large amounts of sediment and mudto flow into the Pequannock.73

A company called Bloomingdale JointVenture is trying to win approval to sell prop-erty to another developer, Baker Residen-tial, to build a Ramapo Reserve-styledevelopment on Federal Hill inBloomingdale.74 Federal Hill is one of the lastlarge tracts of undeveloped land in the lowerPequannock watershed. Several Pequannocktributaries begin here. The area is designatedas an environmentally sensitive area in theState Plan. Baker Residential proposed build-ing 360 townhouses on this site, on steepslopes. Runoff would be certain to degradewater quality in the Pequannock if the projectmoves forward.75

Other proposed developments have regu-larly targeted 35,000 acres of Newark wa-tershed lands in the Pequannock watershed.The extension of I-287 through this area hasincreased both the accessibility of these ar-eas and the pressure to develop them.

The Pequannock Riverand its Tributaries70

The Pequannock River is a beautiful stretchof water that begins in Sussex County andflows east, delineating the Morris/PassaicCounty line. It is a favorite for fishing be-cause of its abundant trout, and the area sur-rounding it draws hikers from across theregion. It passes through verdant forests andmountains in the New Jersey Highlands area.The river supplies drinking water to hundredsof thousands of New Jersey citizens in New-ark and surrounding communities. The wa-tershed is home to a variety of rare,threatened, and endangered wildlife, includ-ing bobcat, barred owl, red-shouldered hawk,bog turtle, and the timber rattlesnake.71

The Pequannock River and its tributariesare threatened by runoff and sewage dis-charges from continued sprawling develop-ment along its tributaries. Pending projectsin the area include a strip mall on thePequannock River in Riverdale, a highdensity housing project in Kinnelon’sWeber Tract, and a Ramapo Reserve-style development on Federal Hill inBloomingdale.

The proposed strip mall in Riverdalewould be located 50 feet from the banksof the Pequannock River, and wouldreplace a 278-year-old farm estate.Plans for the site include constructionof a 48,000-square-foot concrete build-ing and a paved parking lot large enoughto hold over 200 cars.72

In Kinnelon, a 164-acre plot of landknown as the Weber Tract has beenrezoned for the construction of 150 units

New

Jer

sey

Sie

rra

Clu

b


hotels, two golf courses,a conference center anda village of retail shops,restaurants and nightclubs. This part of Ham-burg Mountain forms theheadwaters of both theWallkill and Pequannockrivers, and is home to sev-eral threatened and en-dangered species.78

Hamburg Mountain wasoriginally a protectedState Wildlife Manage-ment Area until the late1980s, when the stateLegislature sold it to a skiresort developer. Since

then, Vernon Township has been approvinga series of unsuccessful developmentschemes for the area.79 Now, New Jersey isbuying the tract back with Green Acres fund-ing, but Intrawest is still planning develop-ment in the area. The corporation is nowlooking at Black Creek Valley at the base ofHamburg Mountain, where they have plansto build up to 1,000 new housing units, retailshopping, and a conference center.80 In 1996,DEP officials described some of the tribu-taries to this river as being "devoid of aquaticlife" mainly due to runoff from suburban andurban construction activities leading to sedi-ment loading and stormwater contamina-tion.81

In the 1990s, developers successfullypushed to expand the capacity of the SussexMunicipal sewage treatment plant severaltimes, supporting capacity for tens of thou-sands of new residents to move into new de-

The Wallkill Riverand the Vernon ValleyThe Wallkill River flows into the WallkillNational Wildlife Refuge, a region nationallyrecognized for its diverse plant and animallife. It is also a favorite of river runners, whobring their canoes to paddle through lushmeadows and old farmland between themountains of the Highlands. The Appala-chian Trail passes through this region. Theriver stretches 27 miles through primarilyrural areas, providing groundwater rechargeand drinking water for 100,000 people in NewJersey and New York.77

Overdevelopment is the primary threat towater quality in the area. The stresses onthe rocky Wallkill River start immediately withsewage plants and encroaching developmentin Sussex County, driven by increased ac-cessibility with the widening of Route 15. TheWallkill River and nearby Vernon Valley havebeen the target of many recent developmentproposals that would harm water quality, in-cluding a proposed resort on Hamburg Moun-tain.

In July 2000, Intrawest Corporation, aninternational developer, announced plans fora resort in the forests and valleys of Ham-burg Mountain above the Vernon Valley. Theplans included 1,600 condominiums, three

Wal

lkill

Nat

iona

l Wild

life

Ref

uge

Rivers in Danger 23

velopments in the area. This treatment plantdischarges millions of gallons of treated sew-age per day into the Wallkill River.82

Stormwater runoff continues to be a prob-lem in the area. Sparta recently approved a120-unit development by Sparta Builders,LLC, which will divert surface runoff into apipe underneath Marion Road and directlyinto the Wallkill River, or through a connec-tion to the recently constructed town sewersystem, which also empties wastewater intothe Wallkill River.83

In 1987 and again in 1993, the DEP dis-cussed providing greater protection againstdegradation for the Wallkill River, but neverfollowed through.84 On February 22, 1994,

the DEP stated in the New Jersey Registerthat if significant progress in watershed man-agement and planning was not made withinsix months, providing stronger protection un-der the Clean Water Act would be reconsid-ered. The watershed planning process is stillunder development today.85 An additional rea-son to protect the Wallkill comes from a dealworked out between former New JerseyGovernor Christine Todd Whitman and NewYork Governor George Pataki. According tothis deal, New York will only protect theRamapo River above New Jersey if NewJersey protects the Wallkill River south ofthe New York border.86

In addition to the Wallkill, several streamsin the Vernon Valley, including Black CreekBrook, Pochuck Brook, Papakating Brookand Wawayanda Brook are at risk of waterquality degradation from increased develop-ment. Because of their exceptional impor-tance as drinking water sources, recreationalareas, and wildlife habitat, they need to beprotected. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice has recommended that the Wallkill andits tributaries be protected because of theirecological value, and the DEP has nominatedparts of this river due to ecological signifi-cance and the relatively low amount of im-pervious surface around its headwaters.87

New

Pal

tz, N

Y C

ham

ber o

f Com

mer

ce


Upper DelawareRiver Basin

The Musconetcong RiverThe Musconetcong River flows out of NewJersey’s largest spring-fed lake, LakeHopatcong, then slices through a deep lime-stone river valley to meet the Delaware Riverat Riegelsville. Along the way, it passes stateand county parks, bustling towns, and someof the most productive farmland in the state.The beauty of this valley draws visitors fromacross the region, and it has been proposedfor federal "Wild and Scenic" recognition. Inaddition, the river provides drinking water tothe residents of Hunterdon and Warren coun-ties through two supply intakes near LakeHopatcong, as well as refilling the under-ground aquifer.88

Unfortunately, the same fields used forfarming present attractive areas for devel-opment, the main threat to theMusconetcong River. Accordingto the Musconetcong WatershedAssociation, "the river is alreadyshowing the effects of increasedrunoff from roads, roofs, and park-ing lots in the form of streambankerosion and streambed scour-ing."89 Of all the waterways in theUpper Delaware River Basin, theMusconetcong River, PohatcongCreek and the Pequest River hadthe highest levels of nutrient pol-

lution, sediment, and fecal coliform bac-teria in a USGS study of the area from1985 to 2001.90

According to the DEP 1996 305(b)water quality report, "The upperreaches of the Musconetcong are be-lieved to be receiving increasingamounts of pollution as a result of area-wide suburban development." Thelower reaches of the river face increas-ing levels of bacteria, silt, and runofffrom roadways, while agricultural pol-lutants decline. In addition, LakeHopatcong suffers from eutrophication

linked to nutrient-laden runoff.Although the Musconetcong River has

been proposed for Wild and Scenic status,the river and its tributaries north ofHackettstown are vulnerable to further deg-radation from stormwater runoff and sew-age discharges resulting from continueddevelopment in the area. Developer K.Hovnanian’s efforts to build large projects inLebanon, Bethlehem, and Union townshipsexemplify the pressure facing the region.

