[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
3I 'S U. S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER flC1 15 19nst 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 WRITTEN STATEMENTS FROM PARTIES WHO COMMENTED ON THE NEW JERSEY COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM -* ~BAY AND OCEAN SHORE SEGMENT AND THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT r Property of csc Library OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Commerce 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20235 HT 393 .N5 W753 1980 TABLE OF CONTENTS FED ERAL 1. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2. Department of Energy I ~~~3. Department of Housing and Urban Development 4. Department of Transportation S. Department of Defense - Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense U 6~~~. Department of the Army - Office of the Chief of Engineers 7. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National I ~ ~~~Marine Fisheries Service 8. U.S. Department of Agriculture 9. U.S. Department of the Interior 1 ~~~10. U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service 11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 12. Federal Energy Regulatory Commiilssion IPA. U.S. Air Force I ~~~NON- FEDERAL 13. Atlantic County 14. Camden County Environmental Agency * ~~~15. Cape May County Planning Board 16. Cumberland County Planning Board 1 ~~~17. Cumberland County Board of Chosen Freeholders 18. Cumberland County Economic Development Board 19. Rutgers Cooperative Extension Service - Cook College 20. Middlesex County Planning Board 2UA. Lower Raritan/Middlesex County 208 Water Quality Management Planning Program I ~~~21. Monmouth County Planning Board 22. Ocean County Planning Board 23. Salem County Planning Board 24. Borough of Carteret - Middlesex County 25. Lawrence Township Planning Board 26. The Township of Middletown 27. City of Ocean City 28. New Jersey State Legislature - Office of Fiscal Affairs 29. State of New Jersey - Dept. of Community Affairs 30. New Jersey State Museum - Bureau of Archaeology 31. State of New Jersey - Dept. of the Public Advocate 32. Delaware River Basin Commission 33. Delaware River Port Authority 34. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 35. Tri-State Regional Planning Commission 36. American Littoral Society 37. American Association of University Women - New Jersey Division 38. The League for Conservation Legislation 39. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 40. New Jersey Conservation Foundation 41. New Jersey Independent Liquid Terminals Association 42. New Jersey Petroleum Council 43. New Jersey Builders Association 44. Barrymore Enterprises, Inc. 45. Canetic Corporation 46. Dresdner Associates 47. Fellows, Read & Weber Inc., Consulting Engineers 48. Rbbert M. Maestro 49. Townplan Associates 50. Wilcox-Gravatt & Hacumda, Inc. 51. Marine Trades Association of New Jersey 52. New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce 53. Sierra Club - New Jersey Chapter 54. Columbia Gas System Service Corporation 55. Public Service Electric and Gas Company, New Jersey Central Power and Light Co., and New Jersey Natural Gas Co. 56. Jersey Central Power 9-Light Company 57. Jesse S. Morie & Son, Inc., Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corporation, Whitehead Brothers Co., George F. Pettinos, Inc., Unimin Corp. 58. Public Service Electric and Gas Co. 59. Unimin Corporation 60. Bay Point Rod & Gun Club Association 61. Alvin R. Wagner, Secretary-Treasurer of Sunrise Beach, Inc. 62. Joseph M. Heeney, President, Lacey Township Chamber of Commerce 63. Edward Perry, Environmental Planner, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 64. Derry W. Bennett, Executive Director, American Littoral Society 65. Joseph Todino, Chairman, New Jersey Builders Association, CAFRA Committee 66. Michael J. Gross, New Jersey Builders Association 67. Katharine Duffy Kievitt, South Seaside Park, New Jersey 68. Mrs. Leo B. Bicher, Jr., Normandy Beach, New Jersey 69. Steven Gabriel, Ocean City, New Jersey 70. Alecia Gregg, Ocean City Public Relations Department 71. Alexander T. Ogden 72. Gary Carpenter 73. L.R. Hudson 74. Alfred C. Coleman, Jr. 75. Alvin Griffith 76. Daniel O'Connor, President of "Save Our River Environment" 77. Thomas A. Henry 78. Mary A. Dowhy 79. Fred Gentile 80. James A. Shissias 81. Mercedes Johnson 82. G. Oliver Papps 83. Diane Graves 84. George Clark 85. Ruth Fisher 86. Anne Penna 87. Michael Havrisko 88. Robert Bowen oo ~,~~~~UNITED STATES 0 t HO NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION NRC Staff's Cments NRC Staff'ms Com..neats 8 ~~~~~~WASI~INOTON, D. C. 20555 ~On The New Jersey Coastal 7one Management ' ,.,G,."~ .o-* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Program (Bay anti Ocean ~~~****"~ ~ JUN 2 0 1978 Shore Segment;.) 1. p. 145 a. Sections 7.4.12 and 7.4.13 are not given parallel treatment. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ms. KI~athryn Cousins The heading "Base Load Electric Generating Stations" is Ms. Kathryn Cousins Office of Coastal Zone Management O3300 Whi tehaven Street, N.W. aapplied only to new or expanded non-nuclear fossil fueled 3300 Whitehaven Street, fI.W. Washington, D.C. 20235 plants. This is not accurate. Although fossil fueled Dear Ms. Cousins: plants may be base load facilities, they could also'be I am pleased to provide you, herewith, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission cycling load facilities. Additionally, nuclear plants NRC) staff's comments on the New Jersey Coastal Zone Management Program Bay and Ocean Shore Segment) and its associated Draft Environmental are generally base load facilities. We suggest that a Imp~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~actSaemgent.rally base load facilities. We suggest that a Impact Statement. We at NRC welcomed the opportunity for staff to discuss these comments single heading be "Electric Generating Stations" with a with NOAA/OCZM and New Jersey CZM staff on June 12. As you now prepare the FEIS and attempt to deal with the comments of NRC staff and others, separate discussion f non-uclear plants and nuclear plants. be assured of our willingness to discuss further any of these comments. You may call either Frank Young, Office of State Programs, at 492-7794 or The second section number should be dropped. Roy Voegeli, Office of Executive Legal Director, at 492-7437. ~~~~~~~~~~Sincerely, ~b. The use of the term "non-nuclear, fossil fueled plants" raises a question in our minds. Do they really mean the X9a A broad category of all "non-nuclear" plants or the narrower R obert G. Ryan, Director category of "Fossil Fueled" plants? Office of State Programs cc: Richard O'Connor OCZM David N. Kinsey, Chief c. Regarding Policy 7.4.13, it is suggested that, before Office of Coastal Zone Management Dept. of E nviro nmental Protection approving a coastal zone management program containing Dept. of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 18gg TP.eO. Box 1889 such conditions, the OCZM carefully consider the question of Trenton, NJ 08625 whether they are consistent with thU Atomtc Eenergy Act of Joel R. Jacobson, Commissioner New Jersey Dept. of Energy 101 Commerce St reet 1954.and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and/or the 101 Commerce Street Room 204 Newark, New Jersey 0 7102 Coastal Zone Management Act itself. (see, for example, ftewark, Niew Jersey 07102 Enclosure: page 2 and reference 9 of the Nlew Jersey Preliminary Policy As Stated Statement regarding Detennination of tile Need for Energy Facilities.) ,- - - - m --- --- m -2- p. 177 The Process for Continued Consideration of National Interest Issues, paragraph 3, states that, "The Conmmissioner has interpreted 8. p. 212 (paragraph 2) The last two s O. p. Z12 (paragraph 2) The last two sentences assume that there is "public welfare" to inelude a full consideration of national interests ..."............................... public welfare" to include a full consideration of national interests.. adequate water to support the energy facility Inland and that an inland We do not find assurance in either the N.J. law or the regulations that t h e "pbi"nldstoseodbre.location will not result in coastal air and water quality degradation. that the "publtc" tncludes those beyond the State's border. It would appear to us that New Jersey could very well approach inland p. 186 Federal Consistency. We suggest changing the second sentence alternatives to coastal sites through the Memorandum of Understanding to read: Theyissue permits and licenses for activities such as...- between DEP and DOE and the New Jersey Energy Act. They give New thora se construction and lnoperacition of nuclear power plants ...:'-....... Jersey the same opportunity that Massachusetts seized so effectively. the construction and operation of nuclear power plants..:' Rules of the Massachusetts Energy Facilltibs Siting Council (a state- .p� 187 (2) This statemtent tends to equate national interest with p. 17 (2) This statement tends to equate national interest with wide agency, not limited to considerations of the coastal zone) require national security. National Interest is a broader concern. We- thefollowing the following: suggest changing wording to: "The activity is clearly in the national interest and is carried out in a manner which minimizes conflict with the Rule 82.1 Candidate Site Evaluation and Comparison # ~~~Rule 82.1 Candidate Site Evaluatiou and Comparison Coastal Resource and Development Policies." here a facility isproposeifror coastal siting, the lead company or petitioner must propose, evaluate, and compare alternative candidate sites. In the case of a Facility wlich is claimed to be 5. p. 189 The NRC mission has been lumped under DOE. NRC should be coastally dependent, at least two candidate sites in the coastal zone must be proposed, evaluated, and compared. In the case of a separately stated as we are an independent Federal agency. It should facility which is not coastally dependent at least two candidate sites, one of which shall be inland, must be proposed, evaluated, read: "NUCLEAR REGULATORY COIMISSlON Permits and licenses the and compared. construction and operation of nuclear faclities." .(2) Where a facility is proposed For Inland siting, the lead construction and o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~opeatino ula facitie, company or petitioner must propose, evaluate,and compare at least l two alternative candidate sites. 6. p. 203 section 2 states, "Under these policies, large scale energy (3) The candidate site evaluation and comparison will include a . {3) Tmprhecnsivae deiitioe n expaluation otieland comparsny orlicld production... must locate in the region outside the Segment's boundaries." comprehensive definition and explanation of the lead company or "I~~ ..petitioner's site selection process. This will include a Does this apply to nuclear power plants? Does this recognize the need justification of the necessity for or advantage or coastal siting together with an explicit definition of the weighting process for large quantities of cooling water? Where is the justification developed to compare candidate sites in accord with the evaluation matrix set forth in this rule. that keeps this from being an arbitrary exclusion of activities in the national interest? 7. p. 212 (paragraph 1) What is the time-table for DOE and DEP to investigate the feasibility of alternative energy production methods? 2 (I) 4. The proposed program states Energy Use Policies, beginning at page 137, which indicate a geperal locational preference for siting of most energy facilities in the Department of Energy Dmore urbanized (non-CAFRAI) coastal areas which already contain extensive energy facilities as well as tilre labor market and social infrastructure to absorb the impacts of such facilities. Mr. Robert W. Knecht Assistant Administrator for We would not object to approval of the proposed program Coastal Zone Management segment, provided that proposed energy policies are revised National Oceanic and Atmospheric in general conformance with DOE review comments. Discussions Administration on this Subject were begun at the May 25 program review 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. briefing, and continued at a June 12 meeting between New Jersey Washington, D. C. 20235 officials and their Federal energy counterparts. We will be pleased to work with members of your staff and representatives Dear Mr. Knecht: of the State of New Jersey to prepare a final program segment and EIS document for further Federal.review and will comment The Department of Energy (DOE) has reviewed the State of New a1-thereon as appropriate concerning final approval action. Jersey Coastal Management Program, Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Our We suggest that the remaining segments of the New Jersey views on specific elements of the proposed program are based program and the energy planning process elements be submitted on the following four findingst concurrently for future review and approval action as program amendments. The geographic segments should contain the 1. The program submitted requests approval for only a specific information on availability of facility sites which segment of the State of New Jersey, defined primarily is essential to evaluation of the adequacy of the energy by the State Coastal Area Facilities Review Act ICAFRA). planning and facility siting process. Page 179 references a This segment is essentially the South Atlantic shoreline study undertaken by Rutgers University indicating that the of the State and excludes the northern New Jersey State could provide this type of information. We will not urbanized coastal areas and the Delaware River coastal be able to evaluate compliance with requirements of CZMA estuary (See Figure 25, page 258). Sections 305(b)(8) and 306(c)(8) in the absence of specific, statewide geographic information for all State program 2. The program does not include the integrated energy segments. facility planning and siting process elements required by Sections 305(b)(8) and 306(c)(8) of the Coastal Zone The policies and findings of Policy 7.4.2, page 134; Policy Management Act (CZMA). Pursuant to authorities contained 7.4.8, page 144; and the discussion of uses of regional in CZMA Section 305(b), States are not required to meet benefit, page 192 are based on the finding that new Mid-Atlantic these requirements prior to October 1, 1978 (See Secretarial OCS oil production is not expected to require new refinery Findings Index, page 232). capacity. The program should reflect greater awareness, however, that the actual level of OCS oil and gas resources 3. The State of New Jersey is concurrently developing a is a matter of great uncertainty and that production of oil State Energy Master Plan. A State hearing draft of and gas may be either much less or much greater than current this plan is already completed and public hearings have expectations. The program should indicate flexibility to been scheduled at intervals throughout the month of review refinery policies against future conditions and to June. The integrated energy planning and siting policies evaluate proposals against actual resource production levels of the State when filed will be consistent with the final and refinery capacity needs which cannot be assessed at this master plan and will incorporate the principles for time. coordination of proceedings and resolution of disputes which are stated in the draft Memorandum of Understanding More specific geographic information is needed concerning between the New Jersey Department of Energy and the New Policy 7.4.7. beginning at page 141, for pipelines and Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (See associated facilities in order to select alignments which Draft Memorandum of Understanding, page 277). would be considered consistent with the CZM program. We _ _m _ _ _ _ _ 4 suggest that the State coordinate with the pipeline corridor selection studies which have been initiated by the Bureau of the State's policies are not in conflict with the authorities Land Management, Department of the Interior, relative to the of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Policy 7.4.13 should Mid-Atlantic OCS lease sale. The results of such further be redrafted to insure that land use regulation implementing planning should be reflected in the energy planning and the CAFRA authorities do not result in implied regulation of facility siting process program elements to be submitted as matters of nuclear safety, which are the responsibility of program amendments. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In addition, the State should identify its authorities concerning assessments of The State should further define its policies and legal need for power and related utility regulatory authorities authorities with respect to recognition of energy facilities and seek to avoid policies which would appear arbitrary and siting as uses of national interest and regional benefit. unreasonable unless applied in the context of the administra- Consideration of national interests should include documents- tive record related to the siting of a particular facility. tion that policies may not be limited by authorities restrict- ing the State's concerns to limits of the social, cultural, We believe that New Jersey should modify the LNG policy economic, or environmental well-being exclusively of the stated in Policy 7.4.14, page 146, of the proposed program. citizens of the State of New Jersey. Specific examples The reference to a petition for issuance of siting criteria include statements in Policies 7.4.13 and 7.4.14, pages 145 should be modified in the following respects: and 147, that propose to limit energy facilities to "the well-being of New Jersey residents" and to "only those 1. Federal consistency should not be tied to a petition for developments necessary to meet the State's energy needs." rulemaking action for siting criteria to be issued by We believe the statements should be deleted or carefully the Federal Energy Regultory Comilssion. The Commission revised so that the policy statements do not seem to contra- fully evaluates each project reviewed for licensing dict intent to consider national interests. action and develops an administrative record specific to the project which would provide an adequate basis for Uses of regional benefit should apply as part of the manage- consistency evaluation. ment program to all energy facilities capable of meeting a test as providing benefits or services to more than one unit 2. Recognition should be afforded to the relevant authorities of local government (Sec. CFR Part 923.13) and within the of various concerned Federal agencies, especially the scope of the definition of energy facilities contained in Departments of Transportation (DOT) and Energy (DOE). CZMA Section 304(5). We would be pleased to assist in re- Actions by FERC are not the only Federal actions which drafting the statement at page 192 of the proposed program. may require consistency certification. DOE would recommend against approval for elements and segments of the New Jersey program which limited considers- 3. State concerns regarding consideration of safety in tion of energy facilities as uses of regional benefit to a Federal regulatory proceedings and ongoing rulemaking scope less than that defined in Section 304(5). actions related to LUG facilities should be stated in the appropriate participation forums provided in all Regulations pertaining to implementation of the energy regulatory and rulemaking actions. planning and facility siting process element should be made available for Federal review and comment when the program DOT responsibilities are divided between the Coast Guard and amendment is submitted for approval. A timetable should be the Office of Pipeline Safety Operations pursuant to a established for promulgation of final regulations prior to Memorandum of Understanding. The Coast Guard has responsi- final action approving the amendment. bility for LNG facilities with regard to management of vessel traffic and various other matters pertaining to the Policy 7.4.13, page 145, fails to provide criteria in sufficient facility between the LNG vessel and the last manifold (or detail to allow evaluation for consistency with the licensing valve) immediately before the LNG receiving tanks. (Refer- standards of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We recommend ence: Coast Guard publication "Liquefied Natural Gas, Views that the program be revised sufficiently to document that and Practices, Policy and Safety," CG-478.) The Office of 5. 6 Pipeline Safety Operations has responsibility for matters Department of Energy pertaining to an LNG facility beyond (and including) the last manifold valve immediately before the receiving tanks. Economic Regulatory Administration (Reference: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CFR Part 193, Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities: Federal Safety Orders granting permission for importation Standards, Federal Register, Volume 42, No. 77, April 21, of liquefied natural gas 1977.) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Department of Energy responsibilities related to LNG facilities encompass the Economic Regulatory Administration (ERA) and - Licenses required for construction and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). ERA is a operation of non-Federal hydroelectic direct administrative unit of DOE, headed by an administrator facilities and associated transmission lines. appointed by the Secretary. ERA has authority to issue opinions and orders granting permission to import LNG from - Certificates required for construction and foreign sources. FERC is established within DOE, pursuant operation of interstate natural gas pipelines to the DOE Organization Act, as an independent regulatory and associated facilities, including facilities commission composed of -five members appointed by the President. needed for importation of liquefied natural gas. FERC has jurisdiction over certificates for construction and operation of interstate natural gas pipelines and associated - Permission and approval required for abandon- facilities, including facilities needed to import LNG. FERC ment of natural gas pipelines and associated will file separate comments detailing its concerns regarding facilities. the energy policies stated in the proposed program. Reference Figure 23, page 241 should be revised. The Department DOE shares what seems to be the basic concern of Policy of Energy, through personnel in the New York Regional Office, 7.4.14, page 146, that risks of LNG operations should be did receive staff issue papers, receive Coastal Management minimized. however, the policy as stated does not reflect Stra t attend the November 21, 1977, ie-ing on this specific consideration of the above stated elements of and meet individually with New Jersey DEP-OCZM Federal authorities, regulations, and procedures. The staff during program development. energy planning process element should make a specific appraisal of the extensive consideration already given to Please contact Mr. Emmett Turner, DOE Coastal Zone Management safety and environmental concerns. If the State still has Coordinator, telephone 566-9179, to arrange any necessary specific concerns, they should then be stated in the energy details for further DOE comments and assistance. element for Federal review. In the interim, Policy 7.4.14 should be restated to indicate intent to make a further Sincerely, analysis of LNG issues. We note at page 178 that the Federal Energy Administration has been listed twice among the list of agencies consulted Dobie Langenkamp on national interests in energy production and transmission. Deputy Assistant Secretary Oil, Natural Gas and Shale Resources There are several errors concerning the license and permit responsibilities of DOE at page 189. Regulation of nuclear power plants is a responsibility of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Commission is not part of DOE and should be listed as an independent agency. The Economic Regulatory Administration has authority to issue orders concerning use of coal in power plants. There is, however, no agency within DOE or other element of the Federal Government that directly licenses construction of fossil fuel power plants. We suggest this section be amended as followst :*VI NUP*I DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT The State CZM plan states that as their policy, "construction Is accept- able In flood hazard areas if such construction conforms with applicable 2 S JUN 197 'flood hazard reduction standards as adopted by the FIA in IIUD (federal OrFICE oF THE ASfSIST1H SECREtAryJ Register, Vol, 41, No. 207, Part 11, October 26, 1976)." This raises roD COMMUNITY PLANNING ANO tEVELOPrEN!T IN mEaL, , O, several questions and concerns: a. Does the State plan to review a permit from a municipality to ensure that the municipality's flood plain management measures are met before approving the proposal? Honorable Robert Knecht Acting Associate Administrator b. If so, will the State actually adopt regulations to accomplish National Oceanic and Atmospheric this? Administration Department of Commerce c. If so, which State Aqency will adopt and enforce these regulations? Washington, D. C. 20235 Since FIA Is carrying out a comprehensive mapping effort of the State's Dear Mr. Knecht: flood hazard areas, which is tailored to meet specific State standards, we recommend that Section 6.4.4.1 - "Flood Uazard Areas Definition" - This Department has reviewed the New Jersey Coastal Management Program- reference the FIA mapping effort for the CAFRA area. Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and I offer the following summary of comments for your consideration, Finally, the reference of the FIA regulations in number 1 above, should Include the phrase "as amended" after the citation to ensure that com- We find no objection to approval by the Secretary of Commerce of the munitles are not mislead as to which are the latest FIA regulations in State's program segment and application for 306 administrative funds effect. In addition, the word "adopted" should be changed to "promulgated." subject to the following clarifications and conditions. The State of New Jersey should be informed that any such approval should not be We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this segment of New Jersey's construed as HUD approval of this document for the purposes of meeting Coastal Zone Management Program. the Land Use Element of the 701 Comprehensive Planning Assistance Pro- incer gram (934 CFR 600.72). Such determination will be made in accordance with the procedures established in 24 CFR 600.73. The plan should provide for assessing the accumulative Impacts and Rl/obet C /ir L efforts emanating from permits and developments drawing on the same or Robert . bry Jr. contiguous resources. Coordination and consistency procedures should be Assistant SecretaryI established for interfacing the State Guide Plan with other development cc: Kathryn Cousins. OCZM plans, particularly those elements which effect housing, land use, seasonal housing and facilities. We recommend that the preparation of the Delaware River and Hudson River/wetland segment of The New Jersey CZMP be fully coordinated with the State of Delaware, Pennsylvania and New York. We have been informed that the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission is assisting the State of Pennsylvania In the preparation of its plan and that the program will cover only the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware River from the Pennsylvania-Delaware State Boundary Line to the fall line at Morrlsvllle, Pennsylvania. Since DVRPC has been recognized by the State of New Jersey for areawide planning purposes, we recommend that the State DEP-0CZM coordinate Its CZM planning activities with that organi- zation In order to achieve total coverage of the Delaware River. 5... __ _ _ _ - -- - - - - - .- ..--- DEPARTMENT OF IRANSPORTATION 2 REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SECRETARY r* its~~~~~~~ 26 VFlEA! PLATA 'VW YORK N0W ORK leo0 for all bridge permit actions since tile numler of potential applicants in the private sector is virtually unlisited. However, the consitstency requirements will be incorpornted into our permit application pro- cedures which are distributed to appropriate state agencles. 6. The DOT coordinates with tile State HIlstoric Preservation Officer, Office of Coastal Zone Management as required by regulations under the NHational HiLstoric Peservation Act, NOAAM for proposed DOT projects that affect properties l;sted on or eligible Attona Ms1. Rathryn Cousins for the National Register of Hllstoric Places. We would like to know Regional Manager, North Atlantic Region the legal basis for thlis requirement and would appreciate an explanation 3300 WshitehaDven St., 2 . W. from New Jersey of the procedures involved. Washilngton, D. C. 20235 7. New Jersey misinterpreted one of oalr comments on the Coastal Dear Mainagement Strategy to be a suggestLion that they becrmca involved In The agencies of the Department of Transportation have reviewed commerctil vessel snfety (pop e 244). We only asked that they discuss New Jersey's Coastal Management Program - B ay and Ocean Shore spects of their program other than la nd use regulation. In response to questions concerning federal conuisatency, New Jersey states on page 245 Segment and DEIS, and tihe following commentns re offered: tthat the procedures in Chapter Five (5) "spell out who should make the 1. We suggest that tthe final environmental impact statement consistency determination regarding various fede-al activities." That discuss tile effect of noise on activities and compatible land uses is not the case. Chapter Five (5) does not specily who will mako the discun the o zon~e.ffT his ortat aspect aa t fibeenconsistency determination for federal activities and development projects. in the coastal zone. This imsportant aspect apparently has been Finally, we would like to reiterate the question that is n ot answered overlooked in the draft EtS. on page 246 concerning the procedures the state intends to follow to gain 2. Also, the plan should discuss provisions for controlling Access to federal oceanfront lands. and cleaning up oil spills and other potentially hazardous materials, such as industrial chemicals, which could have a serious effect on 8. ge 146, 7.4.14, Sec. - C 78 ews alicy the coastal environment. and Safety addresses this issue; continued R & D is olngoing. 3. Another condition for the construction of docks nnd plers The overall approach that New Jersey has taken in presenting their plan (pnge 47) should be that the structure not obstruct navigtlion. is excellent, and their staff should be commended for their perceptiveness. Similarly, overhead transmission lines that cross waterways (page 49) should not interfere with navigation. to. The requirement (page 187) to "notify DEP of all proposed activities or projects on federal lands which may have an impact. Ifl -4 on the Segment..." is not mandated by the Coastal Zone Management Act and will create a notification process for minor projects that Senior Staff Officer do not require a consistency determination. The federal consistency regulations state; "Federal agencies shall provide state agencies with consistency determinations for all Federal activities signifi cnantly affecting the coastal zone" (15 CFR 930.34(a)). It should be noted that Federal agencies provide a consistency determination, not a notification, and only for projects with a signflcant impact. 5. New Jersey puts the burden on federal agencies to "alert all potential applicants for permits of the need to obtain a DEP consistency certification" (page 188). This will not be possible -III mu muI m - - - - -I - . m - - - - L > I ~OFFICE OF 1E ASSISTANT SECnETARY OF DEFENSE WFF~rE or THE ASSISTANTO D.C. 2031OF COMMENTS ON THE NEW JERSEY COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (NJCMP) ~WASH~NG~T~ON.~ v~ ~c- 20301 AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MANTS'ZnVlrFtF 1,9 Jtl iNi'1 1. Chapter Two AND I OnlS ICS Specific exclusion of federal lands from the boundaries of the coastal zone should be clearly stated. A reference to Appendix G is also recommended. Mr. Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary for 2. Chapter Three, Section 3.0 Environmental Affairs Attn: Ms. Kathryn Cousins Recommend that federal exclusions be briefly discussed be- Office of Coastal Zone Management lore listing the proposed uses of coastal resources that would U.S. Department of commerce come under state jurisdiction. Washington, D.C. 20230 Washington, D.C. 20230 3. Chapter Five, Page 177, second full paragraph Dear Mr. Galler, Recommend that "non-federally owned land" be changed to In response to your recent memorandum, we have reviewed the New Jersey "non-federally controlled land." coastal zone Management Program, Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and Draft 4. Chapter Five, Page 187, Federal Activities and Development Projects that Environmental Impact Statement and enclose our comments and recommends This reuires/federal agencies notify te N.J. Deartment This requires/Eederal agencies notify the N.J. Department tions at Enclosure 1. we concur in this document subject to incorporation of Environmental Protection (DEP) of all proposed activities and development projects which significantly affect the coastal of our comments in the final New Jersey Program. zone. It would be advantageous for federal agencies to deal with these matters through the state's A-95 clearing house Os incerf yours ,7rather than dealing with another state agency. This would pre- vent duplication and reduce administrative time. 5. Chapter 5, page 187, Federal consistency PerX4 . Fliakas Consistency determinations are to be made by the Federal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Agencies themselves and not the state, pursuant to NOAA's con- {Installations and Housing) sistency regulations. Also, federal agencies are not subject to state permitting procedures in the absence of specific con- Enclosure gressional mandate. Recommend this section be revised. Enclosure (1) DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE or THE CHtIE OF ENGINEERS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20311 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . r 6JUN 1970 Conmmcnts on the New Jersey cred,,o.~� orCoastal Management Program - Bay and DAEN-CWP-P Ocean Shore Segment and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Policies. Mr. Robert W. Knecht Assistant Administrator for 1. a. Tile policies relating to port development (7.7) appear to be quite Coastal Zone Management restrictive. In addition, they are expressed in extremely general terms. National Oceanic and Atmospheric The program states its Intent to focus development and commerce at Administration established sites to the maximum extent possible. Regarding ports, it Department of Commerce states that new port facilities will be permitted only when a clear 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. inadequacy exists, and then development must be on ani adjacent site. Washington, D.C. 20235 While it is appropriate that development he encouraged in established areas, it should not necessarily be preempted from other sites. Also, the criteria used to determine insadequacy should be specified. We recommend that this policy be reconsidered both for this segment and more importantly in the context of the overall state program. Dear Hr. Knecht: b. Industrial development is also discouraged (Policy 7,6) and will We have reviewed the New Jersey Coastal Management Program Day and Ocean be considered only to the extent that a high ratio of johs created to Shore Segment and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Generally, we acres used is achieved and no conflict with resort recreation uses occurs. find that the program segment is well-written, organized, and compre- While jobs criteria is a useful and valid one, It is only one element henaible. Although we are concerned with the restrictiveness of some In the determination of economic significance. It is also a very broad policies, we recognize that it may be necessary to address them in part guideline and may not be sufficiently'defined in this document to act in this segment, and more fully in the course of completing the program. as a performance standard. We recommend that the inclosed cormsents be considered and revisions C. Dunes - (policy 6.6.2) made prior to program approval. Page 55, Ist paragraph. The statement on dune policy should further Sincerely, address dune protection. This comment supports one made earlier by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Their comment is the first one listed on page 243 of the subject draft. We are aware that at least one community located in the New Jersey coastal zone has adopted an ordinance that permits excavation to lower the top elevation of dunes along the ocean. I Incl DIRAKE WILSON Work has been undertaken and completed in accordance with that ordinance, As stated Brigadier General, USA in a manner that increases tile view along the ocean. Official statements Deputy Director of Civil Works have been made by that coemnunity and printed in the newspaper, reporting that -sand at the top of the dunes is worthless. The statement on dune policy should be further addressed to emphasize the need for dune pro- tection in the coastal zone area. d. Policy 6.2.3.2 (p. 33) and Policy 6.2.7.2 (p. 37). The appropri- ateness of the last statement in each of these policies is questionable. There is no apparent justification for establishing policies for areas outside tile coastal zone. A. A;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ National Intereat (p. 176, 182) ' f. Tile aptcntion of the ZMP on a state-wide basis relative to Federal � 7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~consistency requirements for Federal assistance grants for chemical 2. a. The national interest in port and industrial development is processing, mineral extraction, sewage treatment and solid waste disposal sufficient to warrant a more extensive discussion than that which facilities is seriously questioned. Since the coastal zone of New Jersey !a provided. This should be done in a manner Consistent with accounts for only 17 percent of the area of the State, to assume that expanded use policies discussed in comments I a and b above. such facilities located in the remaining 83 percent of the State will : have a direct or significant effect on the coastal zone-will need to b. Page 182. The last of the major objectives of the national be fully. supported, Justified and documented in the subject CZrP. interest in recreation, should be revised to read as follows: "To accelerate the no-cost transfer of property identified as surplus Permits. (Page 189) and underutilized by the Federal agency." 4. The listing of Corps of Engineers regulatory authorities should be Consistency. revised as follows: 3. a. Page 178, lst paragraph. This is in conflict with the official a. Permits to regulate the construction of any dam or dike across any Federal position that consistency determinations for direct Federal navigable waters of the United States under Section 9 of the River and activities including development projects, will be made by the Federal Ilarbor Act of 1899. agency. The following should be added, before the last sentence, "Con- sistency determinations will be made by the Federal Agency." The last b. Permits to regulate the obstruction or alteration of, the construction sentence should be revised as follows: "DEP will review the proposal of any structure in or over, and the excavation from or depositing of material and consistency determination by the Federal agency for consistency in any navigable water of the United States under Section 10 of the River with.the Coastal Program, and will issue a statement of agreement if and Harbor Act of 1899. it finds that the Federal project or activity is consistent to the maximum extent practicable." . Permits to regulate the transportation of dredged mateiial for the purposes of dumping it in ocean waters under Section 103 ..... b. On page 187, under Federal Consistency, it should be clarified that Federal agencies are responsible for making consistency determinations d. Permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the for their activities. waters and adjacent wetlands of tile United States at specified disposal sites under Section 404 . . . . e. On page 187, last paragraph, the consistency requirement is not clearly stated. As per S. 930.34, Federal agencies shall provide state 5. Completing the Program (p. 197-199) agencies with consistency determinations for all Federal activities signi- ficantly affecting the coastal zone. Presumably, the cited "notification The Program document states that DEP wil initiate a Development Potential in writing" refers to a consistency determination. This should be clarified. Study that will identitfy the key siting factors for a wide range of coastal development activities. We strongly recommend that this study d. Page 188. The follwming should be added after the first sentence: include consideration of port development and water dependent industry. "The Federal agency will make the consistency determination regarding Moreover, we would expect to see the results of this incorporated into direct Federal activities." the program policy as discussed in items I and 2, above. e. On page 189, it provides that DEP reserves the right to review other unlisted Federal permit and license applications which may significantly affect the coastal zone. It indicates that up to 45 days from the notice date of the Federal application is needed to determine If DEP will exer- cise this reserved option and first request information on such a proposal. The need for information to review for Federal consistency on unlisted activities should be determined and sought early in the review process. 3 2 ~~~~~~~~~t - JUNITED STRATE DEPAtRMENT OF COMMERCE fNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratlon NAVI{OAL MARINE FISHERmES SEVICE Federal Building, 14 Elm Street guidance should be provided to indicate acceptable activities and to Gloucester, Hassachust provide for consistent permit decisions. We recommend that such wording (prudent and feasible) be eliminated from the document and replaced with a 0 clear, understandable instructions. JUL July 3, 1978 Pnage 24 - 6.2.4.2 PolicIes Thin policy statement should consider juvenile anadromous fish which TO: Terry L. Lettzell, Aesistant Administrator of Fisheries - V migrate in the autumn. 8.0 Resource Policies THRU: Kenneth Roberta, Chief, Environmental Assessment Division - 53 Again we wish to recommend that more emphasis be given to policies which encourage wise management end utilization of commercial and recreational FROM: a.>William C. L4ordon fisheries stocks and associated living marine resources. 6' Regional Director - FNE SUBJECT: COMMHHENTS Oil NEW JERSEY COASTAL ZONE HANACEIIENT PROGRAH AND DEIS RG:cam The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Coastal Zone Hanagement cc: FNE Program that accompanied your memorandum of June 20, 1978, has been FNE6 received by the National Harine Fisheries Service for review and comment. FNE623 The statement has been reviewed and the following commentn are offered for your consideration. General Comments The Nlew Jersey Coastal Hanagement Program, Say and Ocean Shore Segment, has been improved since our review of the Discussion Paper: Hany of our previous comments have been included in this document as a result of our meeting with the program staff April 5, 1978. It Is our under- staliding that the CZM program will place a greater emphasis on fishery resources by: promoting interstate coordination of fishery management plans; characterizing the New Jersey fishery; inventorying living coastal resources; and eventually, through the Division of Fish, Same, 6 Shell Fisheries, preparing fishery management plans. Policy state- ments dealing with living marine resources have been clarified. We have no objection to approval of the program provided the program document explicitly defines "prudent and feasible" (see specific com- ments). Specific Comments Chapter Three: Coastal Resource and Development Policies Many of the policy statements in this chapter include the words "prudent and feasible alternative". These words are somewhat vague. Additional k.J.. 11 m ---- - m m m - UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE /' SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE P.O. Box 2890 Mr. Robert W. Knecht 2 Wa5shings.0.C. ).RM 20013 because of growth, natural plant succession, insects, disease, fire, and wind. To maintain optimum forest environments for open space, recreation Assistant Administrator for Wt4 1 K e h and other uses compatible with coastal zone objectives will require forest Coastal Zone Management management. We did not find any discussion in the report for such need. National Oceanic and Atmospheric We feel that protection alone is usually insufficient in maintaining forest Administration lands for public use. Perhaps the report could discuss this need briefly 3300 Whitehaven Street, MW. under policies. Washington, D.C. 20235 Page 64, Section 6.4.10.1, Definition. Add the following: K values may Dear Mr. Knecht: be found in most National Cooperative Soil Survey Reports available from soil conservation districts or in local Soil Conservation Service Technical The New Jersey Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental Impact Guides. Statement has been reviewed by several agencies in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The following comments reflect the combined Page 65, Section 6.4.10.2, Policy. The reference to U.S. Soil Conservation input of these agencies. Service should be changed to State Soil Conservation Comnmttee. In addition, it should be recognized that under some conditions practical control measures Page 50, Section 6.4.1.1. Suggest rewording of second line to read, may not produce a desirable level of control. In such cases, as determined . . . bay and ocean shores that are eroding or that have a history of by the State Soil Conservation Committee, development should be prohibited. erosion . . . ." Processes that shape the shoreline are extremely complex. Many shorelines that have aggraded recently were degrading earlier and Section 6.4.11. Prime Agricultural Areas" should be canged to read: are vulnerable in the future. 'Prime andUique Farmlands." Page 51. Experience of Soil5011 Conservation Service (SCS) indicates that the Section 6.4.11.1, Definition. This definition should be in keeping R Isle City area should be included in the high risk erosion areas list. with the attached definition of Prime and Unique Farmland. (See Attachment II.) Section 6.4.1.2. Policy. Recommend last sentence in the first paragraph should be changed to read, "Development that contributes to further Section 6.4.11.2, Policy. Recommend change to read: i Development of erosion of high risk areas is prohibited." IPrime and Unique Farmland for non-farming purposes is prohibited un- less continual farming is . .. ." The use of the wor- discouraged" Pge 58, 5th paragraph. The last two lines should be changed to read, in lieu of "prohibited" causes uncertainty and makes land use plans 1:24,000), supplemented by flood prone areas as determined by soil ineffective. maps contained in appropriate National Cooperative Soil Survey Reports." Page 75, Section (d), Erosion and Sediment Control. The first sentence Page 61, Section 6.4.7, Prime Forest Areas. The title of this section should be changed to read: "Surface water runoff is a well-documented, "Prime Forest Areas" may cause some confusion because "Prime Forest Land- possible source of water quality degradation. Timber" as defined by USDA is based on growing capacity and is oriented to commercial timber production. It is a term that Is now widely used Pae 82, Section 6.6.3.1s Definition. (Seasonal High Water Table.) as part of the Department's prime land protection program. Of course,n should be in keepng th SCS definition. (See Attacment . New Jersey may call these areas anything it wishes, but we felt it advisable to point out this difference in definition. A copy of the USDA Sectin 6.6.3.2, Rationale. This section should reflect the existence of Prime Forest-Timberland definition is enclosed for your information.Shallow depths to water tables. The second sentence mght be changed to read (See Attachment 1.) "Shallow depths to water table (wet terraces) occur either close to surface water bodies or as perched water tables above relatively impervious soil Pages 63, 64, Section 6.4.9, Public Open Space. This section and the layers." description of the Division of Parks and Forestry on page 169 discuss the State parks' and State forests' role in contributing recreation, aesthetics, historic preservation, and wildlife protection. No mention is made of commercial forest products from State forests. Are State forests managed for multiple uses including production of forest products? Forest ecosystems are dynamic communities that are constantly changing 12 Mr. Robert W. Knecht 4 Mr. Robert W. Knecht 3 Page 15, Section 8.7.2, Rationale. Third paragraph should reflect Page 84, Section 6.6.3.3, Information Requirements. Change first sentence techniques contained iie stani rds for Soil Erosion and Sediment to read: "Data on the distribution of these areas may be obtained from Control in New Jersey. Fourth paragraph, first sentence, should be the National Cooperative Soil Survey available from the local soil changed to read: "Applicants shall use the Universal Soil Loss Equation conservation district, etc ...." Similar changes should be made through- to calculate the maximum acceptable soll loss or erosion during the out the text of the report. operation phase of the project." The Universal Soil Loss Equation can not be used to compute sediment loss without applying a delivery ratio Page 85, Section 6.6.4.1, Definition. the first sentence should be changed factor. The equation computes the average annual erosion or soil loss to read: "Soil permeability Is the rate of vertical movement of water il tons per acre per year. The equation can be used to compute sheet through the soil or a soil layer expressed In inches per hour." and rill erosion only; gully and other erosion must be determined by other means. we do not see the need for having the applicant make this Section 6.6.4.2, Rationale. this section should reflect the difference determination. A requirement that unpaved areas be maintained In good between soil infiltration and permeability. vegetative cover should provide adequate protection from erosion. Infiltration is the rate of water intake into the soil, and Page 171. The paragraph entitled "Department of Agriculture" should be permeability is the rate of vertical water movement through the coangem to read "Thi s Dearent trough the Stament Control Conservation Committee administers the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act (",J.S.A. 4:24-39 et seq.)." The Act provides for the control of erosion during Section 6.6.4.3, Information Requirements. This section should In- the construction phase of development. 'icate that Infiltration rates can also be found in the National Cooperative Soil Survey Reports as well as permeability. Permeability age 6. Change " Pri me Agricultural ands' to Priape and Unique Farm- cannot be accurately determined by percolation tests. Therefore, thee of this paragraph change soil sentence beginning, "Site survey data . ." should be deleted. fertility" to "so productviy. Page 86, Section 6.6.5. Soil Fertility Factor should be changed to Soil Forests. The first sentence should be changed to read: Productivity Factor and Section 6.6.5.1 should reflect this change. r consultation with the .S. Forest Service. Capability classes are not based on fertility, but rather on hazards to productivity. Page 191. Under Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. i C ange to read: Watershed Protection and Flood -eve n. _ 'soii-d: Page 99, Section 6.6.9.2, Preparation. Line 14 should be changed to read: Resource Conservation and Development Program. ... single soil survey atlas sheet on a map of the vege-...." The remainder of this section should reflect this terminology. Also there may Pages 328 and 329 For each lap change the source of data sentence to be a problem with map scales. Soil survey atlas sheets are on scales of rea "The source of data is the National Cooperative Soil Survey for 1:15,840, 1:20,000, 1:24000, or 1:31,680. n ounty. Page 116, Section 6.6.9.6.3, Soil Conservation. This terminology shouldnity to review this reflect the soil resource. Suggest that the fifth line should read: report. ... most of a large area was acceptable for soil conservation . . . ." Sincerely, age 154, 3rd paragraph, 5th line. Note typographical error. Word should e "gablons." Section 8.7.1, Policy. Recommend change in first paragraph to read: R. M. Davis "Coastal development will be required to restrict soil loss and con- Administrator trol soil erosion and sedimentation during the construction of development to the standards specified in the Soil Erosion and Sediment Enclosures Control Act (Chapter 251, Public Law 1975) as administered by the State Soil Conservation Committee of the New Jersey Department of cc Agriculture." iM. Rupert Cutler, Assistant Secretary for Conservation, Research and Education, SEC John R. McGuire, Chief, Forest Service _ _m _ - _m _' _- -_ --13 , - . - m m - - - - Hay i2 ' ils ay 26. ii7 Step I is the preparation of specific critteia Efr Id ntl:.nlo: prille forest lands. In the cnse of prime tiFlberlnJds. a qrea': dcal of expertlse from a wide area of concern I"S I tn !ili.d in tiheir USDA PRDI FO?.ET L-.;S rcP.cc.