Extend the Comment Period for the DEP's New Sewer Rules by 60 Days - After They Release Their Flow Study

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection thinks wastewater treament plants are over-designed. So they have written new rules for the Capacity Assurance Program (CAP) and Water Quality Management Planning (WQMP).

Flow, In the CAP Rule

They are going to allow treatment plants to reach 100% of their permitted flow - their capacity - before they have to submit a plan to reduce the flow or ban new sewer connections (p 27, CAP).

That's 6 months for just submitting a capacity analysis plan. The time it will take to review, approve, and implement that plan comes later.

The current rule is less daring. It requires treatment plants to submit this plan when they reach 80% of their permitted flow (p 24-26, CAP). The current rule calls this a Capacity Assurance plan; the proposed rule calls it a Capacity Analysis plan.

Assurance is out. Nevertheless, the DEP explains that even when a treatment plant is operating at 100% of its permitted flow, the plant “can” operate without violating effluent limits because plants are “often” designed to handle flows of up to two and one half times their average permitted flows (p 24, WQMP), as per NJAC 7:14A-23.13(o).

Their optimism is predicated on their unpublished study of treatment plants that found only a “weak correlation” between the percentage of flow and violations in water quality. They have concluded that “seasonal fluctuations and/or wet weather events … can typically be accommodated through hydraulic flexibility within the treatment plant” (pps 12-15, CAP).

That hydraulic flexibility is going to let more wastewater plants treat more sewage from new connections in new construction currently prohibited by existing regulations. It will open up more land for development.

There should be sufficient time to review this study, which has still not been released to the public, and not just a few weeks before the comment period ends, on December 18^th. Not after.

Flow, In Words and Pictures

The existing regulations require municipalities and sewer authorities to submit a capacity plan when the “committed” flow in a treatment plants reaches 80% of the “permitted” flow. The committed flow is the average flow for 3 consecutive months, plus the anticipated flows from approved but non operational connections. The permitted flow is the maximum design flow in the water quality (NJPDES) permit for the treatment plant – 100% of its capacity (pps 3-4, CAP).

The proposed regulations will require just the treatment plant, after “coordinating” with municipalities and sewer authorities, to submit a capacity plan – but only after 100% of the permitted flow is reached.

Flow is now redefined as the average for 12, not 3, consecutive months (pps 12-15, CAP).

Look at this old report by Clean Ocean Action to see the difference between a 3-month and a 12-month flow average. Scroll down to the graph in Figure 1 on page 44: this was the monthly flow average, in Millions of Gallons per Day, for the South Monmouth Regional Sewerage Authority in 1998.

(SMRSA has expanded the facility since then. In 2014, it was recognized by the DEP for its innovation at reducing peak flows caused by Infiltration/Inflow from groundwater and storms. So the data in this 17 year old report no longer represents conditions at this facility. What it does show, visually, is what happens with flow averaging.)

Figure 1 shows that in 1998, SMRSA exceeded 80% of its capacity from February through May, and in May it exceeded 100%.

Look at the bars for the whole year in this graph. A 3-month average would catch these peak-flow exceedences and trigger a capacity analysis. Clearly a 12-month average would not. It smooths those peak months out.

Nevertheless, this is what the DEP is proposing in the new CAP regulations. This is what their unpublished study found no problem with, and this is the result:

“The Department determined that 68 percent of the facilities (129 of 189 facilities) would have triggered the CAP rule requirements at the existing threshold of 80 percent committed flow to permitted flow over a three-month period … [but only] 18 percent (34 facilities) would trigger the requirements if the average reported flow over 12 consecutive months exceeded the permitted flow.” (p 13, CAP).

Fifty percent more of the treatment plants they studied will no longer have flows that trigger a capacity analysis or sewer ban.

Flow in the WQMP Rule

The proposed WQMP rule has somewhat different requirements regarding capacity. When a treatment plant reaches 80% of its flow capacity, the county or other Water Management Planning agency must “coordinate” with the DEP and the treatment plant to determine if there will be a capacity deficiency (p 23, WQMP).

Coordination is not a capacity plan. That isn't required until the treatment plant reaches 100% of capacity – the same as the CAP rule (p 23, WQMP).

In the current WQMP regulations, flow is defined as a monthly average of the 12 most recent months, “or the peak month is there is significant seasonal variability” (page 19, WQMP).

In the proposed regulations, flow is redefined as the “peak 12-month rolling average over the most recent five years”. There is no more peak month, just “consideration of alternate methodologies to calculate existing flow” to “accommodate … significant variability of flows due to seasonal populations or the effects of wet weather in combined sewer systems” (pps 19-20, WQMP).