Developers have been eyeingMusconetcong Mountain in HunterdonCounty as a potential site for future projects.Several years ago, K. Hovnanian Companybegan pushing a plan to construct 2,000townhouses, condos, and single-family homeson farm land in a fertile river valley inBethlehem Township. Hovnanian is one ofthe nation’s largest developers, and a majorcontributor to political campaigns in thestate.91

The Musconetcong River in Point Mountain Park.

Mus

cone

tcon

g R

iver

Wat

ersh

ed A

ssoc

iatio

n

Rivers in Danger 25

Hovnanian is also advancing plans to builda development called Milligan Farms inHunterdon County. The development wouldbe a 292-home subdivision near Sidney Brookin Union Township. The project would re-quire a new sewage treatment plant thatwould discharge 88,000 gallons of treatedsewage into the Sidney Brook every day. Thestate Department of Environmental Protec-tion recognizes this waterway as home to thethreatened bog turtle and wood turtle, as wellas brook trout, which only live in the cleanestwater.92

The widening of Route 15 will increasethe pressure to build developments like thisnear the headwaters of the Musconetcong.The full length of this river needs protectionfrom further water quality decline. The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and the DEP En-

dangered and Nongame Species Prorgramnominated portions of this river and its tribu-taries for further protection based on its rela-tive lack of impervious cover and itsecological value.93

Other Vulnerable Waterways in theUpper Delaware Area

• Lopatcong Creek

• Pohatcong Creek

• Paulinskill River, West Branch

• Rivers on the Hunterdon Plateau, includingAlexauken Creek and Swan Creek

• The Delaware River above WashingtonCrossing


Raritan River BasinThe Raritan River Basin carries water fromthe southeastern expanse of the Highlandsin Morris and Hunterdon Counties to thecoastal marshes of Middlesex County. Thearea hosts two of the state’s largest drinkingwater reservoirs, Spruce Run Reservoir andRound Valley Reservoir. These reservoirs area major drinking water source for populatedcities in central New Jersey.

The headwaters of the Raritan River flowthrough some of the most rapidly developingareas of the state. A proposed project by PulteHomes near the South Branch of theRockaway Creek clearly shows the type ofthreat facing the region. The 911-homeproject, known as Windy Acres, would oc-cupy 292 acres in Clinton Township. Theconstruction of Windy Acres would require

a new sewage treatment plant, which woulddischarge wastewater in to the RockawayCreek, a high-quality waterway home tobrown trout and wood turtles. The projectwas unanimously rejected by the ClintonTownship Planning Board in July 2001, butPulte Homes is currently suing to overturnthe decision.

For another example, look at the NeshanicRiver watershed, a tributary of the SouthBranch. Much of this watershed lies withinthe boundaries of Raritan Township. Be-tween 1986 and 1995, Raritan Townshipadded 2,266 acres of urban area. Between1990 and 2000, the township added 4,193 newresidents and issued 1,517 permits for resi-dential housing units. As a result, six percentof the Neshanic watershed was claimed bydevelopment between 1986 and 1995, lead-ing to a 6% decline in water quality duringthe 1990s.

However, only four percent of theNeshanic River watershed was covered byimpervious surface in 1995. There is still timeto protect it, as well as other vulnerable partsof the headwaters of the Raritan River.

Vulnerable Waterways in theRaritan River Basin

• Assicong Creek

• Allerton Creek

• Neshanic Creek

• Spruce Run Creek

• Prescott Brook

• Back Brook

• Cramers Brook

• Pleasant Run

• Holland Brook

• Middle Brook

• Walnut Brook

• Rockaway Creek

• Sidney Brook

Sou

th B

ranc

h W

ater

shed

Ass

ocia

tion

Mar

k R

ausc

hkol

b

Union Township, Hunterdon County, August13, 2001—Runoff after a 1.1 inch rainstormoverwhelmed the stormwater drainage systemin a neighborhood at the headwaters ofMullhockaway Creek, a tributary of SpruceRun reservoir and a drinking water source formuch of central New Jersey.

Rivers in Danger 27

Lower DelawareRiver and Bay

Rancocas CreekRancocas Creek flows from the PinelandsProtection Area in the coastal plain of NewJersey to the Delaware River, providing cleandrinking water for the people of Pemberton,Medford, Evesham, Mount Holly, Mount Lau-rel, and Willingboro. Surface water intakesare located near Delran and on the upperpart of the north branch of the creek.94 Inaddition to its importance as a drinking wa-ter source for the region, Rancocas Creek ishome to several bald eagle pairs and otherthreatened and endangered species.95

Overdevelopment is the main threat towater quality in Rancocas Creek. The heavydevelopment pressure felt in this area is ex-emplified by the continued expansion of sub-urban area in Mount Laurel. On December28, the Mount Laurel Township Planning

Board gave final approval to RancocasPointe, a new 326-home developmentplanned for 86 acres on the south bank ofRancocas Creek by J.S. Hovnanian andSons, Inc.96 The development has nearbyresidents worried that the creek will changeforever.97 The New Jersey DEP Endangeredand Nongame Species Program and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service have recom-mended the Rancocas Creek for strongerprotection under the Clean Water Act be-cause of its ecological significance.98

Bur

lingt

on C

ount

y La

nd U

se O

ffice


Oldmans CreekOldmans Creek flows from thecoastal plain to the DelawareRiver, marking the boundarybetween Gloucester and Salemcounties. It meanders throughlush green farms, cool forests,and expansive tidal wetlands.It is an important source ofgroundwater replenishmentand wildlife habitat for the re-gion.99

However, new develop-ments are rapidly transformingthe area, threatening waterquality. Non-point sources are the only con-tributor to water quality problems in OldmansCreek above the tidal line. The creek is af-fected by agricultural and suburban sourcesof runoff, including runoff from road andhousing construction, urban surfaces, miningactivities and leachate from septic systems.All these sources have been identified by lo-cal officials to be responsible for a decline inwater quality and some minor habitat destruc-tion in the 1990s.100

The development pressure in this area isexemplified by the recent battle over themammoth Weatherby project in Woolwich,the state’s second fastest-growing township.Summit Homes is building 4,500 homes in thearea, putting a heavy strain on the area’s

drinking water supplies. Three years ago, thestate said that development along theGloucester-Salem county border had to stop,or the aquifer which supplies drinking waterto the region would be rapidly depleted. Sum-mit Homes then sued the state, seeking toadvance the project despite the water sup-ply concerns. In 2001, the Legislature passeda bill that allowed water companies to tem-porarily pump 283 million more gallons peryear from the endangered aquifer while a $6million pipeline is built to supply treated wa-ter from the Delaware River.101 Currently,the mayor of Woolwich is appealing theDEP’s decision to grant temporary permitsto withdraw excess water from the aquifer,citing concern about the depletion of otherresidents’ well water.