-'2 development. ilost, but not all, vie-polints aprear in tile final definiti-n and guidelines. The criter!r are r.p,' isi-.e to the Sccretrly'3 OBECTI'.E Policy Statement, are cor;patible with the SCS pro-rari for prime farmil- lands, and will enable us to use existing informration. As wse gain Tile objectives of the prime forest lands prograem are to (1) prevent experience, especially during the pilot project phase, the criteria our most productive forest lands from being irrevocably used for will be evaluated and modified as needed. A copy of the final "Prime other purposes. and (2) to be advocates for the protection of prih-e and Unique Timberland--c Efinitions and Criteria" is attached. forest lands. The overall objective of the Secretary's prire land program is to help protect end retain those lands that have the Step 2 relates to our role as advocates for preserving and protecting highest productivity for growing food, fiber, timber, and forage prime forest lands. Through our regularly established SPF avid NF or for high values for other purposes. programs for coordination with other USDA agencies, States, county planning organizations and others, we will proirote the prime forest Scope land concepts. .lhere there are active State Forestry Cormitttees and State Development Coemmittees we will encourage and assist these The Department's prime lands program identifies prime lands so they organizations to carry out the program in their respective States. may be considered when planning for other uses. The Prime Forest Informational and educational material to assist in this effort will Lands Program could include several phases, I.e., timber, wildlife, be prepared. This phise of the Implementation will generate a great recreation. The First Phase is the identification of prime timber- deal of Interest and interagency involvement. A similar SCS program lands. In the case of prime timberlands, the intent is to include for prime farmlands created a significant workload especially at thile "the demand for wood and the use of forest lands for timber pro- wO just to answer mail and congressional inquiries. Host of tilhe duction." Discussions leadlng to the policy statement centered interest was supportive of the program. around an overview of the Nation's biological base for growino / timber, potential productivity as it relates to long-run timber Step 3 will be the largest and most costly effort. For example, supply, the extent of the timberland which actually is available applying the guidelines to identify the prime timberlands will for primary use in timber growing and harvesting, and the prospects require the comamitment and cooperation of the State Foresters. Fully and implications of further reductions in our most productive financed, the effort will take 6-10 years. The program will begin timberland areas. on a project basis for selected counties in 18-20 States to test the guidelines and evaluate the effort needed for steps 2, 3, and 4. The prime timberlands program will be directed only toward State Counties will be mapped and the results reviewed by the States and the and private forest lands. It will not apply to 'latlonal rorest System prime forest lands work group for changes that may he needed before lands because the NF land management planning system adequately implementing the full scale mapping program. identifies prime timberlands, and protection against irrevocable uses is fully provided by laws and regulations. This same rationale Step 4 will involve planners, land managers, and others dealing with generally applies to other Federal forest lands. lands identified as prime forest land and they wilt be seeking assistance in recognizing and evaluating impacts of proposed actions Implementation on these lands. CEQ now requires all Federal agencies to address impacts on prime farmlands in their EIS's and when the prime timber- To meet the objectives of the Secretary's Policy Statement, we will land mapping program gets underway, we expect that CEq will also have to: require that EIS's respond to impacts on these lands. I. Define criteria for prime forest land. (timber completed) Step 5 rec;gnizes the need for ongoing critique to improve the program. 2. Develop an awareness and educational program. 3. Locate the Nation's prime forest lands. 4. Assist in the assessment of impacts. 5. Continue to improve the criteria and mapping over time. 14 3 Tpif Q;UST I.XLS Tr7,::a Unique timb~erlands are lands "lhicli do riot q!1:0U if s pri-f? timberinoJ, on tire basis of producing icss 1.ha"n 85 (en. ft.!nci ,'r. nrtm A::O UNIQtt -I'~L:-D~l~~o: :D CRUrR~IA but are grorowg qx'stainod yields of specific lil[ -'I Va~t rc s or species capable of produrcia" specialized t.--A ;,rr-dicts'nd,_r a silvicntitrarn svstpm that maintains soil rrod'ictixItV a,7d JV1c Standards water qoality. The national standard for classvifyng prime timsberlanrds is based an Sc,.n e-,arrples of nniqoe tiriberlands are landa sropportfirg stands of timber gro-tin,, eapadlity and the threshold has been set at 85-tubic Part Orford Cedar, pcans, myrtiewood, cypress, Atlantic fAile cedar, feet or more/ac/yr at culmination of mean annr'al increment (site 3 a-id black walnut plantations. or better) In natturaI stands. This figure teercaents tire grow4ing capacity an about 34 percent of tire con-rercial tireberlend as listed Tim'berland of State-..'de importance tin Forest n~esource Rteport ito. 20, "Thre Outlook for Timber in the Utnited States" 1974. These lands growing the threshold rate rep- This Is land, tit addition to prime andi unique timberlands, resent about 48 percent of thre productive capacity of forest lands. that Is of Statewide importance for the growiug of wood. Cr'terts (Consideration was vgiven to land having 120-cubic feet/aclyr., but for defining and delineatitng these lands are to be detrrmined by this higher standard would only constitute about 10 percent of the State forestry planning cormaittees or appropriate State organization. oramirercial timberland. This was considered an Insufficient base to inventory and monittor significant trends and responses at the national Timberland of Local importance level. in some local areas there Is concern for certain additional Definitions used are standard forest survey definitions. The 85- forest lands for the growing of wood even through these lands are cubic feet/ac/yr. Is a uniform forest survey site productivity not identified as hanvitng national or Statewide importance. Thlere class that is used to define annual growth at culmination of mean appropriate, these lands are to be Identified by a local agency or annual increrienit. This is a classification of forest land inagniscceed terms of potential cubic-foot volume groithi-peir-acre at culmninationagnisoceed of mean annual Increment In fully stocked natural stands. The threshold rate of volume Is determined to be tire net volume CMT growth In cubic feet of growing stock. Tire bole Is determined The definition of prime timberland considers only tisiber production. to be from a one-foot stump to a minimuma 4.0-inich top diameter out- Identification of lands as prime timberland does not denote .s sinigle side bark of the central stem or to the point where the central or dominant uise. This destination does not preclude tire use of stem breaks Into limbs (Forest Service standard). these lands for other forest products and services, brit onrly identifies tihe most productive forest lands on which tire Country depends for DEFINITIONS present and future wood needs. Neither do"s this constitute a designation of any land area to a specific land use, Such designations Prime Timberland are the prerogative of responsible officials. Prime timberland is land that: has soil capable of growing wood Ihe physical criteria chosen for identifying prime timberland are at the threshold growth rate and Is niot in urban or built-sip land these that accurately iseasurre tire soil's ability and tire climatic uses or water. Generally speaking, tire program is aimed at land conditions present to grow wood products. As a guide, tire solis currently in forest, but should not exclude qualifying lands that capable of growing the threshold rate generally harve the follo'.'ing could realistically be returned to forest. -oil characteristics as defined in USIDA Soil Taxoriocrv (See attach- msent I for explanation of soil terms.) I. Sells that have an adequate moisture supply to sustain tree growth. Local identification of these lands can be .cce:':pliscd as foI1r.:I: a. These are soils having aquic or udic motsture reir-es. T11e are cco i. In n hu:nid or sublhunld clirates that have all distri- 1. For each State or local area refer to nor:i.il yield t.abti:s bited rainfall or have enouh rain in sur-o.er that the amount of that list the miniwutle site indices nasoclnt/eTt witll thresiold rate stored moisture plus rainfall is approxlmately equal to or e::cceds annual grouth. tNhere appropriate, striulated yield tables ,.ay be the a~mount of potential evapotranspiration. used in place of normal yield tables. b. Soils having xeric moisture relr.,s and available water 2. Use soil maps for constructing maps showing locations for capacity in e:cess oEf 6 inches (these soils normally have effective prime forest lands. soil depth of 40 inches or more.) 3. Refer to soil surveys that list estimated site indices fur 2. Soils that have a soil temperature regime that is frigid, each soil mapping unit. mesic, thermic, or hyperthermic. These are soils that at a depth of 20 inches (51cm), have a mean annual temperature higher than This is a general approach for local identification of prime 320F (O�C). In addition, the mean sutner temperature at this depth timberlands, and actual practice may identify gaps in our kioxwledge in soils with a 0 horizon is higher than 47�F (80C): in soils that that must be filled by growth and yield research and by forest have no 0 horizon the mean summner temperature is higher than soil-site research. Even in view of these gaps, there Is sufficient 590F (150C). information and professional expertise throu.hiout the tlbtion to proceed with the first inventory of prime tisberlands. 3. Soils have adequate nutrient supply to permit establishment and sustain tree growth. Effective rooting depth generally is greater than 24 inches. Characteristics such as severe and critical erosion hazards or high risk for mass failure may prevent harvest of some prime lands until an unforeseeable period In the future, but they do not normally affect the intrinsic quality of the leand for growing trees. Advanced technology of the future will probably enable harvest of these areas without damage to the environment. Planners will have to consider current harvest technology and environmental impacts when using prime timberland information. Economics is not considered part of the definition. Factors such as nearness to markets, transportation facilities, and timnber values are useful in making land use decisions, but they do not affect the intrinsic quality of the land. These factors change with time and technology and were not included in the criteria. Planners will have to consider economic values when using prime timberland in format ion. The inventory will be done on a county basis using the same scale base maps that SCS is using for the prime farnland inventory: 1:50o,0OC for small counties in the East and 1:100,000 for larger counties in the West. Mlinimum delineation for mapping of prime and unique timberland and timberland of Statewide or loca importance is O10 acres. This minimum is the same as that used by the SCS to map prime farmlands. UVIC - The moisture -eixten irplitv-s thot tv Firs P~~~~rt Tl~~~~~~~~~L'::D ~~~~~~~~the soft nointire control sclnI;not lr:, In anly part for as l.o:- as -0 ears (- i, SOIL T~~~~~~~~~~~X~~~~r"E ~~~~~~. ~~(Sce P. 55, Soil T.'::Cn'otv-. .' ~rtcultture vn,,o .lo. 436 for exce1ptxlllns Wnd aodit lvotxlep ~n o. FRIGID - The coon annual soft terperature is h1!.rthan XERI The xertc 'oisture rc.ijre ir th-It tvpif led in O'C OV17) for) 0 the M~~~~~~~~~~~~~lediterranean climates where. winters aire n-ist difference bet';Uell trial ':Int~r c-A rtan tu~r~er and cool,* anid sr-met-s ar-c vwrm ecu! drv. (re0 soil te:;perature is siore than 53C (9o) at a . .57, Soil Th-A.%re--v, A-r depth of 50 cm (20 inches) or at a lIttic orNo 3,i--dltnaepaatn. paralithic contact. whichever is shallower. It 'The tipper boundary of this control section ____Tlm_ ana si tmertr Is Se 4")'sthe depth to whichi a dry sell lill be moistened N E S I C - T h e m e a n a n n u a l s o i l t e c p e r a t u r e i s S C ( 4 f f ) ~ ~ ~ ~~b y I i n c h o f w a t e r I n 2 4 h o u r s, . T h e l o wte r b o u n d a r y or higher but lover than 13 C (59'~), and tile Is thle depth to whicht a1 dry soil will be 110soietned difference between mesan surr-'er and mean winter by 3 inches of water within 45 hours. soil temperature Is more then 50C at a depth ofnd0erly(0inghs or aFET litThic (co'lerenTit soil depth to which plant roots uneligmaterial) raralithic (lithic like) EFTtROU !Pi h contact %whichever Is shallower. can effectively penetrate . TIMPR'ItC - Thre tueao annual soil temperature is 15% (599F) AVAIL-Ut-P VATUP CArACITY - Thle capacity of tile sail to store water available for use by plants, usually or hifgher but lower than 2200 (720F), and the .expressed in linear depths of water per-unit difference betweent mean svrt,.er ald mean winter dpho ol soil temperature to more than 500 at a depth dpho ot of 50 cma or a lIthic or Paratithic contact whichever Is shiallow~er.I HYI'ERTIIEMfIC -The mean annual soft tes'perature is 22?C (7201.) or higher and the difference between riean sunnmer and mean winter soll temperature Is more than SCat a depth of 50 cri or a lithic or parailithic contact whichever Is shallower. SOIL MOISTIUp.S REGM~ES AQIJIC - Tile aquic moisture regime limplies a reducing regime that Is virtually free of dissolved oxygen because the soil Is saturated by ground water or by water of the capillary fringe (See p. 54, Soil Taxonomy, Agriculture Ilandbook No. 436, for additional explanation.) 17 t~li-3 (Rev. 2) (3) pf"-pare a 'icdrlist of: PAlRT 657 - Pill-%E ANt) VNIQUIE ~~I iitta'olteo:'rIaI, ii' r,~-i FARMLANDS I~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~li) Soilmpigli 5Ci are Ifiirtinlarn is of sc.:. 'ii o nn Subpart .-k - Ifniportrint Farml adse lnve-ntoyiMecfri j, %(cfatdonrsiy11~~ilin l ser. ('57.1 P u r p o s e . I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(Mi) Specific higth-Val IC food amie fiber Crops !'a at v 1fromit ".afn 657.2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~colinbi'lld viliti oftler favnirable far tors. q!Pablyf Mans to '10-1 O" t.?iz'r;a 6 57.3 Applica;)MIV- ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~for ilniquc farrnilancfn. cofii'-s fIr. trO I fIrild to- e .t; 7~f tI n F-(D 657.3 Appfica~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)i~~~~~ity. .s~~~~~~~~rid to sci5 lchnitjf Service (Pners% -tSs). se" -1 3i~ nr. 3 91). I 6 I;.5 Ifletifica tion of Impor tant farrmlands. W oria olmpil nt;tmq~ii opir Autfloritle- 16 U.S.C. 19tga-f, q; 7 CFIR 2.62; Pub. L- 95-3-; '42 I..C wi 4) ajcnerdnet sinl bping OntSftoiits rcf'lo.mbrlo f~St Vie no M ! rfns. b 17 I et ;care. ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Since farm foonds of st at,?s ide imnpor I .ric, and uifti V o Ia , i'd irn' n'idai ta.d hA~ IrV~ itFrilrd netr by others at file level1�i', tfic soil mnappirig ollits ;Jid Wn "It k-rof 'cr ~~~65.l Purpose. ric~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ned not be coor dioaltid ai;pong States, 5 7. 1 Pur 00,;C. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(51 i Insrtiet St:S I DitrctI C on~scrsN...Iot i nsfIs Itoa r ra Ii~t tonsIl0 - r et i cwI SCS is Coni-ce-ned lbout ally action that tend-5 to impair thle Productive of lands identified its 1,ri:nv, unlique, anid additional far olf;,ndsI of 5tidt (1 capacity of -1miericanl agricultlire. five "40tion II"-ds ,) know tfil ex"Oiit impfortance by (:on.ei '.illion flist-iciv, ard inrptrosivali.es of to'-;! faiin and tocationl tf tfie best land for producing food, feed, fiber, loragT. aitd M~is reviewm is to d.'tri inimp it arlditiotial farmlnfrd ~flvljld f,0 WulyliOId oilseed crops. In additioti to prunle avid uniquez tarrfilaits, larinlavitis %'N', to menet foraf deiitrs-igneeds. are of itateviide .and local im"portance for producingteerosaS -d(6 atanpifsiechnorn frilrdisetsroia to be identified.()M~ n olf ahipran amal g ~r l ic :nap of 'Iltional iiiap accipracy at all jNterievfiart" s, A *l'ofI 10'.."60 or h 657.2 Polity. lO.'9.Staff- Conscrvaiionists kho neo-d -rsv'aps of oz:'wr 5-;Jf it i, sa poicyto ".31C 'nd Itp urrntd rnv.'nitory of thle prine Ire to C'ibtnt their re wss~ill) justiricationl to file A.'sriiiinstr alol for ~~~~~~~~~~ftie IC policry isto bt mdk~ Carried cosideration. flnfsid-od uoriqxie farmlfand of tfi Nation. This in enor istobcarried out in COoperatfiol NVit" other 'iit~ ~e agencies at the nrlfitionl. ttf)TcnclSrieCnes Fedtcrsnaie l ipoij and' local level', Of tciverilimient. 'fhe objective ., tile iwnultory is to identify l ) T c n c l S--ieCnes il i - rvd the est~'nt trid lcation of impor rat rrl ands needek'd to protfuce fod eustdtciira 5i50( O3ai Cotmervativiriist% in neli'i; fee txt,.nt Itd loc..Itioll o f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ prmeand oniqtie larinlands fveo 7 CFI? -O..this imictunins r,,-vuc ifii feed. fib-~~~~t, luvrag-, avid 61-Wed C"'Ps- ~~~~~~statewide lists el snil 'nappingp unift tfia: tri~ert the rinterior for priiie fiobn lands and resiolving lo~rdinaticin piroblrms Viat nay ocrur ailraig stain's 657.3 A\pplicalbility. for specific soif series or 5oul iiiajpitmg ujiits. Inventories made tinde~r this incymocrandulil do not iConstitutc a deiijnnt- cNtka)Ofe.T Astnt.diiitrororidSvnn- tion of any lanld area to a specif it land '-Ise. Such desigl7 re W Dis t ;entionli are Pth re- ! sponsiiility of appropriate local and State officials. for iniveotor)-itrg primc, fatriland-s find for iitatiotlill statistics anid rE -rot Is of primce fartilands1. ( a) Stel. 115 '.riserafi oiist, Each scs State commservattonist is to:. 657.5 Idenlifitafcon of iniportalit farmlands. �11 f ~.v,1c laderihip Ifor invenitories of irtoportant farrillla5iid5 for (a) l'itioe farmlands. the Stat-?. counth, or oither sillb."iviaon of the State. Iac is to Wor~k with 1GeerlFrtefriadvsanIN:vq1'. atfiepi~- ~ ' ~ ~ miitri d 5~~5t of fmsrfadceiafcuta rto for pmrod'tli" ,t fo~e. m,'-d. IJi, ;c. for lllals:'ng thcvineo!�~s fiber, alnd oilse ed crops, and is also avail--ble for thesv ss fttte. f;ind cild (2) ldetstifO the soil niapping units within the st.1te that 'Jualify a' be cropland. pzwurerland. rantgefarnd, folest faend, or otfier la'nd 'ill Left prime. Inding ais, Stt cnmrsationists, in Conssultation with %thooprer)`- urlban built-up lan1d or Ivafer). It haes lie 56Il quaiafit grokkifirm, sci-von, and 11~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~i-fs %,filrt trear-n S~indv irci-.ad.d inlb"i !,el '-ii - for othert ""Inniie f it~ ri ifra0nd~rt isr t f. nilt .i-r3nd-i!. o arctptible leirmnirig riietimds. In getmer-S. lririne froa y,15 sods v -sen amd-- tiori~ ~~~~~~, of 2rtli farmland fa S t ah in tvoinite aer~n~t5~ qrmoe amid d~ependabte Nlater supply fromi prercipi-Es ion or unimpauloil. a tlnvrr- the C,,vcrror',; office. M~~lusi the Stt livrinflns, avid ollvAi U' able temperattire arid growingp season. arepahc i'tuly or a~tnii udw-itikft !rmnl.--i 'If in t.~s-i nipecrtavie .1nd iic'! j'n5-& t� Jra -. so in--nt'te in lee !rsie lltl fs~mmr-'m '": - 1L11-3 (fev. 2) 111M-3 (Rev. 2) acceptable Slit and Sodium content, and few or no rocks. They arc per- I, isrraioairred at at soitfirrnt rkptil during f:IroprIur~ rrrr allotos meahie to water and air. prime farmlands are not excess;ively ero)dij:le cult ivated croips cwoo'rrsrn to thie tra i'.t, b- gr ass ; t'd. or satrrrated ssith %ater [or a long period of timte, anid they either do not flood freqren ml y or are protec ted fromn floodisig. F xmnfrrl-o of soilIs that (v) Tire s.oils r: an ire rranaged so that. inl alt tori errs taritt in ar-pt ii qualify as prime farmoland art P31louse silt loa-n], 0 to I pecrcent %lop.-s; of too inches tI rirtr'r) tit in the root trrre it thre r"0 ;ot iae s lWS- t~r~ia '*0 C~rook~ston silty Clav loan), drained; -And Tarna silty clay loarrr, 0 to 5 percent inches demep, duritiri part of r-ach 'Car tirerrrrrtitsr r'.trrlir slopes. evt'ar t is less thor, I mr rrros/crm and the eol scir1r r1iii' ltV ri c-gr (tSP) is less than IS:. and, (2) Specific crite. ia. Prinle farmlands Inc-et .1ll the followsing criteria. Terms use-d in tins sectio~n are defined in 1J1lDA pubhlicationis. "Soil Taxononmy, tvi) flthe soils ar., not flooded Ireqttenrtly dtirirrg tire I'r'. p risr Agriculture l-andhorri '436"; "Soil Survey Milnoalr Agriculture~ Hlandbrook (less, often thtan once in, 2 years); anid, IV": "Rainfaril-Croxiotr Losse- fraon Cropland, Ag~icult-rre I'lanrihori 232"; "A ir d Lrosion 1-arce,; in tire Uinited States and Their stJ- in P.reJicting Soil (vii) Tire product of r (erodlibility factor) s perc'ent Slope is 1-~s thari Lass, Ngric'rlturc ftaiidbook 3'46"; anid "Saline and Alkali SolAgricult-ire 2.0, and tire pt onrict of I (%oils er odii~ilily) x C (rclirra tic far:Iorrr drirs mrot flandtrrou 60., exceed 60; anid (I The soils have- (Viii) Tile Soils have a pectrmeability rate of at least rj.06triprli (0.1I5 cm) per hour in the rrpper 20 incites (50 roti) arid tie. mIresrt .srsrrrr Sori t ranpen- (A) Aqorti, 'idio. ustic, or xerne moisture regirries ratd sufficient avail- atuire at a depth oft 20 itnclmes (50 cmii) is less th~arr 59" F' 1 5 0 C); tire prr- able wvater capa,-ity wvithin a depth of '*,0 inches (I rner.:r), or in tire! root mnocability rate is tint a limtingur factor if the loreati arirital soil t-merrlertore zone (root zvtre is tire part of the soil that is penetrated or can be pernetrated is 59" (I-O50 C) or higher; and, by plant roots) it the root zone is less than rIA incihes der'p, to produce the Cormmrornly g-roiv crultivated crops fc'ltivated craps inclorie, bot art! not (lx) Less thtan 10 frererrot of the suriacce laxer (ripper 6. iliirs)r tI:se limited to. 'grain, forage, fiber , oilseed, sntgar beets, Sugarcanre, ve~e"tables' soils consists of rock fragments coarser th~an 3 iincres (?.(. irr). tobacern, oretrair, vineyard, and bushf fruit crops) ada-pter) to tire regan()im~rlnd in 7 or more years out of to; orlbUnqearund (f3) Xeric or ristic mroisture regimles in which the availabl- %v~a trr (I) Grneral. tlNiiqie farmland is lird otliri tlran pririe farrrriard thatt capacity is limtited, hilt thre area has a developed irrigation ssater suipply is used for tIrle production of specific high v-alue food arid fiber crops. It that is depernd.-lile (a drpend-itue water supply is one in whirch enorigh seater has the Special enrurbination of soil qurality, location. growinr s-asor. arrd is available for iriiinin aout of 10) years for the crops commrronly mosuesupyneddt corrotnicllv prd11% ~ t3!t r~I iilt grown) and of deja, rty;oand/or high yields; of a specific crop w hen t. eated arid rnarrrr- ee rcordirrg to acceptabl e farming riethoris. Examples of Such c rops are, c itrus, tree (C) Aridic or torric nuoisture regimres, anrf the ar~ea has a developed nuts, olives, cranberries, fruit, and vt-getafjies. irrigation svater suipply tftat is dependable and of adequate quality; arid, ()Seii hrceitc fuin arlid (Il) The soils trave a tariperattre reginire thalt is frigid. ltresic:, ttternmic,(iIsuefraspcichg-lulodrfhrco. or hyperthermiic (perg-lic and cryic regimes are exclrde'd). These are soils I sdfraseii ihvlefo rhu rp thatI at a dep-th of 29 incites (50 cmi), have a mean annual tenirperator.r ati-a h pcifi rop higiror titan 170 F (00 C). In addition, the otear staninroe teirpvratrir, at 0ii flbs a Irraisture Supprly Vlt i e fr aerlua this depth in soil; Ai tli an 0 horiiatr is higher than '7" P (3o~ C); in soils Thre Suipply is Irour stqred mnoisturre, precipitation, or a (I:7,-loprdf imprrranti that has-c iii O horizon, tIre? mean sunririe' teriperatrire is huiger than 590 Systemn. ~~~ (~~~~~~~ 50 C); arid, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(ill) Combinies favorable lactors of soil qrrali tv. iarrorv imtwS svimn. r rr -,r - (ii)Te ,it havse a pH1 bet ,sen '4.5 arid V.i in all horizons vi tlin *attire, truriditv, air drainage, elevation, rvsper t. rrr Battl .rrrl or.,srct a rie,;i of rit) iactite (I rurerer) or in the root .Zone if tire root zone is less as. nearness to insirket, tirat favor the grass th of a Sperific fsood or liber than 40intil r d re-,) aod drp slid froCm othe-r CvIA El rice -to a.O( that Aitt vl-il r'iS per tird, it IS nor-c'"avt oc-ev the wa I rl in i;',.d veils placed above, in, ant] below th i-b ~ *r- r!l li't S'ezcnel 111gb Eater Table: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If the wat er iii ibo1 vi'! ablove thl eFI'M Pr- ;!;i able IaxriS conisteat v blirb-r than thle atbhe- t,,o the va 4Ina-c is pecrcebd. lirfinit ion. A seas7onal lileb waIte fable is a tilfle of satucati"i at the iihotaver ef.e de-pth duiiilg tilie wettest soacon. It is at I es :I,: if-chos5 Artesian w at or table Is oine that oaitsd ii~cK lvrivim'ttic tlii c:, pr-cs st s in t ie cr11 frir sore than a oew days, sort orccurs ulithin SO heade treneatli art irq-rierreahle layer; wi,(-n tie c.; rcal iorulhes cif the soil Icuri face. layeir has iioen peiietI rat adt by a caised tici P1,oir I tic' water Trises. Thle final level of tile water if) tIeC casrd lot ilicle l-ost vat or t a111es occur within the SDI] and art, tsoeucrid ftrim thre Surfhi-e -may then lie chiacactesrized an an artesian veil c-c Mile.. oif the s-il I dc-ir to thle friE-s neaor le:vel. In tapaand c-r 1e *hvcner, the wateSr t able is shove filie sin face of the coil suchl of the t i.-, ca.d seat r Areas Witth water tables above tile riii face PIf tie' c-el such table is meas2ured fcrm-ta-ie ctric!ace of tile water dC-wa tol tile roil surface- of thie tr-c are cliaracte-rizled as marshi or rw--t- rssib having berbacenuic veget ati on and sw~arps ha luivig iuiridy ve~getatlIcti Clarsificarion. !Thlls that have sea-sonal high water tAabes are cIP.seifiedl aci-odi to rspt h to thle vat er ta-ble kind of Cart cc tabler, P.nd Itire Pt yearI hotr, S.Tire incnt lies I hat the vat er Itable -iio aall ii' SI etc at tire t lat tie vat c'r tanble i S ) hi;hs.bVf averag!e highlest nut'! hr ranye shouild bee ecshd fore -rh, December throughb Al cli. lit-pt h. P-iptll of FMaccoanl highi vater tachic fir's tis.C coil Ftun ace shonuld ho ,givor in feet. or hair fret. Tire macye~ in de-Pth shol-"d coillect the. rca it, vi r vaci at urn III averq.to i-igl-k t r'-V .?iancrna el Is casrd with perfratetd pine are nerd to c vtire P t-ptl to Iater- table, ,ifthin tile sc-il should11 bet re--Ccr' wIth tIeP s 5asonai Variation of freeC-watt-c levels -Inslls. Cea cla - cti in wells cr.,li r-i'ihisc firsFt, s-g.p 2-3. leater tabic al-rye the toil at different dep-lths areo needied at each site. f1.~ll-t E- 'Jiolel is~ eric! ae should be tisod foe rsarches and swanl-rw--and !tinirid be recorded pocrcidical ly, usually every month or c-ieft in-nt111 lv t lo - icwt recor ded with the large tire-bee first, sf_ 2-0.5. sceson. ~I-totids are- doscrilied In tbe P1andbook of Se-Il F!nrve-v Invc-t i al icnr field Pirocedures, USDiA, SCS. Kind. Threel~ 1 tort of seaso~nal highF1 Vater table are eeerg70rlee within tie soilt a ;.areot * vi-rethe, ard ciitesl'ar-. �n:er e Is atove thle soil surf ace such of thp I eeie Bs in c-arsne-s anBri-ees Estimates. tiater tabfles and other evidence of wet BE cc rc ciiE`eri dii ri the course of the erirve-y. The soil scientist ebt-crvoe tle ic dpthl St '-irichi 't.a e af seat table is the, level Iat hbich, ;water et ;:oils in he first encountersd fcc's-watPer. This obisevat i(,n Is: isc;I ,ily 'hin;.-bie a fresly dugir-lined 1-crehokle. It is- ivtfli-~n ced be sbc during the wet season, lie checks the depth to water- pand tire epth te- t~ray, lr'drr-ct st r. trcr-srrc' rr-' s il ate-r cud U 1,rruea mottles an"d recoirds th~ese ob~servations in hisl fteld nor cc. greater depthsr 1,eretralod! by thet lucitnIholt. wza;ter-atcs ace etc ianpe i r-251 lyes, and otter r actore. In Lie Soil scien-tists cal ic-at le close aipproxiria:1 lens of ths ! dcpt hr Ito a f n~a abse~nce DI evidtince thtwol pre-i",t gciatec-seifcty. high wcater table St any tim-e by observing tler del-ih IC, II- cliin-a riovt IrIcS. therefore, the term acicarenit wa~ter thabl cliorid hec tto-ed for The pre-sence of gray rents lee with clrsaof 22 or less Is CWenilerro of a tile level at which water stands in at] uncirfsed b-ci!hole Seasonal high water table In float sells, In sc--io coils, 3 throeB notiec, .IP after piadeqate timer for adjustfe-nt In fip sutiruadiruf Soil- with values of 6 or 7 are indicators of wetness. ITi( re (-.!,ncr of Ecl',AI, bodies of Solid and silt gra~Jins are also ennui Indicater.S PI waeter -a-lal F.-celired I.Ater table is otte thatl e-0ist a to-ile soil sh-ove an le-vels in certainr soils. A few Spills 'have relic so.Ptltis r-iich roiici nt unratiurat ~ ~ t coie tAvatr tatric _ar !it.- ;icfed c: , ti c jiert`-d ct-irtsent: weatnr-ss murdeir cuiirrent citi-ae rd a fe-w coills n-ne wet c -i on ithe baisis of geer l sieledye PI the( eater ireli a of an having low clurona motit les. area, the landscape position, the I-teir:.tAbility of soil1 layers, 20 * ( ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1i> 3 Un~~~~~~~~~~~~ited States I)epartment of thle Interior Snific~~,ce of s~,nat hl~~h '~tcr table. A ~~~'asonai . WAS11INGTON, D.C. 20240 i n irpvrtant Crtetr ic'T 1n a ni'lio".r of eneitterifrg arid bf'oloelcaf uc-s orJN2 9J * soils. Its depth n'].' Jurt~ion f~infl,,rens the lin-it.1ti-Ss of sells for sc-putf t.1nk a~_'okptio'flds shlalot~ n-.?..Ionsnif.~ry i.,illMr. Robert W4. Knecht mn *.eh''s .1"d I'3~trs,.I .1-1d streets. a'ld eae of *!"aCvatic'tt for ro-;.!lhI Assstn Aintrorfroatal Zone Managemn and tor"'if. Ilational oceanic and Atmospheric Administration .h -water table also influ-nC'es the crotwth o~f ctops-a U.-ter table that is Sahnton . C. 2023 snAr the slyrfer~ dotinig th'e 81o'dng ,*v is *;,q ,~oitoi ishnton i. C.2023 Grc_;.g plAits, ho'.ejer. tend to lou.sr the ~a,? t;-bi" thro,,gh trn~.ia n ~ ear Mr. Knecht: A cianin land use wi~y drast ical ly chan ' tfl nof,'orras fte DeatetOf tilentrirh reiewed tile e.p?'a cha:'Se_ flmt., .ien to snyhi -:q.ngi the tr-Ifipi.,ition ra -at a .nd The Offices and IU" treMansagte Dpatent Pfteitriogra N P-By have Oeanwe Shoe -isv r .s a ~qrtnr soft C"Inditinn. Chanit'g and ,tsr from cr"piand,'.'t., draft New Jersey Coasa Maagmet Program OuJCr a n OceatilSoed or roleet to 'Itbani ara! -i0) st r(ets and ?ISO-,-coS r inwg -4 tch larv-,Cv '~r segment and the Draft Environmental Impact Statemetll,) u dtie area nOW only derre.'n"-n the tral?~Pfratfon by veettio,'. ml; 'ss conweents are included in the attachment to this letter. inradruiioff. A -4pttor soil mtay resuilt. Itebleeta hssgeto h JM sapotentially excellent prograsi. The proposed coastal policies appear to adequately address thlenedtbaac the protection of New Jersey's existing fragile coastal resources with the need to accoeleodate onshore facilities resulting from Outer Continental Shelf exploration, development and production activities, Hie note, too, that tile innovative Coastal Location Acceptability Method (CLAM), which is the primarY mechanism for implementing location policies, is intended to enhance the preditabiity f State permit decisions and to proaiote environmlentally sensitiv acility (siting decisions. Biy administering three coast~al permit programs to Implement coastal policies Within a single State agency adb adopting unified coastalI policies through the State rule mak~ing process, New jersey has demonstrated an exemplary approach to comprehensive coastal manageitent. the Depmartement believes, however, that there are several remaining weaknesses in this segmlent of thle IJCM1P that should be addressed during the first year of program implementation. first, we are concerned that the Proliferation Of small development projects al~ong the flew Jersey coast which are not subject to Stat peeitingautoriy wll esult in culmulative adverse environmental impacts affecting ground avid surface water qualiy oleoinrts n fis, wldlfeand endangered or threatened species habitat- We recoeedta fiwesh, widlievelop and describe in the final program thle procedure it will use tomNiiew Jdersey cumlaiv impacts during program limplemlenttitioti. vi-e believeitiat adversecumltive apoach to minimize adverse cumulative impacts oudbelieve tha e Sanfetie to p stblishj a monitoring and evaluation system anti a technical assistance program for local governmens Thspormwudais conmmunities In developing or refining ordinances and In enhancing enforcement and inspection procedures related to cumulative impacts. 21 mm-- - - - - - - Specific Comments on the New Jersey Coastal Management Program (IIJCP) A second related concern is that New Jersey's regulated wetlands may suffer and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) adverse impacts from runoff and siltation resulting from activities occurring on adjacent lands. We recommend that the State develop and describe in the final program the procedure it will use to provide runoff and siltation Authorities protection to regulated wetlands. We believe that an effective approach to this problem would Include: (1) State monitoring of the biological integrity It is our understanding that the New Jersey approach to coastal management of these wetlands, (2) the establishment of a buffer zone surrounding the corresponds to the technique described In Subsection 306 (e)(l) of the wetlands, or the development of a procedure to identify, modify or suspend Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended (CZMA) - direct State land activities harmful to the wetlands which occur on adjacent lands, and (3) and water use planning and regulation. The Division of Marine Services of the provision of State technical assistance to local governments to assist the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) administers the three coastal in minimizing the Impacts local land and water use decisions will have on these permit programs which will be used to Implement the coastal policies: the regulated wetlands. Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA), the Wetlands Act, and the riparian statutes. The coastal policies appearing in Chapter 3 of the program will be Finally, we note that while New Jersey has completed a number of resource formally adopted as substantive DEP rules prior to Federal approval of the inventories, additional work should be initiated to build a more comprehensive program. Adoption of these rules will ensure that DEP decisions issued data base related to subaquatic vegetation, artificial reefs, fisheries, under the three permit programs are consistent with the coastal policies. surfclam and shellfish areas, and fish, wildlife and endangered or threatened species habitat. One immediate benefit of this additional inventory work will This enforcement mechanism is commendable. Although three different laws are be to provide the information necessary for New Jersey to develop more explicit to be used for implementation, each will be administered by the same division coastal policies to protect endangered or threatened species including shortnose of the same department in accordance with one set of coastal policies. Because sturgeon, peregrine falcon, bald eagle and a number of marine mammal and turtles. the policies will be given the status of rules, further "networking" through an executive order or interagency agreements seems unnecessary. The use of We look forward to working with your office on the RJCMP. Please call John one set of unified, consolidated policies, which are formalized through the Dane (343-8875) or Paul Stang (343-7258) of our staff if you have questions rule-making process, is an exemplary approach to comprehensive coastal management. regarding our comments. Proposed energy facilities, while subject to the three regulatory programs 'SI <erelly7r described above, are treated in a slightly different manner than other facilities in this segment of the NJCMP. When an energy facility is proposed for a site within the CAFRA area, the New Jersey Department of Energy (DOE) must prepare an Energy Report. According to the draft interagency agreement between DEP and *Larry P. Acicru[tw DOE, formulation of this report must be based on the coastal policies and the prity, Assistant Secretary -- Energy tlaster.Plan (to be prepared by DOE by July 1978). Policy, Budget and Administration - If the DEP decision regarding the siting of the energy facility differs from Attachment OOE's Energy Report, DOE may convene the Energy Facility Review Board (EFRB). This Board is composed of the Director of DOE's Division of Energy, the Commissioner of DEP, and a third member appointed by the Governor. This Board may affirm, reverse, or modify the DEP decision. We have several concerns regarding this arrangement. 1. One assumes from the terms of the draft Interagency agreement that the ability to convene the EFRB is provided in the Department of Energy Act (N.J.S.A. 52:27-1 et seq.). Since the text of this law is not included in the program or the appendix, it is difficult to distinguish between statutory requirements and voluntary agency agreements. We suggest that a copy of the Department of Energy Act be included in the final NJCMP. 2. Because the EFRB makes the final decision regarding the siting of any energy facility, it is important to know the extent to which the Board is obligated to make this final determination consistent with tile coastal policies. 22 2 3 Under New Jersey law, we question whether the EFRF is required to base its We recomieend that the State develop and describe in the final program the decision to affirm or reverse an agency action on the administrative record procedure it will use to provide runoff and siltation protection to regulated and consistent with the criteria and standards set forthi in the laws and wetlands. One effective approach to this problem would include State monitoring regulations establishing the permit process. Ropefully, the Board cannot go of the biological Integrity of these wetlands, and the establishment of a buffer beyond the record and conduct its own "de nveo review. Such discretion could zone surrounding the wetlands, or the developlent of a procedure to identify, result in decisions which ree inconsistent with the coastal policies. We modify or suspend activities occurring on adjacent lands which are harmful to request that the State explain in the �~nal program whether it will establish the wetlands. We also recommend that the State consider providing technical oper ating policies and proceduresexplain in to he used by te oard in reviewing permit assistance to local governments to assist them In minimizing the impacts local operating policies and procedures to be 'used by the Board In reviewing Perm land and water use decisions will have on regulated wetlands. Selective decisions. extension of the inland boundary may also be appropriate during the first year 3. The DOE is responsible for completing an Energy Baster Plan by July, 1978. of program implementation to provide coverage to unmapped wetlands or to ccording to the draft HJPc tile Plan will become "a primary resource for selected portions of the Pine Barrens aquifer which may benefit from additional According to the draF G th s management protection. energy facility siting decisions by " (p. 111. Given the significance of manaement tetn this Plan, more information concerning its creation and adoption would be useful. it would be particularly appropriate to describe, Sn the final P Renventores ndangered S the procedures for adoptton of the Plan and the opportunities available for the procedures for adoption of the Plan and the opportunities availl The Department understands that New Jersey has conducted selected resource input by the public and various governmental entities. inventory work in a number of areas including estuaries, wetlands, beaches and through a case study of Cape May. A listing of inventories has been compiled Cumulative Impacts in the publication entitled "An Environmental Inventory of the Coastal Area", he Department is concerned that the proliferation of small devel ent Hhe the work to date has been commendable, we recommend that the State conduct e Department i the New Jersey coast which are not subject to State penritting additional inventory work In the first year of program Implementation to enhance au log th e Neoriy result in cumulative adverse environmenta impacts aetting its resource data base regarding subaquatic vegetation, artificial reefs, auhoriy will resurface ater quality soil erse environ r mental impats dlfe nd fisheries, surfclam and shellfish areas, and fish, wildlife and endangered or roundangered surfapec ies habitat. these developsion rates, fish nd lde osing threatened species habitats. Tis improved information base, generally, will endevelopments of ciess than 25 unites which are e xemt from ths le CAhusn pe t be of substantial value in coastal resource protection decision making and develop ment s rofess o than 25 units which are exempt from the CAFiPe should be provided to permit applicants during preapplication meetings. process. While we understand that most small development projects will be subject to One immediate benefit of this additional inventory work will be to provide the some local land use regulation, the effectiveness of these local efforts in information necessary for New Jersey to develop more explicit coastal policies minimizing cumulative impacts will vary depending on their ordinances, and their to protect endangered or threatened species including the shortnose sturgeon enforcement and inspection procedures. Accordingly, we recommend that the State peregrine falcon, bald eagle and a number of marine mammals and turtles. In describe in the f program the prnocedure it awdil use to minimize cumulative this regard, we recoermend that procedures for the protection of these endangered derts urin the fial pro gra m the procedurnttion. One tve approach to minmize or threatened species be more thoroughly discussed in the final program. impacts during program implementation. One effective approach to minimize gsverCents to r bined o devep or dinan ces an d to en hance existnga enforlca resources by entering Into a cooperative agreement with this Department's Fish governments t r efint e 't develop or ay t a eb ultotl'g enf reme nt overnments to refine or develop ordinances and 'IlDllfllb existing enforcement Blvd Wildlife Service to protec t and conserve threatened and endangered species and i n spection procedures. Another technique that may be useful in controlling and Wildlife Service to protect and conserve threatened and endangered species cumulative impacts would be to selectively locate State public infrastructure iden tify the coordinat ion mechanism to be used by the dEP and thle state Fish investments in communities which attempt to minimize cumulative environmental a nte a e nis to sue bthvtan ths e F and Wildlife agencies to assure conservation of these resources. Finally, we recognize that the State has undertaken extensive mapping of coastal Inland Boundaries - Wetlands wetlands and other features and will soon develop a map on special water areas. th-U~nd-Ire s - -wetlIt would be useful to provide a list of resource maps New Jersey will use for The Deartment not es that the HijCP proposed inland boundary encompasses program implementation in the Appendix of the final RJCMP. tie State should satuoycoarstal area defined by, CAhRIA, and 3750 acres of mapped, regulated also consider including larger maps in the final program to more clearly wetlands landward of the CARFRA boundary. While we commend hew Jersey for the delineate coastal features such as wetland, habitats and boundaries. inclusion of these vital resource areas, we are concerned that these wetlands may not be provided adequate State regulatory protection from runoff or siltation resulting from activities occurring on adjacent lands. I A_~ -- _-CXI-=- __�2 23 i _I _ _' _ _ _ _ ' ' _r _ s _ _ _ _ 4 L Policy Development - Conflict Resolution 3. Flood Hazard Areas Although future changes to the NJCMP are mentioned on page 199, the final Flood Hazard Areas policy 6.4.4.2 discussed on page 59 must be clarified to program should more completely describe an ongoing process for State policy Indicate that it is directed toward fluvial flood hazard areas and toward the development and refinement, including a discussion of which State agencies coastal floodplain. Presidential Executive Order 11988, dated May 24, 1977 will be involved in this policy process. Another important aspect of the directed each Federal agency, to take floodplain management Into account when program which needs additional clarification is how the State proposes to formulating water and land use plans, and to provide leadership and take action handle broad conflicts which may arise between general goals and objectives to reduce the risk of flood losses. Since much of the Bay and Ocean Shore of State agencies with differing missions. What conflict resolution Segment is subject to flooding the policy should specifically address mechanisms will be used? Under what circumstances? construction in floodprone coastal areas. Policies 4. Pipelines 1. Outer Continental Shelf Subsection If) of the State Pipelines and Associated Facilities Policy 7.4.7 should be revised to reflect that pipeline corridors shall also avoid wetlands Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Gas and Oil Exploration and Development of value to fish and wildlife. Policy 7.4.2 encourages OCS-related facilities to locate in developed areas where infrastructure and labor markets exist. It notes that services related 5. Saltwater Marshes to OCS development may locate in Atlantic City. Policy 7.4.3 - Onshore Support Bases - encouraged OCS support activities to locate outside of the Day and We recommend that the State develop a regulatory mechanism to insure that Shore segment. Some clarification should be provided here to more explicitly saltmarsh mosquito control activities will comply with the approved coastal detail which facilities are recommended for the Bay and Shore Segment and resource policies during the first year of program Implementation. The which should be directed to the other New Jersey segment. Wetlands Act presently excludes mosquito control from State regulation. This recommendation was previously provided to the State in the Fish and Wildlife 2. Mining Service December 20, 1977 letter on the New Jersey STRATEGY document. The industrial-coonercial use policy for mining (7.6.2) found on page 148 6. Tanker Terminals states that: "Mining is acceptable only in sites Immediately adjacent to current mining operations, provided that reclamation plans are acceptable." The Tanker Terminals policy 7.4.11, implies that the State will encourage This proposed policy does not recognize that existing deposits are eventually such facilities to locate in the Port of New York and New Jersey and in the depleted, or that mining operations may be discontinued due to lack of Delaware River Port Authority area (p. 145). The encouragement of such subsurface ownership, existing local zoning, incompatible adjacent development facilities in the other segment of the NJCMP and near the heads of estuaries or for other reasons. may result in substantial adverse environmental impacts to the State's entire coastal zone. The State should reexamine the policy to assure its coordination Mineral deposits may or may not be located adjacent to existing operations. with the State Master Energy Plan. A policy designed to restrict new mining to sites adjacent to existing operations may be unreasonable where mineral deposits do not exist on National interest adjacent sites or where other environmental or land use considerations have limited the expansion of existing mining activity. In the case of construction New Jersey proposes to fulfill the CZMA requirement related to continued materials, the principal materials mined and used in New Jersey coastal areas, consideration of the national interest through the CAFRA permit program. The new mining operations must be initiated to replace depleted deposits. Where State maintains that language In CAFRA referring to the "public health, safety expansion to adjacent sites is not possible, the program's mining policy must and welfare" gives the permitting agency the authority to consider the national be flexible enough to accommodate new development at non-adjacent sites in interest. Commitment to this interpretation is evidenced by the specific coastal areas. If this policy is not altered, there will be Instances where policies that address national Interest resources and facilities and by the needed construction materials will be transported from more distant sites, strong statement in the draft Interagency agreement between DOE and DEP which substantially increasing construction costs. recognizes the CAFRA language as sufficient authority to consider the national interest in the siting of coastal energy facilities. The State should use The New Jersey Bureau of Geology and Topography may be able to provide, this unambiguous language in the final interagency agreement which should be assistance with respect to delineating new coastal mining areas and to recommend in effect prior to Federal approval. ways of minimizing soil erosion, water quality, wildlife disturbance and visual blight problems. This Bureau should be listed on page 164 and their functions should be described. 24 7 Page 43, 6.3.6.14 and 6.3.6.16. Cable routes and pipeline routes may be We note that even though the State can adequately consider national interest, similar enough to cover in one category. The different treatment in Figure 5, there exists no mechanism which the State can use to insure that local p. 45 between cable and pipeline routes may not be Justified in terms of governments take such factors into consideration when making siting decisions water acceptability. concerning certain energy facilities. For instance, an oil refinery or an LNG facility which has obtained every State permit could be excluded by the Page 181. We commend New Jersey for identifying Sandy Hook as a national local government and such an exclusion could not be prevented by the State. recreational resource. The Sandy Hook beaches depend upon the littoral drift The document does not indicate whether the State has the opportunity to of sand from the south. This natural process has been impeded by the placement participate or intervene in local proceedings involving such permit decisions of groins south of Sandy Hook along the New Jersey coast. The resulting in order to raise national interest considerations. erosion affects Sandy Hook beaches and threatens its continued existance as a peninsula. Littoral drift action has also resulted in the accumulation of While we realize that the siting of certain facilities in the Bay and Ocean trash and debris on Sandy Hook. We believe that the program should recognize Shore segment of New Jersey may be unlikely, the Department believes that the the role of littoral drift and groin placement and should develop techniques State should develop and describe a process whereby the State may exercise to maintain the integrity of Sandy look. standing to at lease raise relevant national interest considerations in local proceedings. Page 185. The responsibility for administering the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended has been changed from the National Park Areas for Preservation or Restoration Service to the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. This should be changed under the section "Historic Sites and Districts and Areas of Unique That portion of the document which discusses APR's describes various State Cultural Significance." agencies and their respective authorities to purchase or protect certain areas. For example, through the Green Acres program, the DEP can purchase Page 188. The document states that management of national wildlife refuges land or provide grants to local governments for land purchase or park and proposed acquisitions will be subject to Federal consistency determinations. development. What is needed in the final NJCMP is a more complete description Significant changes in wildlife refuge management practices will be subject of the process and the criteria that the State will use to designate APR's. to consistency only if they have a "spillover" impacts. The document should be changed to reflect this. Special Mlanagement Areas Also attached for your consideration are additional comments received from the The Department endorses the designation of wetlands, wet sand beaches and Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. the Iiigbee Beach - Pond Creek Meadow Area as geographic areas of particular concern. These areas are important and deserve special protection. However, the final document should more clearly explain how this designation will prevent the piecemeal development of the Higbee Beach - Pond Creek Meadow Area. Further, we recommend that buffer zones be developed around GAPC's. Federal Consistency On page 189, we note that the State proposes to review permits and licenses for geological and geophysical exploration on the OCS. these permits cover such activities as collecting seismic, gravity, and magnetic data, collecting grab samples of the sea bottom, drilling shallow holes Into the sea bottom for engineering tests, and drilling deep test holes off structure, in areas unlikely to contain hydrocarbons, for the purpose of defining the regional geologic section. All these activities take place prior to a lease sale. We do not believe that any of these activities, most of which are conducted many miles offshore, potentially effect the coastal zone. The large volume of permits for such activities may present an administrative burden to the State, and they may wish to reconsider this listing. Additional Comments Page 49. The reasons for allowing cable routes In high risk erosion areas and not pipelines should be clarified. Trenching which is applicable to pipelines may also be required for underwater cable routes. 