With Decentralization Comes Liability

All this proposed, pivotal change rests on the conclusions and the assumptions in the DEP's flow study. Because “most” treatment plants are over-designed, they have “hydraulic flexibility” for meeting water quality standards.

And if the DEP is wrong? That will be the problem for the “the permittee, municipality, sewage authority, and/or the owner or operator of the conveyance system [who] must certify in every [Treatment Works Application], in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:14A-22.8(a)3, that there is adequate conveyance and treatment capacity for the projected flow” (page 14, CAP).

The legislature shouldn't allow the comment period for the new sewer rules to begin until the day the DEP releases their flow study to the public. Reset the clock.

Shouldn't such an original and consequential report be vetted at least as much as the regulations it is enabling?

The present comment period that started October 19^th ends December 18^th. The remaining hearing dates for the WQMP rule are November 17^th in Clayton and November 30^th in Trenton (DEP Docket Number 10-15-09). The one hearing date for the CAP rule is December 3^rd in Trenton (DEP Docket No. 08-15-09). The DEP's new web page for these rules is here.

Urbanization Changes Baseflow, But It Doesn’t Lower It – And Stream Gages Alone Can’t Explain Why

Did you know that increasing impervious surface in a watershed is clearly linked with higher storm flow - but not with lower baseflow? And that this was first reported in NJ about ten years ago?

This very counter-intuitive discovery by the USGS appears on page 132 of a 2008 technical report for NJ Highlands Master Plan, Water Resources Volume II, Water Use and Availability:

“There is a strong conceptual case that increased land development should result in decreased stream base flow, but two USGS studies of long-term base flow trends in New Jersey did not find many statistically significant trends in low flows (Brandes and other 2005, Watson and others 2005). … An improved understanding of this issue will allow for a more robust water availability modeling approach in the future.”

Yes it would.

Here’s what the Brandes paper - Base Flow Trends In Urbanizing Watersheds Of The Delaware River Basin - states on pdf-page 15:

“The results of this study suggest that stream base flow has not systematically decreased in urbanizing watersheds of the lower Delaware River basin over the past 60 years. The data do not support the idea that low- to moderate-density land development typically has a negative effect on base flow volumes and low flows at the scale of a 25 to 200 km2 watershed. … one should not expect any single value of percent impervious to emerge as a widely applicable threshold for effects of urbanization on base flow. The implication of this study is that the effect of low density to moderate density urbanization on base flow is typically more subtle and less severe than its impact on stormflow.”

Page 26 of Streamflow Characteristics and Trends in New Jersey, Water Years 1897–2003, by Watson and others: “The overall results of the trends analysis show that high-flow trends for the regulated [developed] and unregulated [undeveloped] gaging stations were upward. ... The low-flow trend results for regulated gaging stations indicate that most of the gaging stations had an upward trend … The relation of development to low-flow trends does not appear to be as strong as development to high-flow trends.”

Natural and Artificial Sources of Baseflow

Brandes and Watson were surprised by what the data told them. They took a shot at explaining it. Since then, other states have found this trending in their data as well, and the guesses are stacking up. Here’s the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in 2009, on page 59:

“… the decrease in natural groundwater recharge in an urban watershed can be unintentionally replaced by artificial recharge, i.e. infiltration of imported water that has leaked from water supply and sewer pipes, applied as excessive lawn irrigation, and infiltrated from septic system drainage."

In developed watersheds, baseflow isn’t just baseflow anymore. That means baseflow doesn’t predict water levels in the water-table aquifer the stream runs through. You could have adequate baseflow but still have headwater wetlands and shallow wells drying up during a drought.

The most nuanced paper was published last year as part of the Baltimore Ecosystem Study: “Baseflow signatures of Sustainable Water Resources. An Analysis of Maryland Streamflow”. Figure 9 on page 37 compares the traditional model of baseflow – recharge in, baseflow out – with urbanized baseflow derived from multiple processes. Some “artificial” sources of baseflow are essentially interbasin transfers that obscure the volume of baseflow that naturally flows from the water-table aquifer.

Wastewater treatment plants can discharge effluent into a stream that is derived from sources outside the watershed, “bypassing the groundwater system”. Old urban drinking-water pipes can recharge the water-table aquifer with pressurized water that came from sources outside the watershed. To a lesser degree, even watering your lawn can artificially recharge the water-table aquifer, if your well is drilled deeply into a separate, confined aquifer that recharges far from the watershed and the water-table aquifer the well is drilled through.

Storm drains buried in areas with high water tables can accelerate the discharge of groundwater into streams, like a french drain - and increase baseflow. Even impervious surface - roads, buildings, and compacted soils – increases baseflow, because as it replaces woods and fields, less water is lost to evapotranspiration. The USGS estimates about one third of the precipitation that falls in NJ returns to the atmosphere through evapotranspiration (Fig. 4) instead of recharging the aquifer. Impervious surface leaves more net groundwater in the water-table aquifer that can become baseflow because it replaces vegetation(!)