Projects like this threaten to degrade wa-ter quality in Oldmans Creek, slow aquiferrecharge by increasing runoff from impervi-ous surface, and exhaust drinking water sup-plies for current and future residents.Because of its ecological significance as habi-tat for rare and threatened species, the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and New Jersey’sDEP Endangered and Nongame Species Pro-gram have recommended parts of OldmansCreek for increased protection under theClean Water Act.102

Dan

Gre

nier

, Sou

th J

erse

y W

ater

shed

Alli

ance

A farm along Oldmans Creek.

Rivers in Danger 29

Although 10 miles of theMaurice River and 24 miles ofits tributaries are federally des-ignated Wild and Scenic rivers,much of the waterways are vul-nerable to further decline in wa-ter quality. Much of thedevelopment pressure is happen-ing at the headwaters of theMaurice River.

Between 1996 and 2001,Monroe Township issued morethan 2,600 building permits forresidential homes in part of thewatershed that already has 5%impervious surface cover. In

1990, Monroe issued permits for only 54homes, while in 1999 the township issuedpermits for 490 homes.

The full length of this river, especially itsheadwaters, needs full protection from wa-ter quality degradation under the Clean Wa-ter Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceand New Jersey’s DEP have identified theMaurice River as a candidate for further pro-tection because of its proximity to undevel-oped open space and its significance aswildlife habitat.106

The Maurice RiverThe Maurice River is a nationally recognized"Wild and Scenic" river with nationally andinternationally important resources. Millionsof migrating birds flock to its clean waters inlate summer every year, and the river pro-vides a critical link between the DelawareEstuary and the Pinelands.103 It is home to20-30 pairs of threatened osprey and fourpairs of bald eagles.104 It passes through widefields of crops, untouched forests, the scenictown of Vineland, and finally reaches an ex-pansive tidal marsh.

The Maurice River already has some wa-ter quality problems:105

• In the lower sections of the river, sew-age treatment plant discharge contami-nated the shellfish beds with bacteria,resulting in a ban on shellfish harvesting.

• Tributaries including Still Run, Little Easeseptic tank leachate and runoff from cropand pasture lands, urban surfaces, roadand home construction, and road mainte-nance.

Purple martins and swallows flockto the wetlands surrounding theMaurice River every year.

Cap

e M

ay T

imes


The Cohansey RiverThe Cohansey River stretches 30 milesthrough eastern Salem County, passingthrough important agricultural land and widetidal marshes along the Delaware Bay. Ithelps to refill the groundwater aquifers thatsupply drinking water and irrigation water forthe region.

Pollution in the Cohansey River comesfrom both agriculture and suburban develop-ment activities. Specifically, leachate fromseptic systems and runoff from croplands,pasturelands, housing developments, roads,and urban surfaces impact water quality.107

As a result, the tidal sections of the Cohanseydo not support shellfishing because of bacte-rial contamination.

Further development could make the pol-lution problem more severe. Hopewell Town-ship is the most rapidly growing area in thewatershed. The number of housing units per-mitted by the township tripled from the 1980sto the 1990s. From 1996 to 2001, the town-

ship issued permits for almost 1,000 homes.The full length of this river needs protec-

tion from future water quality decline. TheU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the NewJersey DEP have identified the CohanseyRiver as a candidate for further protectionbecause of its proximity to undeveloped openspace and its significance as wildlife habi-tat.108

A DEP employee collects insectsamples in the Cohansey River atSilver Lake Road.

New

Jer

sey

DE

P

Other Vulnerable Rivers in the Lower Delaware River

and Bay Area

• Salem River109

• Alloway Creek110

• Mad Horse Creek

• Stow Creek111

• Cedar Creek112

• Nantuxent Creek

• Orandaken Creek

• Dividing Creek

• West Creek

• East Creek

Rivers in Danger 31

Atlantic Coastal Region

The Manasquan RiverThe Manasquan River flows from centralMonmouth County to the Atlantic Ocean. Theriver is a favorite for fishing and boating, andthe bay and beaches at its tidal end are popu-lar places for swimming. The river also sup-plies drinking water for hundreds of thousandsof Jersey Shore residents through severaldrinking water intakes.113

Development strained drinking water sup-plies in this area as early as the 1980s. Dueto heavy use of the groundwater, the DEPforced Monmouth County to slash ground-water use by up to 60%. In return, the statespent more than $75 million building a reser-voir fed by the Manasquan River that sup-plies 16 million gallons of water to more thanhalf a million people.114 This reservoir wasproposed for protection by the McGreeveyadministration on Earth Day 2002 in recog-nition of its significance as a drinking watersource.

About half of the land in this watershedwas used for growing crops and grazing ani-mals in 1995, but large-scale development istransforming the area from an agriculturalpast into a suburban future. This develop-ment is the main threat to water quality inthe Manasquan River.

The Manasquan watershed region is oneof the most rapidly growing areas of the state.This growth can clearly be seen in a fewstatistics:115

• Private-sector employment in the areagrew by 23.2% in the 1990s, while it grewonly 6.0% statewide.

• 34,000 new residents moved into the areain the 1990s.

• Urban area in the watershed grew by17.6%.

• Freehold, Howell, and Wall all grew bymore than 25%, compared to 8.6% for thestate as a whole.

• Over 12,000 new housing units were builtin the 1990s.

• Approximately 6,500 acres, or 6.1% of thetotal land area in the watershed was de-veloped between 1986 and 1995.

• At this rate, build-out will happen by theyear 2031.If development continues until the water-

shed is completely built-out, an additional6,150 residential homes and 63 million squarefeet of impervious surface will be added,mostly in the towns of Freehold, Howell, andWall.116

Recent headlines from local papers de-scribe the development pressure facing theregion:• “Planners OK 135 homes on Hascup

Farm.”117 HOWELL — US Home, Free-hold Township, has received final approvalto build 135 homes on Route 524 on the203-acre Schuch-Hascup tract betweenHowell and Havens Bridge roads.

Other Vulnerable Rivers in theAtlantic Coastal Region

• Shark River

• Tributaries of theSwimming River Reservoir127

• Navesink River

• Cedar Creek


• “Planners begin hearing plan for adult com-munity: Toll Brothers has plans for Rivieraat Freehold on Jackson Mills Road.”118

FREEHOLD TOWNSHIP — Toll Broth-ers wants to subdivide a 227-acre lot andbuild a 300-unit age-restricted communityat Jackson Mills and Bergerville roads.Because of its significance as a drinking

water source and recreational area, this riverneeds protection from further pollution un-der the Clean Water Act. The NJDEP listsparts of the Manasquan River as candidatesfor further protection because of its proxim-ity to undeveloped open space and less than10% impervious cover draining to a publicwater supply.119

A kayaker on the upper ManasquanRiver.