25 _~~ _ _ United States Department of the Interior 1.III.IA(;E CONSURVATION AND) RERIVAaION SrlVICE W WASI IINGION. D.C. 20240 ;ELY't"rrn 1Do0 We were pleased with referenced program coordination with New Jersey's ER- 78/3O1 'l 3 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan and the Nationwide Plan ER-78/391 effort. However, the Statewide Comprehensive hlistoric Preservation Plan and Survey should be consulted for program coordination and preparation, and referenced in the appropriate-sections if utilized. We believe the State's decision to carry out the coastal management program ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Memorandum ~by "direct state controls" is a wise approach. This view is taken because: I) the multitude of political subdivisions would be too vast to effectively To: Assistant Director, Office of Policy Analysis monitor; 2) the social, cultural, and natural resources are diverse in New Jersey; 3) existing state laws can provide an "umbrella" of overall From: Director, Hieritage Conservation and Recreation Service protection and control; and 4) effective ongoing "public participation" Subject: N re oprogram provides opportunities for local citizen input into the decision- Subject: New Jersey Coastal Management Program Bay and Ocean making process. Shore Segment (NJCMP/BOSS) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) The eventual effectiveness and success of the NJCMP/BOSS will depend on the implementation procedures and strong enforcement. To be successful the This is in response to your request of May 3, 1978 for revi ew and comment subject program should be fully coordinated with existing legislation and on the subject documentation. Our comments are presented as l) "general", othe r age ncy progr am s and plans i.e. Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recrea- and 2) "specific", which address issues and recommended changes by section tion Planning process, Statewide Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan for the NJCMP/BOSS and DEIS. and Survey, NJ Natural Areas System Act, State and Federal wild and scenic rivers "Acts", NJ Wetlands Act, Clean Waters Act, etc. Many of these plans 1. General Comments and programs are highly interrelated and inseparable, and without interagency coordination and public participation, program effectiveness would be limited. The State of New Jersey is the most highly populated state/square mile in the Nation. Its coastal areas are heavily used for recreation/tourism 2. Special Comvents drawing thousands of annual visitors from neighboring Canada and the Philadelphia and New York City metropolitan areas. Although heavily A. NJCW/BOSS developed, the coastal areas maintain an attraction for recreation use and opportunities and have retained a surprising amount of natural a) Shipwrecks and Artificial Reefs (6.2.7.1. Definition, page 37) and cultural attributes in spite of the use, development, and population density. It is recommended this section be expanded to include the specific listings of known shipwrecks and artificial reefs. In addition, the The NJCMP/BOSS is basically a sound and comprehensive document in considera- "National Register" should be noted as a source of information for tion of the magnitude of social, natural, and cultural resource complexities shipwreck identification besides the referenced publications. which had to be addressed and resolved. The program is fairly descriptive in its policy direction; however, specifics for eventual implementation b) 6.2.7.2 Policies (page 37) could be strengthened. Perhaps Implementation procedures can be refined as the program progresses and more situation experiencies are confronted. The last sentence of second paragraph should be expanded to read as Overall, the management program has sufficiently addressed our areas of follows: "Federal management of shipwrecks outside of the coastal interest and expertise, namely recreation, conservation, and preservation. boundary should be consistent with state policies (and federal historic Nevertheless, appropriate recommendations have been offered for considera- preservation legislation) developed for shipwrecks within the boundary. tion in program improvement as well as technical changes for clarity and accuracy. _I__ _~ __. . . .. _26 26 6.4.5.3. Rationale cJ 6.2.8.2. Policy (page 38) The first sentence makes reference to "representative and unique The second sentence should be expanded to read ". .. habitat areas, historical and archeological (cultural) resources ...." It is species areas, research areas, recreational," esthetic, (by adding) unclear as to what constitutes "representative" or "unique". We and cultural/historic areas. recommend these references be more clearly defined. d) "Water Acceptability Table", (page 45) f) "Beaches Policy", 6.5.1.4. (page 71) Under item "4, Docks and Piers" the water categories have been Under "(b)" it is stated "Development with paving and structures is assigned a "C" (Conditionally Acceptable) or "D" (Discouraged) prohibited on beaches, unless the proposed development has no prudent classification. We believe many of the "C" categories should be or feasible alternative on a non-beach location." denoted as "E" (Encouraged) with individual project selection and approval made within sensible and reasonable environmental discretion. The elimination of paving automatically restricts those individuals The reasoning for our view is that the northeast coastal area, and confined to wheelchairs from using the sandy beaches. In addition, particularly New Jersey, is practically void of public recreational recreational support facility development such as comfort stations fishing/crabbing piers. These recreational activities are very are necessary structures where public use is encouraged. We also popular in New Jersey. Nevertheless, most productive fishing/crabbing note these policies are in direct conflict with the policies stated on is confined to boats and crabbing to private docks and piers. Jetties page 135, "7.3 Resort/Recreational Use Policies, 7.3.1. and 7.3.2." and small private piers do provide some recreational benefits, however, These sections encourage facilities for the "physically handicapped" the Jetties were designed primarily for protection purposes and the and recreation in the development design. It is therefore recommended private areas serve a limited number of the public. The jetties are the "Beaches Policy" section on page 71 be changed to coincide with usually located at inlets where boat traffic is heavy and often of the "Rationale" under "Resort/Recreational Use Policies" on page insignificant length to allow the recreationist a quality experience 135 and 136. in productive waters. Of significant importance is the recreational opportunities that would be afforded to the handicapped, elderly, g) "6.11 General Location Policy" (page 131) and financially disadvantaged through selective public pier construction. Item "(c)" should be expanded to read ". .. preserve, protect and e) "Historic Pesources" 6.4.5. (page 60) enhance the natural environment" (by adding) "and cultural resources". 6.4.5.1. Definition h) 7.5 Public Facility Use Policies (page 147) We note this section makes reference to the "National Register of Under Item 7.5.5. "The construction of bicycle and foot paths, Historic Places" and its administration by National Park Service (NPS). in residential projects, and fishing catwalks and platforms on new This reference and all others in the coastal program should be changed or Improved bridges is required." We cormend the inclusion of these in accord with the transfer of duties and responsibilities between requirements. The paths will provide needed recreational opportunities IICRS and the NPS. while aiding energy conservation efforts. Additionally the catwalks and platforms will increase recreational fishing/crabbing opportunities 6.4.5.2. Policy and complement the recommended action in the aforementioned discussion of docks and piers under the "Water Acceptability Table. It is recommended this policy statement be expanded to require con- sultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the I) "Division of Parks and Forestry" (page 169) State Historic Preservation Officer should proposed development be adverse to cultural resources. This section should be expanded to describe in more detail the responsibilities of the Office of Historic Preservation and include appropriate reference to the Statewide Comprehensive listoric Preservation Plan and Survey. m - - - -m m m / m - - - - l_ - UNITED STATES ~~~~~~~~~~5 1 3 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR J) "Recreation" (Ist paragraph, page 181) FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE "Rere " p 112 West Foster Avenue This section has two (2) Incorrect statements. Reference was made to State College, PA 16001 "the Historic Preservation Act (P.L. 89-665)." This should read "Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended." in the last sentence it is stated ". . . Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and its successor June 28, ]9'I National Heritage Program." Reference to "its successor" should be changed to "Hleritage Conservation and Recreation Service." fir. David Kinsey k) Historic Sites and Districts and Areas of Unique Cultural Department of Environmental Protection Significance (ist paragraph. page 185) Division of Ilarine Services P.0. Box 1889 There are three (3) changes required in the paragraph as follows: Trenton, N.J. O8825 (1) In referring to "The national interest in historic sites and Dear Dave: districts . . ." this should be changed to read "The national, state, and local interests in archeological and historic sites Enclosed is a copy oF a statement presented by Edward Perry at tile and districts." June 13, 1978 public hearing on New Jersey's Coastal lanagement Program hield in Toms River, New Jersey. (2) Reference to the Natural Historic Preservation Act of 1974 should held in Tom River, ew Jersey. be changed from "(P.L. 93-29}" to "(P.L. 93-291)". Sincerely yours, (3) Reference to the "National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Executive Order 11593)" should be changed to "National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended." Executive Order 11593 is Edward Perry an incorrect reference. Envirnmiental I'lauer 1) Areas of Preservation and Restoration (last paragraph. page 196) It is stated in the second sentence "The Commissioner of DEP, the State Historic Preservation Officer, may approve nominations of publicly Enclosure or privately owned areas and sites for inclusion on the Register." (emphasis added). In the case of the National Register the SHPO "submits nominations" for consideration to the "Keeper of the Register" who determines if approval should be granted. This differentiation in responsibilities should be corrected. B. Draft Environmental Impact Statement The subject statement is relatively brief and not specific in consideration of the content and significance of the program. It would be improved If it were expanded to reflect more detail on the anticipated effects of program actions and policies. However, having been incorporated in the NJCMP/BOSS document, the reviewer gains a collective and ample picture of the total program and related impacts. We therefore do not recommend expansion of the statement unless it eventually becomes an Independent document. e ChrisTh28ral De te 28 i r $Y ,.fUNITED STATES 2 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR *i -r tf/ FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 112 West Foster Avenue To plan for the future, it is essential to know what resourcs are availlable, State College, PA 16801 in what quantity and quality, and where they are located. A compr-lhllrsive inventory would have fulfilled this need. Because these inventories have not been fully completed, we believe the CLAM process lacks all adequate data base. Although CLAM appears to be an excellent mechanicm for evaluating permits, CLAM does not go into effect until a per-mit Is applied for. Because of the lack of a complete coastal resources inventory and adequate mapping, permit applicants will not be knowledgeable of where important coastal resources are located until they actually go My name is Edward Perry, I am an Environmental Planner with the U.S. fish through the permit process. Maps that clearly show the most inportant and Wildlife Service at State College, Pennsylvania. Because of the Service's coastal areas would serve to guide development and increase the predict- broad-based responsibility for managing, enhancing and conserving fish and ability of the permit process. We therefore recommend the basic coastal wildlife resources, we have reviewed New Jersey's Coastal Management Program resource inventory be completed. in some detail. These comments represent the official views of the Fish avid Wildlife Service at this time and not necessarily those of the Department A second weakness of the program is that it fails to address tie cumulative of the Interior, as yet. An official conformation copy of these comments impacts of small development projects. for instance, housing developments will be forthcoming within two weeks. of less than 25 units are not subject to the CAfRA permit process. One of the major strengths of flew Jersey's Coastal Management Program is Another concern relates to the Location Policies. Altlhough the rationales that it recognizes the importance of protecting existing valuable coastal behind tile Location Policies are excellent, we believe some of tile policies resources for fish, wildlife and recreational purposes. The Service need strengthening by the elimination of ambiguous words and vagnle phraseology. fully supports this objective and we will work with New Jersey to provide It is the Service's opinion that it is especially important to prevent assistance during the implementation of their coastal program. We are further habitat destruction in Special Water Areas in New Jersey. also particularily pleased with the first basic coastal policy, which is to protect tihe coastal ecosystem. Our review of the program reveals it fails to provide a buffer zone around Geographic Areas of Particular Concern. We are pleased that wellands located Although the program is oriented toward coastal resource protection, inland of tie CAfRA boundary and within the coastal zone boundary are there are a number of weaknesses that should be corrected to strengthen designated as JAPC's. However the shoreline uses adjacent to these the coastal resources protection element of the program. For example, coastal wetland GAPC'm are not regulated by the program. Thus, some rises despite the fact that the Coastal Zone Management Act and CAFRA State can be expected to cause significant adverse impacts to this resource of law require an inventory of natural coastal resources, we believe that national interest. We therefore recommend that buffer zones he established the Inventory has not been fully completed. New Jersey has published a around all GAPC's and that uses within the buffer zone be regulsted by tile separate publication entitled: An Inventory of the hew Jersey Coastal Coastal Management Program. Area. Ilowever, in our opinion, this documentTsimuply a listing of ETbliographic materials and does not fully meet the inventory requirements Despite these weaknesses, we believe this coastal management program is a of both State and Federal law. significant step toward wise use of a finite resource base. With some modifications, it can be the plan that will enable New Jersey to grow and A suitable inventory should have identified and mapped areas of unique or prosper while preserving a heritage of national significance for its citizens, vunerable habitat, critical habitat for endangered species, important now and in the future. recreational areas, areas where development is dependent on access to coastal waters, areas of significance for commercial or industrial develop- ment, urban concentration areas, high hazard areas from storms, erosion, floods, etc., prime fishing sites, important forest areas, anadramous fish pathways, special wildlife habitats and other coastal areas suitable for development or preservation. Much of this information is already available. These areas should have been mapped and incorporated into the Coastal Location Acceptability Method (CLAMII) process. - m - m - _29 m _ - - -2- ; a'h i U s tJNltEt STATES ENVIRONMENIAL PROTECTION AGENCY ,, N nMr:NI AL The NJCMP must detail the efforts being made to coordinate its coastal ~~''a f l'R PA planning with applicable water and air quality planning. Documentation of W YORK. NEW YORt 0007 this coordination is notably lacking in the DEIS. Further, the potential rwU YORnK NEW YOREK 10007 of the air and water quality programs to assist the NJCMP in controlling developnment and protecting significant coastal resources has not been fully Class. ER-2 realized. The mutual benefits from these programs can only be realized Z1 6 JUN V1l4 through close cooperation. The EPA is also concerned that the coastal policies relating to air and water quality have been made without due consideration of the conditions Ms. Kath ryn Cousins in the other segments and without coordination with the other segments. Regional Manager, North Atlantic Region The EPA strongly recommends that the NJCMP's coastal policies, particuarly Office of Coastal Zone Ma nagemen t those encouraging facility siting in other segments, carefully consider the 3300atio nal ceanic and Atraeet, Nd. air and water quality implication on all other segments of New Jersey's 3300 Washington, D.C. 20235 coastal zone and inland areas. Washington, D.C. 20235 The EPA urges the NJCMP to include regional water treatment plants within Dear Ms. Cousins: the definition of facilities in the national interest. Because section We have reviewed the draft environmental Impact statement (DEIS) on the 307(f) of the CZMA mandates the incorporation of the requirements of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program (NJCMP)-gay and Ocean Shore Segment, CAA and CWA into the plan, the FEIS for the NJCMP must also provide that, and offer the following comments for (our consideration In preparing a in the siting of national interest facilities, the national interest is and offer the following comments for your consideration in preparing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). Detailed comments are at- not used to evade the air and water quality requirements. tached. Further, the NJCMP's language preceding the list of licenses and permits (p. I88) appears to imply that only activities which must also obtain a The NJCMP-Bay and Ocean Shore Segment is a significant attempt to provide (p. tate permit ars to onsistency. Eching the intenal activities a systematic guide for developers and others interested in New Jersey's state permit are s to consistency. Echong the onstenal activites coastal zone. Several deficiencies have, however, been identified and should be addressed in the FEIS. The EPA generally commends the NJCMP for its coastal policies guiding major The EPA is concerned that the NJCMP-Bay and Ocean Shore Segment does not developments and activities affecting wetlands and riparian lands. The incorporate policies reflecting the need to integrate the air and water municipality has primary Jurisdiction over local matters, i.e. those affect- requirements established pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Clean ing only one municipality, However, as admitted in the DEIS, this could Air Act (CAA). Required by section 307(f) of the Coastal Zone Management cause cumulative impacts to more than merely one municipality. The FEIS Act (CZMA) and section 923.44 of the Implementing regulations, this matter should consider use of a mechanism to prevent such Impacts. In addition, is not mentioned on the summary table (p.232) which guides users of the housing developments with less than 25 units, and commercial facilities are OEIS to thle HJCMP's requirements for approval. not subject to the NJCMP's coastal policies. The cumulative impacts of a series of small developments can significantly affect air and water quality, In addition to complying with applicable effluent limitations and water wetlands, groundwater resources, and overall esthetic values. The policies quality standards, EPA urges the NJCMP to Incorporate other elements of also provide no means of controlling activities outside of, but signzfl- the CWA, Including the environmental guidelines for dredged and fill cantly affecting, the coastal zone. materials being developed pursuant to section 404(b), the regulatory aspects of 203 plans, and section 403 ocean discharge cr iteria. The The EPA is not satisfied that the NJCMP-Bay and Ocean Shore Segment has NJCMP, and Its coastal policies, must also be able to Incorporate any adequate authorities to insure that development will be In conformity subsequent changes to the CWA (o r CAA) or revisions to water quality with coastal policies. Because the NJCMP's management system is designed standards, 208 plans, (and state implementation plans established pur- around the Coastal Area Facilities Review Act (CAFRA)--from which comercal suant to the CAA). facilities and housing developments of less than 25 units are excluded-- significant cumulative impacts of small scale developments would be ignored. In addition, because It is primarily intended for CAFRA-type facilities, the NJCMP provides very little guidance to local governments regarding developments not covered by the NJCMP, i.e. housing less than 25 units and 30 -3- DETAILED COMMENTS commercial facilities. The NJCMP's management system also appears to have no means of Insuring that the actions of other state agencies, outside of Integraton of the Requirements of the Clean Air Act-and Clean Water Act the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), will be consistent with coastal policies. Even in the case of the Department of Energy (DOE), The New Jersey Coastal Management Plan (NJCM4P) does not specifically re- which is finalizing a draft memorandum of understanding with DEP, there is ference the need to incorporate the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) currently no assurance that Its actions, or the allocation of CEIP funds and Clean Water Act (CWA). This Incorporation is required by section 307(f) (which are administered by DOE), will be consistent with coastal policies. of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and the implementing regulations. 15 CFR section 923.44. Further, in the summary table of findings, necessary In light of these concerns and In accordance with EPA procedures, the DEIS for program approval (referenced to the applicable pages In the NJCMP). the has been rated ER-2, indicating our environmental reservations (ER), and Incorporation of air and water quality requirements is not Included as one our need for additional Information (2). of these findings. Because these requirements are not referenced in this summary table, NJCMP staff and reviewers of the program could be given the We remain very interested in assisting New Jersey to develop a wise management misleading impression that the requirements of the CAA and CWA do not need strategy for Its coastal zone. Please contact this office at (212) 264-8556 to be Incorporated. This should be corrected in the FEIS. if we can be of help. The EPA recommends that the IIJCMP's discussion on page 7 of the importance Sincerely yours, of water quality to the coastal ecosystem should also include air quality and the Interrelation of the two to the vitality of the coastal ecosystem. _J) -4' _d_ .-(/ . The NJCMP also falls to address the cumulative air and water quality impacts Michael Bonchonsky of small-scale residential and commercial growth In the coastal zone. Acting Chief Environmental Impacts Branch Nater Quality Enclosure Much to EPA's satisfaction, the coastal resource and development policies within the NJCMP-Bay and Ocean Shore Segment will contribute to the main- tenance of New Jersey's coastal water quality. We fully support the NJCMP's general policy to protect the coastal ecosystem, and to prohibit or dis- courage uses that would contribute to the violation of applicable surface and groundwater quality standards. We must, however, express our concern over the NJCMP's failure to fully coordinate efforts with EPA. The NJCMP states that "In addition to the Water Areas policies presented here, proposed coastal development must also comply with applicable state and federal effluent limitations and water quality standards" (p. 39). This statement, supportive of EPA programs on Its face, gives rise to a basic Issue that we feel must be resolved before program approval can be granted. Compliance with applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards does not fully satisfy CZMA section 307(f)'s mandate that the "requirements" established pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA) be in- corporated Into CZM programs. Such a narrow interpretation of "require- ments" runs contrary to the Intent of Congress which envisioned "effluent controls, emission controls, and land use regulations to control air and water pollution" as "requirements." The NJCMP's consideration of only limitations and standards does not meet the statutory Intent. The EPA believes that other elements of the CWA, such as the environmental guide- lines for the discharge of dredged and fill materials to be developed pursuant to section 404(b) of the CWA, the regulatory aspects of 208 plans, and section 403 ocean discharge criteria, must also be Incorporated in the NJCMP. In addition, the NJCMP should state that any subsequent changes in CWA requirements or revisions to water quality standards will be Incorpor- ated In the plan. 31 I m m m _ _ _-_ - -- - - - - -m m - - - m - m :3 62 ' the significant lowering of the water table, but does not identify other The EPA urges the NJCMP to detail those efforts that are being made to potential contaminants of drinking water. This policy should be revised to coordinate its coastal zone planning with the water quality planning being make the overall protection of groundwater quality a central program concern. coordinate its coastal zone planning with the water quality planning being conducted by the Division of Water Resources pursuant to section 208 of In this regard, the value of sole source aquifers should be specially noted. the CWA. At present, the NJCMP only includes the statement that the "two Underground injections and other activities which might impact sole source programs will be coordinated and made consistent." (p. 168) Specific aquifers should be carefully regulated. To aid in this regulation, refer- efforts must be made, and documented, to ensure that both the NJCMP and ence should be made to the national primary and secondary drinking water applicable 208 plans have consistent policies regarding growth and develop- standards which are being developed pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act. ment In the coastal zone, and that resources to be protected by one program The policy on groundwater should also clearly recognize the potentially adverse cumulative and secondary impacts which may be Induced by coastal will not be degraded by the other. growth and development. The EPA recommends that the coastal plan explicitly state that coastal Solid Waste planning activities must be coordinated with 208 planning for both point and non-point sources. The NJCMP should detail in the FEIS the benefits The NJCMP incorporates most of EPA's concern regarding the planning for and that can accrue from effective coordination between these two programs. disposal of solid waste. We do suggest, however, that use policy 7.5.7 be Because the CAFRA permit process does not appear to extend to most non- altered to reference the guidelines being developed pursuant to the Resource point sources of pollution and because it deals primarily with moderate to Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These guidelines will establish crl- large scale development, it is Important that, at least until the 208 teria for acceptable solid waste disposal sites. Such incorporation, which processes are in place, the NJCMP make certain that point and non-point seems to be indicated in resource policy 8.16.1 (pg. 161), would further the sources are not allowed within the coastal zone if they would interfere goals of both the NJCMP and the solid waste management program. Similarly, with achievement of the goals being established in the 208 plans. Steps EPA urges an overall effort to coordinate the policies and procedures of toward developing a close working relationship with the Division of Water the NJCMP with those of the Solid Waste Administration's solid waste manage- Resources should thus be documented in the FEIS. ment plan. If such efforts are already underway, this fact should be mentioned in the NJCMP. We urge coordination of those policies relating to the disposal of dredged and fill material. Pursuant to section 404(b)(1) of the CWA, EPA is The EPA urges that "solid waste" be entered in the NJCMP as a national developing environmental guidelines to govern the discharge of dredged or interest alongside air and water (see Chapter 5, pp. 182, 183). A paragraph fill materials. The NJCMP makes no mention of these guidelines when it here on waste management would keep solid waste considerations on an sets out those policies which will govern dredged spoil disposal in the important level and maintain the consistency of waste considerations in coastal zone (p. 47). These guidelines are requirements of the CWA and the plan. Proposed paragraph: Solid Waste. The New Jersey Coastal Program should, therefore, be incorporated in the NJCMP. supports the attainment and maintenance of proper solid waste management. National interest for waste management is currently being formulated in The EPA notes the failure of the NJCMP to include sewage treatment plants rules and regulations under RCRA. The federal prohibition of open dumping, among the listed nat-ona interest facilities, the siting of which must restrictions on disposal site locations in wetland, floodplain and critical be given adequate consideration by the program. Although they are Included habitat areas, and requirements for disposal of non-hazardous and hazardous as uses of regional benefit, (pp. 192-193), section 923.52 of the adminis- wastes will support and strengthen New Jersey's solid waste laws. The DEP's trative regulations, which govern the approval of state coastal management Solid Waste Administration will assume the major responsibility in enforcing programs, specifically includes regional water treatment plants as facili- federal requirements on solid waste. ties in which there may be a national interest in planning or siting. For this reason, EPA believes that sewage treatment facilities, the construction The policy on solid waste (8.16.1, pg. 161) should include examination of of which is funded by the federal government under section 201 of the CWA, proposed coastal zone projects in terms of waste type and volume expected, should be added to the list of national interest facilities, disposal method employed, and effects on disposal sites. Commercial and industrial development criteria should be revised to include The EPA requests that "solid waste standards" be Incorporated Into the a consideration of waste compatibility between the proposed industry and present policy on power plants: "New or expanded non-nuclear fossil the receiving treatment facility. fueled plants will be...consistent with applicable air and water quality standards" (7.4.12, p. 145). An amendment would also be needed on p. 130. Ortnking Water The NJCMP provides for a location policy that utilizes an eight step process The EPA notes a general lack of consideration In the NJCMP resource policies for determining the acceptability of a proposed project. In the illustra- of the protection of underground sources of drinking water. Resource policy tive example of the step process, mapped areas encompass the project site 8.5.1 (p. 152) on groundwater use strives to prevent salinity intrusions and and Its surrounding area. Yet In a discussion of the requirements for 32 4 mapping, special areas are asked to be Identified only on a proposed site. The EPA suggests that the air quality policy (p. 157) be modified as follows: How much of the surrounding area, If any, is expected to be represented on maps and incorporated Into the decision process for approval of the Coastal development shall conform to all applicable state and federal emis- proposed project? sions regulations, ambient air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration criteria, nonattainment criteria, and other regulations or Does the policy on steep slope development (6.4.10.2, p. 65) apply to guidelines established pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act, as amended In proposed sanitary landfill operations? 1977. Revisions to the SIP or amendments to the Clean Air Act will be reflected in the coastal policies, as necessary." Air Quality The EPA also encourages that the NJCMP Include In the rationale for Its air The EPA finds the NJCIIP-Ray and Ocean Shore Segment's policy on air quality quality policy a discussion of the possibility for emission tradeoffs to preliminarily acceptable, provided that several revisions are Incorporated allow the siting of new facilities In nonattainment areas of New Jersey's Into the FEIS. The EPA's comments concerning consistency of prevention of coastal zone. significant deterioration permits are Included in the discussion of Govern- mental Affairs. The EPA supports the NJCMP's transportation policies which call for a shift to car pools and other modes of transportation besides the automobile to The EPA recommends that the policy on air quality more clearly recognize reduce emissions (p. 157). The EPA urges the IJCMP to explore how the pro- that both the location and type of facilities within the coastal zone can tection offered by a Class I designation can protect significant coastal areas have various direct (through their emissions) and indirect (through emissions In addition to Brigantine Natlonal Wildlife Refuge. from Induced secondary developments) effects on coastal air quality. We urge that more specific procedures for coordinating the NJCMP and the state The EPA specifically recommends that the NJCMP reference the air quality implementation plan (SIP) be developed because the controls established by implications of OCS oil and gas development. Both onshore facilities and the SIP potentially represent a major factor controlling the pattern, type, fixed structures on the OCS are subject to the requirements of the CAA and and intensity of coastal growth, and because, as discussed below, facilities cannot be permitted if they would hamper the attainment and maintenance of encouraged to develop outside of this segment of few Jersey's coastal zone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs). may be subject to stringent air pollution controls. Specific procedures must also be included to Insure that the coastal policy on air quality Is-flexible Finally, EPA finds the lack of mention of specific coordination procedures enough to be modified to meet revisions to the state Implementation plan or between the NJCMP and the NJ SIP, Implemented by the Division of Environmental to amendments to the Clean Air Act. (p. 157). Quality, inadequate (p. 157-158, 169). This should be corrected in the FEIS. As discussed below, EPA is concerned that the coastal policies relating to General air and water quality for this segment have been made without consideration of the conditions in the other segments and without coordination with the The EPA encourages the NJCMP-Bay and Ocean Shore Segment to develop specific other segments. Because much of industrialized fNew Jersey has or could have policies on noise and pesticides within the coastal zone and procedures for air quality problems, EPA strongly recommends that the NJCMP clearly lay out coordinating with the Division on Environmental Quality. the location of nonattainment areas in all segments of New Jersey's coastal zone. Each segment must be Included because several policies of the Bay and Coastal Policies Ocean Shore segment, particularly those relating to industrial growth, as discussed below. are encouraging growth in the other segments of the state, The EPA finds a vast majority of the NJCMP policies guiding major developments the NJCMP's for which have not yet been completed. The EPA strongly suggests covered by CAFRA, and both the major and minor development covered by the that the Bay and Ocean Shore segment not develop policies concerning the Wetlands and Rlparlan Programs, to be commendable. Moreover, EPA commends siting of industrial and energy facilities in a vacuum; they should care- the NJCMP for the overall organization of the policies. The three tiered fully consider the air (and water) quality Implications of these policies on screening process consisting of Coastal Location Acceptability Method (CLAM) the present air (and water) quality conditions within all segments of New policies use policies, and resource policies is a convenient system for Jersey's coastal zone. both program staff and coastal developers. The definitions, policy state- ments, and rationales are clear and should provide much guidance. The NJCMP-Bay and Ocean Shore Segment's discouragement of industrial growth--- such as pipeline coating yards and the prohibition of new major pumping and ancillary facilities (gas processing plants, oil storage terminals, and booster terminals)---and its encouragement of this growth in the other seg- nents may tend to exacerbate existing air (and water) quality problems. The EPA recommends that the potential adverse effects of this policy be analyzed for the entire coastal zone in the FEIS. m - m _ _ _ _ _ - -m m'' mm m mE m m m ---.-- The EPA, however, finds that many developments are not covered under the coastal permitting programs---namely those developments too small to be dune developmen on the procedures for quality, as wellng the mpacts of small sal considered under the CAFRA program and particularly those which may be developments on water and ar quaty as well as the pats of sall located adjacent to wetlands or riparian lands---and will not, therefore, developments adjacent to coastal matersn wetlands, and rparian ands. The be subject to the coastal management policies. Because these smaller develop- EPA notes that septic tanks are mentioned on page 84 and the reader is re- ments, particularly a series of small developments, can have significant ferred to the resource polices. We cannot however find any specific Impacts on wetlands, riparian lands, and coastal waters--- especially when ment that they are discussed separately. We urge clarification of this impacts on wetlands, rlparian lands, and coastal waters---especla11y when reference to septic tanks in the resource policy section despite the state- viewed from a cumulative perspective---EPA requests clarification of howent that they are dscussed separately. We urge clarfcaton of ths the NJCMP will address these developments and their Impacts. The issue of matter. cumulative impacts by small development activity, particularly on the attainment and maintenance of air and water quality standards, represents The EPA commends the e JCMP for i ts stipulation that new marinas provide a serious EPA reservation concerning the NJCMP polces adequate marine sanitation pump out stations. The encouragement that marina expansion dredging be in a non-wetland area (i.e., dry land) is also commendable. However, If harbors are dredged into dry land areas On the subject of using the coastal policies to guide small scale develop- with only a narrow entrance to water bodies, the resulting harbor could ment, EPA notes the NJCMP statements that the "(c)oastal policies could,,.. serve as a pollution trap for oils and chemicals associated with routine because of their comprehensive nature, be used to guide other decisions not boat maintenance and marine operation. Moreover, poorly flushed marinas strictly subject to the New Jersey Coastal Program." (p. 11), and that "... can produce and ard w ater quality with low dissolved oxygen levels. the policies will serve as a basis for determining the consistency of actions New marinas dredged Into dry land areas must be designed to avoid such a roposed by federal state and local agencies with the Coastal Program. potential. The EPA urges that the NJCMP espouse policies that avoid the (p. 23) While these potentials theoretically exist EPA does not see any creation of deep dead-end marina harbors with poor flushing characteristics. Indication that the policies will actually be used or adopted by local agencies for application to small scale developments. The NJCMP must have a measure The EPA commends the NJCMP policy concerning solid waste conservation and of control over these small, but cumulatively significant, developments.(p. 147). This Is a major problem area concerning which EPA We urge treatment of this critical aspect by developing provision for sub- welcomes positive policy statements encouraging foresiglted solutions that stantive Input into local planning and decision making. The EPA suggests are environmentally and conservatonally beneficial. that the planned Estuarine Study and the Oevelopment Potential Study (p. 191) address, In part, the effects of certain smaller scale development and On the other hand, EPA takes exception to the broad policy statement con- alternative mechanisms to monitor and control impacts. The EPA urges that, cerning recreation (7.3.1 p. 135). Although EPA appreciates the escalating from these studies, policies on Individual development types that are demands for coastal recreation, It does not believe that highest priority Individually small, but cumulatively significant, be developed and added should necessarily be reserved for "those uses that serve a greater, rather to the Use and Resource Policies. Moreover, EPA recommends that NJCMP than lesser, number of people (p. 135). While EPA recognizes the recre- develop CLAM policies that specifically address development that would take atlonal benefits of resorts such as Atlantic City, it would not recommend place on lands immediately adjacent to wetlands and riparian lands. The that the entire New Jersey coast be developed in this fashion simply because EPA would be very willing to work with the JECMP on this problem, it provides a maximum number of recreational opportunities. The EPA recom- mends that this policy reflect the need for a diversity of recreational Examples of small scale development that may be significant and with which experiences, including high, middle and low density types. The Importance the EPA has strong concerns are construction on dunes and installation of of preserving certain low density reeational areas cannot be underesti- septic tanks. The EPA requests, for example. clarification of how the NJCMPidly disappearing. would prevent Individual housing construction on coastal dunes. Although the dune policies are commendable (6.4.2.2, p. 55), EPA finds that the The EPA is particularly pleased with the Water Acceptability Table (p. 45). Coastal Program has no way of stopping small developments on dunes. Because It is a well thoughtout expression of coastal policies. The only concern several Individual housing developments on dunes may be no less damaging that EPA has with this table relates to two of the entries under Boat Ramps. than a single large one, the NJCMP should be able to regulate small, as The EPA requests clarification on why the NJCMP discourages their placement well as large, developments in this critical resource area. Septic tanks, adjacent to medium depth back bays, yet conditionally accepts them for which are by nature small scale (and would not be subject to the NJCMP unless shallow semi-enclosed bays and shallow back bays (p. 46). they are to be located In a wetland or riparian land area), can also have considerable water quality Impacts If placed near a water body. Again, the considerable water quality impacts if placed near a water body. Again, the The EPA Is concerned about a IJCMP policy that appears to encourage develop- NJCMP should develop a means to control these developments. Moreover, the The E s conc erned about a IlJMP policy that appears to encourage develop- cumulative air quality Impacts of a series of small developments have not ment on the Central Barrier Island Corridor (6.4.3.2 p. 55) because many been addressed. The EPA strongly urges that the NJCMP be revised to include are already heavily developed. Although EPA appreciates the rationale that the legal authority to regulate and plan for such uses. In sum, EPA desires encourages "infill projects" and "discourage(s) extension of development on barrier islands" (p. 57), EPA Is concerned that New Jersey's barrier Islands . -. ._____ _ _.._34 . - 34 8 9 use of lands associated with treatment works and Increased access to water- will become high density development areas. This would not only create based recreation" (FWPCA section 208(b)(2)(A)). A statement should be Intense pressure on the quality of the air and of bay water due to chronic added to the rationale (6.4.9.3, p. 64 expressing the intent of the IJCMP pollution from high density use, but would also aggravate already dangerous to coordinate and work with the state 208 agency on this natter in coastal conditions associated with the evacuation of large numbers of people through areas. The EPA also recommends addition of a similar statement oncerning narrow access routes In times of emergency (such as hurricanes). These the intent of the NJCMP to coordinate and work with the state's Green Acres policies do not seem to reflect consideration of increased costs of proved- Program (described on page 169) concerning the Identification, establishment Ing public services to the increasing numbers of people on barrier islands. of acqulsition priorities and actual acquisition of open space lands In the The carrying capacity of these areas, and the impacts and costs of exceeding coastal zone. It, must be recognized in the coastal policies. The EPA commends the NJCMP'S Public Facility Use Policy (7.5, p. 147) which Effectiveness Of The Management Scheme conditions new or expanded public facility development on need and the un- The EPA is not satisfied that the NJCMP has adequate legal authorities to availability of alternative technologies for meeting the need. control development In a manner that will adequately reflect and conform The EPA is pleased to see that the NJCMP policies address the important with the established coastal policies. The deficiencies identified below The EPA Is pleased to see that the NJCMP policies address the Important should be addressed In the FEIS Issue of beach access. However, the EPA strongly urges the NJCMP to change its beach policy from one that discourages development that unreasonably The NJCMP - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment uses a networking system that restricts access to beaches to one that prohibits such develomen relies on the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA), wetlands and reasonable restriction of beach access should be grounds for denying such waterfront development (riparian) programs, a shore protection program, development. The EPA would also like the NJCMP to add a clarification and the regulatory activities of New Jersey's Department of Energy (DOE). statement concerning its policy on the construction of hotels and restau- The management system for CAFRA-defned facilities, and for those develop- rants along retained water's edges (6.5.3.3, p. 78). While EPA concurs ments subject to the other authorities, is notable In many respects. The with the DEIS provided that these facilities are constructed on existing policies for coastal location, use and resources provide deveopers and ement-Ye e gr'sedge ares, the povicies ocat a ua nd sourepe de retained water's edge areas, the EPA urges that a qualifying sta emente others with a systematic means of determining whether a proposed project added stating that Installation of retaining structures (e.g. bulkheads, will or will not be approved in a particular area of the coastal zone revetments, etc.) at the water's edge for the purpose of constructing and the types of conditions, If any, that would obtain. This system hotels or restaurants is prohibited because these facilities are not water provides assurance to the developer and to EPA that air and water quality dependent uses. requirements are factored Into the decision. The EPA notes that the The EPA strongly supports the NJCMP policy discouraging development in flood coastal policies will be adopted as administrative rules Increasing the hazard areas (6.4.4.2, p. 59) and wetlands (6.5.1.2, p. 69). In support ofr this policy, EPA urges the Coastal Program to reference President Carter's the NJCMP legal authorities are, however, unsatisfactorily limited. The Executive Orders on Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988) and on coastal policies serve as substantive standards for only the selected Wetlands (Executive Order 11990), as well as the guidelines for implementing uses defined In the management system. This is very Important because these orders (published in the Federal Register on Friday, February 10, 1978, the CMP's management system Is designed primarily around CAFRA which Part VI of Vol. 43, No. 29, pp. 6030-60551. This reference would add a appears to regulate only moderate to large scale industrial and resi- national dimension to these coastal resource and development policies. dential developments. The EPA is concerned that CAFRA does not address Similarly, EPA supports the NJCIMP policy concerning historic resources commercial facilities or many smaller-scale developments and that the (6.4.5.2, p,. 