Attendees:

Joan Koos
Peter Krukowsky
Flora Krukowsky
Vincent Domidion
Alice Hemphill
David McKeon
Ken Allen
Michael Craghan
Steve Taylor
Wilma Morrissey
Cathie Oliver
Eric Anderson
Dan Van Abs
Jeffrey Pace
Karen Diehl
Kari Brookhouse
Mary Burne
Evelyn Graff

Mr. Taylor informed the group that Mr. Hegarty would not be able to attend due to a family emergency. Mr. Taylor said that he was familiar with some of the programs managed by the Shark River Cleanup Coalition and would discuss them as best he could.

Mr. Taylor complimented Mr. Hegarty and the Shark River Cleanup Coalition (SRCC) on their environmental programs. The SRCC sponsors regular cleanups of Shark River shorelines by obtaining dumpsters and organizing volunteers for a biannual cleanup. Participation has been excellent and tons of garbage has been removed from the Shark River and its surrounding watershed. The SRCC has also offered river tours utilizing the expertise of local naturalist Bud Doyle. Mr. Doyle has provided several tours featuring presentations on the unique habitats of the Shark River. The SRCC is active in community issues and is specifically focusing on the sources of fecal contamination to the river. In the past several years, a number of sewerage spills have been reported by Mr. Hegarty. He has reported information about the frequency of spills and the lack of proper management and maintenance of sewerage lines in the Shark River watershed. Consequently, the NJDEP has asked municipalities to update their maintenance and service plans and provide regular reports to the Department. The SRCC is also actively engaged in sediment and erosion control issues associated with the construction of the new Walmart facility. In fact, the SRCC has filed a notice of intent to sue Walmart regarding illegal discharges of sediment to the Shark River.

Mr. Taylor commended the SRCC team on their ability to bring community attention to environmental issues on the Shark River. The tenacity of the organization has improved communication with local officials and increased community awareness about environmental issues.

Mr. Taylor reflected that the SRCC approach is very different than the MRWA approach. SRCC's approach is essentially an advocacy approach that demands constant pressure on local and regional officials and a continued presence in the press. The MRWA, on the other hand, emphasizes a cooperative, consensus building approach. The MRWA has the benefit of a watershed management plan that identifies specific actions regional partners have agreed to implement. A collegial relationship that fosters implementation of the action plans in the management plan is probably the best approach for the MRWA. Unfortunately, expanding membership for the organization may be more difficult since membership seems to grow when advocating positions on important regional issues. The membership dilemma may be difficult to solve.

In response, members agreed with our consensus building approach and offered that it provides more credibility to the organization. Over time, local officials and citizens will rely on us for information important to local decision-making. The MRWA can also be a credible voice when supporting municipal positions. If municipalities have legitimate issues regarding environmental policy, the MRWA can be a credible voice in supporting their argument and advocating positions appropriate at the local level. The new stormwater rules provide a case in point. Some municipalities will not have staff capable of implementing stormwater requirements. Watershed groups can provide this expertise and serve as a liaison between the State and local government. Members agreed and suggested that we need to refine what we can do for local governments. The MRWA must be viewed as an asset to local government and an advocate for local needs.

To be viewed as a valuable service provider to area municipalities, the MRWA should be specific about benefits to municipalities. The membership drive "ask letter" should promote implementation of the watershed management plan and identify MRWA's role in protecting water quality for drinking water, boating and recreation. The message should be direct, "We need your help to protect our environment and watershed." Partnerships will also be an important factor in getting the message out. The MRWA will need to reach out to friends and neighbors such as the League of Women Voters, water purveyors, environmental groups and other active community groups. The MRWA should explore having membership materials go out as an insert in water bills or municipal mailings.

The New Jersey Audubon Society recently had a successful membership drive. They highlighted seven reasons to join the Audubon based on a membership survey that identified what members were interested in doing. This service oriented process focused on issues important to the community and enabled the Audubon to expand membership and provide more beneficial services to their constituency.

Assistance in implementing the new stormwater management rules is an area where municipalities will need help. Municipalities will be eligible to receive $6,400 from NJDEP to assist them in implementing the new stormwater rules. While this isn't much money for a municipality to implement a stormwater management program, it could be sufficient for a regional program if municipalities are willing to pool their resources. The MRWA could provide a number of services for watershed municipalities and assist them in meeting the new stormwater requirements. The Barnegat Bay Program is currently working with area municipalities to discuss their needs so that the program can provide a higher level of assistance. Each year the Barnegat Bay Program organizes a water festival to educate the community about local environmental issues. This effort will fulfill a portion of the new stormwater management rule. The MRWA could conduct a similar festival to educate watershed residents. Some municipal environmental commissions are planning to expand education programs to help their municipalities comply with the new stormwater rules.

The MRWA should draft a letter to send to municipalities reminding them of the stormwater management requirements and offer MRWA services to them. They should also be reminded about the stormwater video produced by the Monmouth Water Resources Association (WRA). Perhaps each town could identify a town ambassador that the MRWA could work with to implement the stormwater regulations. The WRA is currently identifying services available from various county agencies and the most appropriate entity available to provide that service.

Elected officials rely on municipal staff to keep them informed of new regulations and expected requirements. The stormwater regulations are no different. If staff report that the town is ready to implement the regulations, elected officials trust that things are in order. But, letters from outside groups are helpful in keeping officials informed and focused on important issues. The MRWA should send letters to municipalities offering assistance. In fact, in this case, the MRWA should print "Very Important" in red letters on the letter to help bring even more attention to the issue.

Announcements
Mr. Taylor announced that both the Mingamahone Brook and Marsh Bog Brook have been proposed as C1 waters by NJDEP. This designation will bring the highest level of water quality protection offered by the State to these stream segments. Mr. Taylor thanked Mr. Krukowsky for his hard work and dedication to this issue. Without his efforts, it is likely these streams would not have been proposed as C1. Other streams proposed as C1 are Long Swamp Brook, East Branch Tributary (of Mingamahone Brook), Squankum Brook, Timber Swamp Brook, Manasquan Reservoir Tributaries, Bear Swamp Brook, and the Manasquan River from West Farms Road Bridge to the downstream boundary of the Manasquan River Wildlife Management Area.

Mr. Van Abs pointed out that the Surface Water Quality Standards state that if upper streams are not identified as a specific category, then the lower category designation will apply to the upper stream, i.e., feeder streams may be C1 if the lower reach is designated as C1. He wasn't exactly sure how this applied to the Manasquan, but it could have ramifications. Mr. Van Abs volunteered to look into this issue for additional clarification and get back to the group.

Mr. Taylor informed the group that all five nonpoint source grant proposals submitted to the NJDEP have been rejected. Two were not reviewed because they were deemed "incomplete." Reviewers indicated that the proposals were missing lot and block numbers as well as photographs and were therefore not reviewed. Mr. Taylor talked to Mr. Rosenblatt of the NJDEP and argued that watershed groups should have a higher level of consideration since these groups were formed to provide assistance and serve as a community liaison to the Department. Mr. Taylor argued that he didn't have a problem with the denial of project proposals, but to not review proposals because of missing information is not appropriate. Mr. Rosenblatt agreed to take these points back to the nonpoint source grant review team.

The Category 1 rule proposal is scheduled to appear in the New Jersey Register on November 3, 2003. Public comment will be heard December 15th in Trenton and written comments must be submitted to NJDEP by January 2, 2004.

The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.