Mon

mou

th C

ount

y P

ark

Sys

tem

Rivers in Danger 33

The Great Egg Harbor RiverThe Great Egg Harbor River is a nationallyrecognized "Wild and Scenic" river, passingthrough some of the most pristine forests inthe state, including the Pinelands ProtectionArea. It is home to 41 species of fish and 87species of birds, including the nationally en-dangered peregrine falcon and the nationallythreatened bald eagle and piping plover.120

Hundreds of boaters can be found along itslength, fishing and watching wildlife. Hikersflock to enjoy isolated spots along its banks.

However, the headwater areas in particu-lar are threatened by increasing developmentin eastern Camden and Gloucester counties.The river begins flowing from a spring whichis routed around the Berlin Circle ShoppingCenter and a parking lot, emerging from apipe at the Camden County Park in Berlin.121

The Winslow Township sewage treatmentplant in Sicklerville exemplifies the problemof sewage discharge in the upper Great EggHarbor watershed. In the last few years,pressure from increasing development led toa 600,000 gallon-per-day expansion of the

plant’s discharge ca-pacity, bringing it to2.25 million gallons ofdischarge per day.This discharge flowsinto the environmen-tally sensitive GreatEgg Harbor River. Asa result of the expan-sion, projects in thearea like WoodpeakDevelopment’s 684-single family homecommunity were ableto go forward.122

The upper GreatEgg Harbor River ispolluted with nutrientsand sediment from

sewage treatment wastewater, runoff, sep-tic system leachate, and agricultural runoff,and residential development in the watershedoutside the Pinelands is rapidly consumingwildlife habitat.123

This important river needs stronger pro-tection from development-related pollution,especially along its headwater streams. Be-cause of the ecological significance of theGreat Egg Harbor River, the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service and New Jersey’s DEP havenominated it as a candidate for additional pro-tection under the Clean Water Act.124

Canoe enthusiasts launching onto theGreat Egg Harbor River at WeymouthFurnace Park.

Wey

mou

th T

owns

hip


The Toms RiverThe Toms River and itstributaries drain a signifi-cant portion of the east-ern Pinelands ProtectionArea, and recharge theKirkwood-Cohansey,Magothy, and Piney Pointaquifers that supply muchof the drinking water forthe region. Because theaquifers in this region areclose to the surface, theyare especially vulnerableto contamination.125 TheToms River eventuallyreaches Barnegat Bay, an ecologically im-portant estuary very popular with boaters andfishermen.

Development is the main threat to waterquality in the Toms River. The Upper TomsRiver flows through Jackson and DoverTownships in Ocean County and FreeholdTownship in Monmouth County. Between1986 and 1995, these townships each addedover 1,700 acres of new development, rank-ing in the top 13 most rapidly developing ar-eas of the state. This development claimed6% of the Toms River watershed area. TheToms-Mullica Watershed Area was listed asan Area of Probable Concern in the U.S.

EPA’s National Sediment Inventory (1997)due to sediment contamination.

Despite this rapid development, the up-per part of the river still contained less than5% impervious surface. There is still oppor-tunity to preserve the high water quality ofthis river.

Water supply is a major issue in the TomsRiver watershed. In 1990, the area was us-ing 16 million gallons of water more than sup-plies could sustainably provide, a level thatmay rise to 40 million gallons by 2040.126

Reducing runoff and pollution in this river withstronger protection under the Clean WaterAct can help maintain groundwater rechargerates.

Rivers in Danger 35

Preserving pristine waterways requiresprotecting pristine forests and wet-lands, maintaining buffer corridors,

minimizing impervious surface additions, andpreventing new or expanded sewage dis-charges in vulnerable areas. Each of thesesteps can promote healthy streams and gooddrinking water quality to provide long-termprotection for public health and public drink-ing water supplies.

Under the Clean Water Act, states candesignate waterbodies as "high quality" wa-ters and protect them from any changes thatwould measurably harm water quality. Thisanti-degradation provision, officially knownas the Category One or C1 program, can bean effective tool for the state to use to pro-tect pristine waterways from development-related pollution. Eligible rivers and streamsinclude those with exceptional significanceas drinking water sources, wildlife habitat,or recreational areas.

Waterways designated as C1 are pro-tected with buffer zones surrounding theirbanks, providing filters to reduce runoff andincrease groundwater recharge. Developerswishing to build sewage treatment plants onthese rivers are required to ensure that sew-age discharge will not measurably degradewater quality. As a result, the C1 programcan be an effective tool to protect water qual-ity from the negative effects of development.

Governor McGreevey’s administrationhas made protecting our drinking water sup-plies a priority. During the 2003 State of theState Address, Governor McGreevey citeduncontrolled development as a major threatto our drinking water supplies.128 On EarthDay 2002, the administration proposed pro-tection for nine drinking water reservoirs andsix streams using the Category One program,with seven new trout streams added in De-cember 2002. In March 2003, the adminis-tration announced a broad list of waterbodiesas candidates for this same level of protec-tion, including the Metedeconk River andLake Tappan.129

POLICY FINDINGS

The administration can help ensure thatNew Jersey’s drinking water sources remainprotected for future generations by improv-ing the scope and effectiveness of the Cat-egory One program with the following steps:

Officially finalizing Category One statusfor the waterbodies the administrationhas already identified as high-quality.

The administration has already selected a setof drinking water reservoirs and pristinestreams across the state for protection un-der the Clean Water Act beginning on EarthDay 2002. Fifteen waterways were first pro-posed for protection in April 2002, with anadditional seven trout streams selected inDecember. The Department of Environmen-tal Protection should finalize the regulationsfor these waterbodies, ensuring that theircurrent water quality is preserved.

Extending protection to an inclusive andcomprehensive list of waterways acrossthe state, similar to the list of waterwaysnominated by both the DEP and the pub-lic in March 2003.

The Department of Environmental Protec-tion should emphasize drinking water sources,habitat for threatened and endangered spe-cies including coastal areas, headwaters withlow impervious cover, and the tributaries ofprotected rivers or reservoirs in selecting wa-ters for Category One status. Since waterflows into reservoirs and other drinking wa-ter sources from wide headwater areas,projects that pollute headwaters can alsopollute protected waterbodies downstream.Accordingly, waters upstream of protectedareas should be treated with the same levelof care. The department should move quicklyto officially propose protection for waterwayson this comprehensive list.

Integrating implementation proceduresfor protecting C1 waterways to all statewater quality rules to ensure that theyare effective.


A law is only as effective as its implementa-tion. The Department of Environmental Pro-tection should ensure that theanti-degradation provisions work to preventpollution by incorporating the full intent of thelaw in relevant regulations, including the rulesgoverning septic systems, groundwater pro-tection, stream encroachment, wetlands man-agement, coastal management, waterallocation, and stormwater management. Forexample, the recently proposed stormwatermanagement rule provides a 300-foot bufferzone around Category One waterways. Thisrule change is a good start. Further changeslike this, including tougher sewage dischargestandards for Category One waterways, willbe necessary to ensure the full effectivenessof the anti-degradation program.