60), but urges reference to the complementary responsibilities threshold of 25 units for housing developments is much too high. Because and activities conducted by the Department of Interior's Heritage Conserva- the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment of Hew Jersey's coast Is not as heavily tion and Recreation Service (IICRS). A statement in the rationale (6.4.5.3) industrialized or densely populated as other New Jersey coastal areas, expressing the Intention to coordinate with the HCRS in activities of mutual the cumulative, incremental mpacts of a series of small developments-- interest would be desirable. commercial and residential--can be very damaging not only to air and water quality, but also to the quality and appeal of the coastal environment The EPA supports the NJCMP policy encouraging development that creates open generally. While the NJCMP notes that many of these decisions are local space. The EPA recommends, however, that the NJCMP state how it will imple- in nature, the coastal program provides no system to assure that local ment this policy. For example, a provision of the Clean Water Act of 1971 governments plan for and regulate the Impacts of such growth In a manner requires state 208 programs to include an element concerning the "....denti- consistent with the state coastal policies. These policies are binding fication of open space and recreation opportunities that can be expected to primarily on CAFRA-type facilities; they are not applicable to local result from Improved water quality, Including consideration of potential decisions. The coastal program must do more than. as it states on page 2, 35 �I M iml 10 "serve as guidance to municipal, county, and regional agencies with coastal 11 decislonmaking responsibilities." The EPA suggests that the NJCMP supple- tent with Coastal policies. significantly absent Is DOE's distrcbutpon of ment its control of land and water uses in the coastal zone, to be attempted funds under the CZMA's Coast Energy Impact Program (CEIPI which appears not only through Technique B of CZMA section 306(e)(1)---direct state land and to be guided In any way by considerations relevant to the state's coastal water use planning and regulation---with one of the other techniques that program, despite the direct application of these funds in the coastal zone can reach those more local activities. The EPA suggests that Technique A-- Regulatons Issued by the OCZM, however, clearly subject the CEIP to the local Implementation based on state criteria and standards---be Investigated federal consistency requirements (15 CFR section 930.90). Therefore, the for inclusion into the program. If revised to reflect local needs, the n Ws should be amended to clearly reflect the fact that allocations of CEIP NJCMP's policies on location, use, and resources could serve as criteria funds should be consistent with the goals and policies oi the NJCMP. This and standards for local Implementation. fact is already reflected In the body of the NJCMP (p. 171). These con- cerns should be addressed in the FEIS. The NJCMP-Bay and Ocean Shore Segment also provides no assurances that other state agencies -- outside of DEP -- with the exception of New Jersey's Even If this segment of New Jersey had adequate authorities, the other Department of Energy (DOE) (discussed below), will be legally bound by segments, which are not subject to CAFRA, may not. While EPA recognizes coastal policies. While the program states that the actions of other state that this DEIS addresses only the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, NEPA reviews agencies will also follow the coastal policies to the maximum extent per- must look to the future when the segments must be linked. If the other mitted by law, no mechanisms for ensuring this consistency, such as an segments lack authorities to Implement their programs, many problems and executive order binding state agencies to act consistently with coastal conflcts may arise. It Is suggested that the FEIS discuss the authorities policies, are provided. The NJCMP must address this deficiency in the FEIS. that the other segments will rely on and the procedures for combining the segments, with a timetable. questions also arise concerning the emerging relationship between New Jersey's DEP and DOE. The EPA supports the efforts of these two state The EPA also finds that the present management system does not appear to agencies to coordinate overlapping responsibilities, as evidenced in the have either authorities or the policies which reflect the need to manage draft memorandum of understanding (MOU) between them. The EPA finds, activities outside of, but adjacent to, the defined coastal zone of this however, that a number of revisions must be made to this agreement before segment -- CAFto and wetlands boundaries. The potential for inland it is finalized. Further, the CMP should not be approved until the MOU development to adversely affect the coastal zone may be significant and is finalized, and then, only if the agreement will be binding on both should be addressed in the FEIS. agencies. The EPA Is concerned abput the NJCMP - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment's The relationship between the HJCMP and the Energy Master Plan being prepared approach to Areas of Particular Concern (APC). First, EPA does not agree by DOE should be firmly established. The following issues should be dealt that the "availablllty of State legal authorities to promote desired uses with in the final MOU: (1) how will conflicts between the Energy Master of the areas" Is a valid criteria for APC designation (p. 194). Rather Plan and the energy facility planning process (which must be submitted to should be designated based on an inventory of coastal resources to OCZM by October 1, 1978) be resolved?; (2) will DOE be bound by the Master determ ne which areas need special management. That s, the management Plan or by the NJCMP's policies when the two conflict?; (3) will the Energy ystem should be talored to meet the areas; areas should not be designated Master Plan supercede DEP's licensing authority over energy facilities under ecause of the existence of a management system CAFR,?; and (4) will the Energy Master Plan Incorporate the NJCMP's coastal resource and development policies? Because of New Jersey's strong wetland program, the designation of wetlands as a generic APC is commended (pp. 194-195). The EPA questions, however, The NJCMP and the MOU fall to discuss the criteria which will guide the how areas of wet sand beaches conveyed by a "riparian grant" can be managed Energy Facility Review Board when it is called upon to resolve a DEP coastal as an APC (p. 195). The EPA desires clarification of this point in the energy facility permit application appealed by DOE. While the MOU appears FEtS. As noted above, the NJCMP must address how activities adjacent to to bind DOE to the NJCMP's coastal resource and development policies -- they wetlands, but outside the coastal zone, will be controlled. "agree to accept" them, at least until the Energy Master Plan is adopted -- no similar assurance is found in the draft MOU in regard to the Energy no sim11ar assurance 15 found In the draft MOU in regard to the Energy The ePA also requests clarification of the disposition of the public noml- Facility Review Board. Nio standard is provided. The EPA believes that nations for APCs. In reading this sectione re left with the pressdon Board decision must be guided by, and consistent with, the NJCMP's coastal that simply too many nominations were received, so the program failed to resource and development policies. respond to any of them. Because the public was asked to provide nomina- tions, a good faith effort should be made to evaluate these sites and The EPA also notes that the MOU provides for OOE's acceptance of the NJCMP designate significant areas as APCs. policies only In the case of the siting of energy facilities in the coastal zone. As noted above, all actions of all state agencies should be consis- The FEIS should Identify situations where the processes established pursuant to the CAA and CIA can be used to complement APC protection -- such as the 36 "l 12 designation of Class I areas mentioned under air policies above and the Because EPA supports, with a few exceptions, the NJC1Ps Coastal Resource protection of sensitive areas by the 208 planning process. and Development Policies, It also accepts, with little reluctance, the program's use of these policies as the basis for making federal consis- It is unclear whether a listing of state programs that relatype to parksiteria tency dete natons. There are, however, a number of elements within species preservation and historic places constitutes the type of criteria the rldCIP'S consistency framework which EPA feels require revision and/or specified in section 306(c)(9) of the CZMA for designating areas for pre- tclarlficat irron. servation or restoration. It also appears that restoration of specific areas s not mentioned. he adequacy of this element in meeting the Although the functioning of the CWA and CMAA permit systems is to be left requirements of the CZMA must be addressed in the FEIS. unimpeded, the NJCMP should assist in the protection of coastal air and water quality. the federal consistency provisions could be advantageous The NJCMP should Insure that the siting of uses for regional benefit must in assuring that federally conducted or sanctioned activities do not in assuring that federally conducted or sanctioned activities do not not affect applicable air and water quality requirements, established detract from those values. For example, air quality, water quality, and pursuant to section 307(f) of the CZM*A. the quality of underground sources of drinking water could all be fostered if the lIJCMP's consistency provisions were more broadly applied to poten- Governmental Affairs tially harmful federal activities and development projects. In this regard, EPA believes that the NJCMP should state that its list of federal activities The EPA believes that the eJCMP's definition of the national Interest and development projects subject to consistency is not exclusive and that occarepresents an admirable effort In of rinig erests. All but one of the and other activities and projects may also be reviewed for consistency. Such occasionally conflicting, collection of interests. All but one of the a statement already accompanies the HJC1P's list of federally licensed and a statement already accompanies the NJCr4P's list of federally licensed and facilities and resources that OCZM has stated to be in the national permitted activities, and federal assistance to state and local governments. interest are included in the NJCMP's definition. As mentioned earlier, Moreover, two particular federal activities, the construction of Coastal regional water treatment plants were, for some reason, excluded and Guard stations and OCS lease sales, should be added to the list of federal should be added before program approval is granted; with this exception, activities and development projects because of their potential impact on however, the definition is one with which EPA is satisfied. Of particu- the coastal zone. lar note Is the inclusion of resources, Including air, water, wetlands, and recreation, In which there may be a national interest. The national Clarification is needed concerning the federal licenses tn d permits that interests In resource protection and coastal development can, In this are subject to the NJCMP's consistency provisions. The an uage preceding way, be more fully analyzed. the list of licenses and permits (p. 188) appears to suggest that only those activities which must also obtain a state permit are to be subject to con- The NJCMP must provide, however, that the siting of nat ional facilities sfstency. Such an approach would be neither in keeping with the require- cannot be balanced against the national interest In meeting air and water ments of the CZMA, nor most protective of coastal air and water quality. quality requirements established pursuant to the CAA and tWA. Accordingly, EPA requests that the NJCMP state unambiguously that a federally licensed or permitted activity may be subject to consistency While the NJCMP seems to have reached a happy medium concerning the whether or not it requires a state permit. Consistency Is Intended to definition of the national interest, it has, unfortunately failed to supplement, and not merely echo the internal authorities available to provide for the adequate consideration of this interest in the planning protect a state's coastal zone. The EPA would also like to note a for and siting of facilities which are necessary to meet requirements significant omission in the NJCMP list of federal licenses and permits that are other than local In nature. The NJCMP states that the "CAFRA subject to consistency -- those licenses Issued by the Iuclear Regulatory permit procedure will serve as the process for assuring continued sCommission for the construction and operation of nuclear power plants. consideration of planning for and siting of facilities which may be in the national interes*t.". 1p 771) Despite contentions to the contrJarey, noThe EPA seeks clarification of the Intended geographic scope of the NJCMP's two of the five categories of facilities described In the NJCMP are not consistency provisions. While we fully support the proposition that required to obtain a CAFRA permit -- national defense and recreation. effective protection of coastal resources cannot be limited to only those Nor is a CAFRA permit required when one of the defined resources will be activities occurring within the state's defined coastal zone, some dis- significantly affected, unless the proposed facility is on the restricted cernible criteria must be provided so that federal agencies and applicants list of CAFRA facilities, Thus, the JCIP providltes no opportunity to for federal licenses will be on notice as to whether a particular activity consider the defined national interests in regard to these faclities or is subject to the federal consistency provisions. The NJCMP provides no to apply CLAM and the other coastal resource and development policies. such standard. The EPA considers this a serious program deficiency and one which must be remedied before the FEIS is issued. Finally, EPA requests an explanation for setting aside three facility types for which federal assistance Is provided to state and local governments -- 37 m II I- - - - im i - 11- - - - - m - - ' 13 14 chemical or petrochemical processing, transfer or storage; mineral extrac- is being encouraged do not have adequate authority to Implement the tion; and sewage treatment and disposal factors -- and subjecting them to program or, for other reasons, the segments fail to unify into a total the consistency provisions wherever in the state they may be located. (p. program. 191) While fully aware of the potential coastal impacts of the three facilities which have been singled out, and, in particular, the EPA The EPA also questions the DEIS's analysis of the Impacts of the coastal assisted sewage treatment and solid waste facl1ties, the reasons for policies on New Jersey's barrier Islands. Their limited carrying capacity such a broad expansion of the reach of consistency in regard to these and and their susceptibility to natural hazards are treated cightly. The no other activities are not apparent. No distinctions should be drawn OEIS's analysis of use policies ts also inadequate (p. 2 he OEIS unless an environmentally sound reason for this action can be presented mentions that these policies only apply to regulated uses (generally major In the NJCMP. development) and that other uses will still be subject to local land use decisions. While the DEIS mentions that "...residential or commercial The DEIS Itself developments that may not be detrimental Individually could well have cumulative impacts are not discussed in the iJCMP, the DEIS provides no The draft environmental impact statement (oEIS), in Its Summary of Environ- analysis of the effects of the program ignoring such a crucial component. mental Impacts, claims that approval of the NJCMP-Day and Ocean Shore As noted above, the OEIS does not analyze how the system suggested by the Segment will strengthen the Department of Environmental Protection's NJCMP will be any different in terms of regulating uses and leaving other regulation of activities in the segment's coastal zone and thus, "will decisions to the local governments than the system that now exists. continue to minimize many of the detrimental environmental effects asscontinue to minimize many of theh coastal deve trlop ment and wil h ave a positive long-range tSimilarly, the cumulative impacts of sub-threshold housing decisions are associated with coastal development and wtll have a positive long-range not adequately discussed (p. 210). The DEIS mentions that problems such iatnth routiiyf tuarsure." )This DEIS not adequately discussed (p. 21O). The gEIS mentions that problems such Impact on the productivity of natural resources." (p. 201) This DEIS as uncontrolled sprawl with its attendent Impacts, can occur. The DEIS fails to point out, however, what difference approval of the NJCMP really states that the local governments must bear the major responsibility for means to DEP. The basic programs relied upon -- CAFRA and those for ensuring that these adverse impacts do not occur as a result of their wetlands and riparian lands -- will not be altered by program approval, decision (p. 210), but does not analyze either the means the NJCMP pro- vides local governments for doing this or the effectiveness of those means. The gEIS also does not adequately discuss the tradeoffs and impacts involved in the general policy of concentrating development. While this The EPA Is concerned that the OEIS does not analyze the draft memorandum policy may have many positive effects, because it is one of the major of understanding between the DEP and DOE, particularly how DOE (in its foundations of the plan, the DEIS should examine its implications in allocation of CEIP funds) will be consistent with the coastal progarm and more detail. In particular, the impacts of this policy on areas with thus the attainment and maintenance of air and water quality standards. existing air and water quality problems should be explored. For example, while EPA agrees with the DEIS's statement that the impacts of water The EPA finds that the potential Impacts of adjacent activities which may runoff from roads and parking lots, disposal of dredge spoil, air quality affect the coastal zone are not analyzed. The adequacy of the system to degradation and local costs for wastewater treatment facilities can be cope with these stresses should be covered in the FEIS. reduced by concentrating recreational activities in already developed areas, this is not necessarily true if the already developed areas The EPA is concerned that the DEIS has not addressed the impacts of the are having trouble attaining or maintaining air and water quality state's federal consistency and national interest provisions and how standards. The policy also does not insure that a variety of recre- state agencies outside of DEP (including DOE) will be legally bound by ational experiences is preserved. the coastal policies. These oversights should be thoroughly examined Similarly, the DEIS does not discuss the impacts and tradeoffs involved in the FES. in encouraging industrial (including energy) growth into the other seg- The EPA finds the discussion of alternatives generally adequate with one ments of New Jersey's Coastal Zone. Again, while EPA recognizes that exception. We urge that the effects of 305 1/2 funding on the NJCMP Day there may be many positive benefits of such a policy, these have not and Ocean Shore Segment s efforts to improve ther rogram be analyzed been analyzed in the DEIS. While the DEIS's finding (p. 203) that the and Ocean Shore Segment's efforts to improve their program be analyzed policy of requiring most large scale energy facilities and heavy indus- separately. trial uses to locate in other areas will "conserve and protect the key renewable natural resources and recreational amenities..." of this segment, an analysis of the impacts of this reallocation of impacts on New Jersey's other renewable resources and recreational amenities is left unexplored. The DEIS also does not analyze the impacts of segmen- tation, particularly what may happen if the other segments where growth 3.. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Comments by WAS4,,Notro, o.c. 2oZ26 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Staff On the Proposed June 19, 1978 New Jersey Coastal Hanagement Program Bay and Ocean ore Sement) and Draft EnvironmentS-Impact Statement Mr. Robert W. Knecht Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management Agency Name Clarification National Oceanic and Atmospheric /Administration The Federal Power Coammission (FPC) became the Federal 3300 Whitenhaven Street, N. W. Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) when the U. S. Department 3ashington, D. C. Z0t35 of Energy (DOE) was activated on October 1, 1977. FERC and DOE should be identified separately. The Federal Energy Dear MFr. Knecht: Regulatory Commission is considered an "arm of Congress" and retains nearly all of the vested responsibilities previously Transmitted herewith are the ederal Energy Regulatory dministere th e FPC, hence it designation as an independent Commission (FERC's) staff comments on the proposed New The specific responsibilities regulatory commission within DOE. The specific responsibilities Jersey Coastal Management Program -- Bay and Octn Shore administered by FERC that are applicable to the NJCMIP-BOSS are Segment (NJCMP-IOSS) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement identified later under the heading of Federal Consistency. (BEIS). The Commission has been referred to in the report by the These comments address several topics and are intended following names: FPC on page 178, former FPC on page 181, to aid in further development of the NJCMP-BOSS. . FERC (former FPC) within the DOE on page 181, and formerly FPC under the heading of DOE on page 241. le suggest use of the While New Jersey has made a conscientious beginning tern FERC (formerly FPC) in pale 241. We suggest use of the in the development of the NJCMIP-BOSS to produce a well- balanced and reasonable program, we find the policy on LNG The report uses the names of New Jersey Department of siting to be unacceptable. In addition, more attention Energy, U. S. Department of Energy and the Department of needs to be given to agency name clarification, maps, Energy. The Department of Energy refers to he r New Jersey national interest, and Federal consistency. Department of Energy refers to eitheor example, page 1 9. ar Department of Energy (for e xample , Paoe 192) or U. S. Depart- We appreciate the opportunity to review the NJCMP-BOSS uses is needed. (for example, page 191 and OCZM-DEIS and look forward to reviewing the revised document. INJCIFI-BOSS Maps Sincerely, It is impossible to determine the precise CAFRA boundary shown on the maps of New Jersey Coastal Zone (see pages 14 and 258). As soon as these boundaries are official, a set of the U.S.G.S. annotated topographic maps should be sent to the ICarl U.,Shuster, Jr. Ph.D. FERC so that applications to the Commission can be reviewed for Carl N. Shuster, JrCoastal Zone Ph.D. determination of Federal consistency. Coordinator, Coastal Zone Management Affairs National Interest Enclosure In the revised regulations defining the national interest, cc: Honorable Charles Warren the OCZa requires States to consider several different facets of Mr. David Kinsey the coastal zone, including resource protection and recreation, as well as energy facility location. New Jersey's determination m ----- .... -2- that "resort/recreation uses shall have priority in the Bay and " Ocean Shore Segment over all other uses" is a Justifiable choice; Finally, the State says that LNG terminals are acceptable however, if national interest considerations are to be balanced, only at sites remote from population centers, contravening the State must insure also that appropriate and necessary energy its previous determination of the national interest in facility sites are not preempted. To support such determinations, recreational uses for this segment. If the appropriate the State should supply to Federal agencies, or as an appendix Federal agency (in this case, FERC) has fulfilled the require- to the final NJCMP-BOSS, the basic reports such as the Rutgers ments for LNG siting and safety suggested in the NJCIP-BOSS, then University study referenced on page 179 which reportedly any siting decisions should be made by that Federal agency. concludes that suitable sites for oil and gas facilities are The State should revise and clarify this section in order for available along the Raritan Bay and River. the program to be acceptable. Natural Gas Facilities Federal Consistency Use Policy 7.4.9 for Gas Processing Plants on page 144 On page 189 the information identified under the Depart- may increase coastal zone disruption rather than decrease it ment of Energy needs to be corrected. FERC is an independent as intended. While it is true that these plants may be regulatory commission; it does not speak for DOE, nor does excluded from the coastal zone with little detrimental effect, FERC expect DOE to speak for it in these matters. The State the policy of locating them "the maximum feasible distance from of New Jersey and applicants for licenses and permits will the shoreline" may not be appropriate. Once the OCS gas has been have to deal directly with FERC to minimize time constraints processed, the transmission of the same volume of gas requires in future coordination. Therefore, the following should be far less pipeline capacity. Therefore, a plant's increased inland identified: distance, as promoted by this policy, will result in a greater environmental disruption due to pipeline construction than would FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION occur with a processing plant closer to the coast. In addition, a location nearer the coast would minimize the costs of con- Licenses required for non-Federal hydro- structing chemical and salt water return lines. Further electric projects and associated trans- information on this subject is available in the New England mission lines under Section 4(e) of the River Basins Commission s Factbook: Onshore Facilities Related Federal Power Act (16 USC 797(e)). To Offshore Oil and Gas Development, November, 1916. Certificates required for the construction The State's policy on liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility and operation of natural gas pipeline siting is unacceptable. Coastal management programs obviously facilities, defined to include both inter- were not intended to be a vehicle to circumvent Federal state pipeline and terminal facilities under agency rulemaking processes, as New Jersey is attempting to do. Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. The May 1976 petition to the Federal Power Commission by the 717f(c)) State of New Jersey (Delaware, New York, and Pennsylvania) for the issuance of siting criteria (RM76-13) is still under The permission and approval required for the consideration by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Any abandonment of natural gas pipeline facilities decisions to be made on this petition will not be influenced under Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act by Use Policy 7.4.14(c) of the NJCMP-BOSS. Therefore, (15 U.S.C. 717f(b)). this policy statement should be reconsidered. Two other requirements are also established under Use Policy 7.4.14. These requirements are similar to those established by California under the original Section 30261(b) of the Cali- fornia Coastal Act, and to which we previously objected. The State has not established who will determine when "(a) rigorous and consistent siting criteria are established," and "(b) the risks inherent in tankering . . . and transferring LNG onshore have been sufficiently analyzed and minimized." We maintain that these requirements have been fulfilled by the Federal * Energy Regulatory Commission, most recently by our siting and safety analyses of the Point Conception, California, LNG terminal as proposed in FERC Docket No. CP75-83-2. 40 Atlantic County - ~~~~~~EXECUTIVE OFFICES DE~A~ NT OF THEI AIR FORCE toI. IflSO FM10 O"InS too 31a S. 31 '50K0 511111. CT.. RI. 618,515 SU~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tS ~~~~741 hUA ...TtE T"U"T NUILMOI jut 57 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C#IAfLES 0. WORTI4INOTON. RECeU,,ghI~~I18,C pROVI JIV.Ov "Atot I'V ,VICES 27 June 1978 June 16, 1978 .... ew .Jeraey Coastal Management Program, Day and Ocean Shore Segment and Draft Environmental impact statement State of Now Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Divisiton of Harine Services Mr. David Kinsey P. 0. Bx 1889 N.J. Office of Coastal Zone Management ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Trenton, N.J 08625 P lx18 1. We have completed nour rev-law of the subject document and offer Tetn 13 82 the following coaments: Dear David: a. Page 13, Inland Boundary - Blay mid Ocean Shore Segment. Enclosed are coesments prepared by my offVice and the County Division of Plan- The definition of new Jersey's Coastal Zone Boundary should be ning, regarding Niew Jersey's Coastal Mlanagement Program, Day and Ocean Shore amended to indicate that federally owned or controlled lands are Segment. excluded (federal Coasatal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, section 304 (1)). If you have any further questions or cossents, please do not hesitate to con- b. Page 186, Federal Consistency. The New Jersey Coastal t c eo eeEyo u onyPann iiin Management Program should specifically state that federal agenciem make consistency Oetetminattons. As written, tide is an implied Sincerely, action for federal agencies. c. Page 187, Federal Activities and Development Projects. In ~I the firat sentence Of this aection, after the wording "New Jersey ClIARME U. WORTHINIGTON Department of Environmental protection` add the following, "through County Executive the A-95 clearinghouse review process." in accordance with the final published OC7.11 regulations concerning federal consistency, a federal agency may provide Information In any manner It chooses. cdw.Ic Section 930.34, Federal Agency Consistency Determination, Federal Register, 13 Mlarch 1978, "The Federal agency way provide the state agency with this Information in any manner It changes so long an enclosure the requirements of this subpart are satisfied." The Air Force supports the Department of Defense position that the A-95 protege be utilized for consistency notification. 2. Please contact Major Walter L.. Cray at 404-221-6776 If you Isave ,1 2io~o cern ng otI Ur comments. ROBERT L. WONG Cy to, ADC/DrV Chief, Environmental Planning Division MAC/Dy~t uGI3/DEv - - 41 ' - - - -~~~~~~~~~~~4 -2- COMMENTS BY ATLANTIC COUNTY EXECUTIVE CHARLES D. WORTMINGTON approvals. While this criticism has been answered fairly well by the Location, on Use and Resource Policies of the Coastal Management Program, there remain areas NEW JERSEY'S COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMW BAY 6 OCEAN SIlORE SEGMENT of vagueness with regard to some of the policy statements in the management pro- gram. Without going into unnecessary detail, we would like to site some specific Atlantic County would like to take this opportunity to thank the Depart- instances of the vagueness to which we refer. ment of Environmental Protection for the chance to comment on its proposed Coas- POLICY STATEMENTS NEED FURTIIER CLARIFICATION tal Management Program. We are particularly appreciative of the financial sup- 1. On page 133, housing policy 7.2.5, which dents with harrier-free design port awarded to coastal counties by the DEP which, in part, has enabled us to states "development of more than 250 units without barrier-free design in devote the valuable time of our planning staff to review the Coastal Management some of the units prohibited ...". A policy to require barrier-free design Program and offer our comments. in housing developments should be able to indicate to developers how many We hope that this financial support will be continued in the future so that units should be equipped with barrier-free design. A developer should be the productive State-County cooperative relationship that has been developed may able to include these standards from the initial planning stages of his de- be maintained. In fact, we would like to suggest here that provisions be made in velopment so that last minute changes will not cause delays and drive up the Coastal Management Program to permanently establish County Gffices for Coastal costs unexpectedly. Zone Management. These offices could perform the following functions: 2. On page 134, housing policy 7.2.6 which deals with housing anrd public 1. Encourage and stimulate public participation transit states "the development of housing at locations and densltiles that 2. Advise municipalities on pending applications for permits under the contribute to public transit feasibility is encouraged". In order to demoul- Coastal Management Program strate what type of development will be encouraged, some specific criteria 3. Actively promote the adoption of local development ordinances which are consistent with the policies of the Coastal Management Program which outline what densities and locations contribute to mass transit oppor- 4. Serve as local watch dog to ensure that developments which require tunities should be included. state permits are following the procedural requirements for permit applications 3. On page 134, housing policy 7.2.8 which deals with the conditional accep- 5. Perform preliminary review functions including the pre-application tability of high-rise structures lists the following two conditions! conference 1) high rise structures must be separated from coastal water by at The Department of Environmental Protection is to be commended for the work least one public road or an equivalent park distancet that has gone into its Coastal Management Program. Coastal zone management in 2) high rise structures must not have an adverse Impact on traffic and air quality. New Jersey has come a long way since the Interim Density and Land Use Guidelines Is the Boardwalk considered a public road ill this case? What is meant for the Coastal Zone. however, as with many things that have come far, there is by "an equivalent park distance"? What are the standards for judgllqg when still a way to go with some aspects of the Coastal Management Program. an impact, particularly with respect to traffic, becomes adverse? Past criticism of DEP's administration of the Coastal Area Facilities Review 4. On page 142, energy policy 7.4.7 which addresses pipelines and associated Act has centered on the arbitrariness of decision-making with respect to permit -4- -3- "An exception may be made for limited areas near Atlantlc City to serve facilities, lists several conditions which such facilities must meet to as onshore bases for oil and gas exploratin and development of outer be acceptable. Included is the followings continental shelf resources." "Ancillary facilities shall be protected by adequate visual, sound If you are planning to allow support base development ill Ahsecon Inlet, we and vegetative buffer areas". would appreciate your coming out and saying so directly in a policy statement, What are the standards against which the visual and sound barriers shall not in a backhand comment in a discussion of other issues. Atlantic County's be evaluated for their adequacy? position has been that some limited opportunities do exist for onshore support 5. On page 144, energy policy 7.4.9 which deals with gas processing plants, activity to locate in the county. Ilowever, there are no opportunities for a "Gas processing plants shall be located the maximum feasible distance full-scale support base operation which do not Involve the use of wetlands or from shoreline". dredging of channels to some degree. We would appreciate knowing on what basis Who will determine what the "maximum feasible distance" is? We would like exceptions will be made to allow support bases il Atlantic City. to strongly recommend that someone at DEP should be developing a capability We would like to acknowledge at this point that efforts to increase tihe to determine, independently of oil company advice or judgment, what these level of detail of standards in the policies sections are being planned, including distances are. a major Estuarine Study and Development Potential Study. We want to go on record 6. On page 148, public facility policy 7.5.11 states the following! as supporting these efforts, as well as suggesting the need for one area of lur- "Waste water treatment systems that recharge the groundwater with highly ther study. treated effluents are encouraged, provided that consistently high quality At several points in the Coastal Management rrogram document, the point is effluents and acceptable recharge techniques are demonstrated". made that recreation-oriented uses of the coastal zone will he given priority be- Does the phrase "highly treated effluents" refer to a specific level or type cause of the importance of the tourist industry to the state's economy. We feel of sewage treatment and if so, what is it? The standards for defining what that it's very important that the economic impact of tourism be quantified ill a qualifies as "consistently high quality effluent" and "acceptable recharge study of New Jersey's tourist industry. We feel this is particularly important techniques" should be spelled out as well. when it comes to evaluating alternative uses of the coastal zone, such as float- 7. Finally, and probably most important from Atlantic County's perspective, ing nuclear plants and offshore oil for their economic impact. DEP needs to clarify its stance with respect to onshore support bases in having commented on the need to clarity some of your policy statements, we Atlantic City. On page 140 in the Use policies section, it is stated rather would like to point out some policies which we feel need to be changed: explicitly that support bases belong in the urban waterfront which is already QUESTIONABLE POLICY STATEMENTS industrialized. Atlantic City is singled out as an example of where support 1. On page 135, policy 7.3.2 which deals with recreation/resort uses says bases should not be located. However, on page 204 in the discussion of the the following, "nRecreation areas shall be incorporated in the design of probable impacts of the Coastal Management Program, you make the following residential and industrial development to the maximum pract:icable". statement: 43 III~~ m II rrl qngre indr-5 dpa y i r - We question the wisdom of and the need for mixing recreation and industrial.- to pay for such desired public amenities should be developed to avoid imposing development. It seems to us that almost any recreational experience would be dim- unfair burdens on homeowners which drive up the cost of housing and put home inished greatly by its proximity to industrial development. Is the recreational ownership out of reach of many, if not tile majority of New Jersey residents. need so critical that such incompatible uses must be combined? We think not. 4. Another issue that is broughtup in Part III, Probable Impacts of the 2. On page 139, the General Energy Facility Siting Policy states: "energy Proposed Action on the Environment, is that of the cumulative impact of a number facilities will be approved only after review by DEP and the New Jersey te- of small projects which are not subject to the policies and regulations of the partment of Energy, to insure the protection of both the built and natural Coastal Management Program. Quite correctly, you point out that these impacts environment of the coast and public health, safety and welfare, to the max- could be as great or greater than that of one large project. Very recent events imimn extent feasible." have pointed out that developers are finding ways to avoid coastal regulations by' While the use of the maximum extent feasible proviso is understandable in developing several smaller projects instead of one large project. It goes without legal context in most cases, it is totally inappropriate here. Your policy state- saying that there exists a need for administrative mechanisms to close these loop- ment says that if the lives of 100 people {any number for that matter) came out holes. In the meantime however, while these mechanisms are being developed, we on the short end of a cost-benefit analysis that would be acceptable. We would would like to strongly recommend that DEP-OCZM adopt a posture of actively lobby- hope that public health, safety and welfare are protected to the maximum extent ing with municipalities where this type of development is taking place to ensure possible in New Jersey. that local planners are aware of and consider tile cumullative impacts of several 3. On page 147, public facility policy 7.5.5 states "Construction of bicycle small-scale projects. and footpaths in residential projects is required." LOCATION POLICIES Requiring bike paths and footpaths in all residential developments is not For our final comments on the Coastal Management Program, we would like to fair to home buyers. A home-owner in a 25-unit development is going to pay pro- return to the policies section of the document, in this case tile location poli- portionately more than one in a larger development the same or perhaps less cies. The Coastal Location Acceptability Method (CLAM) is, for the most part, amenity la bike path in a 25-unit development is going to be relatively uninter- a well-developed, relatively easily understood methodology for evaluating the eating). Perhaps contributing to a community fund for recreation/open space developability of coastal zone locations. We do, however, take exception to could be an acceptable alternative where btkeways are impractical. the use of one variable in the equation which determines land acceptability. Related to this issue of funding public improvements is the cost of regula- The Regional Growth Potential Factor, which classifies the coastal zone tion and who pays for it. This issue is inadequately addressed in the section into Growth Areas and Limited Growth Areas, is particularly inappropriate for on probable impacts of the proposed action. For example, the requirement to pro- the situation facing Atlantic County today. The use of historic development vide barrier-free design imposes an additional expense on the homeowners of that trends to identify where higher-density development sholild occur may be satis- development. why should a particular group of homeowners be singled out to bear the burden of providing a desired public amenity? A community-wide mechanism 44 factory in areas where development pressures have been relatively consistent groups, and public agencies about the use of coastal resturces. we also through the years, but Atlantic County is unique in that its economic outlook heartily endorse DEP'S decision to develop a flexible planning methodology for was literally altered overnight. decision-nmaking rather than attempting a conventional land uase plan-type docu- Further, the areas that have been identified as Growth Areas in Atlantic ment which designates in zoning-like fashipn specific places for specific land County: Absecon, Linwood, Northfield, Pleasantville and Somers Point, are almost uses. completely developed. What vacant land remains is broken up in small parcels In today's rapidly changing and multi-faceted coanstal zone environment, scattered throughout existing development and thus not easily adapted to accomo- a flexible decision-making tool is a necessity for dealing with land use issues. dating higher densities. Perhaps some of our criticism is, In fact, the result of our inexperience In Based on the amount of vacant land available in these communities, they would dealing with such a planning strategy. Regardless of the basis for our comninnts. be able to accommodate only a small portion of the population growth that we have we wish to state for the record that we support DEP's basic concept of coastal projected as a result of casino gambling. There is an urgent need to accommodate zone management, and we want to encourage the Secretary of Commerce to grant ex- development in other municipalities in the County. Por these reasons, we strongly peditious approval of New Jersey's Coastal Management Program for the say and recommend that the portion of Egg Harbor Township in the coastal zone, particularly Ocean Shore Segment. the area known as West Atlantic City, bordering the Black Ilorse Pike, be desig- We look forward to continuing the close and productive working rolationship nated a Growth Area under the Coastal Management Program. We would also strongly that we've had for the past two years with DEP's office of Coastal Zone Management. recommend that the eastern portion of Galloway Township, which is serviced along Pitney Road by a trunk sewer line as part of the coastal region sewer system, be designated a Growth Area. With the growth pressures facing Atlantic County, it is incumbent that higher densities he encouraged throughout the County so that open spaces and agricultural lands may be preserved. We hope that DRP-OCZM recongizes these growth pressures, and accepts our recommendations in these matters. CONCLUSION In conclusion, despite the largely negative comments in this statement, DEP must be congratulated for the work that has gone into its Coastal Management Program. This document is a large step forward from past efforts towards its stated aim of providing information in understandable terms to citizens, interest 45 -~~~~~ - m - -liI � l I. Introduction This report contains the results of Camden County's review of the Office of Coastal Zone Management's planning documents. This report was prepared by the consultant, following 1-i review of the documents, In eddition to reviews by the staff of the Camden County Envircrmental Agency. Three docume.nts were covered in this review: (1) Coastal Mannnement Strategy for. New Jersey CAFHA Area, September 19j1, (2) Nojminnted Areas of I'ublic Concern in the New Jersey Conastal Zo'nc, Decemberi1'(, nnd 13) New Report on the Coastal Manngremsnt Pro.ram Jersey Coastal MlnnrPement ['rorsnm Bay and Segment asnd Draft Environmental minct StaLement, flay 19Yd trelerred to hereafter Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and Related as the bay end Ocean Serment). Because of the cumulative nature of the U(ZM's planning process and likely regulatory Documents: Task 1.0 State/County Coastal status of portions of the latter document, our review has concentrated on its contents. Coordination Project Several words of caution are appropriate. This report contains only the comments of the consultant and staff of the Environmental Agency. We are sharing this report with municipal officials and other persons in Camden County interested in or potentially affected by coastal zone planning. During the next several months we will meet Prepared by William O, lengat, Consultant to with these officials and persons to discuss the proposed coastal zone program in Camden County. Given the widespread The Camden County Environmental Agency distribution of the Bay and Ocean Senment to municipalities, an interested person or official may generate comments on these planning documents, independent of the public participation process initiated by the Camden County June 30, 1978 Environmental Agency. This report is organized into two sections. The first section contains comments on the Bay and Ocean Segment, beginning first with some general procedural questions, followed next by questions on the substance of this document, and concluding with comments which resulted from applying the CLAM technique to an actual site in Camden County. The second section contains a discussion of the applicability of the policies in the Bay and Ocean Segment to a coastal zone program in Camden County. 'I'lli discussion is preliminary. It includes conusents in response to policies recently proposed by Hudson County. The Hudson County proposal constitutes the first attempt by a non- CAFRA county to adapt the policies in the Boy and Ocean Segment to 9 more urbanized environment. Tlhle lHudson County proposal therefore is of interest to Camden County. Two questions are of primary interest to local reviewers of the OCZM's planning documents: What will be affected? i.e. the policies and rqeulntionn proposed for the coastal zone. lhere will those policies take effect? Most of this report responds to the first question. The second question raises the issue of boundaries. Our 46 2- comments regarding boundaries are contained in the first section of the report, In response to the material on as well as under municipal and county lannd use reculations. boundaries contained in the Bay and Ocean Segment. We Will denial or divfLopment approval by either levol of have not begun a detailed analysis of the boundary for government prevent proceding with the project? Or, will Camden County as we have not received from the OCZM either of these approvals take precedence over the other? either a mup or a description of its proposed boundnry. The standards to be assigned to proposed developments, rsnging We anticipate receiving such information shortly and focusing from prohibited to encouraged, could imply a state over-ride on boundary issues as we analyze municipal plans and land of local decisions. Answers to these questions are basic use regulations for their consistency with the proposed to the implementation of the proposed policies. We recommend coastal policies. We would anticipate that as this work that language be inserted in the document prior to progresses and as we interface more with officials and Chapter Three which clarifies these kinds of procedural interested persons, the boundary question will become issues. clear. Two further procedural questions arise with respect to CLAM: (1) Within the special water areas, supposing more II. Comments on the Bay and Ocean Segment than one special water area condition occurs in the same area, how does OCZM propose to resolve conflicting standards? 1. The Earlier Planning Documents Would development encouraged in an area with shipwrecks take precedence over the determination that development in the We have no questions or substantive comments same area ought to be discouraged due to submerged vegetation? regarding the two planning documents published earlier (2) What types of commercial development activity are by the OCZM (i.e. Coastal Mansaement Strategy for New Intended to be covered under the development potential Jersey CAFRA Area and Nominated Areas of Public Concern criteria (pp. 91-92)? CAPhA applies primarily to industrial in the New Jersey Coastal Zone), facilities. The document appears to be silent as to the kind and scale of commercial development to be governed by the The second document lists the water areas, tidal development potential factors. wetlands, shore, and woodlands along the five principal rivers and streams of Camden County (Delaware River, Pennsauken Creek, Cooper River, Newton Creek, and Big 3. Substantive Questions and Itecommendations Timber Creek). These areas were nominated by the Camden Regarding the Bay and Ocean Segment Document County Environmental Agency and Mr. James T. Johnson for preservation. This designation seems to have served Substantive conments on the document follow, no other purpose than to bring to the OCZfMs attention organized according to the page on which the item discussed local concerns for certain areas. The main goal of the appears in the document. OCZM's coastal planning effort in Camden County should be to determine how the preservation of these areas will page 21! The term encouraged, what will be the procedural ensured through the policies of New Jersey's coastal zone dirTrence between a determination by OCZM that the develop- management program. We consider the basic task of the ment should be encouraged as opposed to acceptable? The State/County Coastal Coordination Project in Camden County definition of encouraged seems to imply that projects with to make more explicit the policies and limitations which "certain extra desirable characteristics" might be judgcd will guide the attainment of this goal. encouraged when they contain some features which otherwise would make it less than acceptable. liTe implication is that 2. Procedural Questions and Recommendations projects with extra desirable characteristics will be Regarding the Buy and Ocean Serment Document balanced against their less desirable features. Althougl. not stated, this latitude for interpretation is implied; the Several procedural questions regarding the application definitions here noed to be tightened to indicate how of the policies and standards contained in this document tradeoffs would occur. need clarification. Will the Coastal Resource and Development Policies (Chapter Three of the document) replace the re- page 321 We commend the policies for surf clam areas quirements for an environmental impact statement, as because they might orohibit development which would result descrited under Sections 6 and 7 of the Coastal Area Facility in the condemnation of surf clain stocks. Perhaps the adoption Review Act(hereafter referred to as CAFRA)? We assume of this policy wilt prevent the placement of a sewerage that an applicant, seeking permission to develop within the outrall along the Atlantic Ocean, such as that completed coastal zone, must obtain approval both under OCZMIs policies by the Atlantic County Sewerage Authority resulting in the condemnation of contiguous surf clam beds. m m ~~~~~~~~ m - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rn -~~~~~1 m �I m -11111111 mII mIIIII - - page 34: Why not restrict development which restricts rownsTream movement within finrish migratory pathways? occurred, might this not cause a redefinition of the The policies for finfish migratory pathways should be water's edge? Could the house be replaced at the same expended to cover temporary construction or disturbances location if the former location now was defined as 9 during migratory periods. Dredging activities, for example, more restricted area? should not be allowed during these periods. pae eB: More precise definitions of the floodway and page 35: When will DEP complete its additional surveys of flood hazard aren are'needed. Until the DEP comnletes its submerged vegetation? In the interim, we feel that requiring program for delineating all streams in the state, we are all applicants to sunrvey this resource may be asking too unclear how working definitions of these areas are determined. much of all applicnnts. OCZM should require surveys only Are the flood areas defined by U.S. HUD for flood insurance by applicants whoreo rojects affect water areas known or to be followed? How are different limits as defined by HUI) and suspected by DEP to, contain submerged vegetation. Given the Corps of Engineers resolved? What is the difference the current inforrrntion gap for this special water area, between flood hazard areas and flood prone areas? Both we feel the policy, as written, places an undue burden terms are used in the text. on applicants. If this policy is included in the non- CAFRA counties, OCZH should expedite its additional surveys. page 61I How is development that adversely affects prime lorest areas defined? To what extent and at what limits will page 36: The standlard of "suitable" for the reuse of off-site impacts be included? Are there not other prime dredge spoils is insufficient. What criterion will be forest areas besides white cedar stands which ought to used to define suitability? be included in the prime forest category? page 37: Are dredging activities prohibited in areas of page 62: The buffer area to ensure continued survival of shipwrecks? Perhaps the concept of a buffer surrounding endangered or threatened species needs a better definition. shipwrecks should be employed so activities such as dredging A buffer to maintain the wintering, breeding, and can occur in their vicinity yet at a safe distance so as migrating of wildlife could be extensive. We recommend that not disturb this underwater feature. the OCZM consider a stronger policy which would prohibit development disturbing the nesting areas of rare and endangered age 45: We have these questions regarding the Water fauna and the habitats for rare and endangered flora. Acceptability Tables ({1) In the open bay, why is maintenance dredging in waters 180'+ depth impractical? (2) In the open spe_ 6k Under the policy for open space, we recommend bay, what is the reasoning for filling activity in waters that the OCZM consider that before development of additional 0' to 61 being conditionally acceptable, rather than disa- campgrounds is acceptable sufficient demand must be demonstrated couraged or prohibited? (3) The categories of water depths by the applicant. This requirement would be aimiliar to the used for the ocean and open bay might be redefined to include requirement for boat ramps on page 416 of the document. a fourth range (16' to ??') in order to distinguish between some activities which might be acceptable in relatively page 66: We recommend that the definition of bogs be deep waters as opposed to very deep waters. The 18'+ expanded to include their common vegetative chsracteristics; category seems tooinclusive. the definition, as written, is so inclusive that an abandoned gravel pit could qualify as a bog. papwe 5l: Why is development in high risk erosion areas which will contribute to further erosion discouraged instead page 67: We like the concept of buffers along stream of prohibited? How are areas that will erode in the mid- channels and stream heads, but would like clarification term future (less than 50 years) predicted? A reference to on the rationale for why the alternate definitions for the the source for prediction ought to he given. stream head and the stream channel buffers are set at 300' and 50' respectively. pae 53: Who will conduct the coat-benefit studies of the feaibiity end beneficiaries of shore stabilization ? What peg 69: We question the inclusion of Wetlands under kinds of information will be required? Is it reasonable to water'a edge areas instead of under special water's edge require this kind of study for all development proposed in areas. Inclusion in the latter, end hence under step 3 high risk erosion areas? of CLAM, would ensure a higher priority for preservation, in keeping with the policies of the Wetlnldl's Act. pave a5: What will be the statets policy on barrier islands after a reaidehtial structure is destroyed by page 72: The definition ofr the upper wntor's edge is a natural disaster? If changes in this coastal feature 48 - 6 - -7 - difficult to comprehend. as it appears in the text, because its variations are described in a series of phrases, under these criteria. We question inclusion of direct necess connected in one long sentence by the words 'either" and to n paved public road as a criterion for high potential "or." The definition should be clarified by simplifying development. the sentence structure. The same comment applies to the definition ofr the water's edge areas which appears on pnges 113 and 115d When portions of a site ,.ust be planted pages 68 and 69. Also on page 72, what is the rationale with vegetation in order to meet covernage requilrementl, we for a buffer or 50 as opposed to a buffer of hO4 or 75'? question limiting these planting materials to mature forest species. If the required percentage of forest does not rave 76: What is the rationale behind the alternate definition exist on the site, but there does exist natural vegetation for the inland limit or the retained water's edge as 1001? of other kinds (i.e. old fields or thickets), it would seem Just as beneficial, and perhaps more beneficial in some pgge 79s This comment pertains more to the policy in instances, to retain these areas of natural vegetation flood azard areas (p. 59). In our application of CLAM rather than to require the planting of native mature forest to a specific site in Camden Countyg, we found no specific species. The policy,as stated in the document,might cause policy which addressed land filling activity within flood the replacement of some natural areas with a single species hazard areas. The policy speaks to the dumping of solid of sapling-size trees. wastes within the delineated floodway but not to filling within the entire flood hazard area nor to other types pn 1 What is meant by the term flood prone area? Is of fill, such as clean fill. We question whether there ought this the same as the flood hazard area? not be a specific policy for filling activity in flood hazard areas due to the potential effect of this activity on the page 1111i: The confines of the Delaware River Port need floodwater-storage capacity of the overall floodplain. to be defined for purposes of the energy use policies. le interpret the policies for storage sites as permitting ~page_ We question the requirement that soil borings must their location inland from the coastal zone and ports ae onducted for all developments at the application stage. providing they do not contribute unacceptably to the The size of the parcel and intensity of the proposed degradation of air or water quality. development ought to be considered in determining which applications require soil borings. pnae 147: le question the requirement that bicycle and foot paths must be constructed in all residential projects. pnae 88: We question the sole emphasis on forested areas In some instances they may not be feasible or fit with for determining the vegetation index factor. Successional the development scheme or with surrounding development meadows provide greater benefits for wildlife habitation patterns. The chief concern should be to insure conformity than do forested areas, Other vegetated areas, such as so that the design of pathways relates to a sub-regional meadows, ought to be factored into the high and medium network for bicycle and pedestrian movement. index factor. pn e _1L6: Regarding mining, how is immediately adjacent page 90: It is unclear whether the infill criteria definedY What branch of the state government enforces apply only to high potential residential development or mining reclamation policies? to shopping, school, and marina development as well. We recommend that these criteria apply to all these uses. pn3e 1S3- Under runoff policy in intensive development areas, how are treatment facilities defined? The requirement page 91: We commented earlier, under procedural questions for separate treatment of storm water runoff, where on-site and recommendations, on the uncertainty regarding the kind retention ponds are not feasible, is very stringent. We and scale of commercial development to be governed by CLAM. commend OCZM's intent but suggest that further clarification Here for instance, if commercial uses ranging from a 5,000 of tile level of treatment is needed in order to indicate square foot neighborhood store to a 250,000 square foot compliance requirements. Further guidance as to effluent shopping center are covered, the criteria should vary standards under item (e) is needed. for different scales of development. A neighborhood store, for example, does not need to be near a highwey intersection. 