Groundwater can leak into sewer pipes in one watershed (I&I - Infiltration and inflow) but discharge from the treatment plant into another. When a watershed is developed, how can a stream gage tell you if natural baseflow has decreased - with all these artificial sources of baseflow?

“Regulatory Paradoxes”: Now What

Page 73 of the Maryland paper:

“Where baseflow signals reflect wastewater return flows that bypass the subsurface hydrologic system, groundwater appropriations based on … gauged streamflow may over-appropriate the resource and fail to adequately protect the groundwater resource from depletion.”

Agreed.

“To the extent leaking infrastructure truly recharges ground water, the State faces the dilemma of whether or not to explicitly appropriate this unintended interbasin transfer as an exploitable component of regional groundwater system.”

Oh yeah.

“The limitations and potential risks from appropriating groundwater based only on the characteristics of observed streamflow highlight the value of a more process-based understanding of Maryland’s coupled surface water- groundwater resource.”

That answers “where do we go from here” for New Jersey as well. We need to find out the unique combination of natural and artificial baseflow in urbanized watersheds, so we can understand their specific vulnerabilities to drought.

When we can isolate natural baseflow from artificial baseflow, we can make informed regulatory decisions about water allocation. Should the “unintended interbasin transfer” part of baseflow be counted or excluded when deciding how much water can be safely permitted to be withdrawn from a watershed? Imagine a river - that is overly-dependent on treated wastewater for maintaining its baseflow - drying up someday because the municipalities discharging their waste to the treatment plant implemented a successful water conservation program, in another watershed.

Baseflow data measured by a system of stream gages alone has become a black box. We need a “more process-based understanding of [our] coupled surface water- groundwater resource.” Baseflow data needs to be augmented by data from a system of monitoring wells in the watershed that record the levels of the water-table aquifer – especially in the headwaters.

But that’s expensive, and there are less funding sources in NJ for these research programs.

So for now this ends up on the what-if list for climate change, or as another reason for updating the 1996 NJ Water Supply Management Plan, or something, until it gets funded.

This blog was originally guest-posted on Wolfenotes.com

September is #NationalPreparednessMonth. Be Smart. Take Part. Fix These 2 Laws

Despite Katrina, 9/11, and Sandy, there are still two laws in NJ that are stalling disaster preparedness. One only requires public employees who are paid first-responders to report to work during a declared emergency. The other lacks a specific mandate for communities throughout NJ to write and test plans for responding to nuclear terrorism.

Most Government Workers Still Aren’t Required to Work During a Disaster

S1717 is about protecting most employees from being disciplined for not reporting to work during a declared emergency.

Prudently, it still requires some employees in Public Safety Agencies to work during a declared emergency.

Most “essential workers” like department heads, non-union supervisors, and first responders – police, fire services, emergency medical services, health departments, and public works - already understand that they have to work during emergencies. This in spite of how ad-hoc and ephemeral the definition of “essential worker” has become.

But S1717 does not specifically require employees from other public-sector departments to work during a declared emergency. The ones who are rarely if ever called out to respond to a routine HazMat - the majority of public sector employees.

The ones who would be needed to provide essential logistics and support for first responders and command staff during a regional disaster: shelters, food and medical deliveries, clinics, warehouses, phone banks, inventories, Information Technology, and clerical work.

So, despite what we learned during Super Storm Sandy - when most volunteers were unable to respond during the first crucial days of the storm – most public-sector workers can still refuse to go to work during a declared emergency.

The problem is spelled out on page 20 (pdf page 390) of Section 1.14 of the Appendix, “Comments on the October 2014 Draft Plan” of Monmouth County's MultiJurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Supporting and funding “policies and programs that require all government workers to report to work during a declared emergency … sounds like a viable option.”

But “at this time proposed legislation S1717, which is in direct contradiction, has been discussed with the NJ Association Counties and until which time the pending legislation is revised or resubmitted, no action will be taken on this comment.”

California isn't stuck in this Catch-22.

Since 2005, California requires all government workers to be Disaster Service Workers as part of their employment. They know they can be assigned to support activities that protect public health and safety; they know they must report to their department supervisor or to a departmental staging area during a disaster.

California Government Code Section 3100-3109 states in part:

"It is hereby declared that the protection of the health and safety and preservation of the lives and property of the people of the state from the effects of natural, manmade, or war-caused emergencies which result in conditions of disaster or extreme peril to life, property, and resources is of paramount state importance…in protection of its citizens and resources, all public employees are hereby declared to be disaster service workers…"

California has been working out the details for ten years: training, unions, Civil Service, compensation. NJ shouldn't still be relying on part-time volunteers to man essential services during a declared emergency.