Strengthening and enforcing existingregulations to ensure no measurablewater quality decline in Category Onewaterways.

The Department of Environmental Protec-tion should enact and enforce buffer zonerules, limits on discharge from sewage treat-ment plants, and limits on discharge from in-dustry for current Category One watersacross the state. Increased enforcementshould prevent any pollution from harmingwater quality in these special waterways. Re-gardless of the location of these waterwayson the DEP’s "BIG Map," which lays out agrowth plan for the state, Category Onewaters should receive the same level of pro-tection.

Rivers in Danger 37

Northwest New JerseyIn the Highlands area of Northwest New Jer-sey, water quality declined in the WallkillRiver, the Papakating Creek, the PequestRiver, and the Musconetcong River.

Wallkill RiverThe Wallkill River drains into the WallkillNational Wildlife Refuge and provides drink-ing water for roughly 100,000 people in NewYork and New Jersey.

Increasing development in this area ac-companied dramatic water quality changesin this river during the last decade. Overallwater quality in the Wallkill declined by 16%,while water quality in Papakating Creek de-clined by 23%. Over 80% of the testing sitesin this watershed showed moderate impair-ment.• Three percent of the total land feeding

the Wallkill River was developed between1986 and 1995.

• 2,579 acres of land were developed, theequivalent of over 1,900 football fields.

• As of 1995, these watersheds contained3,122 acres of pavement, rooftops, andother impervious surfaces, roughly fourpercent of the watershed.

• During the 1990s, 9 of 13 sites showedsignificant water quality decline, 2 of 13showed no change, and 2 of 13 improved.These water quality declines are likely

tied to the repeated expansion of the SussexCounty sewage treatment plant in Sussex andrunoff from increasing development activity.

Pequest RiverBear Creek and the Pequest River aboveBear Swamp declined in quality by more than11% during the 1990s.• Slightly more than 2% of total land in these

watersheds was developed between 1986and 1995.

• 1,058 acres of land were developed, theequivalent of over 750 football fields.

• As of 1995, these watersheds contained1,250 acres of pavement, rooftops, andother impervious surfaces, roughly 3% ofthe watershed.

• During the 1990s, 4 of 7 testing sitesshowed significant water quality decline,while 3 showed no change, with over 70%of these sites moderately impaired.

Musconetcong RiverBelow Trout Brook, the Musconetcong de-clined in quality by 6%.• Four percent of total land was developed

in this watershed between 1986 and 1995.


• As of 1995, these watersheds contained1,670 acres of pavement, rooftops, andother impervious surfaces, or 3.5% of thewatershed.

• During the 1990s, 4 of 7 sites showed sig-nificant water quality decline, while 3showed no change, with over 70% mod-erately impaired.

Central New JerseyIn Central New Jersey, water quality declinedin the Neshanic River, Lawrence Brook andthe Millstone River.

The Neshanic RiverThe Neshanic River declined in water qual-ity by 6% during the 1990s.• 6% of total land was developed in water-

sheds feeding the Neshanic River be-tween 1986 and 1995, bringing thewatersheds to 22% urban land use.

• 2,100 acres of land were developed, theequivalent of nearly 1,600 football fields.

• As of 1995, these watersheds contained1,226 acres of pavement, rooftops, andother impervious surfaces, or about 3.5%of total land area.

APPENDIX:DEVELOPMENT AND WATER QUALITY BY REGION


• 5 of 7 testing sites showed significant wa-ter quality decline, with over 85% moder-ately impaired.A large amount of the new development

in this area was located just below theconfluence of the First, Second, and ThirdNeshanic Rivers.

Lawrence Brook and theMillstone RiverThe watersheds containing the LawrenceBrook and the Millstone River faced someof the heaviest development pressure duringthe late 80s and early 90s. These waterwaysexperienced a water quality decline of about12%.• 7% of total land was developed in these

watersheds between 1986 and 1995.


• As of 1995, these watersheds contained11,570 acres of pavement, rooftops, andother impervious surfaces. That repre-sents 18% of the Lawrence Brook wa-tershed and 10% of the Millstone.

• As of the last testing, 4 of 20 sites testedin this basin showed severe impairment,15 of 20 showed moderate impairment,and only 1 showed no impairment.

The Atlantic CoastAlong the Atlantic Coast, water quality de-clined in the Navesink River, the Shark River,the Manasquan River, the Metedeconk River,Tom’s River, the Manahawkin River, theMullica River, the Great Egg Harbor River,and the Tuckahoe River.

Navesink

• 6% of total land was developed in water-sheds feeding the Navesink River be-tween 1986 and 1995.


• As of 1995, these watersheds contained5,998 acres of pavement, rooftops, and

other impervious surfaces. That repre-sents 10% of the watershed.

• In the late 1990s, 12 of 15 sites tested inthis basin showed moderate impairmentand 3 of 15 showed severe impairment,representing a 3% water quality decline.

Manasquan• 6% of total land was developed in water-

sheds feeding the Manasquan River be-tween 1986 and 1995.


• As of 1995, these watersheds contained5,587 acres of pavement, rooftops, andother impervious surfaces. That repre-sents over 10% of the total watershed.

• In the late 1990s, 1 site was severely im-paired, 9 were moderately impaired and3 were unimpaired, representing a 4%water quality decline.

MetedeconkThe North Branch of the Metedeconkshowed an 8% water quality decline, while3 sites in the lower Metedeconk watershedshowed a 33% water quality decline.• Over 4% of total land was developed in

watersheds feeding the North Branch ofthe Metedeconk River between 1986 and1995.


• As of 1995, these watersheds contained6,000 acres of pavement, rooftops, andother impervious surfaces. That repre-sents over 23% of the North Branch wa-tershed, and 12% of the LowerMetedeconk watershed.

• In the late 1990s, 1 testing site was se-verely impaired, 8 were moderately im-paired and 2 were unimpaired.

Shark RiverWater quality in the Shark River watersheddeclined by 14% during the 1990s.

Rivers in Danger 39

• Over 4% of total land in this watershedwas developed between 1986 and 1995.

• 1,700 acres of land were developed, theequivalent of nearly 1,300 football fields.

• As of 1995, these watersheds contained8,170 acres of pavement, rooftops, andother impervious surfaces. That repre-sents over 21% of the watershed.

• In the late 1990s, 3 sites were severelyimpaired, and 4 were moderately impaired.

Toms RiverWater quality in Toms River above Oak RidgeParkway declined 14% in the 1990s.• Six percent of total land in this watershed

was developed between 1986 and 1995.