1pagi What will constitute unacceptable groundwater page 93: Are campgrounds of all sizes to be included? We question wihether a backpacking campground should be included ag 156- Among thie new vegetative plantings to be used in the inner coastal or southern outer constal plains, we believe that two of the recommended species are not Indigenous. Therefore, we recommend the following chnlcs: the gray birch -8- - e 2,10.. It is acknowledged here that the proposed instead of the white birch, deletion of the eastern 2!& it f rcknowledged here that Ule proposel Instead Of the whikte birch, deletiOr the eastern coastal zone policies will limit the number of new housing hemlock. units constructed in the coastal area oand thereby will' We recommend that the policy regarding public ncrease the price of housing." The text contintues: "This ervic We recommend that the policy regarding public cost should be offset by the policy encouraging construction servicee be expended to make it clear that applicants must not only demonstrate through agreements that additional te trade-off seems naive end inaccurate. Althousses te demands for services can be met, but that prior to obtaining the t proposes to naco e" lo and moertehough the such agreements the applicant has estimated what the housing develooments which contribute to a municipality's additional demands will be. This is an essential step additional dcmsnds will be. This is anr essential step fair share, this alone does not ensure that this housing prior to obtaining agreements which should be spelled out fair share , this Costs or this houlng probably will increase in the document to preclude the making of agreements based also due to coastal zone policies. The provision of low upon insufficient information. This kind or information, and moderate income housing ill continu t o depend upon in effect, is part of the secondary impact analysis which special state and federal financing progrnms. The OCZMps the applicant must perform. See comments below. housing policies, as now written, contain no provisions to contribute materially to the supply of low and moderate PaMo 19t Regarding the policy for scenic resources and income housing. On what basis does the OCZM Justify its design, we recognize the difficulty of defining visual conclusion? compatibility beyond the categories of scale, height, materials, etcetera. We recommend the inclusion of It might be valid If the state altered the policies and additional language in the document to better define what simplified the processing requirements for low and moderate OCZM intends by visual compatibility, thereby removing income housing developments in the coastal zone to reduce the enforcement of this policy solely on the basis of their attendant costs, In the absence of this or some subjective, individual taste, other modification to its housing policies, this conclusion appears to be invalid. pai 159-o601 The policy regarding secondary impacts lacks iitfficiimt Fdtaiel to guide the applicant and insure that pe 2 Clarification regarding which municipalities the intent 6f measuring and mitigating against secondary in uamden County lie within the preliminary proposed impacts is protected. This section should be expanded to coastal zone boundary has awaited the receipt of more indicate what types of rf-site impacts must be addressed detailed maps from the OCZM. Rased upon an analysis of by the applicant. The ..:ZM might consult the document OCZ11's maps of the proposed boundary, received just prior Secondary Impact of Regional Sewerage Systems, Volume I, to completing this report, the following corrections should Uuno 1975, prepared by the New Jersey Department of Community be made to the list of municipalities on this page of the Afrairs, for further guidance. document. e 160: The policy on buffers and compatibility seems Deleted: Audubon Park Borough 1a-oconfuse the responsibilities which rest with municipalities, Onkly" Borough through their land use regulations, with the state's interest Addedm Audubon Borough in ensuring that development in the coastal zone is compatible Camde Audubon City with the coastal ecosystem. Use of buffering requirements Mdenolin Borouit gh under these policies to ensure that incompatible uses are more harmonious seems to extend beyond the state's concerns. Buffering requirements should be designed to ensure that different areas of the coastal ecosystem are not harmed by the development of adjacent land. parie 162: The policy for neighborhoods and special communities is too broad and might be used to prevent desired development in the coastal zone, This policy might be invoked to prevent the development of low- and moderate- intcome housing in a particular ethnic neighborhood through the argument that such development would affect the neighbor- hood adversely. He recommend this policy either be excluded from the document or that it be rephrased. Communities with unique historical, as opposed to ethnic, characeteristics might be encouraged as areas to be preserved. 50 4. Analysis of the Coastal Location Acceptability Mtep 21 Water Areas Method, CLAM In order to become more familiar with the Coastal Nater use proposed by the Vlnelnnd Corpanyrincldes Location Acceptability Method(CLAM hereafter) and its ng activity of a small portion o upstrcam course suitability to Camden County, a specific development proposal Or s smnel creek. N.B.- This creek does not nrpenr on the along the Delaware River was analyzed, using CLAM. U.S. Ueolorien Survey mnps but does pper o n 197 11 aer ehotogrnph used in the analysis. Aceordtng to the linter A short summary of this analysis and the results follow. Acceptability Table nnd policy description on pope hR of ~~~~~~~~~~~~A. The Site ~the document, this activity is prohibited. The site lies in Pennsauken Township, bounded roughly by Step 3: Special Water's Edge nd Lnnd Arens the Delaware River back channel and tidal flats River Road, Hone of the following special areas appeared to and the Penn Central right-of-way. It is owned by the Vine- be applicable to the site: land Construction Company, which uses a portion of the site for industrial activity and proposes to reclaim approximately high risk erosion areas 30 acres by landfilling with inert demolition-construction dunes waste. central barrier island corridor specimen trees The site was chosen for analysis because the Vine- prime forest areas land Company's proposal is current and descriptions and bogs maps of the proposal were available to the Environmental toga Agency. Application of CLAM to this particular site served The following four areas had relevance to the site and two purposes: (1) testing CLAM as part of task 1.0 of are discussed belows the State/County Coastal Coordination Project, and (2) flood hazard areas enabling the Environmental Agency to further its evaluation wildlife habitats of the suitability of the Vineland Company's proposal. steep slopes Assuming a Delaware River coastal zone is promulgated by stream head the state, in accordance with the preliminary proposed Most of the site lies within the 100-year flood plain, as boundary, this site would lie within the coastal zone. defined by tilhe Corps of Engineers. Since the development activity proposed For the site involves land rilling, this B. Anplication of CLAM: Description of the Findinrs might raise the future elevations of the site so as to be no longer within the flood plain. According to the policies Step t1 Special Water Areas for flood hazard areas the depositing of sold waste is prohibited. Wildlife habitats occur on-site in the Wetlands Secondary sources listed in Appendix I for shellfish areas along the tidal flats and off-site in the adjacent beds, surf clam areas, and primo fishing areas were not Fisherman's Cove. Along part of the eastern portion of the readily available. It was assumed that none of these special site steep slope conditions occur fronm the blurff supporting water areas would be found on site. The site itself extends the rail right-of-way downward to the site. As described into the Delaware River and includes a sizeable area of above, a small stream exists on-site. This raised the water. The recommended secondary source for finfish migratory question whether such a small tidal stream would be affected pathways was not readily available. Since the Delaware by the stream policies. Are these policies designed to River is known to receive fish migrntions, the possible cover small streams which occur on man-madc lands? incidence of a pathway within the water portion of the In this instance, the required buffers would extend beyond site was noted. Lacking special source data, the occurrence the actual drainage area. of submerged vegetation within the water portions of the site could not be determined. The navigation channel designated Step 4: Water's Edge in the Delaware River lies outside the site, since the site is east of Petty's Island. Two shipwrecks, identified The Wetlands along Fisherinn's Cove dofine tho lower as sites S2 and S3 in the environmental inventory of Camden water's edge there. No distinct edge occurs nlonea the nrea County prepnred by Jack McCormick e Associates, exist along of the Oite bounrded by the open watniers of the Irl]wnre River the eastern banks of the Delaware River in the vicinity of back channel. An upper water's edgae here was defined by tioe the site. According to nerial photographs examined, these 50( distance criterion. appear to be slightly downstream from the site. Designated marine sanctuaries were not npplicablo. - - - - 12 - 13 - Step 5: Land Areas or flood hazard areas. Depositing of solid waste is prohibited. If the state's definition orf waste The Soil Conservation Service has not mapped this includes "inert demolition/construction waste, then portion of Camden County, thus seriously limiting the the proposed activity would be prohibited on most of information necessary for this portion of the CLAM procedure, the site. We therefore did not have data for depth to seasonal high water table, soil permiability, and soil fertility. We Conclusion could construct a vegetation index based upon the aerial photograph and knowledge of surface conditions of the site. Application cf CLAM to this particular site yielded A strip of high vegetation was identified along the back incomplete results largely due to the fact that tle policies channel and along the cove. Medium vegetation characterizes are silent regarding land filling within the flood plain. the remainder of the site. ((ee comments on page 6 of this report.) Under the commercial and industrial development criteria, the site meets all criteria for high development III. Coastal Zone Policies for Camden County: Preliminary potential. The site lies within the regional growth area. Considerations Step 6: Composite Map The comments in this section relate to policies for a coastal zone program along the Delaware River and related We constructed a land factor composite map. In tributaries in Camden County. These comments constitute order to do this we made several assumptions regarding the a further response to the contents of the By and Ocean soils conditions. We assumed low soil fertility and medium Segment end to the contents of the draft coastal management permliability for the entire site because most of the land strategy prepared by Hudson County. These comments constitute area is composed of former dredge spoils materials. We a response to these two documents by the consultant and do assumed wet terrace conditions for those areas falling not necessarily represent the views Or the Canmden County within the upper water's edge. We defined uplands as those Environmental Agency or any other local planning agency. areas landward from the upper water's edge. During the period which remains for work under the State/ County Coastal Coordination Project further effort will Step 71 Location Acceptability Map be directed toward recommending coastal zone policies for Camden County. We constructed a location acceptability map which contained three distinct zones, as follows: 1. Comments in Response to the Bay and Ocenna er.mnt 1. uland, med. perminbility, low soil fertility, mad. vegetation, On page 202 of the BDay and Ocean Segment, the high development potential, growth potential. following statement appears: 2. wet terrace, med. permiability, low soil fertility, med. vegetation In particular, development will be restricted high development potential, growth potential. in areas with a high potential to degrade water quality. The costs associated with 3. wet terrace, med. permiability, low soil fertility, high vegetation these policies will be a trade-off of coastal high development potential, growth potential. natural resources for inland resources, which are more abundant. Step 8: Determination or Locatiori Acceptability We assume that in the Delaware River coastal zone tile same Consulting the land acceptability tables yielded goal-to restrict development from areas with a high potential the following findings for the three zonest to degrade water quality-will be sought. Attainment of this goal will require different policies than proposed for the 1. high density development CAFHA area due to the more urbanized nature of the Delaware 2. medium density development River coastal zone. Camden County's Delaware River waterfront 3. medium density development is crucial to its industrial economic base just as the waterfront in the CAFlA area is crucial to a tourist-recrention We noted that development in the second and third zones must economic base. However, as the water quality of the Delnware comply with special construction standards for wet soils. River improves and locations in Cnamdeon County For recreation We noted, however, that these standards (p. 121) do not and open space become scarcer, the importance of the Delaware address filling activities in the wet terrace. CLAM likewise does not address land filling activity within the floodplain q~ 'h - -{1 -- River waterfront and waterfronts along related tributaries port development should be included under industrina as resources for recreation will increase. development. The challenge to planners in devising coastal According to the preliminary draft of the Stnte De- zone policies for Camden County and the other urbanized Developvent (tile Plan, all of Camden County cortnilled areas of New Jersey is to strike a balance between the within the prelminary proposed coastal zone boundary is twin needs of an industrialized and port-related economic considered a growth area. we recognize that the rFgional base and an increasing demand for recreation use of the water growth potontial factor seeks to distingutlnh at a state- and waterfront areas. A blanket use policy advocating the wide, macro-vcale two regional growth -trrtcgiee. As priority of resort/recreation uses over all other uses, such, the strategy does not address micro-growth policies as appears in the Bay and Ocean Seoment (p. 135) will not within a county or potential growth policy distinctions work here. Policies for portions ofr the coastal zone in for older or distressed cities. It rits to distinguish Camden County might have recreation and open space as the between growth being encouraged in Cnmden City, character- highest priority use. Other portions, such as the areas ized by redevelopment, infill, excess infrastructure capacities, zoned end planned for industrial use along the Delaware and high densities, versus growth being encouraged in River, mnst have industrisl activity ns their highest Gloucester Township, characterized by undeveloped or raw priority. lere, planning might focus on maximizing visual land, limited infrastructure capacities, and low densities. and physical access to the water for recreation al activity* The state's development strategy discusses the unique wherever industrial use of the waterfront can occur in harmony with recreational use. Thus the philosophy behind additional finnncinl a ssistarce, but it fa ils to ditineed or the policies for the CAFRA area of encouraging certain de- f velopments to locate inland from the coastal zone will not growth policies for thes e areas from those for outlyniyn, wash in Camden County nor in the other urbanized areas of s New Jersey. Ilere, development within the urbanized wa rfront Affairs, the author of this report, may not choose to must be encouraged, guided by policies which ensure.protection OCM might refine the tegional gr oth dpotentionl fato r of ar less pristine, but still functioning, coastal ecosystem. in Camden County and other urbanized arens of lew Jersey to distinguish between areas suitable for high density, Special wfater areas within the Delaware River multiple-use development from those areas suitable for low coastal zone will need new categories. Among the eight density growth. categories defined in the Bay and Ocean Sepment, migratory pathways, navigation channels, and prime fishing areas The consultant reviewed the draft coastal management probably are found most often. Shellfish beds rarely exist. strategy prepared by Hudson County and submitted his We recommend, as a new eategory, areas which support comments to the Environmental Agency. The Agency w3.11 foruard migratory waterfowl. Such areas would occur both in special its comments directly to lludson County. In addition to water areas and special waterts edge areas. recommending specific use and resource policies appropriate to Hudson County and possibly other areas more urbanized tueh of the land along the Delaware River in Camden than the CAFRA area, the Hudson strategy questions the County that is within the 100-year flood plain has been boundary criteria and the CLAM procedure employed by OCZM developed. Much of the industrialized waterfront in Camden there. City, for example, liea within this flood plain. Coastal policies for Camden County, therefore, cannot discourage Regnrding boundaries, we will be interested in development within these urbanized portions of flood hazard socing how Hludson County defines thile inland extent of its areas, as long as water quality standards are observed. coastal boundary. in the Bay and Ocean SegLment, 0C%11 has followed t:lo first cultural eature in)alnd to constol wnterr In the context of Camden County, several consider- in defining boundnries. Ynt, In its cnrlicr report, Alternntive ations occur with regard to the policies for land areas, 3oundarrce for flew .Jersey's Conastal Zonc, OCZM suggested for expressed in the Bay and Ocean Segment. The categories urban arens - specialized consta] zone boundary suited to for development potential factors should be expanded. existirtl manI. gemcnt constraints nnd the status or the bu llt Criteria for other recreation areas, besides cnmpgrounds, environgment manny wll be nppropriate for this portion of should be included, such as marlnas, active recreation Ni Jerson s nho lne." This ruport o altcrnatives areas, and nature conservation areas. Distinct criteria for or derining the coastal zone in ur baep n unte rfronlt: arern (1) land and water use activities that occur in coastal waters or require the use of coastal waters, or (2) all 53 m mm_ m1 mm m a - - __1 _ -. - 16 - waterfront parcels of land, vacant and undeveloped included, that occur immediately upland from coastal waters. Drawing the boundary to coincide with cultural features simplifies the task of boundary definition and mapping. We suspect that in urban waterfront locations, this approach may tend to-include land with uses unrelated to or not affecting the water or exclude lend similiarly related. In such instances, definition of the boundary based on land uses and the line of property ownership may be superior to definition according to cultural features. The Hudson strategy recommends discarding the STATEMENT CLAM procedure in built-up urban locations and relying more on the use and resource policies. This may be valid, of but CLAM still seems useful in those portions of Camden County where a natural shoreline or natural water's edge CAPE MAY COUNTY PLANNING DOALtD conditions stillexist. Coastal zone policies in Camden County might allow for both approaches: the Hudson strategy, or its substitute yet to be devised, in land areas previously to built upon and the CLAM approach for those areas not previously built upon, U.S. DEPARTMEN:T OF COMMEIlCE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPIIElIC ADMINISTRATION What emerges from these preliminary considerations OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT is the conclusion that there may well be a need in Camden County for two distinct sets of coastal zone policies: one set night apply to the highly urbanized, previously developed area; the second set might apply to the undeveloped and still open areas along the Delaware River and its tributaries. on STATE OF NEW JERSEY COASTAl. MANAGEMENT PROGIRAM BAY AND OCEAN SIIOE SEGMENT and DRAFT ENVIIIRNMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT June 13, 1978 54 If tile Coastal Program has a singular significant defect it Is that it falls INTRODUCTION to disclose the cumulative impacts of its own Implementation. It remains At the outset, we wish to thank the NOAA-OCZM and the New Jersey DEP-OCZM unclear as to how many people or developments the Coastal Program would permit for the opportunity to comment on this significant stage of tile New Jersey within the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. Likewise, Cl.At fails to distinguish Coastal Program for the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. The policies of the between the best possible use of tile land at a given site andl the other uses Coastal Segment represent a significant cormnittment of human effort, time it would permit. Given these uncertainties it is also impossible to conprehend and financial resources which have evolved over the past four years. Even where the people will be, what kinds of services :lnd facilities they will require, though It Is not a final step, the document culminates a multi-year effort and the impacts they will cause to air and water resources. While the water which was submitted to public scrutiny time after time and has been tempered and air resource policies call for conformance with all applicable state and by the various constituencies it will govern. federal standards, the Coastal Program does not yet contain a mechanism by 1. COASTAL PROGRIIM which to adjudge the cumulative impacts of Incremental CLAP decisions. While we recognize that our current concern for environmental prolelcms and quality Wie strongly endorse the four basic coastal policies which are the touch-stone of the Coastal Program. In short, these objectives Include: has sprung from our past failures to look ahead; solutions to these deficiencies must be found. We recognize that the New Jersey /.P is aware of these problems (1) Protection of the coastal Peo system and has begun to develop scopes of work and let contracts to solve them. (2) Concentration rather than dispersal of development with strong emphasis on open space preservation (3) Development and Implementation of an explicit decision- However, because CLAf Is not yet fully tested, we urge that the case study making process (Coastal Location Acceptability Method - CLAM) appendix (Appendix N) be expanded in the FEIS with respect to both geographical (4) Protection of the public health, safety and welfare. location of the sites studied and the nature of developments analyzed. Case studies Involving motel or recreational development proposals on harrier We particularly endorse those policies which recognize and protect the fragile natural resources of the coast, those which constitute an explicit and rational islands and adjacent to water areas, for example, would hep to clarify the decision-making process which, in turn, will remove much of the uncertainty multitude of Implications CLAM holds for both developers and environmentalists. that surrounds the current "ad hoc" CAFRA decision-making process, and the energy policies which accommodate energy development consistent with the four -2- foundation policies. And, finally, we enthusiastically applaud the resort/ recreational use policies and the priority of such uses in the bay and ocean segment of the coast. __ _ __ -I - 55-I4 _m m _- - --_ __ _ _ _ m--- m m -- II I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I 111 Bay & Ocean Shore Segment - Technical Issues fI. BOSS - EIS | 1. Section 6.4 (p. 50) - Special Water's Edge & Lhandl Areas - T'reviously Today, we are called upon not only to speak to the Coastal Program itself filled wetlands In close proximity to the water or water's edge areas but also to the environmental impact of its implementation. As noted above are an anomaly In the CLAM process. We urge that a special the deficiency of the Segment to clearly specify its cuimulative Impacts policy be developed that clearly states how the permeability factor reflects itself within tile EIS. Where the impacts are, as yet, unknown, the should be weighed. That policy should also reconcile itself with impacts cannot be fully and meaningfully assessed. the policy at G. 5. 1. 3 (p 71) regarding restoration of degraded Secondly, the EIS does not appear to take a hard look at tile impacts the wetlands. Criteria defining "degradation" should be developed. implementation of the Coastal Program will have In non-CAFRA areas. Upon approval, it would seem that non-CAFRA areas adjacent to the CAFRA border 2. Section .3.5.2 (p. 41) - Channel Types - The efiition an would be subjected to intense development pressure which in turn may generate classification of tidal streams Is missing and is, therefore, unclear. impacts in adjacent CAFRA areas. Likewise, developments of twenty four units " 3. Section 6. 4. 1 (pp. 50-51) Hligh Risk Erosion Areas - The document or less will not come under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Program but could, on a cumulative basis, have greater impact on the Coastal Zone. Observations classifies six areas in Cape May County as 'high risk erosion areas in Cape Flay County indicate that both of these "exceptions" could have a The County Planning Board and the Army Corps of Engineers have significant impact on the Coastal Zone. While these issues have been raised identified four additional areas which should be added to the list: in the eIS adequate solutions are not proposed. 1) South Cape May Area of Lower Township; 2) A portion ofStone Hlarbor CONCLtUSION Point; 3) Townsends Inlet shore front in Avalon; and 4) the This concludes our prepared testimony. Attached is a third portion of this Sea Isle City Beach. statement for the record that deals with technical issues surrounding the 4. Section 6. G. 7. 2. 1 (pp. 89 - 90) Marlna Developmetnt Potential Coastal Mlanagement Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. Thank you. If you have any questions I would be pleased to respond. Criteria - Explicit instructions should be Included ihere Indicating that the residential development criteria apply to marinas. 56 p2 p p3 5. Section 6. 6.7. 3 (pp. 91-92) - Commercial & Industrial Development 8. Section 7. 3.4 - (p. 136) - The definition of "existing resort-oriented Criteria - The definition of "commercial" is unclear and should areas" Is unspecific and unclear. be stated. Secondly, the "low potential" criteria (6. 6. 7. 3. 3) 9. Section 7. 3. 9 - (p. 137) - The delinilion of "dry land" is lmsl,recifi} appear to apply only to industrial development; "low commercial" and unclear. criteria should be developed. 10. Section 7.4. 13 (b) - (p. 145) - The nature and extent of tile evidence $. Section 6. 6. 7.5 (p. 94) - Energy Facility Criteria - The "interlm development potential" classification of energy facilities as "moderate" that constitutes "clear proof" of "eed and vital importance should be specified in a detailed and comprehensive statement. Ikewise pending completion of a joint DEP /DOE-study is an unfounded at 7.4. 13 (c), the information requirements leading to tile requiteled presumption which directly contradicts the four basic foundation assurance" should also be specified. policies of the coastal program, the "coastal dependency test" (p. 211) and the mandate of the Statute In Its call for "wise use of i. Chapter 6 - (p. 195) - Wet Sand fleaches - The recreational potential the land and water resources of the coastal zone." Given the and public access needs to bayslhore as well as ocean front beaches break-neck pace that typlifles DOE's completion of studies and should be recognized and added to the Program. the fact that energy companies and utilities plan capital Improve- 12. Part Iii - (pp. 203 -204) - Impacts on New 1)evelopment and Land ments at least five years in advance, It would appear to be wiser to classify energy facilities on an Interim basis as "low". Tie Values We specifically recommend Inclusion of "Exhibit 2" of "Business Prospects under Coastal Zone Management" prepared pending joint study in no way leads to the "moderate" classification. by Meal Estate Research Corporation for NOn^A (March. 19761 in In the interim, no substantial burden or delay will be caused to tile FEIS as it neatly summarizes the generally positive economic utilities. effects of coastal zone management. 7. Section 6. 6. 9. 6. 5 - Development Level Summary - The acceptable land coverage percentages should be clarified and amplified by the that the growth of tourism is not exclusivvly dependent on Atiantic addition of the range of densities by sub-area category. Without City; demand for recreational opportunities will also spur growth such specific information. the full implications of CLAM remain and development. unclear or unknown. 57 mmIIII mm mm m m mm mI m -- _ p4 Some mention should also be made of increasing recreational tourism opportunities on the mainland areas of the coastal zone. Campgrounds, golf courses and seasonal housing theme could also complement the existing ocean-orlentation of the Industry and improve the tax base of C APE COUNTY P adjacent mainland communities. June 19, 1978 14. Part ill - (p. 211) - (3.) Energy - This section ihdicates the possible Division of Marine Services Office Coastal Zone Management, DEP siting and permitting of gas processing plants and pumping stations po. Box 1889 Trenton, N. J. 08626 in the coastal margins upon a showing of "technical and economic Dear Mr. Kinseyl reasons, " Explicit criteria should be stated. This letter is an amplification of comments submitted in test:imonoy at the June 13, 1978 Public nlearing on the N. J. Coastal Management Program Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Upon further review and case study exercises, it was noted that the N. J. Coastal Management Program B.O.S.S. Chapter 3, does not address the marina-recreation development along the Intra-Coastal Waterway. Also the document does not delineate policy specifically dealing with the dredging channels necessary to support the marina uses. It is recommended thatr (1) policies concerning the siting of marinas on the Intra-Coastal Waterway tidal channels and lagoons be developedp and 2) tidal channels and lagoons be more explicitly defined and policies to be applied toward new and maintenance dredging developed and use! and 3) the definition and policies become part of the final rules and regulations as adopted by Department of Environmental Protection. If you have any questions concerning the comments please contact our office. Sincid1., / / Elwood R. Jarmor Director sey60-46jd cape may court house, neivjersey 08210 '609-465-7111 CUuiE'.AND 0 " STATEMENT ON: STATE Or NEW JERSEY COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 6 ___|________F___D I BAY AND OCEAN SHORE SEGMENT L t PT r : *;iOTECT __,_ 'PmT r.' 'w0TECT Dralt Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic 'JuL 3 I? 17 [' '1i and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coostal Zone Management, May, 1978 pp. 350 N O .G3OARD 800 EIST COM ER CWR;S 9 inSEY08302 - PHONE: I o-4sl-sOno Chapter Three: C a I l I Re sour c e and De v e I lop me n t Po I c I es (pp. 19-163) This chapter Is of great Importance to the public because it specifies coastal policies June 30, 1978 for proposed development under CAFRA, Wetlands and riporlan statlutes. While it provides useful guidelines, shows much Ihoughlt, pays attention to details, and In many ways succeeds at creating order out of potential chaos, the CLAM methodology as proposed does have some problems and loopholes. it is also time consuming for researchers; It doesn't soay who will pay the money nor does It provide the tools For its research. It errs Mr. David N. Kinsey, Chief Office of Coastal Zone management Division of Marine Services In the direction of overgeneralizatlon and open-endedness In some cases. lhis could lead to Depart. of Environmental Protection State of New Jersey a series of privale/public/county/slole/federal conflicts, resulting in litigation, delay P.O. Box 1889 Trenton, N .J. 08625 oand Increased costs. These problems will Inevitably cause confusion and dismay on the part of Dear David: those who own and use the lands Involved. Many may justly conclude thlat corporations and Enclosed please find Cumberland County Planning Board comments and suggestions on "State of New Jersey Coastal Management Program Bay and wealthy vested Interestswill circumvent regulations through loopholes, while small Individuals Ocean Shore segment". may suffer from overstrict Interpretations. Certainly large corporations can better afford tile Sincerely, necessary site research, than can small landholders. The repair and maintenance of struclures and Improvements already existing within the Czeslawa liml1ak Sernior Planner area has presented problems to dole. The work does not clarily that situation. CZ/dlm CLAMM e thodol ogy -Suggest a ns; Comme nts: Enclosures sures Figure . . . the Water Acceptability Table (p. 45) is excellent. There might be some question of categorization when applied to on Individual's area, but that will always occur. II provides firm, rational guidelines In easy-to-use taoble form. Figure 6, (p. 52) leaves much to be desired. Titled High Risk Erosion Areas, it really refers to ligh Risk Beach Erosion Areas. Streams shown in heavier print give some vague *m m - - m _ _ - m - _ - ' - - Implication of riverine erosion "power" a cartographic misconception, I am sure was not Section 6.5.2. - Upper Water's Edge (pp. 72-81) Intended. Coasts and streams are shown, not areas. How for back from the shore do such The upper water's edge guidelines don't seem to exclude much development at oll, If areas exlend? The Implicallon of the accompanying key Is that only developed areas of closely examined. If you need direct water access, have no alternative (thlle some thing, Cumberland County beach are such high-rlsk erosion areas, yet the entire Bay Shore is said In a different way), have no frees over 10 feel ltall and are next lo somebody else's encompassed by the line and designation number one. In fact erosion risks are greater existing development - you con build. That Is wide open - those guidelines are easily northwest of Egg Island than southeast of It. Category "m" of areas to be designated as met. On Ite other hand, developmental accepltability critleria appear to be unnecessarily high-risk erosion, - Is their available data on "high, long term erosion rates".? If so, stringent, demonstrating a lack of consistancy at the very least and suggesting over-regulation where can it be oblained? of uses contemplated in less critical areas. Section 6.4.5. - Historic Resources - (p. 60) Step 5 - Section 6.6.3. (pp. 82-84) - Depth to Seasonal High Water Table. The category of historical resources remains a big question mark. Nol what are they, This criterion is difficult to determine. The study provides two guidelines for determining or which things are hislorical, but what does development (or a lock of it) do for their this factor. Soil Survey Maps and the general hint that "it typically occurs In the early preservation? Development, unregulated, might destroy Greenwich. On thle other hand, spring after snow melt". In North Jersey, yes, where there Is considerably snow. Heavy a lack of development appears to be destroying historic structures in Port Norris and snows are rare In coastal South Jersey, and melting is Intermittent. There is almost never Mouricetown. In particular in Part Naorris, such structures are being abandoned. A policy any great spring thow. Seasonal high weler often comes in summer after long periods of of "no development" Is no guarantee of preservation. "What kind of Development" is more soil saluratlon downpours, at which time the water table is almost at lthe surface. local crucial In terms of preserving a historical resource. cloy lenses occur frequently and con occur over areas ranging from a few square yards to The "Cape May syndrome" is fine for Cape May Counly. No new development may fit many miles. Soil Survey mops are highly generalized and provide limited data on subsoil their needs and desires admirably. Cumberland, too, does not desire boom type growth conditions. Here, as all over coastal South Jersey, lest borings will be necessary, con- or wanton destruction of the area's environment. We do wish, however, some development. dilions may vary greatly over a single field or even a single acre. Who will provide People, too, are a resource. 'I' I personnel and money for such Intensive testing? A recent N.Y. Times article, by lthe way, shows abandoned and decaying historical Section 6.6.4 (pp. 85,86) - Soil Permeability Factor structures in an area of no development. It also hints at current conflicts based an con- There Is no provision made for assessing the factors of percolation and upward movement tradictory goals, programs and guidelines. of soil waters through capillary action. Existing faormland Is often Irrigated, changing There are no easy answers, but the whole methodology and proposal Indirectly suggests local soil water balances. The charting of hard pans Is virtually Impossible and active that there may be such on answer, by proposing stringent controls arrived at on the basis of pan formation Is occurring in some local areas. Locally supplies (eg. Tlhornlwaite system loose, Ill-defined guidelines. potential evopotranspiralion) data might be helpful, but is such detail and the aim of ( 2 the methodology? 60 3 6O Section 6.6.5 - ' II Fertility Fictor (pp. 8 07) Doesn't this sort of reasoning reinforce Ile "accidents" of post municipal boundary and Soil fertility Is also a questionable criterion In developed agricultural areas. Years Incorporotion dec;sions to a great extent? If the Dridgelon areo is to expond, it Inut be of forming, plowing, fertilization and Irrigation have greatly modified soil structure and expansion largely outside its current municipal boundaries. fertility. Only In undeveloped areas are soil maps of great utility. Abandoned or follow Much of the potential for Bridgeton's expansion into ncn-coastal zone arews conflicts with farmland could well be categorized as of low fertility because of Ils original designation; agricultural land use. Cannot rotional, productive development occur wilhin thoa coastal zone? yet be very fertile after years of re-making by farm use - only to be abandoned under Must Bridgeton be relegated to stagnation or economic decline? Which resource Is more economic pressures. Again, site testing of an intensive type is required. important, coostal area or agricultural land? The upland ro Southwest of Bridgeton Section 6.6.6 - Vegetation Index Factor (pp. 87, 80) I(Hopewell) has great growth potential In terms of road, water, and sewerage access, yet Existing vegetation - What exists there now? Is it original, so celled "natural It Is relegated to "limited growth". Status, nowhere near the coast and often well above vegetation"? Is It colonizing species, likely to change with llme1s 11 climax vegetation? the 20 foot contour, 11 has been included in the coastal zone. Townships like Downe and Is it man planted? Is t11 vegetation which has developed In response to edaphic changes Commercial ore almost entirely within the coastal zone; they are thereby effectively which resulted from man mode changes in the local environment? The basic question relegated to a status of little or no development. remains: "Is vegetation a reliable indicator of soil fertility and water conditions?" Bolh developmental potential and regional growth type ore arbitrary and unclear Should the use of vegetation data be limited toa only certain, highly reliable Indicator types categorizollons. Much more effective guidelines ae needed. What, exactly, is 'itriled . ,. ..' I and those types with commercial value or to botanical rarities? hoes vegetation act as growth"? Whoa are the limits? How con a decision be arrived at without definitions of :.1...!� these terms and without guidelines? an Indicator of anything not divulged by and mapped with criteria 1, 2 and 3? Slopeerms and whou gudelnes? might be a more important factor. Propensity for land to erode it important, not lust The hypothetical case used in the report Is good. The problems are tough. No one shorellne erosion. area can duplicate average conditions or anticipate all problems. The methodology will be diflicult to evaluate until multiple, factural cases are done. This does not mean the Section 6.6.7.- Development potential Factors Opp.89-95) The whole idea of developmental potential raises Immense controversy. Obviously, example has no value. 11 Is excellent, and provides fine guidelines for other studies. any area not already developed has potential for development. There Is such a thing as However, a better methodology and sharper guidelines could be evolved rom multiple overdevelopment. It's problems and destructive potential for the environment may be even case studies. greater than that of certain types of dispersed development. Access to roods, sewerage There Is overall confusion In his methodology In terms of what is general guideline and water are voluable aids. What of access to other forms of trnsportation, - like and what Is site specific. We are asked to use general source data to come up willh site pipelines and navigable waterways? Are these the only measures of developmental potentill? specific decisions. That cannot be done well, fairly or accurately. On tie other hand, tests 4 s are time and money consuming. It seems that more money and a comprehensive data collection program are necessary before this proposed melthodology can work. 61 I I - Imm lawII this is one of the weakest sections of the methodology. A whole host of factors, ranging . When one *ews the case study as a pattern for developing olher case studies, it is from time/distaonce, to economic need of area residents, to industrial locational requirements, excellent. If viewed as the ultimate source of all information and answers, It cannot rationally to amenities and energy supplies are not ever considered. While roads, sewers and water supply them. If the Wat er AcceplaSilify Tablas (Fig. 58) are good, the Land Acceptability supplies are Important, tlh-ey ore not always paramount in any locational decision. Woter Tables (Fig. 18) are not. They are exact In appearance, and, as we are lold, they contain con be easily available over much of the coastal plain, goods may not necessarily move by every permutation and combination of the s x factors. They are missing a lot of cogent road, but rather by some other mode, and sewage can be handled by acceptable factors, both physical as well as cultural. Much additional Information must be supplied alternatives to the traditional central treatment plant; or can be piped away to an before such a table could be used rationally. The physical environment, to say nothing existing disposal plant in another municipality under contract arrangements. Even when of the machinations of mankind, cannot be successfully categorized in lust 6 characteristics. on-site and water supply, sewage disposal are not permissable, near by, economic solutions may be available. How far away can one be from such supplies/facilities and still be considered acceptable? There are no guidelines. The whole Idea of the concept of Infilling (p. 92) is open to question. Many metropol- itan/regional planners hold that Infilllng can compound congestion and create a host of other problems. It is not some universal good, some unquestionably desirable goal to be attained. The evolving "false front" facade of development along roads in rural N.J. with its preexisting set of electric and phone lines, may be more economic (as well as more environmentally sound) than Infilling. Section 6.6.8 - Regional Growth Potential Factor (pp. 96-99) Regional growth types? These may have been arbitrarily determined. The Monmouth County shore area is categorized as a "growth area". it is already intensely pecked with people and development. How much more development potential Is there In the area? If industry Is relegated to locations in that County's coastal zones, will it drive current residential development into the Interior of the county, - putting more pressure on the land resource? The development potential areas (p. 96) ore limited to Bridgeton and Millville for this County. For Millville, this is fine. The municipality has large areas of undeveloped land. Only a tiny fraction is designated as part of the coastal zone. Bridgeton Is virtually built to its borders. 6 62 Advertising * Public Relations JAMES/OGILVIE /A$SOC0ATE$ 134 North Pearl Street * Bridgeton, New Jersey 08302 Telephone (609) 451-1177 July 5, 1978 VIEWS or ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Mr. David Kinsey ~DIRECTOR CHIARLES FISuER, Mr. David Kinsey State of New Jersey CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF Department of Environmental Protection Division of Marine Services CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS Office of Coastal Zone Management P. 0. Box 1889 BRIDGETON, NEW JERSEY, Trenton, NJ 08625 WITI REGARD TO "COASTAL RESOURCE Dear Mr. Kinsey: AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES." Cumberland County Freeholder Director Charles Fisher has asked me to submit in his behalf the enclosed statement. lie has checked the comments with the other six Cumberland County Freeholders and received their support. It is the view of the Board of Freeholders that the proposed regulations with regard to the wet- lands-CAFRA-riparian areas will have exactly the opposite effect your staff foresees. The proposed regulations, if adopted unchanged, would encourage only large projects. Cordially, C4~\rd!; iay, 1~ f~ ~The Cumberland County Board of Chosen Freeholders *James~~ n. ogilvie ~~~does not want to see the wetlands along Delaware Bay James H. Ogilvie / Public Relations Officer turned into an industrial complex. Such development, ilh 7 County of Cumberland hEnclosure o Cmelnhowever, is highly unlikely for a number of reasons. Enclosure The shallowness of the waters immediately off-shore, the oyster beds and the nature of the wetlands them- selves, would discourage the construction of heavy structures which would be ecologically undesirable. mm m m mm - m- m - m mm - m m m_ _ 2 3 Your regulations proposed in Chapter Threes A few additional docking areas in the wetlands of Coastal Resource and Development Policies," however, Cumberland County, for instance, would not adversely may prove to be counter-productive and actually may prove to be counter-productive and actually affect the ecology of Delaware Bay in a measurable encourage the wrong type of economic activity. The manner. The present health regulations we have -- regulations you propose will make the process of aside from CArRA -- would minimize most conditions you getting permits complex and expensive. Only the very might consider undesirable. The competitive free largest -- and most undesirable -- projects will be enterprise system would quickly separate the efficient attempted. from the inefficient, the successful from the unsuccess- Historically, most of the businesses in the wet- ful. Those boating areas occupied by the unsuccessful lands of Cumberland County were modest when they operators -- in most cases -- would deteriorate into started. Marina operators, for instance, might have their original state. provided space for a dozen small boats in their first Your regulations would not prohibit development of year. As they proved their management abilities and wetlands. But the number and complexity of these developed satisfied customers, they grew -- again regulations would permit only the largest -- and most gradually. The same can be said for sandmining bus- destructive -- projects to consider undertaking the nesses, restaurants, and farmers. procedure. A marina operator, for instance, would have Your proposed regulations would discourage this to plan a facility for hundreds of boats in order to great American practice of a person going into business justify the risks and expenses involved. The very size in this area in a small way. The cost for the studies of his operation, if approved, might well prove to be reguired by your regulations would be prohibitive for more destructive of the environment than the same most people. And there is no certainty that the number of boat slips scattered over many miles and proposals would be approved at the end of the process. maintained by many different people. 