Terrorism Preparedness is Still Not Specifically Required in the NJ Radiological Emergency Response Plan

N.J.S.A. 26:2D-37, and other sections of the Radiation Accident Response Act, specifically limit the definition of an emergency response to a radiation accident that occurs at a nuclear facility or during a transportation accident. The regulations as presently written have left out a mandate to plan for responding to a nuclear disaster if it is caused by an act of terrorism and it is outside the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone.

The EPZs in New Jersey are two 10-mile circles around the Oyster Creek and the Salem-Hope Creek nuclear power plants. This is where minimum standards for planning and drilling are mandated by the Act.

N.J.S.A. 26:2D-37 et seq. still doesn't require agencies in all localities in NJ to prepare specific plans for responding to a detonation of a nuclear bomb by terrorists.

Adding this mandate would expand nuclear preparedness planning beyond the 10-mile EPZ into the rest of NJ – without needing to be approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nuclear bomb preparedness is not about regulating the nuclear power industry. They would not need to do a cost effectiveness analysis because they would not be funding it.

If it is impractical to mandate preparedness for nuclear terrorism throughout NJ, a pilot program could be initiated in counties within the 20-mile Dangerous Fallout Zone surrounding major urban centers within or proximate to NJ.

The Dangerous Fallout Zone (DFZ) from a 10 kiloton bomb temporarily peaks at 10,000 milliroentgens/hour - a million times background radiation in coastal NJ - about twenty miles from ground zero. A ten kiloton bomb is what federal planners use now in their hypothetical scenarios, and is about the size of the Hiroshima bomb.

The radiological planning documents already developed for the two 10-mile EPZs could be provided to communities in NJ within the 20-mile DFZ to speed up planning.

There is precedent for adding a new requirement like nuclear terrorism preparedness to these regulations. In 1985, requirements were added to reduce risks from radon (N.J.S.A 26:2D-62); and most recently in 1989, tanning booths (N.J.S.A 26:2D-82).

Adding this mandate would be consistent with recommendations by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2012 that agencies need to begin requiring preparedness plans for responding to Improvised Nuclear Devices:

“Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires nuclear powerplants to have emergency plans for their facilities and the immediate surrounding area, no Federal entity requires States or localities to have public health emergency plans for nonpowerplant radiological and/or nuclear (RN) incidents, such as a terrorist attack.”

Every year, in August, September, and October, we remember the anniversaries of Katrina, 9/11, and Sandy.

This far along, are you finding it hard to believe that the “government isn't fully prepared to handle a nuclear terrorist attack or a large-scale natural catastrophe, lacks effective coordination, and in some cases is years away from ensuring adequate emergency shelter and medical treatment”?

Read the most recent in a series of warnings issued in December 2014 by the Government Accountability Office, “an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress.” Then ask your legislator what they think. It's #NationalPreparednessMonth.

The New Beach Act Needs to Require Both: Rapid qPCR Testing and Water Quality Forecasting

The Beach Act of 2015 as proposed will be requiring faster water-quality testing and reporting. But qPCR test results won't be made available to the public a couple of hours after sampling.

After a sample is taken, the remaining samples in that inspectors 'run' – about 2 hours - will have to be completed. Then they will be driven to the lab, where they can be held within the methods allowable time frame, then processed and analyzed. Then results will be reported to the health deparment, and subsequently posted on the health deparment and state websites.

So, more like mid to late afternoon for results.

That's still, much faster than the current 24-hour delay for getting culture-based results back from the lab. The present laboratory method counts live bacterial colonies growing in a culture for about 24 hours. QPCR only takes a few hours because it measures bacterial DNA – from live and dead cells - rather than cell growth.

Getting test results a few hours after sampling will be transformative. When the method is reliable.

Here are some reasons why the qPCR method is still a work in progress: the lack of a formal standardized method protocol for laboratories using the 2013 EPA methods. The EPA research primarily studied beaches impacted by sewage, not stormwater. qPCR measures dead as well as live cells, so it can test higher than the culture-based methods that count cell growth. And lower, when PCR inhibitors in the water sample – like humic and tannic acids from decaying vegetation in surface water – cause amplification failure.

As these issues are worked out, fundamental change can come by also using predictive models to forecast beach water quality.

Forecasting water quality every day of the week is a cost-effective supplement to sampling. It's been done for years at beaches along the Great Lakes. California began testing their Water Quality Nowcast at three marine beaches this summer.