• As of 1995, these watersheds contained1,920 acres of pavement, rooftops, and

Table A1: Development in Watersheds with Worsening Water Quality

% % Impairment WaterNew Impervious Score Quality

Watershed Region Development Surface Late 1990s Change

Millstone River (above Carnegie Lake) Millstone 7.5 9.9 14 DeclinedLawrence Brook Lower Raritan 6.6 17.9 14 DeclinedMillstone River (below Carnegie Lake) Millstone 6.6 8.9 16 DeclinedNeshanic River S. Branch Raritan 5.9 3.4 18 DeclinedManasquan River Monmouth 5.9 10.6 16 DeclinedToms River (above Oak Ridge Parkway) Barnegat Bay 5.6 5.0 23 DeclinedMetedeconk River Barnegat Bay 5.0 23.7 9 DeclinedKettle Creek / Barnegat Bay North Barnegat Bay 4.5 16.5 11 DeclinedToms River (below Oak Ridge Parkway) Barnegat Bay 4.4 13.5 22 DeclinedWhale Pond Brook / Shark River Monmouth 4.4 21.0 12 DeclinedNavesink River / Lower Shrewsbury River Monmouth 4.3 9.9 13 DeclinedGreat Egg Harbor R (above Hospitality Brook) Great Egg Harbor 4.2 7.8 20 DeclinedMetedeconk River, North Branch Barnegat Bay 3.9 11.8 19 DeclinedMusconetcong River (below Trout Brook) Upper Delaware 3.7 3.5 25 DeclinedAbsecon Creek Great Egg Harbor 3.6 10.7 14 DeclinedPaulins Kill (above Stillwater Village) Upper Delaware 3.4 3.9 21 DeclinedPapakating Creek Wallkill 3.0 2.3 21 DeclinedBear Creek Upper Delaware 2.6 1.3 20 DeclinedWallkill River (above road to Martins) Wallkill 2.5 4.6 19 DeclinedWallkill River (below road to Martins) Wallkill 2.4 2.2 21 Declined

other impervious surfaces. That repre-sents 5% of the watershed.

• In the late 1990s, 4 sites were moderatelyimpaired, and 6 were unimpaired.

Great Egg Harbor RiverWater quality in the Great Egg Harbor Riverabove Hospitality Brook declined by 11% inthe 1990s.• Four percent of total land in this water-

shed was developed between 1986 and1995.


• As of 1995, these watersheds contained3,557 acres of pavement, rooftops, andother impervious surfaces. That repre-sents 8% of the watershed.

• In the late 1990s, 4 sites were moderatelyimpaired, and 3 were unimpaired.


Data SourcesWater quality data comes from the New JerseyDepartment of Environmental Protection’s(NJDEP) Ambient Biomonitoring Network(AMNET). GIS shape files containing this datawere obtained from the DEP website atwww.state.nj.us/dep. Land Use and Land Coverdata was prepared by NJDEP using aerial photo-graphs taken in 1986 and again in 1995. This datais also available on the NJDEP website, alongwith GIS shape files describing USGS HydrologicUnit Code (HUC) watershed boundaries, andmunicipal boundaries. Building Permit informa-tion is from the New Jersey Department of Laborand the U.S. Census, available at www.njpin.net.

Land development and impervious surfacedata come from an analysis of the NJDEP 1986-1995 Land Use/Land Cover GIS data set usingwatershed boundaries described by USGS 11-digit codes; Water quality data comes from a com-parison of the NJDEP AMNET surveys carriedout in the early and late 1990s, using the averagevalue for all testing sites within a watershed de-scribed by USGS 11-digit codes; Testing sitesshowing impairment data reflects the number oftesting sites within a watershed showing impair-ment (AMNET score 21 or below) and severe im-pairment (AMNET score 6 or below).

Data Analysis

Water QualityThe average water quality score was derived foreach watershed as described by United StatesGeological Survey eleven-digit codes (HUC 11)by determining the average value of all of theAMNET sites within a watershed, both for theearly and late 1990s. For the purpose of generat-ing the relative color categories on the maps inFigure One, we defined "Serious" impairment asa score of 11 out of 30 or below. "Unimpaired"was defined as 24 or above, and "Moderatelyimpaired" included values between these two cat-egories. For allocating individual sites to a cat-egory as in Table One, we used the same scale asthe NJDEP. Severely impaired sites have a score

METHODOLOGY

of 6 or below, impaired sites have a score of 9 to21, and pristine sites have scores of 24 to 30. Wecompared average measurements in the early1990s to those from the late 1990s to determinewater quality trends.

Land UseFor the land use analysis, we relied on the NJDEP1986-1995 Land Use/Land Cover data set, andthe pioneering work of the Rutgers Center forRemote Sensing and Spatial Analysis.130 We de-fined new development as areas which changedfrom a natural state or agricultural use to urbanuse—including both residential and commercialareas. We calculated the area of new develop-ment and impervious surface in 1995 in each wa-tershed and municipality using ArcView, a GISprogram.

Building PermitsWe created the building permit maps using infor-mation on the yearly issue of building permitsfrom each New Jersey municipality. We looked atsingle family units and apartments and codedeach municipality with the corresponding build-ing permit information using ArcView.

Selection of EndangeredRiversWe chose endangered rivers based on the fol-lowing criteria:

1) Rivers with relatively pristine water quality thatmay have seen degradation in recent years.

2) Waterways that supply drinking water andgroundwater recharge for large numbers ofpeople.

3) Habitat for threatened and endangered spe-cies, as defined by the New Jersey DEP En-dangered and Nongame Species Program’sLandscape Project. GIS maps describing habi-tat for rare and threatened species are avail-able at the DEP website.

4) Areas of the state coming increasingly underdevelopment pressures

5) Watersheds that have relatively low impervi-ous cover and have not reached build-out.

Rivers in Danger 41

1. New Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection (NJDEP), New Jersey 2002 Inte-grated Water Quality Monitoring and Assess-ment Report, Section 3.1c, 2002.2. United States Department of Agriculture, U.S.Forest Service, New York-New Jersey High-lands Regional Study: 2002 Update, December2002; Colleen O’Dea, “Sprawl in HighlandsImperils Water Supply.” Daily Record, 5 April2002.3. John Hasse and Richard Lathrop, Center forRemote Sensing and Spatial Analysis atRutgers University, Measuring Urban Growthin New Jersey, 2001.4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, SurfYour Watershed, (website at www.epa.gov/surf); New Jersey analysis: Dena Mottola, NewJersey Public Interest Research Group Law andPolicy Center, New Jersey’s Watershed HealthReport Card: The Case for a Stronger StateClean Water Program, March 2001.5. Anthony Twyman, “McGreevey Urged toFulfill Vow to Tighten Water Rules,” The Star-Ledger, 4 October 2002; Clifford Day, U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field Office,Re: Reissuance of a New Jersey PollutantDischarge Elimination System(NJPDES)Permit for the K. Hovnanian Company ofNorth Central Jersey for a New Dischargefrom a Proposed Privately Owned SewageTreatment Plant Associated with the Proposed292-home Milligan Farm Development inUnion Township, Hunterdon County, NewJersey, Letter submitted to the NJDEP Divisionof Water Quality, 25 October 2002.6. United States Geological Survey (USGS),National Water Quality Assessment Program,Effects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems,Fact Sheet 042-02, May 2002; R. Lowrance etal., Stroud Water Research Center, WaterQuality Functions of Riparian Forest BufferSystems in the Chesapeake Bay Watersheds.Environmental Management 21, 687-712, 1997.7. Mark Ayers, Jonathan Kennen, and PaulStackelberg, U.S. Geological Survey, WaterQuality in the Long Island/New Jersey CoastalDrainages, Circular 1201, 2000.8. See Note 3.9. See Note 7.10. Clean Water Network and the NationalResources Defense Council, Wetlands forClean Water: How Wetlands Protect Rivers,Lakes, and Coastal Waters from Pollution,