64 Again, we are bothered most by the fact that you are driving the small entrepreneur out of the area, STATEMENT ON absolutely precluding such a person from undertaking a "CIIAPTER TIhiREE: COASTAL RESOURCr business here. AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES" Would it not be possible for proposed development OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY of the wetlanda below a designated geographic and/or BY DR. PIIILLIP PIlELON, dollar size to use a simplified permit system? Must CIHAIRMAN, everyone go through the complete application procedure? CUMBERLAND COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD. Unless you develop some way which allows the smaller entrepreneur to operate, your regulations may have the further effect of eroding our property tax base in CAPRA areas. Municipalities with a few large tax-paying property owners may be more subject to undue The Cumberland County Board of Chosen Freeholders pressures than those with many smaller businesses. established an agency nine years ago specifically Let's keep private initiative by individuals of charged with broadening the economic base here. This modest means alive. The wetlands of Cumberland County Cumberland County Economic Development Board is an have survived nicely with this practice since the first outgrowth of that Initial agency. colonists came here 300 years ago. Your regulations Unfortunately, in recent years, we have had to may well do more to change the environment than protect spend almost as much time attempting to save what it. industrial base we have here as we have in expnnding Thank you for this opportunity to give this view. it. Your proposals as outlined in Chapter Three: Coastal Resource and Development Policies," probably will force us to spend even more time in a defensive instead of an aggressive posture. -m m m m m m m5 -m m _ - _- _ 3 Also, why encourage specifically low cost housing? The proposed regulations outlined in your May, In the long run, is this not perpetuating the low 1978, "Draft Environmental Impact Statement" are too economic levels which have discouraged the economic long for us to cover point-by-point. There are, how- expansion of these areas. By encouraging only low cost ever, a number of areas which "jump out" at us as we housing, you are consigning the area to a backward read it and, we hope, that pointing to them will economic status forever. identify some of the fears we have about many of your Paragraph 5.0: Putting the decision-making pro- proposals. cess into three layers, as you propose, will make any The very voluminousnous of the regulations you economic development of coastal lands possible only for propose will discourage many good business people from the largest firms and proposals. The small home-grown even attempting to start operations here. Most of them entrepreneur, who has been the backbone of Cumberland would have to hire expensive specialists to prepare the County for 300 years, will be unable to continue appropriate impact statements and fill out the permit functioning. requests. fliere, we also must inject the comment that your While we applaud the attempt to combine and regulations will "lock in" land uses almost forever. simplify the bureaucratic regulations of several It is our view that land uses should change as the agencies, we are convinced that the present document economy, the state of scientific development, and our will not achieve the objective of a reasonable, forth- knowledge of the area and world in general develop.) right, and manageable system. Paragraph 6.2.5.2: The prohibition against Paragraph 4.5: Why "encourage" only the use of dredging of submerged vegetation beds for energy pipe- solar as a source of energy when other sources years lines would preclude a possible use of some higher ahead may prove to be more desirable. Your position coastal areas for a purpose least disruptive of the will discourage efforts to find the best possible environment: that of a tank farm or similar storage energy sources by concentrating efforts upon solar. facility for gas and oil which might be discovered in the Baltimore Canyon. This action would put Cumberland County out of the running for such a facility even though we might benefit economically from it. 66 4 5 Paragraph 6.4.9.3: Your assumption that open Paragraph 6.2.6.2! Since dredging is not a natural space can "retain contiguous farmland" was certainly action but man-made, the recommendation that land dis- not reached in consultation with farmers. Recreational posal be used discourages such activity because "suitable facilities adjacent to farms frequently have a detri- areas" are rarely close to the channels you wish to mental effect upon agricultural activities. widen and/or deepen. Paragraph 6.4.11.1: To limit prime agricultural Paragraph 6.3.B.2: It is virtually impossible to lands (classified I and II) to agricultural use without create new boat ramps which would not in some way the permission of the property owner can be counter- affect subacqueous vegetation. Other restrictions on productive to your long-range intent. boat ramps appear equally preposterous. Paragraph 6.4.11.3: Although we in Cumberland Paragraph 6.3.8.13: The restriction on bridges County who live adjacent to farms appreciate the will make a proposed crossing of the Cohansey River quality of "locally-grown food," many farmers are no south of the city of Bridgeton considerably more longer able to compete even in the nearby metropolitan expensive. The new regulations also would probably areas with foods grown on the huge factory-farms of the delay its start and completion. South and West. This is another regulation which may (We hesitate to make any judgment on the proposed hinder rather than help the economy of Cumberland Seabreeze Bridge, linking southern New Jersey with County in the long run. Delaware. This route is vitally needed for the economic development of Cumberland County. Your requirements will delay and, possibly, prevent its completion.) Paragraph 6.4.1-(m): how do you measure "high long-term erosion rates?" Your "specific examples" would appear to preclude any development of the Delaware Bay shoreline of Cumberland County -- as mentioned in Paragraph 6.4.1.2. 67 Paragraph 7.4.4: We are disturbed that you Paragraph 6.5: Your regulations with regard to suggest that platform construction yards requiring wetlands will have the effect of eliminating small large tracts of land be assigned to Salem, Gloucester, competitors for proposals in the area. The result will and Camden Counties rather than areas along lower be that only the largest, most disruptive, and, quite Delaware Bay, such as Cumberland County. We have the likely, the most ecologically undesirable projects will most suitable sites for this activity. Our economy work their way through your permit system. The reason needs such activity more than adjacent counties do. for this is that only developers of large operations Paragraph 7.6.2: To limit mining to areas pre- have the financial wherewithal to invest in such sently used in the fashion or immediately adjacent not developments. The typical small businessman who has only is economically undesirable, but it may prove to contributed so much to Cumberland County in the last be to the long-term disadvantage of the nation's total 300 years no longer will be able to compete. economy. Mining is a major occupation in Cumberland Paragraph 7.4.2: This board most strenuously County. Our first industry, glass in particular, objects to your comment: "To minimize the impact of developed here because of the distinctive sands we needed facilities (to support O.C.S. activities), DEP have, Prohibitions such as you propose would drive encourages the location of O.C.S.-related facilities in glass manufacturers to other areas where mining would developed areas where the infrastructure and labor be less expensive and less complicated. market already exist to absorb such activity." In Again, comment must be directed toward the com- other words, you are precluding Cumberland County from plexity and inflexibility likely to occur as a result participating in what may well be the largest single of the regulations you have developed. For 300 years, new economic opportunity to come to the state of New this area has managed its affairs quite well without Jersey in a generation. all this red tape. Your actions are likely to bring about changes far more disruptive than those which would occur otherwise. 68 ' RUTGERS 8 c-rtl""' County Collt l ou., Bridgeton. N.J. 011302 COOPERATIVE TelPlhone IA,,e Code 60l 451-o0 EXTENSION SERVICE Additionally, the economic growth of Cumberland COOK COLLEGE County may well be impeded with adoption of these regulations in their present form. We strongly recom- mend in concert with the recent actions of Governor Brendan Byrne that at each level, the agency have 30 June 16, 1978 days to act -- or the proposal is automatically approved, and that, in no case, may an applicant be held up by Mr. David Kinsey Dept. Environmental Protection either the state or federal procedures for more than 90 Office of Coastal Zone Management Division of Marine Services days. P. 0. Box 1889 Trenton. NJ 08625 Dear Mr. Kinsey: Please include the enclosed statement in the henring record of the June 13, 1978 Public Hlearilg for New Jersey's Coastal Management Program, Day and Ocenn Shore Segment held at Bridgeton, New Jersey. 11Thank you. Sincerely, Harry It. Fries County Agricultural Agent 8 Professor of Agricultural Extension dff ~Enclosure COOPEATInNO AOENClESt RUTOERS uNgIVERStY - THI S5AIf UNIVErSITY or NrW JEnIFY. TtEr U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AOS"lCTULTUAr. ANo TUH C:MB-ERLANDCOUNTY BOAn0 OF CIOGe N FneEHOt DEnS. - - - - m -m - - �8 ' RUTGERS R* T.GER, County Court House, Bridgeton, N.J. 08302 COOPERATIVE Telephona MAei Code 6091 451-8000 Pa 2 EXTENSION SERVICE COOK COLLEGE A procedure as outlined in Section C 13:19-5 that can run to over 90 days time, and require hundreds of dollars per permit, will insure Re: Section C 13:19-5 Chapter 185 Laws of 1973 (CAFRA) that local farmers will not be able to make timely-economical repairs to their water control facilities and will go out of business. Section C 13:19-5 should be amended to exclude from the specified "Permit to construct facility" procedures all activities necessary for the con- tinuance of agricultural production on lands situated in the area subject Harry II. Fries to the CAFRA Act. These activities include drainage ditch maintenance, County Agricultural Agent E sluice gate maintenance, repair and replacement, levee and dyke repair Professor of Agricultural Extension and maintenance, and repair of storm, flood or frost damage to agricultural lald-water control structures or equipment. Int addition, other existing legislation concerning agricultural land presently inactive agriculture production should be modified to exclude activities necessary to maintain these lands as productive agricultural areas. It is suggested that the state and federal responsibilities over the environmental integrity of the coastal, wet lands and riparian lands be protected by a simplified procedure for activities on agricultural lands such as: lThe agricultural land owner will contact the local Soil Conservation Office to inform them of any activity they plan to insure the contin- uation of agricultural production in the area. The Soil Conservation Service shall, either by on-site inspection, or with historic knowledge 6f the site amid its needs approve or disapprove the verbal or written plan of activity. The local Soil Conservation Service will then notify the appropriate state and federal agencies of the activity that was undertaken and at their discretion (tie agencies involved) they may inspect the site to insure that it does not pose a threat to the envi- ronment of the coastal zone, wet lands, or riparian lands, Activities found to be in conflict with the environment of the area would be cited in detail to the land owner and a hearing held if necessary to resolve the conflict between the environmental aspects and the needs of continuing agricultural production. Tie elimination of red tape for agricultural producers whose only aim is to protect and preserve their land for food production for the resi- dents of the state seems to be a worthy cause if it can be done within the context of the aims of CAPRA to optimize the value of coastal lands for tihe citizens of the state. At present, unique crops are grown on lands in the coastal area that meet specific needs of tihe market. For instance, lettuce from California this past April was selling for over $1 a head locally. When Cumberland County production (located in the Cedarville, Fairton area) came in in May the price dropped down to 35f-40f a head. Without this local competition Now Jersey residents will he at the mercy of California and Florida producers. COOPEMATINO AOENCIES: nuTOuES UNIVEnSITY - THE STATE UnvrnsITY OF NEW JNnSEY, TIE U.S. OEPArTMENT OF AOCIlCULtMaE, AND THE CUMBEfLANO COUNTY elOAVO Or CHOSEN FREEHOLOEVS. 7n MIDDLESEX COUNTY PLANNING BOAID 40 LIVINGSTON AVENUe NEW RIUVNSWIC, NteW Ijea0Y Qciar the end of June, the Planning Board would reqtest ytor Office to accept the enclosed tsol ,246s-ss Statement as our initial assessment of the Coastal Propraml. The rlanninig Board Staff MEMERSS DounGASs row~ta in available to further discuss the contents of this review at your request. flYMAN CENTER. Cehlrmln Olr.or of CsunI� Pihinn{}5 stOHNnE SEWITCH. VSo C"u,.V n Sincerely yours, STEPHEN CArPETso. Freehls,, '4 Cln.;A IHOMAS J MOILYNEUX. reh.itdof Ol"lo, I MIIDDiRE rX COT l.'ANNINt: noARD JOHN J REISER, JR.. Counly Engln~oI Io\ /. " PAIRICIA A LYCOSKY Douglas S. I'owell June 14, 19/B Director of County Planning DSP:sm Mr. David Kinsey, Chief Enclosure Office of Coastal Zone Management N.J. Department of Environmental Protection cc: LR/MC 208 Policy ldvisory Committee P.O. Box 1889 Trenton, N.J. 08625 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, State of New Jersey Coastal Management Program-Bay & Ocean Shore Segment Dear Mr. Kinsey: The enclosed statement relative to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement entitled State of New Jersey Coastal Management Program - Day and Ocean Shore Segment dated May 1978 was endorsed as a preliminary statement and approved for transmittal by the Middlesex County Planning Board at their meeting of June 13, 1978 and is being transmitted to you for inclusion in the public record. Secondary statements made in accordance with our DEP-OCZH contract will follow by July 1, 1978. The key concerns we will be addressing in the review of this document are to consider the following points: - evaluate the accuracy of materials presented in the Bay & Ocean Shore document for the coastal zone. - address the applicability and adequacy of the State Program's overall management system to the Northern Waterfront areas, which includes most of Middlesex County'a coastal zone. - review the implementation proposals for the delineated coastal zone boundary. The Middlesex County Planning Board appreciates this opportunity to review and comment on this draft E.I.S. Pending completion of our full evaluation by - m_ _- _ _ -- - -- ... In November, 1977 the 208 Lower Raritan/Middlesex County Water quality Management Program's Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), a citizen and munici- pal advisory group, created a Coastal Management Task Force to review the Report entitled: Coastal Management Strategy for New Jersey, CAFRA Area, dated September 1977 and issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (HJOEP). The PAC authorized that the Task Force transmit a state- ment on behalf of the PAC to the State for the record of the hearings sched- uled on that Report. That statement was submitted to the Office of Coastal STATEMENT Zone Management on December 14, 1977 in response to DEP's call for comments OF THE COASTAL M4ANAGEMENT TASK FORCE on the Strategy. OF 'IE LOWER RARITAN/IIDDLESEX COUNTY on te Strateg WATER QUALITY AMANAGEMENT PROGRAM This new statement which Is an revision and extension of the December POLICY ADVISORY COMMITIEE STATE OrF NEW JERSEY ONSA THOGAE Statement is being submitted now by the Task Force in light of the revisions STATE OF NEW JERSEY COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM BAY AND OCEAN SCORE SEGMENT made to the Strategy and incorporated into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated May, 1978 and entitled State of New Jersey Coastal Management Program, Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. - The Lower Raritan/Middlesex County Coastal Management Task Force recdgnizes that separate and distinct planning approaches must be taken to manage both the urban and industrialized coastline of lew Jersey and the tourist and recreationally-oriented areas of the re- source and development policies of the State Mlanagemuent Program are intended to be implemented through existing laws and agencies. The Task Force continues, however, to be concerned about the impacts of an Imbalanced coastal zone policy on the coastal area of Middlesex County since the added protective measures afforded the CAFRA zone tend to push energy facilities to other areas, such as the remain- Ing non-CAFRA coastal portions of the Middlesex County area. Thus for the State to propose implementing the coastal policies before the northern waterfront and Delaware waterfront areas are adequa- tely addressed would tend to result in the concentration of coas- tal dependent energy facilities in these other coastal areas not - yet covered by such policies. Affected municipalities in Mid- ~~~~~~~~~~~JUNE, 1978 ~dlesex County may well include: the Cities of Perth Amboy and South Amboy; the Borough of Carteret- and the Townships of Edison, Sayreville and Woodbridge. These municipalities will feel siting pressures first for various coastal dependent energy facilities as noted in the Middlesex County Planning Board report 72 boundary, the Lower Raritan/Rlddlesex County Task Force wishes to continue once again, t6 strongly recommend that the CAFRA boundary entitled Policies for Handling the Impacts of Offshore Oil in Middlesex be extended to include the Raritan Bay coastal areas and Raritan County. (January, 1918.) Fore ecently, Middlesex County has ee iden- River estuary to the Victory Bridge and to ask OEP-OCZ to specifi- tffed by the U.S. Department of Interior as one of three New Jersey cally include this recommended boundary change in this Coastal Man- counties likely to receive the heaviest impacts from offshore oil and agement Program document. gas exploration and development in the Atlantic Ocean. The Department projected that Middlesex County would be the landfall site for three gas pipelines servicing the present exploration field in the Atlantic. 2. Coordination of the Lower Raritan/Middlesex County 208 and WIRA with The Department also assumed that a gas-processing plant would be re- Coastal Zone Management Program Development and Implementation. quired on the land side of that beachhead. The shoreline of Middlesex County's Raritan Bay area was chosen because it is the site of an ex- One of the procedural principles used to shape the managerment system Isting 26-inch diameter, high-pressure gas pipeline built by the Trans- was that mechanisms be created to insure that decisions on coastal continental Gas Pipe Line Corp. in 1968. The pipeline enters Raritan land and water uses be made at the most local level of government Bay within the Morgan section of Sayreville near Cheesequake Creek and practicable. Steps toward the creation of such a framework have al- was the cause of cozmmunity protests when it was installed to supply ready begun in the Lower Raritan/Middlesex County 208 area. The gas to Long Island 10 years ago. Lower Raritan/Middlesex County Water Resources Association (WRA) is in Ume process of being formed as the centerpiece of tie Water resources The Task Force remains unsatisfied with the coastal zone boundary de- management pro g ram for Middlesex County which iould coordinate tile pow- lineated in the revised management program. The policies within the ers of local, regional and state government in determining and protecting Bay and Ocean Shore Segment do not provide the needed protective mea- water quality with the implementation of the policies outlined in the sures aeforded to the CAFRA zone to the two municipalities of prime recently adopted 208 Water Quality Manaqement Plan Report. At the pre- concern in this case, Sayreville (Morgan Section) and South Amboy, sent time, a Lower Raritanllartan Bay Basin C -uncil isbeing organized which exhibit residential and, recreational characteristics similar to and is expected to be fully established by mid-fall 1978. The design those in much of the CAFRA region. of this basin council is to address a wide variety of concerns, largely focusing on coastal zone management and energy facility siting issues Local Input on extending the CAFRA boundary to include the Raritan Bay in Middlesex County. The 208, PAC and Water Resources Association con- coastal areas of Sayreville and South Amboy from the Cheesequake Creeks' tinue to urge that the 208-WRA process be more fully incorporated into, to the Victory Bridge has been initiated and supported by municipal of- the State coastal management process. We suggest that any future docu- ficials. At the public meeting held in December 1977 to receive comments ments include the expression of a more detailed understanding and aware- on Middlesex County's Offshore Oil Report, both the Mayor of South Amboy, ness of the evolving tower Raritan/Middlesex County 208 and SRA policies J. Thomas Cross, and the Industrial Chairman of South Amboy, Thomas and programs especially as they pertain to the expected Lower Raritan/ Levandoski expressed the need for the State's Strategy to include and Raritan Bay Basin Council. The ZO]-~RA is interested: we want to get therefore protect their waterfront property. They- felt there was a involved. loophole in the Strategy to protect their land, which is not very disi- milar from the Cheesequake area, from energy facility siting pressures. The Task Force therefore, would like to make tie recommendation that the 20B-4RA be involved in the design of a sensible and implementable coastal zone management program for the non-CAFRA areas or fliddlesex County. The Specific Reconmnendations State should actively support the 208-W{RA as the prime agenry for coor(li- nation of water quality and water use management in the non-CAFRA areas. i. Extension of the CAfRA boundary. In this mannefl, the basin councils of the 2U0-IlPA could act as tile forum through which concerns would be addressed at the local level, without As a result of these concerns the recommendation to extend the CAFRA necessitating the State to extend its authority into the non-CArRA areas. boundary to Include the Raritan Bay coastal zone of South Amboy and In the next phase of the coastal program, the 208-WRA must be involved Sayreville was submitted to the State by this Task Force fully expec- and integrated into the process of developing a imeaningful coastal zone ting the State to seriously consider this motion. It did not. The management program. To this extent, the State's managemllent program would Ocean and Bay Shore Segimient of the Managenent Program does not reflect be assured of being consistent with the 208-W}ater Resource's Association a positive response to the Task Force reconmmnendation, nor does it give areawide management policies to protect and improve the quality of water any indication that the State recognizes our concerns and that they in the non-CAFRA areas of Middlesex County's coastal zone. will be addressed in the near future. Despite the State's omission and disregard of tUle reconmmendation made in December to extend the CA\FRA l - -I -- MIDDLESEX COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 40 LIVINOSTON AVENUE Nmaw nW amsIcR. NEw WjEREY 61203 4201) AA14091 MEMBERS DOUGLAS S POWELL HYMAN CtNtER. Choi-an mOin, .1 C..nly olgnn.g SIDNEY SEWITCH. Vim ChatN-n JOHN BRNAT. iR FRANK J RASIVO SIYIIHEN CAPESTRO. Fnpholdo, couns. THOM3S J. MOtYNEUX. F'oo.fdo6r Olftct., JOHNI RESSER. JR. U Engln. PATRICIA A LYCOSKY LAURENCE S3 WEISS 15"'016' WALTER L WILSON June 30, 1976 Mr. David Kinsey, Chief Office of Co stal Zone Management N .J. Department of Environmental Protection Post Office Box 1889 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 MIDDLESEX COUNTY PLANNING BOARD STAFF Dear David: ON 'HE The enclosed statement represents the preliminary comnents of the Middlesex County Planning Board Staff in their review of the Coastal STATE OF NEW JERSEY Hanatement Protram - Bay and-Ocean Shore Seament. The review also COASTAL MANAGEMENT PRoGRAfl conatitutes fulfillment of task I as per our 1978 State/County Coordination Project. BAY AND OCEAN SHO RE SEGHfENT The commenta, once again, are preliminary and have not been approved JULY 1, 1978 nor adopted by the County Planning Board. Sincerely yours, Deborah Malek Middlesex County Planning Board Staff DI:tn End. cc% Coastal Counties Mr. Hyman Center Mr. John Bernet, Jr. 74 1. COMMENTS ON POLICY OBJECTIVES OF TilE COASTAL PROGRAM The Middlesex County Planning Board fully endorses and supports the Introduction four basic coastal policies of the State Coastal Hannacent Pro ram - Ba The Hiddlesex County Planning Board appreciates the opportunity and Ocean Shote Segment. They are as follows provided by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to 1. To rotect te coastal eco comment on the coastal management program identified in its Draft 2. To concentrate rather than disperse the Dattern of coastal residential. commercial. industrial r Environmental Impact Statement. The establiasment of basic policies is devesidoential. and enco urage h ndustrie nd e development. and encourage pheae. necessary to meet energy facility development that will potentially 3. to employ a method or decisionmans e impact the lives of all people living, working end visiting the coast coastal location to be valu ter a dvantages and th e disadvantage it offer the develm of New Jersey. It is imperative, therefore, that principles be 4. To Drotect the health. safet and welfare of Peole who vresid e, work and visit in te c oastal zon e, established which form the foundation of strategies that are capable of reside, work and v being implemented with a minimum of social, environmental and economic Furthermore, the Board to In complete agreement with the Coastal impact in order to fulfill the coastal resource and development policy Resources and Development Policies nd the Coastal Hanagement Decision- requirements of the ederal Coastaling Process the Department of Environmental Protection and the Depart- requirements of the Federal Coastal Zone Hanagement Act. It is within thise framework that we have reviewed this Draft ment of Energy will use in managing activities in this Coastal Program Environmental Impact Statement and prepared the following comments. Sment to conserve resources and achieve a balanced use of the Bay and Ocean Shore region of New Jersey's coast. Towards the end of actually implementing the above goals, the Hiddlesex County Planning Board feels that the three-stage screening process, identified through Location Policies, Use Policies end Resource Policies, is an acceptable way of increasing the predictability of coastal decisions by adding more specificity to the decision-tasking process for the coastal zone delineated in the boundary. As such, the Township of Old Bridge, the only municipality in Middlesex County covered in the Segment, would appear to be directly protected from adverse environmental impacts generated as a rpesult of unmanaged coastal growth and development. 1. 11, SUCCESTIONS FOR CH\ANGES IN THE SEGMENT afforded aimilar areas in the CAFRA zone. (Unregulated and unmanaged The Middlesex County Planning Board recognizes that separate and development adjacent to the CAFRA area in Old Bridge may also cause distinct planning approaches must be taken to manage both the urban and indirect impacts there that contravene established coastal policies for industrialized coastline of New Jersey and the tourist and recreationally- that area as veil.) Lack of this protective mechanism forces Sayreville, oriented areas of the New Jersey coast. The Planning Board also recog- South Amboy and the remaining Non-CAFRA coastal areas of Middlesex County nizes that the coastal resource and development policies of the State to rely upon existing legal authority to control and manage coastal zone Management Program are intended to be implemented through existing lawa development on their waterfront. Riparian permits, and to a limited extent and agencies. The Board continues, however, to be concerned about the the Wetlands Act, are currently the only means of achieving this end in the impacts of an imbalanced coastal zone policy on the yet undeveloped County. Wetlands and riparian permits are not sufficient to manage coastal coastal areas of Middlesex County, especially in Sayreville and South activities ou tside the CAPRA area since they cover only that area up to the Amboy, which exhibit residential and recreational characteristics aim- mean high water line. We are even more concerned over the fact that D.E.P. Ilar to those in much of the CAFRA region. Our concerns are highlighted does not have a general riparian lands policy to guide coastal development by the fact that Middlesex County has been identified by the U.S. Dept. other than reacting to individual applications on a case-by-case basis. To of Interior as one of three New Jersey counties likely to receive the add to this dilemma, Middlesex County faces the real possibility of losing heaviest impacts from offshore oil and gas exploration and development large tracts of wetlands to unregulated coastal development. The fact from Lease Sales 40 and 49 in the Atlantic. The Department's projections that small sections of wetlands have been delineated and mapped by the N.J. indicate that Middlesex County would be the landfall site for three gas D.E.P. and presently are under the protection of the Wetlands Policy is, pipelines servicing the present exploration field in the Atlantic. The in our opinion, insufficient and does not meet the objectives of the Wetlands Department also predicted that one gas-processing plant would be required Act. Large stands of the tidal wetlands still exist along the Raritan River on the land side of that beachhead. The shoreline of Middlesex County's and the South River, which to this date have not been mapped, despite Raritan Bay area was chosen because it is the site of an existing 26-inch numerous attempts by' this Planning Board to encourage the completion of this diameter, high-pressure gas pipeline which enters Raritan Bay within the mapping effort by D.E.P. Morgan section of Sayreville near Cheesequake Creek and was the cause of Given the situation described above, only the coastal lands presently commnunity protests when it was installed to supply gas to Long Island 10 regulated under the Riparian Lands Act tilrough the Riparian Lands Management years ago. Section of N.J.D.E.P.,in addition to the designated wetlands covered by By not incorporating these two municipalities, N.J. D.E.P. may very CAFRA in Old Bridge Township, can be protected to some extent against the well have preempted the policies within the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment from adverse environmental impacts of unregulated and unmanaged coastal development. providing Sayreville and Southi Amboy directly the needed protective measures Therefore, location and use decisions made through the CIAM evaluation 2. 3. 76 process will have no protective or positive impact on the non-designated III. APPLICABlITY AND ADEQUACY OF TlE OVRALL MANAGEHENT SYSTEll To TIlE NON-CAFRA AREAS OF MIDDLESEX COUNTY wetlands in Middlesex County. In instances involving development on In estimating the utility of CLAM to the waterfront areas of designated wetlands, then, areas inland of the mean high water mark could Hliddlesex County, the evaluation process was applied to the coastal area not effectively utilize CLAM nor depend upon this decision-making process of the Borough of Sayreville as a test case. Tile study revealed that the to protect coastal vegetation. The potential loss of vegetated wetlands acceptability policies of CLAM would approve the waterfront area of due solely to an incomplete wetlands mapping effort on the part of D.E.P. Sayreville for moderate intensity development, provided wet soil con- is particularly disturbing to Middlesex County in light of D.E.P.'s struction standards are met and flood prone standards are satisfied. pronounced policy encouraging both the restoration of wetlands as well as Accordingly, the Use policies, or the second step in tile screening the creation of new wetlands in non-sensitive areas. These remedial actions, process, identified that new or expended coastal-dependent industrial in our opinion, would be unnecessary if a more assertive and proprietary end coamercial development would be encouraged at or adjacent to exist- posture was employed by D.E.P. to promote the delineation and mapping of ins industrial and commercial sites. Sayreville fits into this category valuable coastal wetland vegetation in the Non-CAFRA area while they as its industrial bane already includes Jersey Central Power and Light remain capable of contributing to the physical stability of the entire Co.'s Werner generating station end National Industries on its waterfront. coastal zone and environment. It would appear then that both the Location and Use Policies would designate As a result of these concerns, the Middlesex County Planning the undeveloped coast of Sayreville as appropriate for moderate-intensity Board wishes to continue, once again, to strongly recommeend that the industrial development. CAFRA boundary be extended to include the coastal areas of Raritan Bay and Problems arise however with the tlhird step of the screening process, the Raritan River estuary to the Victory Bridge and to ask DEP-OCZM to or the Resource Policies, which serve as standards to which proposed specifically include this recormsended boundary change in the final Coastal development must adhere. The Resource Policies, as defined in the Segment, Management Program document. (on air, water, runoff and buffers) would not adequately address the fact that heavily developed areas in Middlesex County, as well as in similarly developed areas throughout the State, already suffer the highest levels of environmental pollution. These areas are the very areas to which D.E.P. proposes to concentrate development. Yet, very little evidence is exhibited in the Sgmt which justifies how or the manner in which this concentrated development will occur nor the type of system D.E.P. plans on employing to 4. 5. manage urban development in the Northern Waterfront. adopted water quality management plans developed under Flew Jersey Statute The following conments outline the inadequacies of the Coastal PL 1977, Chapter 75. Program Resource Policies which become apparent in our review as they were applied to the Non-CAFRA areas of Niddlesex County. Comments on Resource Policies Air JQualit - The Coastal Program's Air Quality Policy to control coastal development by mandating conformance to all applicable state and federal emissions regulations, ambient air quality standards, and deteriora- tion criteria established to meet requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act as amended in 1977 is not sufficient enough to reduce the level of pollutants in Middlesex County currently in contravention ie., hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. As Middleaex County is a non-attainment area and requires an air quality maintenance plan, D.E.P.'s policy to concentrate rather than disperse development necessitates a more detailed understanding of the emission offset policy and perhaps a greater assessment of the secondary impacts likely to be generated as a result of exercising this policy. Surface Water - The Surface Water Use Policy states that the anticipated surface water demand of a facility shall not exceed the capacity of the local potable water supply system or reserve capacity. The primary objection to this policy is that it is much too locally defined. Rather it should be viewed as a regional water supply program, incorporating the recommendations of the State Water Supply aNester Plan, adopted County and Regional "208" Water Supply elements. Water quality - A policy which requires coastal development to be in conformance with all applicable State surface and groundwater quality standards, as established and administered by D.E.P.'s Division of Water Resources, should also reflect the water quality management policies of 6. 7. 78 IV. SUGGESTIONS FOR ClANGCES IN TltE PWLNNIN PROCESS iHtddlesex County which would coordinate the powers of local, regional In order to assure that D.E.P. adequately addresses itself to the and state government in determining and protecting water quality with the concerns of local levels of government for the protection and preservation implementation of the policies outlined in the recently adopted "208 Water of the natural, historic and economic attributes of the New Jersey Quslitt Management Plan Report. At the present time, a tower Raritanl hRaritan Bay Basin Council in being organized and is expected to be fully coast the following recommendations are mades 1) Increase coordination on coastal decision-making between established by Hid-fall 1978. The design of this basin council is to s.,.;tate and local governments. address a wide variety of concerns, largely focusing on the coastal manage- D.E.P. should specifically address tble need to develop intergovern- ment process. We suggest that any further documents include the expression mental coordination mechanisms which would act as the foundation on which to of an Understanding and nwarenesn of the evolving tower Raritan/Nlddiesex build the lntra-federal State/County/municipal government partnerships County "208" and WRA policies and programs especially as they pertain to the necessary to effectively and wisely manage the coastal resources of New expected Lower RaritanlRaritan any Basin Council. Jersey. The Middlesex County Plannting Board, therefore, extends the re- Toward the end of actually implementing coordination and full cossnendation that the "208"-A be involved in the design of a sensible participation among federal, state, county and municipal governments, the and implementable coastal zone management program for the Non-CAFRA areas of Middlesex County Planning Board recommends that present coordination the activities between N.J.D.E.P. - OCZM and other governmental agencies con- prime agency for coordination of water quality and water use management in tinue. Given that strategies to manage coastal development in sections of the Non-CAFRA areas. In this manner, the basin councils of the the State outside the Segment have just begun to be addressed, state-county could act as the forum through whth concerns would be addressed t tile coastal coordination, particularly during the formative stages of program local level, without necessitating the Stote to extend its authority into development for the Northern Waterfront is particularly encouraged. the Non-CAFRA areas. In the next phase of the coastal program, the "208"-WlRA 2) Coordinate the Lower Raritan/Hiddlesex County "208" and IWA with Coastal Zone Management Program Development and Implementation. must be involved and integrated into the process of developing a meaningful coastal zone management program. To this extent, the State's mannagement One of the procedural principles used to shape the management system for the Segment was the creation of mechanisms to insure that decisions program would be assured of being consistent with tile "208"-Water Resource on coastal land and water uses be made at the lowest level of local government Assocation's areawide management policies to protect and improve the quality practicable. Steps toward the creation of such a framework have already of water in the Non-CAFRA areas of Middlesex County's coastal zone as well as begun in the Lower Raritan/Middlesex County "208" aren. The Lower Raritanl being consistent with the objectives and policies of the national legislation. Middlesex County Water Resources Associetion (WRA) is in the process of being formed as the centerpiece of the water resources management program for 9. r. tower Varilar1i~idciesex County <208 Management Planning Program Middlnsex county planmnin Board.- 40 tivngslon Avenue.- New BrunswIck- NewJersey O~O*201-246-6016 June 30, 1978 David Kinsey chief office of coastal zone Management Hi Department of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 1889 Trenton, NJ 08625 Re: Draft Environmental impact Statement State of New Jersey Coastal Manage- mient Program - Bay and Ocean Shore segment STATEMENT Dear Mr. Kinsey: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OF TIn COASTAL HANACEMENT TASK FORCE De a r M r . K i n s e y : ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OF TulE LOWER RARITANIftIDLYSEX COUNTY The Lower Raritan/Middlesex County Water Quality Management Program WAERQULITY HAAVSO!COME14TTEEG Policy Advisory Coemmittee (PAC), at its meeting of June 22, 1978, unan- P L C D I O Y C0TE Iemously requested that the attached Statement of the Coastal Management ONl THlE Task Force of the Lower Raritan/Middlesex County Water Quality Manage- STATE AOF OCERNSOEY COSTAENGMEHNT FoR metProgram be accepted as the statement of the full PAC for the record BYM CA HR EMN of tE eTu_ cHearings on the above noted document. The PAC appreciates the opportunity to review and coemment on the work of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program and the PAC will continue to closely follow the Coastal Management Program's activities. Thank you for- your consideration of our coemments. Sincerely yours, John Runyon PAC Chairman JR/jj attachment cc: Mr. Joseph Wiley, NJOEP Mir. Charles Ourfor, USEPA JO.E, 1918 BID In November, 1977 the 208 Lower Raritan/Middlesex County Water Quality entitled Policies for Handling the Impacts of Offshore Oil in Middlesex Management Program's Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), a citizen and munici- County, (Janury Mo re .ecen y,l< lesex County halS- ienWIdn- titled by the U.S. Department of Interior as one of three New Jersey pal advisory group, created a Coastal Management Task Force to review the counties likely to receive the heaviest impacts from offshore oil and gas exploration and development in the Atlantic Ocean. The Department Report entitled: Coastal Management Strategy for Hew Jersey, CAFRA Area, projected that Middlesex County would be the landfall site for three gas pipelines servicing tle present exploration field in the Atlantic. dated September 1977 and Issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental The Department also assumed that a gas-processing plant would be re- quired on the land side of that beachhead. The shoreline of Middlesex Protection (NJDEP). The PAC authorized that the Task Force transmit a state- County's Raritan Bay area was chosen because it Is the site of an ex- isting 26-inch diameter, high-pressure gas pipeline built by the Trans- ment on behalf of the PAC to the State for the record of the hearings sched- continental Gas Pipe Line Corp. in 1968. The pipeline enters Raritan Bay within the Morgan section of Sayreville near Cheesequake Creek and uled on that Report. That statement was submitted to the Office of Coastal was the cause of community protests when it was installed to supply gas to Long Island 10 years ago. Zone Management on December 14, 1977 In response to DEP's call for comments The Task Force remains unsatisfied with the coastal zone boundary de- on the Strategy. This statement is being submitted now by the Task Force lineated in the revised management program. The policies within the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment do not provide the needed protective mea- in light of the revisions made to the Strategy and incorporated into the sures afforded to the CAFRA zone to the two municipalities of prime concern in this case, Sayreville (Morgan Section) and South IAmboy, Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated May, 1978 and entitled State of which exhibit residential and recreational characteristics similar to those in much of the CAFRA region. New Jersey Coastal Management Program, Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. Local input on extending the CAPRA boundary to include the Raritan Bay coastal areas of Sayreville and South Amboy from the Cheesequake Creek The tower Raritan/Mlddlesex County Coastal Management Task Force to the Victory Bridge has been Initiated and supported by municipal of- recognizes that separate and distinct planning approaches must be ficdlas. At the public meeting held in December 1977 to receive connnents taken to manage both the urban and industrialized coastline of Hew on Middlesex County's Offshore Oil Report both the Mayor of South wiboy Jersey and the tourist and recreationally:0riented areas of the J. Thomas Cross, and the Industrial Chairman of South Amboy, Thomas New Jersey coast. The Task Force also recognizes that the coastal tevandoski expressed the need for the State's Strategy to include and resource and development policies of the State Management Program therefore protect their waterfront property. Thyfelt there was a are intended to be implemented through existing laws and agencies. loophole in the Strategy to protect their land, which is not very disi- The Task Force continues, however, to be concerned about the im- milar from the Cheesequake area, from energy facility siting presres. pacts of an imbalanced coastal zone policy on the coastal area of Middlesex County since the added protective measures afforded the CAFRIA zone tend to push energy facilities to other areas, such as Specific Recommendations the remaining non-CArRA coastal portions of the Middlesex County area. Thus for the State to propose implementing the coastal policies before the northern waterfront and Delaware waterfront areas are adequately addressed would tend to result in the con- As a result of these concerns the recommendation to extend the CAFRA centration of coastal dependent energy facilities in these other boundary to include the Raritan fay coastal zone of South Amboy and coastal areas not yet covered by such policies. Affected munici- Sayreville was submitted to the State by this Task Force fully expec- palities in Middlesex County may well Include: -the Cities of Perth ting the State to seriously consider this motion. it did not. The Amboy and South Amboy; the Borough of Carteret; and the Townships Ocean and Bay Shore Segment of the Management Program does not reflect of Edison, Sayreville and Woodbridge. These municipalities will a positive response to the Task Force recommendation, nor does it give feel siting pressues first for various coastal dependent energy any indication that the State recognizes our concerns and that they facilities as noted in the Middlesex County Planning Board report will be addressed in the near future. Despite the State's omission and disregard of the recommendation made in December to extend the CArRA m -~~~~~_ boundary, the Lower Raritan/Middlesex County Task Force wishes to continue once again, to strongly recommend thit the CAFRA boundary be extended to include the Raritan Bay coastal areas and Raritan River estuary to the Victory Bridge and to ask DEP-OC7M to specifi- cally include this recommended boundary change in this Coastal Man- agement Program document. 2. Coordination of the Lower Raritan/Middlesex County 208 and WRA with Coastal Zone Management Program Development and Implementation. One of the procedural principles used to shape the management system was that mechanisms be created to insure that decisions on coastal land and water uses be made at the most local level of government practicable. Steps toward the creation of such a framework have al- ready begun in the Lower Raritan/Middlesex County 20B area. The Lower Raritan/Middlesex County Water Resources Association (WRA) is in the process of being formed as the centerpiece of the water resources management program for Middlesex County which would coordinate the pow- ers of local, regional and state government in determining and protecting water quality with the Implementation of the policies outlined in the tatement n te recently adopted 208 Water Quality Mfanaqement Plan Report. At the pre- NEW JERE COAS TAL AAG PROGRA-BAY & OCA/IOR SEI sent time, a Lower Raritan/Raritan Bay Basin Council i-elng organized and is expected to be fully established by mid-fall 1978. Tile design of this basin council is to address a wide variety of concerns, largely and DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT of focusing on coastal zone management and energy facility siting issues M 18 in Middlesex County. The 20B, PAC and Water Resources Association con-ay, 97 tinue to urge that the 208-WRA process be more fully incorporated into the State coastal management process. We suggest that any future docu- ments include the expression of a more detailed understanding and aware- ness of the evolving Lower Raritan/Middlesex County 208 and WRA policies and programs especially as they pertain to the expected Lower Raritan/ Raritan Bay Basin Council. The 208-HRA is interested; we want to get involved. The Task Force therefore, would like to make the recomnendation that the 208-WRA be involved in the design of a sensible and implementable coastal zone management program for the non-CAFRA areas of Middlesex County. The State should actively support the 208-WRA as the prime agency for coordi- nation of water quality and water use management in the non-CAFRA areas. In this manner, the basin councils of-the 208-WRA could act as the forum through which concerns would be addressed at the local level, without necessitating the State to extend Its authority into the non-CAFRA areas. In the next phase of the coastal program, the 208-WRA must be Involved Prepared by: and integrated into the process of developing a meaningful coastal zone T management program. lo this extent, the State's management program would Lfayette uPlace, Freehold, Plew nn erng ey 0772Board be assured of being consistent with the 208-Nater Resource's Association yett Place reehold New Jersey 07728 areawide management policies to protect and improve the quality of water Ju 1 97 in the non-CAFRA areas of Middlesex County's coastal zone. Prepared under the terms of contract to the New Jersney Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Co.intal Zone Management, with financial assistance under the pro- visions of Section 305 of P.L. 92-583, Coastal 7one Management Act of 1972. Page 11I water supplies and, in extreme cases where a nonstructerat approach is Impracticant or unfeasible, flood control structures. The lonmouth County Planning Board appreciates the opportunity to comment on the revised Coastal Management Program and applauds the Department of The.general prohibition against filling in coastal waters should not include the Environmental Protection for preparing a balanced, comprehensive pin for the grading and planting of new wetlands in nonsensitive water areas, which is encouraged wine management of coastal resources. The Planning Board reviewed the ProProgram. The Planning Board supports continuation of the requiements t originally proposed in September, 1977, and continues to support tihe Departtment's degraded wetlands be restored as a development mitigation measure and, in comments basic policies, which favor the protection of the coastal ecosystem, the energy- on nonresidential applications in the past, has generally recommended the replacement efficient concentration of development and preservation of open space, and the of destroyed wetlands even in existing developed areas. We are pleased that only redevelopment and reuse of existing developed areas. We also like tihe emphasis water-dependent uses will be permitted on the coastal wetlands, in a policy which on coastal- or water-dependence in particularly sensitive land and wateris edge prohibits further residential development on the wetland areas. The DEP should areas and the high priority assigned to recreational and resort-oriented uses. complete its delineation of the State's wetlands and coordinate its permit program with the Army Corps of Engineers. The revised Program is greatly improved. It is much better organized and states clearly which uses are acceptable and which are prohibited in various Host of the Special Water's Edge and Land Areas policies provide an added categories of water, water's edge, and land types. If a use is conditionally measure of protection for the unique and sensitive or unstable areas (including acceptable, it outlines the criteria required for approval. The Coastal Location prime agriculture lands) which are not in the more general categories. Acceptablility Method (CLANM) used to determine development suitability for a specific use has been transformed from an obscure methodology to a planning process The ligh Risk Erosion Areas policies will prohibit development in the most useful to the developer and planner alike. It is an approach which considers bouth hazard prone areas of the coast and discourage occupation of the areas in a 50-year the sensitivity and development potential of a site. The Program seeks to limit erosion zone. Development is prohibited on the coastal dunes and inside stream administrative discretion and increase the predictability of the decision-making heads, circular areas at the origin of the streams, when it would interfere with process. CLAM will help achieve this goal. By preparing a composite map of the their natural discharge function. onsite land and water subareas and consulting the Bay and Ocean/Shore Segment to determine permitted uses and applicable standards before the preapplication The Barrier Island requirements should be more closely correlated with tilhe conference, the developer can save considerable time and expense by avoiding Erosion policies. The present Program would permit continued high-density development the need for major redesign. across virtually the entire width of the barrier, from the upper wetlands boundary to the back of the seawall in a Central Barrier Island Corridor. While facility Many have expressed the view that the PEP lacks an adequate data base and in- siting would remain subject the erosion rules, a more cautious approach should be ventory of sensitive areas for intelligent coastal decision-making. The federnlly- taken. The definition of dunes as "formations of partially stabilized, vegetated, funded mapping project to cormmence after Program approval will identity development- drifting santd..." suggests that tihe eastern boundary of the Central Corridor in suitable areas throughout the Stnte's coastal zone and will permit a more positive, . natural areas, at the foot of the most inland dune, has been defined Inadequately. creative planning effort by the DEP. tUndeveloped barriers islands should remain in their natural state. The Planning Board supports the Special Water Areas guidelines under the OEf floodplains in general the Program states: "Intensive development of floodplains Location Policies concerning shellfish beds, surf clam areas, prime fishing areas, lends to increased runoff, reduction in flood storage capacity, increased size and finfish migration pathways, submerged vegetation, navigation channels, shipwrecka, frequency of downlstream flooding, erosion of stream banks and downstream deposition and marine sanctularies. -of sediments with consequent reduction in estuarine productivity." The Mlonmouth County General Development Plan designates floodplains an conservation and drainage areas, While we are in general agreement with the uses permitted in the basin and and the Planning Board agrees that non water-dependent uses shlolld not he permitted channel Water Areas, particularly those favoring beach nourishment, several on the Upper Water's Edge. Although the Upper Edge corresponds closely with the flood- revisions are suggested. The maintenance dredging of lakes and ponds should be prone area, the two areas are not the same, and the Flood Hazard policies for the conditionally acceptable rather than prohibited. While we strongly oppose the Segment based upon the State stream encroachment and Federal flood insurance laws, wholesale channelizatlon of streams, stream clearance should also be regarded as which have not been very effective in limiting floodplain development. The Federal conditionally acceptable, and mosquito control commissions and agricultural flood insurance program, in fact, increased encroachment by subsidizing new home- operations exempt from the permit requirement. In lonmouth County, a Drainage & owners locating in tire floodplain. Hopefully, approval of tile pay and Ocean/Shore Waterways Agency coordinates stream cleaning work and assists tlhe Mosquito Control will result in improved Federal consistency with the Upper Wlater's Edge policies Commission with its permit applications. The county mosquito commission shliould of the Program, and will stimulate better control at the State level after a more operate under revocable authority according to DEP guidelines. Farmers would extensive delineation of the coastal'streams. continue to cooperate with the local Soil Conservation District in developing best management practices. While the need to protect the quality of the groundwater and to promote aquifer We also recommend that the channel construction of dams and impoundments be recharge is discussed under the Resource Policies, there are no location po1liies discouraged rather than prohibited to permit the development of public potable for the outcrops of inmprtant aquifers. 