Weekly sampling is expensive. Public Health has not done well since the recession. More sampling after storms and inadequate federal funding will mean higher state and local taxes, mostly for manpower.

That's why the EPA has been nudging states to use forecasting models to supplement their water sampling since 2012.

Previous blogs about forecasting marine water quality:

It's Not Just the Latest Rainfall that Closes Beaches

Wind and Currents Push Stormwater Bacteria Offshore – or into the Swimming Zone

Forecasting Beach Water Quality Like the Weather

Forecasting Beach Water Quality Like the Weather

“One hundred years ago, we could not predict whether it would be sunny or rainy the day after tomorrow. Now we can predict the weather as much as 10 days in advance. By the middle of the 21st century, we ought to be able to predict the weather at the beach…both above and below the water line.”

What could fundamentally improve our chances of having a safe, fun summer swimming at the Jersey shore – but without the manpower and laboratory costs of taking water samples every day?

When it rains, stormwater outfalls discharge high levels of enterococcus into the ocean that causes most beach advisories. Especially when the beach is near a stormwater outfall (map on page 20).

How can you guess your risks when it rains but no water samples are being taken? Fundamental change can come by using predictive models to forecast beach water quality.

Forecasting water quality every day of the week is a cost-effective supplement to sampling. It's been done for years at beaches along the Great Lakes. The Ohio Nowcasting model dates from 1998. The United States Geological Survey has been partnering with local and state agencies since 2006 – now in Ohio, Wisconsin and Illinois.

California began testing their Water Quality Nowcast at three marine beaches this summer.

Nowcasting is a “predictive model”. It uses environmental and hydrodynamic conditions to predict bacteria levels at bathing beaches - more accurately than just sampling once a week, using day-old sample results (page 3). Nowcasting accurately predicted water quality at two Ohio beaches 80% of the time, while sampling alone was 62% accurate.

Sampling is a "persistence model" - today equals tomorrow. It assumes that yesterday's bacteria levels can be used to estimate today's (page 2). But a lot can change in 24 hours – the wind can shift and blow stormwater away from the swimming area where it is diluted offshore. A study of beaches in 8 states along the Great Lakes showed that advisories based on day-old sample results were wrong about 2 out of 3 times (Table 1, page 2).

That 24-hour wait causes false positive errors - posting an advisory on Tuesday based on Monday's results, only to find out on Wednesday that Tuesday's bacteria levels had already dropped below the standard. Taking one sample a week causes false negative errors - missing potential exceedances during the other 6 days of the week.

Additional sampling needs to be done so that each beach can be assigned its own unique “threshold probability” for issuing an advisory. The model is essentially a compromise between false positive and false negative errors.

The goals for Ohio's Nowcasting model are to be 5% more accurate than advisories that are just based on sampling, more than 80% accurate for predicting high levels of bacteria, and 85% accurate for predicting acceptable bacterial levels.

You can find their forecasts on their website, on Twitter at @NEORSDbeaches, or by using the myBeachCast mobile app.

As you would expect, a model that forecasts water quality at a lake beach will be different from one developed for an ocean beach.

One big difference is due to the grain size of the sediment in lakes. Nowcasting found that turbidity from stirred-up lake sediments is actually better than rain at predicting bacteria levels in the water. That's because enterococcus and E. coli can thrive in fine sediments. Lake sediments have a lot more silt and clay fines than sand beaches pounded by ocean waves.

Now Standford is testing their predictive model at three marine beaches in Southern California this summer.

They partnered with UCLA's Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, and Heal the Bay, and are funded by the California State Water Resources Control Board. Their initial research is described in these papers: “Sunny with a chance of gastroenteritis: predicting swimmer risk at California beaches”, and “Predicting water quality at Santa Monica Beach: evaluation of five different models for public notification of unsafe swimming conditions”.

Their goals are to develop a model that is 10% more accurate than advisories that are just based on sampling, 30% accurate for predicting high levels of bacteria, and more than 90% accurate for predicting acceptable bacterial levels (pps. 425 and 428).

So far, they found that the most important environmental predictors of water quality at their beaches were rainfall and tide. They have found that when there is more sunshine there are lower levels of bacteria, since sunlight kills bacteria. And they found that models miss unusual events, like a sewage spills.

Their research has also revealed that marine forecasting models will be driven by the regional climate. For example, rainfall was not the most critical factor for predicting water quality at the beach in Santa Monica (page 113).

How could that be? Because: “The summer dry weather in California also contributes to the weaker dependence of [bacteria] concentrations on rainfall; there is rarely measurable rainfall in the summer season” (page 113). And: “Rainfall in the summer is usually due to trace rainfall events due to the passing of the monsoonal storms” (page 429). Los Angelos gets a little more than 15 inches a year of rainfall - NJ gets 40-51 inches.

