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”.