April 1997; Albert Todd, “Making DecisionsAbout Riparian Buffer Width,” in RiparianEcology and Management in Multi-UseWatersheds, (Middleburg, VA: American WaterResources Association, 2000), 445-450.11. The Center for Watershed Protection, SitePlanning for Urban Stream Protection:Chapter 2, The Importance of Imperviousness,downloaded from www.cwp.org on 4 Feb.2003; Peter Lehner et al., Stormwater Strate-gies: Community Responses to Runoff Pollu-tion, 1999.12. The Center for Watershed Protection, SitePlanning for Urban Stream Protection:Chapter 2, The Importance of Imperviousness,downloaded from www.cwp.org on 4 Feb. 2003.13. Stormwater Management Systems, CahillAssociates, Porous Pavement System withUnderground Recharge Beds, EngineeringDesign Report, Spring 1993.14. See Note 12.15. Andrew Riehl, Hunterdon Coalition,Personal Communication, 25 March 2003.16. New Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection, New Jersey State Water QualityInventory Report, Section 305(b). I-19, 1996.17. New Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection, New Jersey State Water QualityInventory Report, Section 305(b). 1992.18. New Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection, Passaic River Water QualityManagement Study, I-1, 1987.19. Lew Sichelman, “On-Site Septic SystemsCausing Problems,” Realty Times, 27 March2000.20. Sharpley et al., U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, Agricultural Phosphorous and Eutrophi-cation, July 1999.21. U.S. EPA, Consumer Factsheet on Ni-trates/Nitrites, 26 November 2002.22. See Note 12.23. Jeremiah Baumann, Sean Gray, JaneHoulihan, and Richard Wiles, the State PIRGsand Environmental Working Group, Considerthe Source:Farm Runoff, ChlorinationByproducts, and Human Health, 8 January2002.24. D.W. Kolpin et al., U.S.Geological Survey,Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and OtherOrganic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S.Streams, 1999-2000: A NationalReconaissance. Environmental Science andTechnology 36, 1202-1211, 2002.

NOTES


25. Eileen Murphy, New Jersey DEP, TheCharacterization of Tentatively IdentifiedCompounds (TICs) in Water Samples Col-lected from Public Water Systems in NewJersey, 2003; Alexander Lane, “It’s 2003, Do YouKnow What’s In Your Drinking Water?” TheStar-Ledger, 7 March 2003.26. Joseph Verrengia, “Nation’s WaterwaysPolluted by Everyday Products,” AssociatedPress, 13 March 2002.27. See Note 3.28. Dave Sheingold, “Flood of At-Risk Homes,”The Record, 2 March 2003.29. See Note 12.30. J. Kennen, U.S. Geological Survey, Relationof Macroinvertebrate Community Impairmentto Catchment Characteristics in New JerseyStreams. Journal of the American WaterResources Association 35, 939-955, 1999.31. Albert Todd, “Making Decisions AboutRiparian Buffer Width,” in Riparian Ecologyand Management in Multi-Use Watersheds,(Middleburg, VA: American Water ResourcesAssociation, 2000), 445-450.32. New Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection, Bureau of Freshwater and BiologicalMonitoring, Rapid Bioassessment Protocol(web page), 8 January 2002.33. See Note 3.34. See Note 7.35. The DEP has not yet published data for theLower Delaware area as of the time of publica-tion.36. Land development and impervious surfacedata come from an analysis of the NJDEP 1986-1995 Land Use/Land Cover GIS data set usingwatershed boundaries described by USGS 11-digit codes; Water quality data comes from acomparison of the NJDEP AMNET surveyscarried out in the early and late 1990s, using theaverage value for all testing sites within awatershed described by USGS 11-digit codes;Testing sites showing impairment data reflectsthe number of testing sites within a watershedshowing impairment (AMNET score 21 orbelow) and severe impairment (AMNET score 6or below); See Methodology.37. Carolyn Summers et al, National ResourcesDefense Council, Cape May to Montauk, aCoastal Protection Report Card, November2002.38. See Note 3; see also Methodology section.39. See Methodology.40. New Jersey Department of Labor, Residen-tial Housing Units Authorized by Building

Permits, downloaded from www.njpin.net on 29November 2002; see Methodology.41. See Note 1.42. New Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection, New Jersey Geological Survey,Freshwater Use in New Jersey 1995, Informa-tion Circular 1997.43. Ibid.44. See Note 4.45. See Note 2.46. Ibid.47. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, SignificantHabitats and Habitat Complexes of the NewYork Bight Watershed: New Jersey Pinelands,Complex #2, November 1997.48. Ibid.49. For examples, see www.nj-landuselaw.com,the website of the law firm of Hill-Wallack inPrinceton, NJ.50. Governor James McGreevey, State of NewJersey, McGreevey Acts to Protect WaterResources in Bergen County; Seeks PublicInput on List of Statewide Waters Identified forMore Protection, (Press Release), 11 March2003.51. New Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection, NJDEP Candidates for CategoryOne and Other Special Protections, down-loaded from www.state.nj.us/dep, March 2003.52. State of New Jersey, Office of the Governor,McGreevey Celebrates Earth Day by Protect-ing State’s Critical Reservoirs and Streams(Press Release), 22 April 2002; threatened andendangered species: New Jersey DEP, Divisionof Fish and Wildlife, Landscape Project,downloaded from www.state.nj.us/dep, 3January 2003.53. Skylands Clean, Powder Hollow, down-loaded from www.skyclean.org on 13 Feb 2002.54. Personal communication, Ross Kushner,Pequannock River Coalition, 18 March 2003.55. Ibid.56. See Note 51.57. Oakland Environmental Commission, 2001Project Photo Tour, downloaded fromwww.oakland-nj.org on 20 March 2003.58. Drinking water: New York and New JerseyTrails Conference, Resolution Supporting thePreservation of Lands Within the RamapoRiver Watershed, downloaded fromwww.nynjtc.org/issues/torneres.html, 15February 2003; mussel: Alex Nussbaum,“Strained Mussels,” The Record, 23 December2001.59. Visually observed using the NJDEP 1995

