TY - JOUR
T1 - Picking up where the tmdl leaves off
T2 - Using the partnership wild and scenic river framework for collaborative river restoration
AU - Hunt, Alan R.
AU - Wu, Meiyin
AU - Hsu, Tsung Ta David
AU - Roberts-Lawler, Nancy
AU - Miller, Jessica
AU - Rossi, Alessandra
AU - Lee, Lee H.
N1 - Funding Information:
North Jersey Resource, Conservation, and Development (NJRCD) applies for restoration plan funding from 319(h) program planning for Gruendyke and Seber dam removals
Funding Information:
Based on RCE’s findings, NJRCD developed a watershed restoration plan for the Hampton to Bloomsbury segment of the Musconetcong River as a requirement of the 319(h) funding [75]. In the restoration plan, NJRCD cited the Musconetcong RMP, stating that three goals of the RMP “would be served by the successful implementation of this subwatershed restoration plan” [75] (p. 95). With the majority of this segment’s land area in active human usage for agriculture (45%) and urban areas (15%), recommendations focused on farms and residences, and not forestry management (34% of the land area). Recommended agricultural practices included no till and residue management, conservation buffers, cover crops, livestock exclusion fencing, development of a regional manure composting facility, and wildlife management (e.g., deer and geese). Recommendations for urban areas focused on stormwater management (e.g., rain garden installation, retention basin retrofits, roadside ditch improvements) and septic system education. Specific sites were proposed for these activities, including total land area, anticipated pollution reductions, and estimated implementation and technical costs totaling approximately USD 4,000,000 [75] (pp. 117–167). The plan also recommended that long term monitoring be conducted, including the assessment of stakeholder awareness of their land use decisions on water resources and the continuation of practices after funding ends [75] (pp. 169–170). In 2013, the NJRCD was awarded a grant by the NJDEP (RP13-027), funded via 319(h) funds, to implement the restoration plan.
Funding Information:
MAC ends leadership from MWA NPS financial support ends
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/2/2
Y1 - 2021/2/2
N2 - The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act protects less than14 of a percent of the United States’ river miles, focusing on free-flowing rivers of good water quality with outstandingly remarkable values for recreation, scenery, and other unique river attributes. It predates the enactment of the Clean Water Act, yet includes a clear anti-degradation principle, that pollution should be reduced and eliminated on designated rivers, in cooperation with the federal Environmental Protection Agency and state pollution control agencies. However, the federal Clean Water Act lacks a clear management framework for implementing restoration activities to reduce non-point source pollution, of which bacterial contamination impacts nearly 40% of the Wild and Scenic Rivers. A case study of the Musconetcong River, in rural mountainous New Jersey, indicates that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act can be utilized to mobilize and align non-governmental, governmental, philanthropic, and private land-owner resources for restoring river water quality. For example, coordinated restoration efforts on one tributary reduced bacterial contamination by 95%, surpassing the TMDL goal of a 93% reduction. Stakeholder interviews and focus groups indicated widespread knowledge and motivation to improve water quality, but resource constraints limited the scale and scope of restoration efforts. The authors postulate that the Partnership framework, enabled in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, facilitated neo-endogenous rural development through improving water quality for recreational usage, whereby bottom-up restoration activities were catalyzed via federal designation and resource provision. However, further efforts to address water quality via voluntary participatory frameworks were ultimately limited by the public sector’s inadequate funding and inaction with regard to water and wildlife resources in the public trust.
AB - The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act protects less than14 of a percent of the United States’ river miles, focusing on free-flowing rivers of good water quality with outstandingly remarkable values for recreation, scenery, and other unique river attributes. It predates the enactment of the Clean Water Act, yet includes a clear anti-degradation principle, that pollution should be reduced and eliminated on designated rivers, in cooperation with the federal Environmental Protection Agency and state pollution control agencies. However, the federal Clean Water Act lacks a clear management framework for implementing restoration activities to reduce non-point source pollution, of which bacterial contamination impacts nearly 40% of the Wild and Scenic Rivers. A case study of the Musconetcong River, in rural mountainous New Jersey, indicates that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act can be utilized to mobilize and align non-governmental, governmental, philanthropic, and private land-owner resources for restoring river water quality. For example, coordinated restoration efforts on one tributary reduced bacterial contamination by 95%, surpassing the TMDL goal of a 93% reduction. Stakeholder interviews and focus groups indicated widespread knowledge and motivation to improve water quality, but resource constraints limited the scale and scope of restoration efforts. The authors postulate that the Partnership framework, enabled in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, facilitated neo-endogenous rural development through improving water quality for recreational usage, whereby bottom-up restoration activities were catalyzed via federal designation and resource provision. However, further efforts to address water quality via voluntary participatory frameworks were ultimately limited by the public sector’s inadequate funding and inaction with regard to water and wildlife resources in the public trust.
KW - Community-based natural resource management
KW - Microbial Source Tracking (MST)
KW - Neo-endogenous rural development
KW - Participatory resource management
KW - River management
KW - Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
KW - Water quality
KW - Wild and Scenic River
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85100909893&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/su13041878
DO - 10.3390/su13041878
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85100909893
SN - 2071-1050
VL - 13
SP - 1
EP - 27
JO - Sustainability (Switzerland)
JF - Sustainability (Switzerland)
IS - 4
M1 - 1878
ER -