83 m - ~~~.- -_ -. __ mEm m m - - - m - - - Page iIi Page IV The Land Acceptability factors consider the development constraints and advantages of the natural and built-up environment. Special care should be taken to insure that the sensitivity definitions for tile vegetation index do not reward the clearance of forested land, particularly on fertile soils in cases where The guidelines should specify the type of treatment required for the stormwater development is not contemplated for some time nnd, hence, not clearly associated with runoff from the pavement on intensely developed sites. The DEP demonstrates development under Ch. 251 (Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act). flexibility in permitting more concentrated building coverages (with no change in the minimum vegetated areas) where pervious pavements are employed, thus fostering Development Potential criteria will help to prevent sprawl and unneeded a more efficient use of land on suitable sites. development by considering the site's proximity to roads, railroads, water supply and sanitary sewer facilities, schools, and similar uses (infill characteristic). In some cases, tile cluster developments favored by DEP involve higher densities than those allowed by the township on subareas of the project site. The Departmest'a The Planning Board supports the housing Use Policies including those concerning willingness to provide a rationale for the cluster concept before the municipal high rise constrjction, which is prohibited east of the ocean front road or body demonstrates a cooperative spirit. The inclusion in the Program of sample equivalent park distance. The county's general Development Plan designates these site plans for the various residential density types and plans for improved areas for public or quasi-public use. For thin reason, and because five-story, mapping will help the developer. Monmouth County already has a Development four-story and even single-family detached units have tile same effect pf preventing Suitability Hap and Unique Areas inventory, (in the Natural Features Study) which uninterrupted or uninhibited visual and physical access to the beach, the prohibition is presently being updated. Although we agree that the wetlands should be designated should be extended to all non-recreational development of the ocean front. Applications as a generic Geographical Areas of Particular Concern, those areas for high rises on the block west of the ocean highway should fie reviewed with previously nomimated should continue to receive special consideration. particular care, especially in low-density, low-profile communities which, in any case, do not meet the stated conditions for acceptability under the Management Program. The adoption of a single set of administrative rules for the CAFPA, wetlnnds, and The CAFRA permit section should make a special effort to identify areas in the more riparian elements of the Coastal Management Program is a step toward simplifying urban resort communities where such development would be encouraged and should spell the review process. The Planning Board does not favor decision-making on out the probable consistency impacts of the Program with respect to Federal development applications by a single group but does believe that only one decisions for these areas. application should be required for any proposed project. The DEP would than circuila:e the application among its various divisions. The Planning Board is encouraged by the Resort/Recreational Policies which stress that those facilities which are approved shall provide equal opportunity access to The preapplication conference provides an excellent opportunity for the large numbers of people and offer the full range of services or opportunities developer and DEP to explore new technologies and design concepts on suitable appropriate to the use. Marinas approved on wetlands should use the land as lends. The Program, for example, encourages the use of renewable sources of efficiently as possible by employing such techniques as vertical dry-dock facilities, energy. The sea breezes of the coast could be harnessed for wind energy. The use of summer parking areas for the winter storage of boats and the construction of road system of the solar-heated subdivision could be oriented primarily in the sales and snack bar facilities as second stories over water-dependent uses. east-west direction, with solar easements provided for each unit; and the basements, roofs, and parking lots (covered) of public facilities and shopping centers would Tile Planning Board agrees with the DEP's contention tihat onshore energy provide areas for heat storage and solar collection. facilities associated with offshore oil development should be located outside the Segment in existing, built-up areas. Although the DEP permit process requires One of the significant obstacles to the concentration of development and simplification, the Planning Board feels that the lsP should possess the power to preservation of open Sapce in the past has been the DEP's general unwillingness, e veto unacceptable siting decisions by tile DOE. In addition, the DOE should not even in the nominated Geographic Areas of Particular Concern, to deny CAPRA overrule siting decisions made at the local level unless such policies are clearly applications (although theorequired performance standards usually result in better obstructionist and interfere with the location of n pipeline or other corridor. projects), To channel development to some areas, one must prohibit it in others. The Program's position on nuclear power plants is supported by tile Board of Chosen By defining more clearly what constitutes an effective use and increasing the Freeholders in a 1976 resolution urging the prohibition of future plants "within or witeeholdersut the tate or in it adjacent land and sea areas s bing..detrimentahin predictability of CAA decisions, the new policies, improved cooperation, suggested tor withu tothe Sta te or in Ito a d jacent land w i ngd se a a repas being...detrimentolle. alternatives, better mapping, and the preapplication conference will all help to to tile health, safety and well-being of tile people ................................ " avert thi difficult decision to deny proposals that are not inEilt. Farmland preservation schemes, lowered wetlands assessments, and TDR would reduce the nm- The Planning Board has long favored the nonstructural approach to shore protection and is pleased by the document's preference for beach nourishment over groins, In cumulative impact of residential construction on the coast of less than As the CLAM lMethod involves both the advantages and disadvantages of a site, 25 units remains a problem. A strict application of the Public Facility policies - mining operations should not be exempt frocm the Location policies. will help to guide such development in the future. The Planning Board is presently evaluating tile appropriateness of existing coastal zone boundaries and A number of the Resource Policies have considerable merit: thae provision for adequacy of the State legislation and will forward recommendations to the silt removal in detention basins, use of native species in landscape plans to Office of Coastal Zone Management. promote fertilizer and water conservation, consideration of aesthetic values, concern for the worker environment in industriallcommercial sites, and use of barrier-free design for the handicapped in developments of 250 or more units. appreciates the cooperation shown in the past. The present State-County Coordination Project, which requires a review of local master plans and zoning ordinances and neetings with local officials, should also help to provide for sound development 84 Page V hich respects the natural environment on the oans:. STATEMENT OF The Planning Board seen the Bay and Ocean/Shore Segment asn major step in ALAN W. AVERY, JR., ASSISTANT PLANNER achieving this goal, and looks forward to continued progress in the future. OCEAN COUNTY PLANNING BOARD CONCERNING PROPOSED NEW JERSEY COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM BAY AND OCEAN SIIORE SEGMENT AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AT A PUBLIC NEARING OF TIIE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONUMNTAL PROTECTION JUNE 14, 1978 Good evening, I am a staff planner with the Ocean County Planning Board and part of my responsibilities with the County involve coastal zone planning. I am here to read a statement on behalf of Steven L. Pollock, Acting Planning Director. Mr. Pollock had a previous commitment which prevented him from attending tonight's hearing. This statement generally highlights concerns regarding the Coastal Management Program for the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. It is anticipated that more detailed comments will be prepared and submitted to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection on behalf of the Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders and the Ocean County Planning Board; and under the terms of the State-County Coastal Coordination Project agreement, these comments will be submitted previous to the July 5, 1978, deadline. Ocean County has long supported the goal of protecting and preserving the complex and sensitive environmental areas associated with the bay and ocean shore. The part of Ocean County affected by the policies proposed in the Day and Ocean Shore Segment is one of rare natural beauty and bountiful resources. However, tile coastal m - - - - - -~~~~~8 e csider local and County input in CAFRA, wetlands and riparian region of the County has been and no doubt will continue to be the scene of powerful and often contradictory pressures for development. permit decisions. The'Bay and Ocean Shore Segment of the Coastal Zone While we generally support the efforts of the Coastal The'Bay and Ocean Sihore Segment of the Coastal gone Zone Management staff, there are, however, certain issues that we Management Program addresses many of the development and conservationo the a ,n feel must be addressed prior to formal adoption of the nay and issues of concern to the County. For the first time, the State has e she ege ery trouble- ~ Ocean Shore Segment. made a clear effort to develop policies regarding some very trouble- some issues, such as development of wetland areas and other areas of First, and probably most important from the standpoint of environmental concern, oil and gas pipelines, and related energy land use planning and coordination with County and local planning, facilities including the siting of nuclear generating plants. In is the absence of a comprehensive land use plan that clearly concept, a management system based on thile location, use and resource delineates the spatial distribution of acceptable uses under the policies should allow for a clear definition of the development plan, and identifies areas that are suitable or unsuitable for potential of a specific parcel of land. It should facilitate permit development. A composite map showing the key locations and use applications, and eliminate much of the administrative discretion in restrictions listed in the report is absolutely essential. The making permit decisions. At the same time, a management system that absence of such a map severely limits the ability of local and provides and sets guidelines for development proposals based on County government to specifically evaluate the impacts of the Bay environmental concerns should result in better planned, more and Ocean Shore Segment on their respective zoning or comprehensive environmentally sound development. Based upon preliminary review, development plans and to identify areas where conflicts between it appears that the State has accomplished a greht deal toward this local and State concerns might arise. Until such time as the spatial end. impacts of the proposed program are identified, it is impossible to adequately evalute the socio-economic issues raised by the program. We also applaud the efforts made by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to involve municipal and Also, the Coastal Zone Management Program will serve as County government in both the development of the proposed policies a policy reference for State review of plans and proposals of and in their implementation. This involvement has been achieved by regional impact. It is difficult to see how this program with its the opportunity to comment on the Coastal Zone Management Program emphasis on site specific considerations, will adequately consider at public meetings and public hearings as well as at working the regional impacts of, for instance, 208 Areawide Water Quality meetings such as those held by the State-County Coastal Coordination Plans and projects submitted for A-95 review. Program. We firmly support, and will cooperate with, the New Jersey A second area of concern is the institutional arrangements Department of Environmental Protection's effort to involve and between local, county and state programs. These relationshIps 86 must be better defined. The Coastal Program was supposedly based on the principle that the program would, and I quote, "Consider Growth areas for Ocean County, as defined in the 20n Plan were based on the following eight considerations: only coastal resource and coastal land and water use decisions ofn the fllwing eight cnsideratins (1) all environmental factors considered by the Coastal greater than local significance, and create mechanisms to insure Program that decisions on coastal land and water uses are made at the lowest (2) present development trendi practicable level of government,consistent with these guiding (3) location of approved, but unbuilt, subdivisions principles." End quote. Local decisions of municipal impact (4) existing and proposed availability of sewers only should be made at the local level. The Department of (5) existing and proposed availability of water Environmental Protection should focus only on coordinating policies (6) existing land uses and decisions of clearly statewide concern. Nowhere is it apparent (7) existing municipal zoning that the Coastal Program considers local concerns as reflected (8) specific locational considerations such as transportation, and market and labor areas. in local and County zoning and master plans. It is also difficult Using these factors, it was possible to define growth areas and to to relate decisions on neighborhood shopping, or school sites, or determine that sufficient acreage was available in these areas to restrictions based on these factors to statewide concern. accomodate the expected population increases in Ocean County without A third area of concern is the designation of growth areas. impacting environmentally sensitive areas and in an efficient, The Coastal Program emphasizes the concentration of development in Ocean County essentially to an area north of Lacey Township logical development pattern. The Coastal Program limits growth areas to ten municipalities and east of the Garden State Parkway, excluding the barrier in Ocean County, six of which are essentially developed. A serious beaches. Restricting growth to this area conflicts with the question arises as to whether there is sufficient amounts of developable proposed State Development Plan Guide prepared by the New Jersey lands in these growth areas to accomodate projected population Department of Community Affairs, the Ocean County Concept Plan, increases without impacting or infringing upon environmentally prepared by the Ocean County Planning Board and the Ocean County sensitive areas, or radically altering the density and characteristics 208 Water Quality Plan. Each of the four plans was federally of existing communities. funded, each define growth areas, but with the exception of the The rationale behind the limited designation of growth areas two plans prepared by Ocean County, none correspond. Furthermore, is to encourage the consolidation of residential and other land use neither the criteria used to designate the growth areas in the Coaa- Pdevelopment in areas where services such as electric, water, sewer Coastal Program nor the reasons for the differences between the and other infrastructures are in place, thereby reducing the costs two development plans prepared by state agencies is addressed in and environmental impacts resulting from the extensions of services the draft. "4 d~dss~lllssllfstl ii II) II I5 into undeveloped areas. In Ocean County, this policy of concentration addressing many of the concerns of Ocean County. Ocean County has the potential to create more environmental problems than the looks forward to working closely with the New Jersey Department orderly, managed expansion of development into environmentally of Environmental Protection to assure the protection of our bay suitable areas. and ocean shore areas. The Planning Board staff welcomes the A good example of these potential problems would be in the opportunity toprovide additional input to the Coastal Program area of groundwater. One hundred percent of Ocean County's potable as it continues to be refined. I would like to thank you for the water supply comes from groundwater. Concentration of development opportunity to present comments concerning the Bay and Ocean may have potential long term serious impacts on groundwater. Policies Shore Segment at tonight's hearing. I trust that these comments which will increase withdrawal rates in areas where aquifers are will assist the New Jersey Department of Environmental already developed to some extent, and already experiencing localized Protection in its review of the proposed Coastal Program. problems need to be carefully evaluated. Planned future growth in the nortwestern sectors of the County as well as balanced growth in the eastern regions of the County could serve to equalize withdrawals and help mitigate these problems. It appears that this growth pattern would be restricted under the Coastal Program. Therefore, before formal approval is given to the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment of the Coastal Zone Management Program, we recommend that the following actions be taken: 1. A map be prepared by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection showing the spatial distribution of land uses and land suitable or unsuitable for development as defined by the Coastal Program. 2. Additional time be provided for local and County evaluation of this map. 3. Additional consideration be given to local and County plans, especially in considering the designation of growth and limited growth areas. , In closing, I would like to commend the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for soliciting public comments and A:mfm ~~~~~~~~~6 ~~6/14/78 SALEM COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ,. '-ad~~~~~~~;"~"~'~'e Slm Ne Jre087SALEM COUNTY PLANNING BOARD [I . Co se,6 0 9 * 9 3 5 - A 4 7 Courthouse, Salem, New Jersey 08079 JMOMAS C. CROSSIAND, JR., Chairman 60 9. a 5 - 4 A 7 7 IIOMAS C. CROSStAND. JR., Cho.i.mn July 11, 1978 New Jersey Coastal Zone Management Progrnm David N. Kinsey, Chief Day nvd ocean Shore Segment Office of Coastal Zone Management Draft VIS Division of Marine Services Salem County Planning Staff Comments Dept. of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 1889 Trenton, New Jersey 0i865 Tle Salem County Planning Staff comments are listed below on the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment of the Coastal Zone Management Program. These BD~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ear David, ~comments add to previous comments on this document and the strategy dcut- Dear David, � meet. An effort has been made to consolidate previous discussions and to Enclosed are additional comments on the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. drop issues which are no longer relevant. These comments are in addition to our previous comments on this Segment and on the Strategy document. Generally, the document is an important step toward a more rational The Salem County Planning Staff endorses the basic coastal policies decision-making process in the issuance or coastal permits. However, we with a few reservations. As was mentioned in our Strategy comments; lie continue to believe that the document does not provide enough direction, believe that the second policy means that development will occur in a and thereby, manage the coastal zone, and that the document has a number concentrated manner and not that major new development must be contigious of policy and technical weaknesses. In addition, the document does not to existing settled areas. Our previous comments that certain facilities outline a definitive role for County government which is clearly needed (nuclear plants, LNC) be excluded from this policy has been Ieeded. Ilow- to recognize regional differences and to lower the level of permit ever, a policy statement somewhere In the document should discourage such decision-making. Nevertheless, despite various critical comments, we clustering without extensive safeguards. recognize that this planning document is better researched than various "master planning" efforts of other State agencies. Tile County Planning Staff believes that a rational decision-making mechanism should be employed which relates to the advantages and disadvan- I do hope that these comments and further County Involvement in the tages of development as stated in the third policy. Ilowever, we also be- development and implementation of the program, will eventually create a leve that OCZM's responsibilty to manage the coast does not end with program and process that is satisfactory to both tile State and this County. such a method. !Si 7e y Yo If the intent of the Office of Coastal Zone Management is to manTafe Sl y i �i~rC., the coast, the office should review its existing authority and mechanisms to determine if it can truly direct and control the coast's growth. The basic flaws in this coastal management program are that the incremental, Christopher J. Warren small scale development may not be controlled, the cumulative impacts of Acting Planning Director development are not seriously addressed since the regional constraints to Cnl/ewc development are not considered, and the program does not provide enough direction or encourage the best use of the land. A conceptual land use plan for the coast may have helped better achieve these objectives. Better yet, a procedure should be developed by DEP to affirm County plans as the conceptual policy for tile area. The integration of County plans arln the State program has not been adequate to date but the coastal coordination program should help address this problem. m~~~~~~ m m - -- m mi Coastal Zone Doundary It Is our opiinon that New Jersey Coastal Zone plrnciples srlotld be required of all new industry rather than the blanket prohibition of 1. The development of a coastal zone boundary is an Important ele- certain uses under the DelawIare Act. Therefore, the State should pursulle ment of the coastal zone planning process. The Federal Coastal Zone Act interstate cooperation through n bistate compact or other arrangement as of 1972 states that the coastal zone "extends inland from the shorelines referred to in Section 303(dI of the :cderal Costal t Act 0:1. should only to the extent necessary to control shoreland, the uses of rhich hr au more vigorously pursue this issue during the later segmnent of this mlnaage- a direct and aigtnificart impact on the coastal waters (italics added). ment program.. In the publication, Alternative Boundaries for New Jersey's Coastal Location Policies Zone, the language was carefully examined and several alternatives were discussed. This County Planning Staff's position on a coastal zone bound- Coastal Location Acceptability tMethod (CIXJl_ ary have been iterated at various times in the development of the coastal program. From the outset, this planning staff has opposed the use of the Our previous comments were quite critical of the Coastal location CAPRtA boundary since we do not believe that it is an appropriate fulfill- Acceptability Method (CIdLA) which is the foundation of the Imanagement pro- ment of the Federal Coastal Zone Act's definition. The extension of the gram. Titis method is the principal means of determining lhere development boundary to the Upper Wetlands did eliminate a Strategy comment on its should occur and the intensity of such development. ,Ithoglgh a considerabrl shortcomings but the continued use of cultural features as a boundary line amount of effort has been spent refining this process, we continue to fain- makes the coastal zone too inclusive in many areas of the coast. tain that CLAM has a number of important weaknesses. The Office of Coastal Zone Management should have developed a bound- Tile intent of the method is to promote predictability and reduce the anry based upon sound.nlnnning principles irregdrdless of whether the amount of discretion present in permit decisions. Ilorever, a developer coastal zone was within or beyond the existing CAI:RA line. Implementa- would need to undertake an extensive analysis to determine the Intensity of tion of the program would have been based upon available powers (two-tier development that would be permissable. This analysis may entail extensive approach). The merits of the State's attempts to manage the coast would site specific information which a developer would be unwilling or unable to have been more clearly established if consistent environmental criteria gather prior to owning a parcel outright or ncquiring nll option. A goner- had been used for boundary dblineation. alized graphic composite for the coast would hell ellminate the problel nand should have been developed prior to program approval if tie public was to 2. During the development of a coastal zone program, Salem County be properly informed of the program's impact. has repeatedly mentioned its concern with the ramifications of the Delaware Coastal Zone Act. The Delaware Coastal Zone Act prevents the siting of The technical soundness of the method is also subject to question. heavy industry, bulk transfer facilities, and may also preclude all types Pirst, we tend to disagree that the stated six factors are the princlpal of docking facilities on the New Jersey side within a twelve mile arc of location factors and that. each is relevant to a particular development New Castle, Delaware (excepting out the Port of Wilmington). As mentioned proposal.. There may be other factors such as bearing capability which may In this County's OCS study, there are precedents upon which to base our be relevant to a particular application. Moreover, the acceptable develop- Concerns. As a matter of fact, the original LNG terminal proposal on mcnt definitions do not apply to all types of uses and seem to be partitc Oldmans Creek in Gloucester County was determined by Delaware to be a pro- ularly relevant to residential development. The factors are not 'articular- hibited use under their Coastal Zone Act in 1971 and a permit was denied. ly relevant for locating certain types of industrial facilities. Although this issue was not pursued by New Jersey and in that case the prohibition may have been fortunate, the fact remains that industrial -- In addition, the reasoning behind some of the Intensity determinations development in New Jersey was affected by Delaware's action. is dubious. For example, certain areas of the coast have low water tables but excessively drained soils. These areas are particularly sensitive to The Salem County Planning Staff understands the complexity of the groundwater contamination yet the acceptability table indicates moderate issue and is appreciative of OCZM's goal of addressing the matter. The intensity development is acceptable. Although the soils information of an mentioning of the issue in the Coastal Management Program is a step in the specific application may reveal this excessive permeability problem, tilhe right direction. However, we do not believe that the Office of Coastal situation is widespread and therefore should be noted. DIespite statements Zone Management. has made a concerted effort to assist this County in the to the contrary by the. OCZiI staff, our analysis indicates that it is diffi- pursuit of a better understanding of this issue. As you know, Delaware cult to roview:rthe reliability of the intensity determinations because of tile opposed the involvement of a regional interstate planning agency on this number of classes. In addition, since Information must be categorized, therc issue and has left the County little recourse in the absence of State is a loss in the quality of information present in the tables. HIowever, it support. The County Planning Staff has had discussions with Pave lhigg and least an attempt has been made to express the decision-making: process. Nathan Hayward of the responsible Delaware planning division but has made little progress toward a cooperative arrangement. 90 MIDDLESfX COUNTY Use Policies f trr :ky Although we have disagreed with tilhe specific wording in tile nuclearr or power plant policy, there are two important points relating to nuclear AN;EN. StrtAG policy that has not been emphasized in previous comments. First, how will deofoOne ctCrK OCZI control population density around nuclear power plants? Or more specifically, what is the status of the existing moratorium around nuclear plants since there is no mention of land use controls in this document? In addition, what are the location policies for nuclear power plants? Although the document states that no new plants will be permitted unless...., there are no set criteria for evaluating the merits of alternate sites if The President these criteria were met. The White House Washington, D. C. 20500 Resource Policies Dear Mr. President: A concern of tils County that has been expressed before is the control of dredge spoils disposal operations. Although mention is made in the I am enclosing a certified copy of Resolution 178-92, adopted by acceptable water use section on the prerequisite conditions for ocean dump- the Mayor and Council of the Borough Carteret, County of Carteret, County o Middlesex, ing of dredged material, there are no procedures established to control the State of New Jersey, at a Regular Council Meeting held Tuesday Evening, effects of improper land disposal of dredge material. In this County, there June 8, 1978, stating its agreement with the studies to be made con- are obvious situations where federal actions in the disposal of dredged earning the New Jersey Coastal Management Program. nowever, the material on excluded lands have "spillover i mpacts" upon the coastal zone. Governing Body of the Borough of Carteret is also stating it is unal- We believe it Is M.E.P.'s responsibility to prevent these impacts. There- terably opposed to the expenditure of State or Federal funds for Shore fore, the management program should require the submission of disposal site and Bay Maintenance unless the Sew Jersey shore is open to the public. plans by tile Aimy Corps of Engineers to verify that their operations are not significantly affecting coastal resources. Very truly yours, ANNE N. SZELAG, Municipal Clerk ANS/mr Enclosure c.c. Senator Clifford P. Case Senator Harrison A. Williams Congressman Edward J. Patten Governor Brendan T. Byrne N.J. State Senator John G. Gregorio N.J. Assemblyman Thomas J. Beverin N.J. Assemblyman Raymond Lesniak John Weingart, Assistant Chief DEP/OCZM Middlesex County Board of Chosen Freeholders Middlesex County Planning Board c/o James Fong, Energy Systems - m - - - - - - - - - - - - Wm-MM M M .9.~~~~. A.' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 ~~~~~~~~IEgP.AS, thle New Jersey Department of Ellvirorimental Protectl1.m "1 *~~~~~~~~~' ~~~~~ . ~~~~and tile National Oceauic end Atnosph,,ri Admili'strationi Intend to candijet sr TI ~~ ~ ~ 'fl-rr"T j a public bearing, to review thle New Jersey Co-artal M.1;iap"ement Program . ,f*-7 D ~fay and Ocean Shore Segment; and T1 . ... WHEREAS, New Jersey's onast Is a fragile and coveted resource facing conflicting opportunities *lnd pressures, and these hearings will, 4provide tihe opportunity for all to participate In makIng decisions to conserve this resource and-achieve a balanced use of tile bay and ocean shore region of Now Jersey's coast. ~~ r~~~~. . .. . ~~~~~~~~~~. ~~~~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS IIEREIIY RESOLVED that the ~iT~." ~ *.cX Governing Body of the Borough of Carteret Is In full agreement with the c4c -4t -~~l~ studies to be made concerning the Coastal Hianagment Program. The Governing ..1 ~~~a --,:n",'~'' " Body of. the' Borough of Carteret, however, Is unalterably opposed to thle .'i *1' "~~~~ '-'~~~ ~ . . '-~~~-r1 I . ~~expenditure of state or federal funds for shore and bay maintenance unless *.~~~ *... a'l' ~~~~~~~~ " ' ~~the Jersey shore Is opened to the publi,-. 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.'evl 1' niA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~orignle original C11 ~... 4~~~~~~~~ EN Z 92 entry~~ 2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~- *.~ :'- ti" ld Sctr ~ - - r-'c-n~~~~tge 4�9 !r4 .."-tn 4, . t. !Y rt:$trc$ts�''-''nC 1-1~.tjr- -~ '~- 1r~r.L~j 'n'- ?k.~-trristttt - ? ~ir5'tx, r rr,--('-~ 'Ln-n- r' 11-"' "'n' 1~~~~~~~'*' '� ~~~~ 1'? '1M: '�~~~~~~ .nnvr ,,'-'rz--i' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~;I 4-re C ' rI Aan-r'v to tv: r.e't'tI n0, rhailo O -,r5the P mrerln tlr M' 'In"' n 1"4i'--n'''' tin" J5!~jv r 'nl r 1 1- ,'.- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ns :,*r '' a--' ,' ,t arc'nrrivvtl : i*'t- "'In r ~ rr- in ipc -r~114AL a n ' -~v Ol ---- -ocr " t -n!'i~Y /cb1~' of S"Ocir 114. Y-T&-'7 jcP1~1c""4 .~nr h~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~aca fl ''n!nn.-- t " flf'c~$..~ *~~ 'pin -ret, tin- ~ ~n-t rant!' :1115-er Iarm-i~~on cv-' i-''-c* !!" 11.11, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t lit' trt -k-t-c4twtr fic-n-'-. t h'o-"- port. o" nn-t cIt !'-riern! v ve.~ rnO "win thnir Siint "W in-V "v'A i.fv ....I'ltwta p! snf -p5.2- ''ran 4c '~t nov-it'1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e *T~,!*'Lc cCC 'rnm oat. TieEn- !tn{-~ -c. ~~ltt~t.fr 1nr---r4 ~.-t cr-"'" 4 nn-nlrvrr, ~rrr w~t" 9tp~t i!C~l~~t~i'i1'5.1 v- nrb-rnr l-r-? en rnI-' ntAerenotee tnr~nr 1- 'S{"-.--,. "'-4 ~ej ;,r-r -o-r~i-- nn~A teo. ih 2it '.'lQ'! ~e-ntg$nrn r''nI'r h ty-~nci'fit-r:i"c-''-93.Ii' m m m m m m m m m - mI m'Xm-' m- t~~~~~~ii ~ ~ ~ ~ i rirnro-!r In1yt2r 17, n'r-P r. tI,s-rn 0rrI' w inrt rrmij r,- V 'n, t/IM!e 1_-~' t'~r-'-"i of. 1, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4-n i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~n tocvnr' ': r.~7p :J/wn'2ir.:4yorr 1.-. 51lur r.!( Th !t'I* in *n" k-... '-"n-I! -~ in a ,.'5 Ic--n-il �'s' 4r~r ~ ~ ,,,vrA rn:' , , T "Lt 'Turin g---, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x". I�~o~ t.I-c Pro-l~ ino 'ato" ,#r..cc,.r. w' !"t' 5''n -'"r""'i thant- 5 mroan+'li'''rrrrVnt (171 r''ro- an n-it,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ht -nI b T'l 9-r r-t~ri.7. .. r-t'n~I"ni nrOi' prt-""("�'Ce bit ;. .,""'-J ' 5nks~~~~~~~~~int 5.'1 ''!J`-Mv-- o.M r-),..- tnts� rcxt't f-rr tttr to vc i--r farremn. w"'n n.~ "c-n-rf'OC~ ''''fl' -i r' C! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r rt,.h : 4r '~-a~!nlrnr 9p gort r55' tlr at- ,hvn"tn'r -' 'l"A'" 1no'r'nrnd Pl'i rtt't rnr-I outl itc.4all."" pr a s~ , o-t ......... nr-l, -nrerrn an~inr"'.cs ~ rn'or one-tt !rnl1.vrrtinr~ to ir- rr~r~s, no ~bn'ttS~r n",stn 5N~'""'to ~ ''in 1~~,~- tI-~4*~ fI~..-' -n-i ?rjl ""tn.'.nily on 'Yc C~s'rnt" T~ '.rznF"' st jp '.Mibsill ~ nst 'vinrrt-'rn nltnldinP7 b !Jt~ in: -oaly. t ~ ot' tntc'~tnn c594tt hot..i 1. Ed..., ~~~~Mkilos HiGHWAY A7,1 M ln MIDDLETOWN. H. 3.0 Chili 1 0 '9 Im fin horf,;0t2?rrrni !. tl,9 t,rrr)-tr7 of Dpt .7,~ o...pAii,,,,, AeNy. J4. C- ...,, ilai Ciiit..1 04. "' ..p niS' the dcrl.1r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~zi r?'ir rrrY'~~~~17t.6,ro July~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.,i ii 1,0y C ,s O-fice i'r *osa 7,0n . CoanniteeQ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ' - n , - - o r , ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..,.. i m > : . t : - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ' Alien 1. Mne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o..oid 4 .r le~~~~~p. o -.n jr n _neiqe Tie~ or- i' D-r ' -,~ f jreo otoa oeil~m Tronbon, ~ ~ ~ ~ doljl the J.,:~ Dea~ ~ ~~~10elii ie- etcr ITtt 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ln I.I. b '1 Jrko Licl-ira1.1, lierdt.el "ve tht tIeL 15 too w'ohet vcrtt~c,, :`: ton nobn of unfmilia i~ord. Cleonl _Y ws to v]. jm!, ~ t C onvciorone andthe Vema2�n-pg otAnd. S;dc'n <t qgIk Into acnaynt ti-at thrnyo e' e : tb d 1Ctcoto~airc to17 nI lk. 0rsinally had. anly rlovloj menb ~l Oxata~ of wha0 '~tdvl.nn, u pr'otect reualinlin jetla1nd adaent to then,-~ pojuthnhr P'0tcvy heeope i'o w UnS~motledUT' email and raVL3y spoilecd. rE i ci c nt-cd tirl ho protv~Ctoo ari betorved rather than 5-eilcdto coo e u.lKblo C3hailO'wan Envi I onernt al ICIuenoolo Copy to! T nhpComte I fl~~~"onniouth Cou-nty PLannnI03. board Written Comments on the New Jersey Coastal Management Program City Halt J. 8226 Bay and Ocean Shore Seagment submitted June 21, 1978 by (Ocean City, N39-1 26 Stephen 11. Gabriel, City of Ocean City, Mayor's Staff Advisor for (609) 399-611t, X-267 Coastal Zone Management June 21, 1978 Mr. David N. Kinsey, Chief Office of Coastal Zone Management N.J. Department of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 1889 Public Participation Trenton, N.J. 08625 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Dear Davidp. 198 Public participation is to be enhanced through the County Dear David, Planning Boards. flow is this expected to take place? Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Bay and Oeank yforthe o enity tcment ot the p harg lat e n p. 198 What is the status of the proposal by the Public Advocate to Ocean Shore Segment document at the public hearing last week in fund people who wish to actively participate in the permit review of Tons River. Your office has produced a fine piece of work. particular applications? Please find enclosed my written comments for the City of ceasn fCit. he oncloed my w comments form the Ci fp. 174 I think there is a need/potential for more public education/ Ocean City. I have also included my verbal comments from the information work, hearing. 1) concerning the need for coastal zone management Continued success with your coastal management efforts 2) to publicize social issues addressed, such as barrier free and let me know if I can be of any help locally to you or your design and unique communities. staff. 3) a layman's guide to the Location, Use, and Resource Policies, and CLAM. Sincerely, Sand Dunes en{ X f) 6 / * /0 ~Sand Dunes Stehe RGbilP. 55 Structural development on dunes is prohibited. How can muniei- Stephen R. Gabriel City of Ocean City palities develop their dune ordinances no that they are not struck Mayor's Staff Advisor for down or compromised by the courts? Coastal Zone Management ,t-layor B. Thomas Walr'mnn Public Access and Use of Beaches Comm. Chester 'limbnrg p. 158 The State is doing a good job of assuring access to the publically owned beaches. Additionally, the State needs to establish prescriptive use easements on privately owned beaches traditionally used by the public and maintained by public authorities where no sig- nificant attempts at ouster have been made by the owner. New Jersey has lost more recreational beach to development than it has to the ocean. 96 Juno 21, 1978 Comments on the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment Nrtlli lrrnr!l ffale Irninlnirr Stephen R. Gabriel THOMAS L ~FRTO-E. ()PA OFFICE OF FISCAL AFFAIRS nuHO ripo -P<ncn S-AIF 11OUsE. StfE 232 I lnr OrrlCTr r',if bt, 1 *rl r 0A' INTO fdN. N1 JAnlg. n1eR Shoreline Erosion .................. p. 149 Am I correct in assuming that the Shore Protection Use Policies June 16. 1978 1tlIMI I IIl 1101. I1 "A apply only to developments of 25 or more units? p. 150 Doen the State have a particular bulkhead design for ocean- Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and front properties which could be required by municipalities to help Atmospheric ministraton Atmospheric Administration them locally enforce Policy 7.8.3d "structures are designed to elimi- 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.V. nate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply"? Washington, DC 20235 p. 51 High Risk Erosion Areas - In Ocean City, the North Street - A TTENTION MS. KATHRYN COUSINS, MANAGER NORTH ATLANTIC R:GIOH Stenton Place beach should be added, Honorable David J. O'Hern, Conmissioner Department of Environmental Protection Non-conforming Uses Room 802, Labor and Industry Building Trenton, NJ 08625 Repeating my comment from the public hearings on the Coastal Zone Management Strategy, will the State be developing policy concerning Dear Sir: the reconstruction of existing discouraged, prohibited and/or non- These commnents are being sent directly to both agencies as the New Jersey conforming uses? In the Ocean City dune ordinance is the following Coastal aeent Program- aynd Ocean Shoe Segment states tat i serves as a combined Coastal ianagement Program andi a Draf i.nvironmental Impact "All prohibited use structures now existing as of the date of the Statement. An Implication of full adoption in its present form has tile signifi- passage of this Ordinance in the Atlantic Ocean Coastal Beach Zone cance of managing much land use at State level along the New Jersey coast. Although only 1,382 square miles (17 percent of the State land area and related as heretofore defined, are hereby designated as non-conforming uses. coastal waters) are directly involved under CAFRA and the Wetlands Act Inland Any non-conforming use existing at the time of passage of Ordinance of the CArRt boundary (p. the poliies deveral Coastal Zone anill estet Act 1091 may be continued and any structure may be restored or repaired that requires all parts be Integrated Into a single, unified program as soon in the event of partial destruction thereof." as practicable. This addition of land/river area of about 300 square miles along the Delaware Waterfront, Northern Waterfront, and the Ilackensack MIeadow- Other sources 6f appropriate language would be the State and Federal lands (p. 258), will comprise about another 4 percent of the total. In terms Flood Plain Acts, and the Federal Flood Ineurance Act. of the land area only, roughly 1,070 square miles (14 percent) of the State will be affected (in 17 of its 21 counties). These standards should also be consistent with development limitations now being considered by the Pinelands Review Committee, since the acreage involved is adjacent to the Coastal areas and of similar size. Ilence, with about 30 percent of the State's land area potentially affected, it is important that the policies being proposed in this first segment be sound and applicable to tile whole. Furthermore, these standards may be applied in other DEP permit programs, such as administered by the Division of Water Resources, "to facilities or areas not regulated by the Coastal Program" (p. 1617). ~~~ -, - Coastal Zone Management Hon. David J. O'Hern - 2 - June 16, 1978 Coastal Zone Management lion. David J. O'lern - 3 - June 16, 1970 The extent of the power of these regulations, as well as the extent of the land coverage, is all the more reason to examine this Coastal Program carefully. The latter point is a critical issue that involves the four Basic Coastal Not only will adoption of the rules of Chapter Three bind DEP to issue decisions Policies (p. 10). Where is the method for determining the limit on the concen- under the three permit programs of CAWRA, Wetlands Act, and Riparian Statutes tration of development (Policy 2) at which point development becomes so intense (p. 166), but DEP will apply them as well to the Shore Protection and Waterway in any given area that it no longer respects the natural and built environment Maintenance Program (p. 167). The Coastal Policies will be used to review (Policy 4)? And what level of government will be responsihle for this determina- consistency of other State agency proposals and those requiring A-95 clearance, tion? As a basic policy in this document, it would appear to be a State responsi- such as sewage, air pollution and transportation projects (p. 191). And on bility. However, It is stated elsewhere, "Thle Segment leaves land-use decisions non-federally owned land, "the CAFRA permit would cover all (natural interest) of predominantly local impact to the discretion of local governments. Thus, issues and thus has been identified as the single process during implementation residential or commercial developments that may not be detrimental individually of the Coastal Program Segment for assuring the continued consideration by could well have cumulative adverse impacts on the coastal zone" (p. 202). "The identified national interests" (p. 177). And "the Coastal Policies also will Segment Policies will not regulate housing developments of less than 25 units form the basis of New Jersey's discussions with, and responses to local govern- except in coastal wetland and riparian areas. Adverse impacts could result ments, regional and Interstate agencies and agencies from other states with an over the long term If developers choose to build in increments of 24 units (p. 210). Interest in the coast" (p. 164). But a method is lacking also in this document for determining the cumulative adverse impacts of larger projects that the State will review under what are Because of this potentially broad and deep regulatory impact upon New now chiefly site specific permit rulesi The resolution of this basic policy con- Jersey land and because "DEP has proposed that Chapter Three of the document flict again is dependent on carrying capacity mapping. be formally adopted as substantive rules under the general powers of DEP ..." (p. 165), we have commented in detail on this Chapter in Appendix A. Overall, Along this line we note that IIUD suggested a fifth policy be added to the while the rules are a vast improvement over the prior listing of policies "four Basic Coastal Policies to assure to the maximum extent practicable, con- only, they are too site-permit oriented, overly complex and confusing. Confusion sistency with the policies In the Department of Commiunity Affairs State Develop- results from the mixing of "water's edge" and "land areas" criteria; complexity ment Guide Plarl' (p. 245). The response was that the two agencies thieni o iW ve results partly from the treatment of vegetation. Furthermore, the proposed consistent policies. However, the growth areas shown in each draft plan are standards lack commonality with those of existing agencies in the area, i.e., markedly different with the Coastal Program's more limiting. Although "DEP county planning board criteria. adopted the Guide Plan's distinction between 'growth' and 'limited growth' areas, (it) chose different criteria for defining each category" (p. 172). The burden of compiling maps by developers is heavy (Appendix I lists five While this partly explains the variation, the chief reason is that the Guitle pages of "Data Sources for Location Policies.") Not only does that contribute Plan lacks a natural resources/carrying capacity basis even more so than this to development costs, but leads to greater variations in data interpretation. Coastal Program. The lack of environmental inventory considerations in prepar- Contrary to the DEP response to the need for combined maps indicating where ing the draft Guide Plan was a major comment of this office to the Director of development would be allowed (p. 250)1, a basic unfilled need exists for which Economic Planning, coordinator of State Agency responses (OFA letter to R. S. the Office of Environmental Analysis has a prototype in being. Not only is this Petterson, February 14, 1978). Hence, carrying capacity maps are essential for needed to relieve the developer, but to show visually the Impact of environmental the further development of both agency plans. inventories/developmental carrying capacity to government policy-makers. One questions the sentence, "Nor would New Jersey, with its strong reliance on Of the three broad options offered by the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, municipal zoning, be able to use such plans at a state level." This is refuted DEP is opting for direct State control (p. 10). And among alternatives that tile elsewhere, "Under the Use Policies, most types of major developments located in Act offers for acceptance of State programs is delay of approval for inadequately the Segment will be regulated by the State of New Jersey" (p. 202). considering the siting of facilities of natural interest and for not unifying phases within an entire State program (p. 217). Furthermore, as one of five As the document states throughout that the State's interest Is in regional state alternatives, the second states, "The State could wait to submit the Bay matters and that the remainder of development should remain the responsibility of and Ocean Shore Segments as part of the entire State Coastal Program" (p. 218). local government, Location Policies should shift emphasis from detailed "land The result of any of these alternatives taking place would be the loss of areas" standards of traditionally local regulatory concern to more complete Federal funds, however. criteria for the "water's edge" and "water areas." DEP recognizes this to some extent by its intention to do an Estuarine Study (p. 197). Use Policies appear While there is adequate time to provide policies for deepwater ports in incomplete as they do not consider Deep Water Petroleum Ports, nor the need to the final EIS, delay to correct deficiencies in Chapter Three policies for subse- differentiate between ocean shore resort/tourism and bay recreation/fishing. quent incorporation into a unified State Coastal Program at the end of 1978 would Resource Policies are overly involved with matters that should be of local con- appear desirable. This would allow for completion of the 12 coastal county cern only and conversely provide too little concrete basis for long-term bene- contracts from which DEP may choose to adopt local plans pertinent to this ficial impacts related to protecting water quality, water supply, air quality, program (p. 173). Such action would avert what appears to be unnecessary inter- etc., as intended (p. 202). ference with home rule concerns. 98 Coastal Zone Management APPENDIX A Hon. David J. O'llern - 4 - June 16, 1918 OETAILEO COfItE.NlS ON "ClIAPTER THREE: COASTAL RESOURCE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES" So as not to delay Implementation or to risk loss of Federal funds, we suggest another alternative. This would be to perfect the policies in the final EIS on "water areas" and "water's edge areas" under the option for direct Of the 229 non-appendix pages of the draft EIS, 144 involve Chapter 3 (of n State control, while reducing the use of "land area" policies under the option chapters). These, in turn, are devoted to Location Policies (10n pages), Use of Case-By-Case Reviews (p. 10). Such a course of action means that the policies Policies (19 pages) and Resource Policies (14 pages). Tllerefore, to insure would be used to review local plans on land areas for consistency. Revised land reader comprehension and to minimize expense to development that adherence to area policies could then be incorporated Into the waterfront area phase later this proposed program will entail, scrutiny of the location policies seems under the direct State control option, if desired at that time. especially pertinent, as they are the subject of half of the statement. Sincerely yours, Location Policies The guts of these policies revolve around two categories of water areas, two categories of water edge areas, and several categories of all other lands Thomas L. Blertone Inland from thie upper boundary of the water's edge. llhat has confused the matter Director, Budget Review is the mixing of "special water's edge areas" and "special land areas" all within section 6.4, "Special Water's Edge and Land Areas." This is attributable to the sh effort to define a conoeon "water's edge" policy for both tidal waters and for Attachment (Appendix A) higher elevation freshwater bodies (p. 73). This does indeed provide for the objective of an upland vegetation buffer between wetlands anld development. What this omits is the need to delineate floodway and flood fringe areas per dis- cussion on Page 59. (In a similar manner. the need to delineate areas of tidal flooding per Page 58 is not included.) Both types of flooding are supposed to be delineated per further discussion (p. 1D5)and Illustrative example (p. 68). Policy might be more easily understood if fresh water edge buffers and stream flooding were grouped with land areas above tidal water's edge. It Is stated that, "The Coastal Policies provide a visible basis for offer- ing an informed comment on the consistency of (government and private) plans and proposals (p. 6) "... the Program ... focuses on coastal resource management decisions with greater than local significance that the Iegislature has entrusted to State agencies" (p. 7). But there is no area mapping (visual basis) in this revised program, so that the criticism of the Public Advocate to the September, 1977, Strategy remains substantially the same. Specifically, "the document lacks any evaluation of the tapability of the various areas within the coastal area to absorb and react to man-made stresses,' the second requirement of the 1975 Inventory, H.J.S.A. 13:19-16" (P.A., p. 6). Yet, the mapping of Interim Iand Use and Density Guidelines ... flay, 1976, was a step in that direction ti-at needs oily toie maei ore precise and current. The composite of six selected environmentally sensitive areas requires expansion to include several additional that the most recent program version expects each developer to compile for his application. While there is no denyill( that this process now provides substantive standards, rather than a welter of policies subject to interpretation, upon which to make selected coastal decisions on CAFRA, Wetlands and riparian permit applications; this is still site specific. What is still lacking is the basis upon which the State could determine "carrying capacity" or ability to assimilate development. 