You can find their forecasts on their website, on Twitter at @BeachReportCard, or or by using their mobile app.

Weekly sampling is expensive. Public Health has not done well since the recession. More sampling would mean higher state and local taxes, mostly for manpower.

That's why the EPA has been nudging states to use forecasting models to supplement their water sampling since 2012.

Previous blogs about forecasting marine water quality:

It's Not Just the Latest Rainfall that Closes Beaches

Wind and Currents Push Stormwater Bacteria Offshore – or into the Swimming Zone

Death By 1000 Cuts for Category One Water Quality

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is proposing to condense and review three sets of major rules that will take away protections we already have for natural flood control and protection of drinking water.

As it is are currently written, the preferred method of improving N.J.A.C. 7:13, the “Flood Hazard Area Control Act Rules; Coastal Zone Management Rules; and Stormwater Management Rules”, would be to repeal it. Sensing this is unlikely, here are some recommendations.

* Do not cut stream buffers in half. Keep buffers 300 feet wide “along both sides” of Category One waters in 7:13-4.1(c)1, and keep them 150 feet wide “along both sides” of the other designated waters referenced by 4.1(c)2.

* Do not remove the NJDEP's responsibilities for regulating buffers in acid-producing soils by deleting 4.1(c)2. Should enforcement be transferred to the Soil Conservation Service, do not reduce buffer widths to the 50 foot-width required by the SCS (page 13 of the Summary).

Maintain the current 150-foot buffer width. Many acid soils, such as the clays and silts of the Coastal Plain (map on slide 8), are also especially vulnerable to erosion. When they erode, they downcut rather than erode laterally, and lose the ability to overflow into their original riparian wetlands during bankfull storms. In spite of the two arguments offered on page 13 of the Summary, streams in these soils need additional protections from stormwater runoff – not smaller buffers. The “Advanced Measures” in N.J.A.C. 7:14A-26.6(e) of the Stormwater Rules could reduce erosion from stormwater volume by requiring more green infrastructure in these watersheds, for example.

* When riparian areas are disturbed, erosion increases the amount of clay and silt fines in the sediment downstream, impairing or degrading macroinvertebrate habitat. Do not allow disturbed areas to be mitigated at ratios equal or even less than the area that was disrupted. Mitigation must require that all increased runoff is infiltrated, unless soils and water table make that impractical, and that the disturbed area is mitigated with habitat of the highest value at a creation to loss ratio of at least 5:1, as Michigan does. That is because buffers are more effective when they are undisturbed and contiguous, than when they are a patchwork of mitigation projects. Mitigation Banks and river restoration projects “are typically profitable for the companies doing the restoration work but often disappointing for the environment.”

Mitigate at 5:1 - except for preservation. Use the NJDEP's commonly accepted minimum ratio for wetland preservation/land donation: - 27:1 (see tabs: Mitigation Options, Preservation and Land Donation). Not “significantly larger”, as written in 13.12(c)3.

Clay and silt fines do not just blanket and impair macroinvertebrate habitat – they also provide substrate for the survival and growth of Fecal Indicator Bacteria such as E. coli in streams, stormwater structures, and freshwater and coastal lakes. Reducing buffer widths will degrade surface water used for drinking and swimming - and add more of them to the federal 303(d) list of impaired waters in N.J.

* Do not allow mitigation to occur in somewhere in broad “Service Areas” that can include the entire HUC-14 watershed, and even adjacent Watershed Management Areas. An area disturbed in tiny first-order tributary headwaters can not be restored by mitigating higher-order streams, even if they are in the same watershed - let alone in another Watershed Management Area. Mitigation must be performed in equal or lower order channels, not higher order. What the rules propose is a paper exercise that is transparently ineffective.

* Establish an Oversight Committee comprised of academic experts and water advocacy groups, as well as NJDEP staff and appointees, with open public meetings. This committee will provide binding recommendations to the NJDEP for review and approval of all the following: Permits-By-Rule, General-Permits-By-Certification, General Permits, Individual Permits, and Hardship Exceptions. Instead of relying on self-certification, this will provide science-based guidance for interpreting open-ended concepts and loosely-defined language in the rules such as “service area” (13.8(b)1 and 13.8(c)), “maximum extent practicable” (13.9(c)2), “significantly larger” (13.12(c)3), and “hybrid buffer”.

Michigan and N.J. are still the only states that the EPA has delegated the enforcement of Freshwater Wetlands Protection. An oversight committee providing science-based recommendations to the NJDEP could avoid an incompetent or conflated implementation of policy that would jeopardize the federal funding that N.J. has depended on since 1994.