Rivers in Danger 43

Land Use/ Land Cover dataset; See Methodol-ogy.60. New Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection (NJDEP), Water Quality InventoryReport (305b), 1996.61. New Jersey Sierra Club, “Camp Glen GrayThreatened With Development.” Sierra ActivistUpdates and Alerts, 11 January 2000. (Availableat Garden State Enviro News Library,www.gsenet.org)62. Sierra Club, Smart Choices or SprawlingGrowth: A 50-State Survey of Development.September 2000.63. New York and New Jersey Trails Confer-ence, Resolution Supporting the Preservationof Lands within the Ramapo River Watershed,downloaded from www.nynjtc.org/issues/torneres.html on 15 Feb. 2003.64. See Note 51.65. New Jersey Sierra Club, Split Rock Reser-voir, Sierra Activist Photo Gallery, 10 March2002.66. U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Draft New York-New Jersey HighlandsRegional Study, March 2002.67. News Brief, “Activists prevail in Denville,”Newark Star Ledger, 16 November 1998.68. Laura Szwak, Morris Parks and LandConservancy, “Green Acres fills gaps in FarnyHighlands Greenway,” Garden StateEnviroNews, 13 April 1997.69. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, SignificantHabitats and Habitat Complexes of the NewYork Bight Watershed: New York-New JerseyHighlands, November 1997.70. New Jersey Sierra Club, An Exploration ofthe Pequannock River Watershed, SierraActivist Photo Gallery, 28 October 2001.71. See Note 54.72. The Pequannock River Coalition, “ProposedRiverdale Strip Mall Threatens River Quality(Riverdale, New Jersey) Executive DirectorKushner Silenced by Planning Board Attor-ney.” (web page available atwww.pequannockriver.org) 13 Feb. 2003.73. The Pequannock River Coalition, “WeberTract.” (web page available atwww.pequannockriver.org) 16 Feb. 2003.74. Candy Cooper, “Activists Fight to SaveFederal Hill From Development,” The Record,23 Nov. 2001.75. The Pequannock River Coalition, “FederalHill (Bloomingdale, NJ).” (web page available atwww.pequannockriver.org) 7 Feb. 2003.76. Governor James McGreevey, State of New

Jersey, McGreevey Acts to Protect WaterResources in Bergen County; Seeks PublicInput on List of Statewide Waters Identified forMore Protection, (Press Release), 11 March2003.77. Jerry Flanagan, New Jersey Public InterestResearch Group, New Jersey’s Waters at Risk,July 1999.78. Tim Dillingham, Highlands Coalition,“Hamburg Mountain, At Risk Again,”Highground (Highlands Coalition News), Fall2000.79. Ibid.80. The Mountain Preservation Society,“Hamburg Mountain Saved,” downloaded fromwww.saveourmountain.com/Hamburg.html,What’s New, on 16 Feb. 2003.81. See Note 60.82. See Note 77.83. Mary Paolucci, “Sparta OK’s 120-UnitDevelopment,” New Jersey Herald, 21 February2003.84. See Note 77.85. Clifford Day, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,New Jersey Field Office, Letter to NJDEPRegarding Waters Proposed for Category OneProtection, 6 February 2003.86. See Note 77.87. Clifford Day, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,New Jersey Field Office, Letter to NJDEPRegarding Waters Proposed for Category OneProtection, 6 February 2003; New JerseyDepartment of Environmental Protection,NJDEP Candidates for Category One andOther Special Protections, downloaded fromwww.state.nj.us/dep, March 2003.88. New Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection (NJDEP), New Jersey 2002 Inte-grated Water Quality Monitoring and Assess-ment Report, Section 3.1c, 2002.89. The Musconetcong Watershed Associa-tion, The Watershed Way of Thinking, down-loaded from www.musconetcong.org/wtshedthink.html on 15 February 2003.90. United States Geological Survey, Quality ofWater in Tributaries to the Upper DelawareRiver, New Jersey, Water Years 1985-2001.Fact sheet FS-090-02, 2002.91. For details, see www.opensecrets.org.According to the Star-Ledger, Hovnanianowners and employees have contributed$45,350 to state races since 1989; See Note 5.92. See Note 5.93. See Note 87.94. See Note 1.


95. New Jersey DEP, Division of Fish andWildlife, Landscape Project: GIS Map, down-loaded from www.state.nj.us/dep on 3 January2003.96. Cynthia Burton, “Mt. Laurel Says Yes to 326Houses.” Philadelphia Inquirer, 28 December2002.97. Ibid.98. See Note 87.99. See Note 95.100. See Note 60.101. Kaitlin Gurney, “Weatherby’s water troubleseems solved,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 13February 2003102. See Note 87.103. National Park Service, National Wild andScenic Rivers System, Maurice River, NewJersey, (factsheet) 22 November 2002.104. See Note 95.105. See Note 60.106. See Note 87.107. See Note 60.108. See Note 87.109. The Salem River is home to a publicdrinking water supply intake: New JerseyDepartment of Environmental Protection, NewJersey 2002 Integrated Water Quality Moni-toring and Assessment Report, Section 3.1c,2002; as well as threatened endangered species:Clifford Day, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,New Jersey Field Office, Letter to NJDEPRegarding Waters Proposed for Category OneProtection, 6 February 2003; New JerseyDepartment of Environmental Protection,NJDEP Candidates for Category One andOther Special Protections, downloaded fromwww.state.nj.us/dep, March 2003.110. Identified by the NJDEP Endangered andNongame Species Program for protection basedon ecological significance.111. Listed as a candidate for protection byDEP because of ecological significance andproximity to open space areas.112. Listed as a candidate for protection byDEP because of proximity to open space areas.113. See Note 1.114. Erika Hobbs, “State Struggles to KeepWater System Afloat,” Philadelphia Inquirer,21 January 2001.115. Erik Wilkinson, New Jersey Future, SmartGrowth Concepts and Sustainable Develop-ment, presentation to the Manasquan RiverWatershed Association, 21 May 2002.116. Thomas A. Thomas, T&M Associates,

Manasquan River Watershed Land Develop-ment Capacity Analysis, prepared for theManasquan River Watershed ManagementGroup. 30 March 1999.117. Kathy Baratta, “Planners OK 135 Homeson Hascup Farm,” Tri-Town News, 14 Novem-ber 2002.118. Paul Godino, “Planners Begin Hearing Planfor Adult Community, “ News Transcript, 15August 2001.119. See Note 87.120. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, SignificantHabitats and Habitat Complexes of the NewYork Bight Watershed: Great Egg HarborEstuary, November 1997.121. Great Egg Harbor Watershed Association,Great Egg Harbor Watershed Map and Facts,downloaded from www.naturework.org on 3December 2002.122. Nedra Lindsey, “Deal Clears Way for Long-awaited Expansion of Winslow Plant,” Phila-delphia Inquirer, 21 December 2000.123. See Note 120.124. See Note 87.125. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, SignificantHabitats and Habitat Complexes of the NewYork Bight Watershed: New Jersey Pinelands,Complex #2, November 1997; U.S. EPA, TheIncrease and Severity of Sediment Contamina-tion in Surface Waters of the United States,National Sediment Quality Survey, Volume 1,September 1997, 3-30.126. Todd Bates, “New Jersey Water SuppliesAt Risk,” Asbury Park Press, 22 April 1999.127. This drinking water reservoir was pro-posed for stronger protection under the CleanWater Act by Governor McGreevey on EarthDay 2002.128. “There is no single greater threat to ourway of life in New Jersey than the unrestrained,uncontrolled development that has jeopardizedour water supplies, made our schools morecrowded, our roads congested, and our openspace disappear.” Governor McGreevey, Stateof New Jersey, State of the State Address, 14January 2003.129. Governor James McGreevey, State of NewJersey, McGreevey Acts to Protect WaterResources in Bergen County; Seeks PublicInput on List of Statewide Waters Identified forMore Protection, (Press Release), 11 March2003.130. See Note 3.

Documents

RIVERS IN DANGER