In Monmouth County, the Swimming River Reservoir - and all of its feeder streams, tributaries, and headwaters - are presently designated as Category One waterbodies.

C1 streams, also known as Special Water Resource Protection Areas, are so vital to the fragile stability of the few remaining watersheds in NJ worth the effort that in 2002, rules were passed prohibiting construction in a buffer 300 feet wide along these designated streams. In 2012, the NJDEP proposed adding even more C1 streams.

Proposed but never designated. Now the NJDEP proposes combining rules written to prevent floods with the C1 rules. The “hybrid buffer” created for the flood rules will replace the 300 foot buffer in the C1 rules.

Who thinks that rules written to protect life and property in the flood zone of a stream were intended to also preserve life and habitat in its fragile headwaters? The smaller the headwater stream, the greater the area where the water interacts with the land, and the greater vulnerability to erosion. Removing riparian vegetation from heavily-shaded headwaters impacts stream temperature and aquatic habitat throughout the watershed more than removing vegetation from larger waterbodies where less of the water is shaded.

A basic understanding of stream order processes is that headwaters are crucial to a biodiversity of healthy macro-invertebrates, like species of shredders that are primarily restricted to spring seeps - and consequently to life and habitat downstream. Headwaters establish the “chemical signature” of the water downstream.

Buffers slow down runoff. There are areas in the Swimming River watershed with severe slopes in glauconitic soils where embankments are already destabilized and seriously eroding from runoff. The reservoir has become badly silted and suffers from warm water and eutrophication. Just look at the islands forming along Longbridge Road in Colts Neck. Buffers prevent undercutting of streambanks and provide shade. The last thing the Swimming River needs is smaller buffers and more runoff.

One of the earliest goals of the NJDEP Transformation was stated in a 2010 report: eliminate “cumbersome, confusing and often conflicting regulations” by “reexamining” buffer requirements “as applied to wetlands, C-1 waters and potential Threatened and Endangered species habitat under Flood Hazard, Stormwater, and Wetlands rules” (page 13).

Cutting red tape shouldn't mean death by a thousand cuts for stream buffers and C1 water quality. But that's what self-certification, wiggle-words, and loosely-defined mitigation rules will do.

The NJDEP is still making decisions based on data in the statewide Water Supply Master Plan from 1994. The latest draft was developed three years ago, we are told. It really needs to be released. Soon.

The Public Notice for the “Flood Hazard Area Control Act Rules ...” refers to the next goal: “anticipated rulemaking to amend the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act rules”.

Wind and Currents Push Stormwater Bacteria Offshore – or into the Swimming Zone

Stormwater plumes carry high levels of enterococcus bacteria that can close ocean bathing beaches when it rains. Especially when the beach is near a stormwater outfall (map on page 20).

Because stormwater contains less dissolved solids than ocean water, it is less saline, and lighter - much lighter than water that sinks to the ocean floor.

Wind can blow a stormwater plume offshore or concentrate it in the swimming zone. Along NJ, persistent southwest winds create upwelling currents that blow lighter, lower-saline surface water offshore. Northeast winds cause downwelling currents that move surface waters towards the beach (see slide 1).

Southwest Winds and Upwellings

Winds from the south predominate during the summer and form a nearshore current that flows to the north. This creates the littoral drift that deposits sand on the south side of jetties in Monmouth.

Sustained southwest winds create upwellings. Cold, higher-saline bottom water flows towards the shoreline as warmer, lighter water disperses offshore.

In July of 2013, ocean water temperatures dropped to 55 degrees after 2 weeks of southwest winds caused bottom waters to upwell along the coast. The Rutgers University Coastal Ocean Observation Lab (@rutgers_cool) announced in a tweet that the first upwelling of the 2015 season occurred on May 26th.

The water at the beach may be colder during an upwelling, but that deeper, higher-saline water moving into the swimming area contains less stormwater bacteria than the surface water that is being pushed offshore. Upwellings move the plume from Raritan Bay – and its bacteria and floatables - towards Long Island instead of beaches in northern Monmouth, as it discharges into the ocean by Sandy Hook.

Northeast Winds and Downwellings

While southerly winds create northerly currents during most of the summer, the general flow along the NJ coastline is actually to the south.

This southerly flow is driven by the Labrador Current in the region from Massachusetts to North Carolina known as the Mid-Atlantic Bight.

Ocean water over the continental shelf in the Mid-Atlantic Bight flows towards the southwest until reaching Cape Hatteras, NC, where the shelf is so narrow that it mixes with the nearby Gulf Stream (see page 6).

Winds that blow from the northeast are aligned with the Labrador Current, creating stronger southwesterly currents that flow towards the beach. The opposite of an upwelling - a downwelling – occurs with sustained northeast winds. Lighter surface water – including stormwater - remains inshore while cold, dense bottom water is displaced offshore.

During a downwelling, the plume from Raritan Bay narrows and extends to the bottom of the water column as it is compressed along the NJ coast instead of Long Island. In this satellite photo of a downwelling, the muddy plume from Raritan Bay is still visible along the beach past the Barnegat Inlet (slide 1).

Forecasting Beach Water Quality

Wind and current direction is just one variable affecting water quality at the beach. Like: tidal and lunar stages, water temperature, wave height and intensity, and how sunny it is, since the ultraviolet light in sunlight inactivates bacteria.

Just analyzing rain data is complicated. You need to look beyond the amount, intensity, and timing of just that one, most recent rainfall. You also need to determine how wet or dry it was before it rained, as described in a previous blog.

Predicting ocean water quality is as complicated as predicting the weather – and as doable. That's why the EPA is now asking states to use forecasting models to supplement their weekly water sampling.

Some states along the Great Lakes, and California, are already using models to predict bacterial water quality at beaches on days when they don't collect water samples.

You can view a map of currents along NJ and NY at the website for the New York Harbor Observing and Prediction System (NYHOPS) that is maintained by the Stevens Institute of Technology.

It's Not Just the Latest Rainfall that Closes Beaches

When it rains, stormwater outfalls discharge high levels of enterococcus into the ocean that causes most beach advisories. Especially when the beach is near a stormwater outfall (map on page 20).

How do you guess your risks when it rains but no water samples are being taken? There's a lot to consider.

Is the wind blowing that light, less saline stormwater offshore, or is it holding it in the swimming zone?

Then there are all the other variables: tidal and lunar stages, water temperature, wave height and intensity, and how sunny it is, since the ultraviolet light in sunlight inactivates bacteria.

Complicated. That's why some states along the Great Lakes, and California, are using models now to predict bacterial water quality at beaches on days when there is no sampling.

Rain is complicated. You need to look beyond the amount, intensity, and timing of just that one, most recent rainfall. You also need to ask: how wet or dry was it before it rained?

The effect of “antecedent rainfall” on stormwater quality is better understood for metals and suspended solids than for bacteria. This study in California found that, for up to about a month, the longer it didn't rain, the more pollutants accumulated in parking lots.

When it rained, stormwater runoff had more pollutants when it was preceded by a dry period than when it was preceded by a wet period, because more pollutants had built up.

The opposite happens with more frequent rainfall. That keeps the pavement flushed. It produces stormwater plumes with less pollutants – less impacts - per storm.

The City of Stamford, Connecticut has found that it takes less rainfall to increase bacteria counts at their beaches on Long Island Sound when that rainfall is preceded by unusually dry weather.

Their data shows that when “the occurrence of drought or near-drought conditions occurs, then less rain is needed to influence water quality.”

Their beach Closure Guidelines state that: “the current policy of the city of Stamford is to close beaches for 24 hours following a rainfall event of 1 inch or more under normal conditions. During periods of low rainfall or drought conditions, advisories are issued following a rainfall event greater than or equal to 0.5 inch” (page I.3-7, Section 3.3.1.3).

They define dry weather conditions as “less than two inches of rain in 30 days and less than one inch of rain in 10 days”.

This suggests that stormwater, not sewage, is the primary cause of elevated bacteria levels when it finally rains - perhaps due to more animal droppings, and more bacterial regrowth in biofilms in stormwater systems during dry those periods (page 3).

If Combined Sewer Outfalls, Sanitary Sewer Overflows, or illicit cross connections in stormwater system were the primary cause of beaches closures, you would think that bacteria levels would rise during periods with more frequent rainfall - not less.

On the other hand, ongoing research in California didn't find antecedent dry periods to be significant. But perhaps that is because, unlike the East Coast, Southern California has “rarely measurable rainfall in the summer season” anyway (page 113). “The summer dry weather in California also contributes to the weaker dependence of [bacteria] concentrations on rainfall; there is rarely measurable rainfall in the summer season” (page 113). And: “Rainfall in the summer is usually due to trace rainfall events due to the passing of the monsoonal storms” (page 429).

We have so much more rainfall in NJ: 40-51 inches a year, compared with a little more than 15 inches in Los Angeles. Dry periods lasting longer than a week during the summer are not as unusual in southern California as they are in NJ.

But rainfall is still just one variable. Wind and currents can quickly disperse bacteria from the swimming zone - or hold them there, causing more beach closures (slide 1).

Weekly sampling is expensive, and Public Health has not done well since 2009. More sampling means higher state and local taxes.

That's why the EPA is nudging states to use forecasting models to supplement their water sampling.