99 m m ml m m mmm m -- - Appendix A (continued) Page 2 Appendix A (continued) Page 3 To cite specific instances, both of which involve the linlitatlon of One could argue that in the light of more recent information this process omits potable water, emphasizes this point. Under "Development Potential Factors" consideration of surface water resources'sensitivity and other results of (pp. 89-93) water supply discussion is limited to site conditions, without crowding, but it does incorporate concern for a more representative group of reference to areawide impacts. Yet, the Cape May County Comprehensive Plan, environmental factors than in the proposed Coastal Program, particularly in the adopted in 1976 uses a carrying capacity approach as a guide to its upper latter's "Land Areas." Criteria in the latter should be reconsidered: limit to population. The critical restraints were derived from air quality and water demand for people, industry, and agriculture. This was checked 1. The 3-foot depth to water table Is a construction foundation restraint, against projected land consumption that would use about one-third of the not reflective of environmental sensitivity. remaining developable land and retain two-thirds In farming, rural and open space. One can question a key assumption that water supply must rely on 2. The definition of "Fertility" is Inconsistent with that of Prime In-county sources only: But, in the absence of State direction otherwise Agricultural Lands set-forth in the blueprint Commission Report. (It down- (which this Coastal Program, the Pinelands Program, and the State Water Plan grades Class III soils and inserts consideration for "Woodland Suitability.") should address), the assumption was prudent. Likewise, Ocean County planners express concern about the future of well water supplies on Long Beach Island. 3. The concept of Vegetation Index based on three height differentials More intensive development along the Route 9 - Garden State Corrider could is of questionable basis (p.88). result In the mining of the Kirkwood aquifer inland from the Island to an extent that island wells could become permanently ruined by salt water intrusion. There are other reasons to reconsider "Land Areas" criteria, in particular. Areawide carrying capacity would take such factors into account. The Coastal These involve consistency with county level and other State agency criteria. Program recognizes the problem for facility site permits (p.152), but it does Sewage criteria are now being developed on reawide bases by counties. For not provide an overview of regional capacities. example, Ocean County has its Environmental Population and Land Use Report of Draft 208. An element "Environmental Site Types Mai" combines about ten While carrying capacity maps can't be developed overnight, maps that show eniiiironmentally sensitive factors. To what extent do these correspond with the locations of environmentally sensitive areas could be composited in a short those in this Coastal Program? time. Natural features maps have been a part of the Department of Community Affairs State and Regional Planning maps for over a decade. Furthermore, in Another example concerns development potential. The Coastal Program bases 1974 the Office of Environmental Analysis of the Department of Environmental its least two levels (of four) for development, "Soil Conservation" and "Vegeta- Protection (now mapping riparian lands) undertook as a pilot study The Environ- tion Conservation" on the nature of the ground cover. The former would include mental !Desgg .or the Boonton Quadrangle with the thought that it would serve agriculture and open recreation areas, while the latter would be mostly woodland. as a prototype. A comiii-ation of an Inventory of natural/cultural resources and In neither case could there be development that exceeds ten percent of the area of environmental impacts associated with different types of land uses are mapped in permeable paving! On the other hand,the Monmouth County map, Develop.- into environmental zones where development should be regulated. The nine separate ment Suitability, categorizes "Forest" and "Class III Soils" in its mid-range of environmental zone maps are combined on one map to visually portray the environ- thiree classes of suitability. This office's draft study of last year, "A New mental response of the area to development. Three levels of response are shown: Jersey Physical Resources Inventory," concluded that lands used for both agriculture and forestry are readily converted from one to the other with small environmental 1. Critical for Development loss if sound conservation techniques are practiced. Since over half of its land surface is currently woodland and vacant land naturally converts back to forest in Prime Agricultural Land New Jersey, the classification of Monmouth County seems more appropriate for floodways & Flood Prone Areas "Forest," while less so for "Class Ill Soils." The latter took centuries to Wetlands produce and, therefore, should receive a higher degree of protection for efficient food production. 2. Sensitive for Development Wlhat is critical is soil class, not the nature of the vegetation itself; while Flood Fringe Areas recognizing that a minimum requirement of vegetation of some type is essential for Prime Aquifer Recharge Areas a variety of reasons, as discussed in greater detail on page 155. Consolidation Highly Erodable Soils of "herb, shrub, and forest" into a single category would lead to simplification Prime Infiltration of proposed standards. Specifically, developers would not have to differentiate Potential Rapid Runoff between "Forested Vegetation (over 10 feet high) and Unforested Vegetation (under 10 feet)" (p.73), nor between the three classes of tie "Vegetation Index" (p.8). 3. Qualified Areas for Development The consolidation of "conservation levels" of development would be an extension of what had already been done in eliminating the "preservation levels" from prior work. 100 Appendix A (Continued) Page 5 Appendix A (Continued) Page 4 Again, mapping of the preceding policy is needed for clarity and areawide impact. The task for developers would also be aided by mapping of streamheads Inconsistency with the Department of Community Affairs State Developme (p. 67), as there are definition vagaries, and other special water's edge Guide Plan (Preliminary Draft) is great In spite of the comment on page97. he features, specifically "100 year tidal elevations" and "white cedar stands." 11-tTWiEras," to receive priority attention by the State before Year 2000 (OCA, p. 62), do not coincide with the "Regional Growth Potential" areas of this The Coastal Program for "Water Areas" is sketchy when compared with "Land Coastal Program (p. 98). The latter are significantly more restrictive, particu- Areas." Perhaps the emphasis should be reversed in view of the fact that almost larly for areas behind barrier Islands at Atlantic City and Long Beach Island (the all disturbances to the water environment have more than local impacts. Again, implications to its water supply discussed previously). While one of the basic mapping would clarify. Inasmirch as tidal wetland mapping for State waters is policies of the Coastal Program is to concentrate the pattern of development at complete, the task of showing thereon the defined "Water Body Types" and "Channel the regional scale, thefe is no evidence of adequate attention to limits on the Types" (pp. 40-41) should 6ot be difficult. Neither should placing the six inch, intensity of development that could overly drawdown water supply, exceed water six feet, and 18 feet depth contours, all of which are essential in the use of and air assimilative capacities and traffic capacities. Again, to provide a factual the "Water Acceptability Table" (p. 45). basis for both of these State plans, there is a crying need for resource inventory and carrying capacity maps. Although "Water Acceptability Conditions" specify limitations on 18 water uses, these are sketchy (pp. 46-49). For example, tnder "Filling." it is stated, In view of this and the variations that currently exist among concerned "Limited filling may be considered elsewhere for acceptability on a case-by-case regional agencies in interpretating the importance of environmental factors, basis provided that, ... (c) the adverse environmental impacts are minimized, deferral to county planning for "Land Areas" appears reasonable until more overall Elaboration should specify construction practices to minimize subsidence pro- compatible standards can be developed for the Coastal Program. Mapping should blems, such as those described in Urban Development in the Lou sianag Coastal Zone: receive highest priority. The last referenced map, which has the note: "Does Problems and Guidelines, A. T. Murpiii New - -rleai versity 3fie7. (TTri Not Apply to Barrier Islands," vividly illustrates this need. Certain develop- theprobe areas offlooding and pollution associated with development in ment policies do or do not apply to Barrier Islands (p. 55). Do any exist north wetlands reported upon in that report are treated int the Coastal Program.) Another of Long Beachl Island? Peninsulas extend north of it to Bay Ilead and beyond the example involves "Pipeline Routes." These are conditionally acceptable, provided Atlantic Hlighlands. A map that incorporates shoreline zones, such as a detailing "(b) trenching takes place to a sufficient depth to avoid puncture .... owever of Figure 1 in the CAFRA staff working paper, Sand Movement and the Shoreline, the "Water Acceptability Table" does not appear to take trenching into account in would provide a complete definition to any user. at least one case. Although it "discourages" pipelines in open biays deeper thain 6 feet, it "prohibits" them in shallower water. Obviously, they would go ashore Although we may not disagree with the policy of concentrating the pattern from deeper water in a trench, as is recognized further along in the Coastal of development at the regional scale, the Coastal Program fails to take into Program (p. 142). account that sprawl can take place if its criteria are met (adequate ground water supply, on-site sewage disposal and expanded road network.) On-site sewage dis- posal is encouraged further along in the report (p. 148). Ilence, there appears Ilse Policies to be no basis to limit the portrayal of residential density types to those greater than 2.5 dwelling units per gross acre (Appendix 0). This omission is These policies are intended to specify restrictions on development according yet another reason to reconsider the proposed standards for "Land Areas" and to use of coastal resources. Concerning those listed, possible "lndustry-Conmnerce" to defer for the time being to other regional agency criteria. The use of the should consider an additional limitation because of water pollution potential. "Land Acceptability Tables" may be a useful interim tool, but needs to be over- This restriction should specify rigorous handling of waste products, such as pre- hauled rather than "tuned" only (p. 121) in the next program version. treatment of liquid wastes (a section of PL 92-500 which so far has not been implemented to any degree). On the other hand, to restrict mining "only in sites Working backwards, we shall comnent on the two other major category immediately adjacent to current mining operations," regardless of good reclama- groupings: "Water Edge Areas" and then "-later Areas." It is stated, "In tion plans is an inflexible policy (p. 14). retained water's edge areas environmental concerns are less than In undisturbed water's edge areas. The buffering functions of the water's edge have already been What is omitted altogether are policies concerning deepivater petrolelmi ports. largely lost through filling and the construction of retaining structures" (p. 780). These require reconsideration of policies now included under the uses "Resort- aowever, one upper linmit of the undisturbed area is defined as only "50 feet Recreation, "Energy," and `Ports." In the case of the latter, the policy horizontally from the lower limit" (p. 73), one upper limit of the retained area statement seems too limiting. While acknowledging State ports to lie an international is "100 feet inland front upper limit of water's edge" (p. 77), and filled areas' resource and that the State must "allow for possible unanticipated future neieds upper limits are "25 feet inland from the top of the fill slope" (p. 79). If for port areas" (p. 149), the policy stated is to limit port-related development the rationale is correct, then these limits logically should be altered to read as follows: undisturbed, 100 feet; retained, 25 feet; and filled, 50 feet (or the latter two might require the same buffer distance). _ m X - - - - - m Appendix A (Continued) Page 7 Appendix A (Continued) Page 6 Resource Policies only to "established port areas." The location of more tanker terminals is "discouraged" from this entire Bay and Ocean Shore Segment (p. 145). The policies are to limit development in terms of "effects on various resources of the built and natural environment ..., both at the proposed site Secondly, this policy appears inconsistent with Appendix A to A Draft of as well as in its surrounding region" (p. 151). The basic problem here is the State Energy Master Plan, May, 1978. The latter lists among its-i{ting ferreting out local concerns from regional ones. Specifically, should the State strategies (p. 24: -- be involved in this Coastal Program with local public services, architectural design, site and lot buffers, and neighborhood and special communities. These "The potential of siting LG import facilities offshore will be are not of regional import, and as currently written the policies are vague or evaluated thorog19hl. Offshore siting of LNG import facilities incomplete. may prove attractive, if technically and economically feasible, since the hazards inherent in handling LNG might be minimized by Specifically, if there is to be a policy of a minimum 25 feet of forest such a siting approach. buffer between industrial buildings (p. 100), what are the buffers required between residences, between residential areas and agriculture, etc.? Or con- "The otential of siting a deepwater port off the New Jersey coast cerning special communities, it is stated that, "Places such as ... Shellpile along will be evaluated thoroughly. -The siting of a deepwater port off the Maurice River bear eloquent testimony to the heritage of the shellfishing the New Jersey coast should be dependent upon a careful evaluation industry in New Jersey ... that should be valued, reinforced, and preserved" of its environmental and economic implications for New Jersey." (p. 162). Thle New York Times of June 7, 1978, expressed another point of view, "The wooden shacks are more reminiscent of William Faulkner's Mississippi than of In its discussion of "onshore vs. off-shore siting," one of four of its funda- Brendan Byrne's New Jersey - mean little shacks built on hundreds of clam and mental policy options, the Energy Department broadens the scope of siting, as oyster shells, shacks that contain no water, no toilets, no central heating, follows (p. 12): where .,. seagulls cry above the plastic bottles and moldering garbage that assult the reed grass .... The main reason black shantytowns remain intact is "The concept of offshore energy facility siting need not be confined that there is no agreement on where the people should be relocated." only to the Atlantic (nuclear) generating station and coal fired generators mounted on offshore production platforms, liquefied On the other hand, the other resource policies of true regional extent all natural gas handling, or deepwater oil ports. Current technology express concern for keeping growth within the capacity of the resource in any allows for the construction of multipurpose industrial island facili- given area. But, as we have commented previously on water supply, where are the ties, which, when properly conceived and operated, may serve a carrying capacity maps needed for air quality, traffic-networks (or their con- variety of functions ranging from energy generation to mariculture ...." gestion converse), and for determining secondary impacts. The needs of wildlife offer a pertinent illustration. To require an individual site to retain a per- lHowever, the Energy Department discussion does not seem to include bay centage of its area in vegetation is not sufficient. A map of the site and its waters as "off-shore." The Coastal Program policies do not distinguish between surrounding region is needed to incorporate open spaces as much as possible into the impact on ocean shore tourism and bay recreation (pp. 139-142), although acknow- a contiguous corridor for maximum habitat and movement (pp. 156-157). ledging that a difference exists further in the document (p. 182). The latter is of much smaller importance to the State economy. As is pointed out in our New Jersey Status of Transportation Sulmner, 1976, (pp. 52-55), there is a need to reexamine ocean and bay, Iport sites -as Delaware Bay locations have real potential. There is new Federal concern also, as expressed in the April report of the General Accounting Office. It suggested the Coast Guard be ordered to complete an extensive study by the end of the year since "at least one deepwater port on the mid-Atlantic coast might be in the national interest." imereas tourism is a paramount concern along the ocean coast, fish and wildlife are major bay environmental concerns. Ilence, the need to differentiate policies. Cogunercial shellfishing might be involved with Delaware deepwater sites, for which tihe policies (p. 32) seem permissive. Reasonable standards for bays need to be developed, particularly since the Amoco Cadiz oil spill has provided no evidence of irreversible effects on the Brittany estuaries and since shellfish beds are a forimll r aquaculture, rather than a natural resource there / anyway. That is, they cai be replanted as they are now in Barnegat Bay. 102 Iflntr II( Nrall A7rrorl I 'lair of Nrin 31mirij~ DEPARTMENT OFF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS rnvegr1n 0 SI4Tn-N June 15, 1978 36) WEST STATE S"TEET PAl'.n1CA C. %Ir.ttll, .N W-ST STAIRF SnIrtI COUMm;SIOtP.R~ coSt Orncr "ox 1162 CO-Wo, PI orfICE WIXY I'l. Et"Tor'N. l..,, TItCtIION. N.J. 08nTSn MIEtORA14IUI4 Office of Coesttl Zone MInneE-nenN Department of Environment 1'Protect of the FRaM: Petricin 0. Sheehenn, Comm snoner NEW JERSEY DEPARINENT OF COMMUNITrY AI'VAIRS on tile We thank you for tile opportunity to publicly comment on the New Jersey Coastal Mannaement Program, Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. The Department of Community Affairs hem been nn active perticipant In NEW JERSEY COASTAL HANACEPIENT PRUGRAM thlii work for a number of years and our interest in your work remains keen. DAY Atli) OCEAN S HORE Srf;Ml-.Nl it is in this spirit of interdepartmental cooperation that we present our remarks which are intended to constructively nisist you with your continuing efforts. June 15, 1978 103 I I rrilllrll~in mI -I - - m - ------- - - - -3- The absence of a weighting scheme makes it difficullt to assess merits where certain location or use policies may conflict, e.g., where everything We recognize the enormous amount of work that the Bay and Ocean Shore is Judged as acceptable with the one exception that a particular specie of Segment represents and find its content of professional standard. To this flora is threatened. Where is the trade-off point? extent we compliment tile Office of Coastal Zone Management on their work. We understand completely that land- and resource-based planning is a dynamic process Tile last general area of comment relates to tile prolferation of distances, and our comments are presented in a constructive manner for the purpose of assist- heights, etc. represented by numbers which _ave n o source referece r rationale ing the continuing refinemxent process. in the text. These numbers are extremely important since they function as standards which have a direct effect on how people can use their property. Where Our remarks are presented in two formats. First are generic comments which specific reference to a source cannot be made it is incumbent uponl ffice of are applicable throughout the document followed by specific remarks referenced to Coastal Zone Management to explain their reasoning for using a particular "standard" a particular place in the report. While we have reviewed the entire document, as was properly and acceptably done for the fifteen foot tree height standard for the heart of the work centers on Chapter Three and so we have concentrated our work the Vegetation Index Factor presented in 6.6.6.2, p.88. The CAFRA project review there. process, of the last three years especially, provides much source information front which well-reasoned and defensible standards could be established. Unfortunately Our primary concern centers on tile absence, at this time, of the fundamental there appears to be little evidence of this. A sampling, but by no means complete, elem~ents of a mastger lan and a master planning process. Much of tihe fine work of sec tions of the report which contain undocume nted or unexplained "standards" presented will profit with the availability of such a docupment for which there is are 6.4.11.1, 6.4.13.1, 6.5.2.1, 6.5.2.2(d), 6.5.2.4, 6.5.3.1, 6.6.4.1, 6.6.7.2.1(d), clear authority and all explicit mandate (see Sees. 2 and 16 of CAFRA; Opinion No. 1, (e) and (f), 6.6.7.2.3, and 6.6.7.3.1. CA 73-003, J.llly 10, 1974, p.8, para. 15; CAFRA Review Board Decision on Appeal, January 3, 1975, see generally; Toms River Affiliates, Superior Court, Appellate In conclusion of this section we note that we are sympathetic to tie diffT- Division, A-1470-74; and P.L. 92-583, especially Sec. 305(b)(5)). culty of simplifying, to the greatest degree, a very complex subject. However, the strategy will achieve its full potential when it objectively deals with the We believe that upon cotmpletion of a master plan for the coast, many of the trade-off issues; and, without a plan such a process remains largely arbitrary comments and reservations that surface at the public hearings would be resolved. no matter how sophisticated tile project review process or how higb minded tile The present program addresses individually proposed projects and assesses their staff. degree of acceptability by judging them against a system of criteria that attempts to measure thie probable impact on coastal resources, -- primarily natural. Tile presently missing ingredient, the plan, would complement and rationalize this This section deals with specific comments referenced to specific locations system by coming to grips with the htlman functions of the various parts of the in the document. Any inquiry on these as well as the above remarks should be Coastal Zone. It would also provide a framework for assessing the collective long directed to the Division of State and Regional Planning. rain impacts of the many individual decisions that will be made under the three- stage coastal decision-making process. The identification of land use activity and Chapter I growth trends and the issues implicit in these trends needs to be assessed in terms pp.10-12 Phraseology suich as regional impact, selected of their locational appropriateness. (Location in tilts context is much broader in coastal decisions and major development have geographic scope titan presently presented.) Judgments need to be made as to different meanings to different people and whether observable regional trends should be reinforced, redirected or even should be defined in coastal zone terms. stopped. The coastal program has not yet done this. The germ for tilts analysis It is implied that every use requiring a CAFRA lies in 6.6.8 Regional Growth Potential Factor, but it has not yet been developed permit is of regional Impact with which we nor given its proportional status of significance in relation to other elements strongly disagree. of the program. For example, what are the implications for the coastal. program from tie conversion of seasonal dwellings to year-round communities? Sliould this Chapter III be encouraged? Should there be a coastal policy to encourage a continuance, at 6.3.8.1 You say aquaculture is "generally encouraged" least in some places, of seasonal communities as a recreation opportunity for but your Table, p.65 does not reflect thils. the thousands of New Jersey and out-of-state families who look to the New Jersey Shore for their two-week vacation at moderate cost? If so, which areas? Another 6.4.2.2 Requiring dune walkways to be "on piles" is all illustratlon Is the future of the Delaware Bay Shore. Is there an active unnecessary atid costly restriction. The test recreation potential there? Should it be pursued? If it Is, what are the is dune protection, i.e., performance, not impacts for coastal and nnn-coastal locations from access and other improvements some building code-like standard. which would be necessary tto exploit the Bay Shore for recreation. 104 6. 4.3 No distinction In made between seasonal and year- ro,,nd communitiles at this location. promotlp,.6..() htde"uroning rgon shall fie accessilble some Sasonal communities in these locations may to campg~round users;" mean? 1 f a scoe,, elsce owl's It be a useful strategy Itself to protecting, central yell are promoting trespass. What's tile definition barrier Island corridors since major ituman impact of tihe "surrounding region." Fiany people ramp in Is limited seasonally. the l'lnel~ands nnld take day trips to, other rerreationu resources.. 6.4.3.2 The 111gh Development Potential rating dictates a level of commercial and residential development 6.6.7.4.3 Yotir criteria for Low Potential dcfine3 ,~, It tile that may be desirable to avoid at least In nome recreation experience desired by some, i.e.. minimium of these barrier Island communities. This conveniences. policy may be encouraging the inevitable -- total year-round settlement of barrier island corridors. 6.6.7.6 l.ocation Policies should not be der-Igned to address Su~ a result should come from conscious policy tle "needs of developers" but tile needs andl desires formulation, of thle general public. 6.4.6.2 Such a pulley could lead to the destruction of 6.06..2 It should he noted that thle State Deveiop~ment iuj,hd specimen trees to avoid the restrictions. hoape- Plan'- tine of this terminology is directed toward fully, an inventory of game could be made so we public Investment. Also, that ,iocompnt In more exten- know where they are. sive In its definition of Crowti, arvca bnsepi on the review of trends and Invsmns f tile Coactal 6.4.7 Thin category should be labeled White Cedar Stands. Zone 11anagement Program use of these concepts is "bansed it] part" oil tile State flevelopsient ttldi P'lan, 6.4.9.2 what constitutes "adversely affects." Also, a it should specify It and explain Its distincti~on from plan wo,,ld contain judgements that wuild seek to the C,,ide. Plan. encourage thle location of mutually compatible uses. The current strategy given minimal guidance 6.6.9.5 Tile present array of Information is Iftigly cntsn in this regard. to tile Tender, particiuiarl~y those not dietyworking In the progrnm. It is not clear why thle X's start 6. t. 11 This represents an ad hoc forming policy witich does and s;top where they do fur each c:olumn. All factors not dent with any of tile issues in arriving at such have- been treated equally, a weakness brought -ut In a conclusion. There could be a "land bank" effect the first part of thle comments. It mnihti help if the on property which may be better out of farming in information were presented In fe,,r nets of taliles - any Partictulnr location. Also, t3.5. soil Conservation -earl, set representaing one of the feotr deveiol,"icnt Service includes Class ilt satiln as Prime. Twenty Intensities. Such a format wo,,ld lend itself more acres In an unsubstantiated standard. easily to tile eventual introd,,ctlon of Woipghting. 6.4.11.3 The Inane is whether thle production of food and fibre 6.6.9.6.6 This section overstates; tihe benefits ,if restricting in the Carden State to essential to the health, pavement. ilased on dwelling type auid site desipgn safety and general welfare of Mew Jierseyatls. It no, there woul-d be greait variation In the relationshilp what kind, hlow much, where In It best located. This population density to paving percent. It's Oni- Issue lasa not yet been addressed by our own Department leading to over-s~impilfy this reilttionshtip whirl, is of Agriculture, not referenced. This is a cinaicr case where Individual site plaits must be evaluated. 6.4.12.3 Raps also nassist In flood control. Reference to Appendix I) - The CZMPi wo,,td have 6.5.1.4(c) Additions shown to be "In the putblie interest" should been better served If Appendix 0 was -oustr,,ctod be conditionally acceptable In this location, from tite complete CAURA permit review fi'les ratiher than a series of individ,,al site plans. If prloul-n of actual cases here ,,,t tl~e cotIteni I,,,, made wi ti respect to percent or tot cvevrnF-,. therve would he strong irrefutibie evir,l,-ne avalilabie. -7- -2- 6.6.9.6.6 Tlhesee are only two not so hypothetical exajmples of tile kind of platning (cont'd.) Acceptability levels are alleged to be based process which needs to take place. Establishing tie function and character of on current IEP policy -- you have an obligation to the various parts of the coastal zone and area will help determine how tile more specify and reference this in light of its Importance. discretionary aspects of the coastal program would be applied. If you will permit the metaphor, it is simpler to construct a jigsaw puzzle piece by piece 6.9.9 This is too stringent in that it Ignores tile relative when one knows what it is supposed to look like when the pieces are in the merits of the subareas. right place. 6.11 The General Location Policy is an "escape clause" The current program gives the stratepy almost a rcel-by-prcel perspec- which must be used Judiciously with the utmost tive by which the broader picture is obscured. Such a focus restricts our discretion. ability to prejudge the cutmulative effects to which these many individual decisions will contribute. In other words, a host of singularly permitted 7.2.1 While dependence on water access may be truie, should projects which idivtidually are viewed as permissible may collectively degrade, we rule this out absolutely in all instances as a if not destroy, the very resource being protected by any one permit. An example matter of locational preference? of this would be Prime Wildlife Habitats (6.4.8 et seq. p.62). Unless we know ahead of time the extent of tile habitats' ability to successfully 7.2.2 Present history shows us that clustering is not a absorb impact.we will not know when the last permit should be granted or what preferred housing choice,nor should thie State promote changes in use may be appropriate. changes in the local land use program by variance as a matter of policy. DEP's offer of assistance can be A plan would relieve the heavv burden presently borne by the "Infill" interpreted by unscrupulous developers as official criteria since development rarely occurs in a neat sequence of consecutively state help in the "busting" of a local zoning ordinance. developed parcels. It's more important that there is agreement on what makes The U.S. Supreme Court in the fairly recent Belle sense for tile area and then development can take place as it will within that Terre /sic/ case reaffirmed the right of a community to framework subject to tile project review process. determine its character. Further, In light of the replanning being carried out by all of the 7.2.5 Barrier free design in "some" of the units -- how many State's 567 municipalities as a result of the lMunicipal l.and Use Law, a plan and are single-family units included. If so, we would be beneficial in giving direction and guidance to municipal planning question tile wisdom of that. It appears that OCZH boards within the coastal zone. may be stretching their coastal resource mantle by getting involved In building code matters. Will We recognize and accept an environmental bias for thlts prqLram, however, exclusion of barrier free design in single-family we don't believe environmental considerations should be absolute unless a clear umnits constitute justification to deny a permit? case can be made primarily on grounds of health and safety. Uses should be evaluated in terms of their competition with other uses and activities, includ- 7.2.7 This is too restrictive, especially In more urban ing natural resources, for the same piece of geography. This can be carried areas. Changes in intensity use or occupancy may on with an environmental bias. Currently uses are dealt with almost exclusively be dsirabnhle and defensible both from the view of ill terms of their environmental impact on naturnl coastal resources and loca- society as well as CLAM. "Discouraged" is much too tions with little attention given to priorities. strong. "Conditionally Acceptable" would be more appropriate. By ldentifyinR policies as Is done now, there is a preslmlpt iou that all criteria and considerations are of equal value. That all resource locations, 7.2.B(e) These conditions preclude the phased redevelopment for example, have equal merit wherever they occur and that t ses which could not of an area or where a consciously determined change meet the performance standards are automatically prohibited no matter Ihow in character, use or intensity may be at work, important the use may be (with a few exceptions) at a particular location. especially regarding redevelopment of urban The Water Acceptability Table also illustrates this point. A noteworthy excep- locations. t ion is High Risk Erosion Areas (6-4-1) which makes a distinction apart from other shoreline erosion areas. 7.3.3 It is not the responsibility of a private investor to provide off-site supporting services and facilities as a condition of approval. 106 6. 5.3. 2 All Iocatlonn (retained water's edpge) may not have 8.14.1 Secondary Impact needs Sp~eific gimidel invr for onet equal merit. There may be plates where conventional fly prospective flpplicniits. This still remains a lend one In thint hithly aenlthetic netting may be very touigh area In project slid Plan aesn. 8.15 Tile lactic of coinpatibilit-y of lines in central to the 6.5.3.2(c) This criteria,,an it stands, Is menniogineng. plannlng, process and calnnot be dealt with an a watter of buffer requirements. 6.5.3.3 Assimilative capacity not direct dincharp~e should be the operating standard. Also, higher deonsity private hougining along open water bodies would not autoinati- cally he inefficient. 6.5.4~.2(h) As presented, this criteria In menninp.lcnn. 6.6.3.2 Problems re: front heave and surface Pending would vary greatly throughout the coastal zone. Selection of the three loot threshold must be tempered by the sot] type In this area. Hian It been? If not, the threnhold would be larger due to candy porous nouit. 6.6.5.1 H~as Soll Fertility been synchronized with, the Prime Agricultural Arenas policy? 6.6.5.2 The current rationale does not eiplatin the value of noil fertility an a factor In location policy, par- ticularly In the absence of a farmland and productivity plan (policy). 6.6.6.1(a) A fifteen foot height minimium here la different titan a ten foot minimum In 6.5.2.4. to there any reason for the difference? 6.6.7.2.1 These criteria work ap~aiunt maintaining seasonal comncunltteq. Also, their une would perpetuate and expand developments and certain growth locatioons that would have been better of f never happening. The definition of Infill Is too mechannical. If a general area was identified for promoting growth, it wotild be unimportant what percent of boundary lengths were Involved. Ye" can't reduce the development procesn completely to matter of dis- tances and percenatges. 6.6.7.3.1(a) goad Improvements are seldom ahead of Cip, impact of growth nave for on-site improvements. 6.6.7.4.1(a) Anyone travelling these roads on a summer weekend knows that thill criteria In impractical cince. traffic Is most often generated by other dentinattloon. - m ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~107 - 7.3.4 Compatibility of scale, site design and architecture EPARTMENT COMMUN ITY AFAI is a highly subjective thing leaving much too much DEPA6TMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS discretion in the hands of project reviewers. PAIexICIA b. SIIIFiLAN ]16 WES1 SIATI J111 51I 7.3.6 If demand is not being met by expandable facilities, COMMIsSIONrR PoSr OFFICE ro0 plea are you going to prevent new boating facilities? You can't force existing marinas to enlarge. June 28. 1978 7.3.1.1 Amusemlent piers are a valid recreational opportunity. T'le clurrent policy is elitist ill tone and ignores tile i E O R A N D U M preferences of tens of thousands of people who enjoy these facilities. A more constructive policy would be to recognize the demand and plan for a number of locations rather than grudgingly accept them as an 10: David N. Kinsey. thief. Office of Coastal Zole liallag(ll1nt existing bult undesirable use. Program - Department of Environmental Protection 7.4.7(c) The pipeline policy is not cotermtnus with your boundary FROM: Richard A. Gin an, Director. Division of State and Regional with regard to the Central Pine Barrens area and may be Planning - Department of CStaunity Affairs in conflict with the preliminary policy statement of the New Jersey Department of Energy entitled Determi- n eJn eyti Department of for nergy Faclitied etermi- p21 SUBJECT: Proposed Rules for CAFRA, Wetlands and Riparian Permits nation of tihe Need for Energy Facilities, p.21. 7.5.5 Bilcycle and foot paths design must be sensitive to today's concern for security and the general concern toclay's concern for asecurity and the general concern This Is In response to the June 19th memorandum froml Steven Whitney inform- for privacy. Ing us of the Office of Coastal Zone Management intent to adopt Chapter 3 of the Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Sitore Segment (hlay 19118) 8.4.1 This policy should include phasing with expansion plans as the rules for CAIRA, wetlands and ripariano pemits. Our lajor concerns for potable water systems. *for potable water ystems. with the Coastal Management Program were expressed In thie comments we 8.5,1 It is impractt1nl at best to expect the developer of a submitted for the June 15th public hearing (see Colnlents of the New Jersey ~~~~~~8.5.1 It is imll~~~~practical as~~~~t best Dto expeepartment of Comlnunity Affairs on the New Jersey Coastal Mangsemewt thirty unit subdivision in Lacey Township to demonstrate Program Bay and Ocean Shore Setpent, June rsey Coastal Hanaeeore unt the salinity impact of his proposal. Thils is a prime exa mple of how the program cannot deal with cumulative he deficiencies which were noted are resolved, Chapter 3, as currently example of how the program cannot deal with cumulative drafted, should not be adopted as the rules for the permit review process. impact, One of tile major shortcomings of Chapter 3 is thiat there are no guidelilies 8.6.1 11ow does one quantify the runoff rate of mature forest for assessing c,,s,,,llve impacts. While Sction t..t of the adopted vegetationl? CAFRA Rules and Regulations emphasizes the ilportance of the assesslenlt of inventory elements, this in our opinion is still not adequately handled (d) It would appear that storm water runoff must be treated In most permit applications. We believe that guidelines could be id) prioul er t o discharge. The economics of such a condition established so that applicants could build upon the analyses made fo-r prior to discharge. The economics of suld a condinves tiongated previous projects (opinions, summary reports and EIS's) and concentrate may before su way bey onditio n becomes determinative wstigated on the additional effects of their facility oni land use, traffic, housing, before sucit a condition becomes determinative with regard to permit approval. etc., as well as environmental factors. 8.7.1 / Ilow oes one quantity th rnf a o elm nstWe are also concerned with what appears to be unrelerenced criteria and 8.7.1 ttny does one quantify the runoff rate ofE medium density standards and pages of confusing tables which are contained in Chaptel- 3, e.g., 6.6.7.2, pp. 89-90 and 6.6.9.5, pp. 103, III (for other examples, see DCA cosmnents of June 15). Such criteria and collusinlj tabular data could result In delaying the review of permit applications and would seem to be contrary to the Governor's intent In Exect:tive Order //57 which directs that the State's permit review programs he shiplifrled aid expedited. 108 NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUI.14TY AF'FAIRS David MI. Klrey --June 28. JIM8 M4EMORANDUM4 TO.. 13avid H1. Kinsly, fiilcf, Office of Coasatl Zone tisiragemont Therefore, we recorasend that all of the criteria/Standards be documsented F R M 3yT l,1VAvfBueuoUrnrigDTEJY1,191 so that they are defensible and can he judicially upheld FO4 lyT idp/%Jif lrc flra i. DT uyIi 91 At such time as thle deficIencies in Chapter 3 are resolved, we recommsend SUBDJECT Housing Impact Analysis and CAPVtA that the substantive sections (9 and 10) or the currently adopted CAPFRA Rules and Regulations be examined to, avoid conflict, duplication or overlap wi th the proposed rules. Moreover, we recommend that both docu- meats be combined into one %et of procedural and suhstantive rule-, which Tile Division or State aid Reg~ional Plannfing. Bureau of iirihanr Plainning would facilitate simplIfying and expediting the permit review process. would liIke to make thle folinwing observations and recoismendnttt,,ns regardting the Department of Environmental Protection's Coastal angeenttrtyfo Finially, Chapter 3 does tnot establish criteria for thle design of on-site 11ew- Jere Ind Its CAImnRuls and Resulattions. parking needs. Not doing this could result In too much reliance onl local zoning requirements which are often Inadequate. On many occa~sions In !APFRA Strate~gy reviewing CAFRA permit applIcations, we have coementeJ on the inadequacy Wtn~ ietrese eiinuaigpoesrgrlu s ' osa or parking arrange'ments, In particular In the area known as the "FiveWiili etre-epecsnmangros radu t.ofos.1 Mile Ic each Area" or thle WilIdwoods. The review of vehicular cIrculation rcsou,,nres, ilocatlon Pot Icy is of greatest concern, to line Inon1islig Int1erests If and o~n-site parking accounts for considerable time in site review because this bureau. the arrangement, design and location of parking facilities becomnes critical Inn terms of safety, convenience, aesthetics and environmental consideratIons. In comparing location "potential" with envIronmental "nenslritvity", a Thi deignprolemshould be addressed In the coastal program and partic- number of factors (egroads, "ewers, growthinyaea identifIcntiria1) are weighed. uais deIgn tepropoedrles. Within thIs* context, housing should be given greaoter attent loin to Idlentifylnig ularly in the proposed rules. ~~~~~~~~~~~~regional needs arid growth potential. Thle divIsion's recently completed In conclusion, vie support the Intent of the UCZI4 to adopt substantive Revised Statewide Ito ~ Aloato Report for New Jersey Is I gins1I source rules so that the review of permit applicatlonis can he simplified and document for information reg.Ardllng municipal and reinl"arshare" (,f expedited for both the applicant and regulator. However, we feel that h o u insing, needs, It could be used to, 1) lurtpier identify growl-li or limteda chapter 3 Is In need of substantive revision before It can meet the g ~ rowthi areas by prospective hoxygehlod growth anid Inorsiuni linees; 2) rive pri- objective of streamlioning the revIew process. Please note that we are ority Io those facilItIes that address housing npeenl where growth ,ain be available to assist you when time permits, expected; and 3) encollnrape residential applicants win', demonstrate greatier diversity of type, cholce and cost of dwellings withini their fnc~lItly. CAPRA RulesanReuton AssistIng thle Strategy tlnatrougi Its Ilonising nIpportunnlty impact St.1tesn'n't ccs: D . G r a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~hamS) the bureau, In a coordinated mariner witln DEr, a~sseses tire, local ann1 S. White regional Impact of restdential facilities (10111- auntti) 'n hounnsinig lived.9 withiin D. Ltnky tile coastal zone. Thils assessment in accnmpispliaed thermnngi t,1n use of data W. Potter required In thle applicant's Frnvironmentai impact Statemeiunt and1, tlurnuugl I lie use of tile division's expertise - notably, Its housing a1 locatIon and luounslig neculs works. lUnfortumnatel.y, Inadequate data lo often foun~d In t0n apnl leant-'s Eli reqnuiring the bureau to reques;t additional inforsatIi,vi .5cctioni 10.2.11 "Special Requirements for Residential1 Facilities", UAFRA Rultes aurd itegoilations. slnould be clarified and amended to avoild thIs elnortcomnneg. AppenIded in, tiul memo are two inneelantsms, a checklst anir an Antstasinp of a sat lsfanetniry tespu..nuisep to Sectionn 10.2.4, that could be used to that effect.. It In our desire to mInimixe Phdftinls lE' ~~~lISli~t' meetings witin potentialt deve'lopers could fie. ano aprVurprIl.e faits to utIlIze the tools necuded to real iv.- that end. - 9 - - - - -~OW 0. -2- Single Palo. 'I[here has been discuqsIon in tile past between this bureau and the Office --H of Coastal Zone Jnanagesient regarding tile need to prepare housing impact state- H meats. Applicants must make an assessment of the regional Impact of their Cardein se facility. When thils is not done, or, when the applicant makes a positive - .___-s assessment, tie bureau carries out a thorough evaluation of tile regioiial impact Apartment ' on housing needs. By tile same token, if the applicant states that the facility - - does not satisfy any housing needs, the bureau reviews and comments accordingly. 11Igh Rise Thle bureau regards this requirement as an important data nource for housing - - Informat onn. 11ol tIUII ne oilie�r Attachnent cr cc: Mike Collins, Supervisor, Bureau of Urban Planning _usiber of ledriroS Steve Whitney, Supervisor, CAFRA Permit Section Joseph Cates, Section Supervisor, Bureau of Regional PlanningSic 0 IrlI nci pall r and c P'roperty Gas E~lectrlc ii r liatr ~S' a Sewer i Trash Snrr flonieowncls :3 flooleownerlr Other rlFW JEIUSEY STATE t.'UtIM vd v>. l1 iiA. I. r rflTr GI n 300 . .w w w xl Office of Coastal Zone Management o National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 3300 WBhitehaven Street, N.t. v c v so _ Washington, D. C. 20235 tJ to D en 5< ' > Attention: M1s. Kathryn Cousins Re: D.E.I.S. "State of New Jersey Coastal Management Program Bay and Ocean Shore Segment" to v. vt } ' ! Dear Ms. Cousins: ': m} h, The Bureau of Archaeology, New Jersey State Museum has reviewed the draft E.I.S. for the above referenced project and find that the section on Historical and Archaeological Resources (Part 11, Chapter 111, 6.4.5) is in- u~~~~n~~ .cw~~~~~~~ HW ~~adequate with respect to the conservation and preservation of New Jersey's " :.t N cultural resources. The scientific recovery and/or removal of historic re- H W 0t 01 1 F' VE t oou i n F sources (page, 60.) will not insure the preservation of lew Jers'ey's unique *, * * r -cultural past. The draft E.l.S. should have included a set of procedures to determine the cultural resource base before granting permits for particular projects in any given area. burea ofDue to the short time allowed for coementing on the draft E.I.S. the Bureau of Archaeology is not able to provide more detailed co menats. ID '0 p rI I o Fw rn 4 d rti 'm n Ft ro > aD Sincere l y yours, OArFt fb ar mD ' *m 7 Karen Flinn "1 Registrar moatn aureau b0 ,>0haeology 0s rtt Vt Vt V sn a 2Bureau of Archaeology IrF . M Fw m F'C tJ C) lt Ethnology *il f F' NaM td tZ F3 KF: RF 'Ft H m' *D P 0 1e Fa H Ca o o t rt - - m - - - n~um 3u~. 3 5~P' B'tot o f Nicitt 1Jeriiei Jl llH�ULH(IZ i~k~g W ~"1' PARTMENT OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE DIVISION OF PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCACY POSOX IAU C ERt 5 *TIGIE0H STADIFYC VANNESS TRE~VN.N.EW~flSEVOSS1X OlnFCtOn PUOl IC ....V.CAE V6t 609 292 *693 June 30, 1978 a"EM OF -pi Ms. Kathryn Cousins Office of Coastal Zone Jlanagcjeant National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adainistration rTPAHE TEF A OF IDE PUBLC ADXP Mfl oepartrmnt of Environinental Protection OF 1111 STADE 01 NEW JF.1nET( John Fitdi Plaza Trenton, Naw Jersey 08625 Division of Public Interest Ndvocac' Dear Ms. CousinsO ON Enclosed is a copy of the Public Advocate's connuts on tile WSIT for the Coastal Manageamnt Proqram, Bali and Ocean Shore Seqrent (tWny, 1978). 7-jpndix A to our ccssents is a capy of Public Advocate Cras-nts on the Coastal Managenent Stratey for Now Jersey CAFRMA Area (September, 1977), whidi is also included since it contains our sost MIE OASTAL cM i1Ewr PRIlPGRAM, in-djpth analysis of the State's coastal pramrn. DAY AND OC(TMN SHIORE SEQMENT Overall, notwithstanding our criticisms, the current draft is much improved in many respects. We are hopeful that these caments (may, 1978) will assist in still further iIprovenents. If you have any questions, please call myself or Ms. Sharon Treat. Very truly you's" R. WILLIAM POTIER Deputy Director UBP/db Enclosures cc: David Kinsey Berry Bennett 112 i. ~~~~~~~in~~~~riot~~~~~~~~ f~~~~epartment of Public Advocate crit~icissis of the earlier (locument have 3 'Ilie Departme~nt of the Public Advocate, (hereafter "Public Armatl been specifically adldressed in the revised payan Oca-Toe_'9ut is an independent, cabinet level department of the excutmive branch of changes hi wording to clarify and strengthen policy, Ind thin poiirlinq prceiul- State geveruliant of New Jersey. Stanley C. van Ness, thle Commeissioner with gatlon of threse policies as recjulatiens, will greatly leprove thes original the title of "ulic Advocate, has been OIelegated exclusive discretion to raejJ "reprenent the public Interest' through the Division of "ulie Interest Despite changes, however, several of thle [repcrtnrent of Lthe Public Advocacy, N.J.S.A. 52:2713-29, in such proceedings an he doesen will best Advocate's basic concerns tremain unaddressed by the new Programn. Ifie-e serve thle public Interest. tAn area of special concern to the "ulie concerns deal primarily with the DEP's approach, rather than the specif ice Advocate has been, and continues to be, the asisinistratien of laws affectin of the UIT's policies with Uhich we are generally in agreement. For the protection of the State's coastal envirerssent.2 7hus, the "ulie example, the Public Advocate has consistently hold the position that tile, Advocate submitq these comsmnt to the Office of Coastal Zrxe Managcement LEmust carry out a crceprehlensive enviroraental iNventory and muiplete ("OC7") for its consideration and review. mapping of- the State's camstal area. 4 These are mandated by section 16 of CAV-1A, H.J.S.A. 13:19-16, and are a necessit-y for p~roper loc-ation or it. - 11115 "(XVWTL, LOZA'VION A(XEP1IILITY MR711OW" T'_'U~41 AD PEUIAD POICF develepmemt in the coastal zone. Although the approach put forth in the Mie Coastal Mmanaement Progyram, Day end Omean Shore Scgsmnt BOSS appears to be careful, balanced and crusprelhensive, we continue to hold (hereafter 'T~jsm or WSW") Is a much revised and reforeed version of that the invenltory and umepping must be done to ccmrplote the program. the coastal Manlaqeiment, Strategy published in Septeulxer, 1977. Vany of til Th�e problems associates with a coastal proram lacking the basic data of an envirermr'ntal inventory and devoid of Mapping of areas ibased uponl IThe Public Advocate was characterized In a recent federal study of their environmental sensitivity - "vcarrying capacity" --- may be slolnari:1ed public interest representation, Policy issues Paised by Intervenor Rlequests for Financial Assistance in UPC Proceedings, NUJ14G 75/071 (July 18, 1975), at as follows- 'il-i public, planners, developers and environmental activists allike, 1_48,-a~s_"tire most extensive state public counsel's office in the nation." one of the methods for exercising his discretion is by representing persons who cannot know the suitability of particular aireas, of thre coast for (lOvelolveltV2 appear pro se in federal or state proceedings and seek to raise issues of broad piiMITiconcern. 'lie public Advocate also partcipates In the formula- or protection without initiating the CAFRA permit process by reque~stingq a Lion of broad mattmers of public policy through analysis of major planning documents, such as this one, and submission of criticism. See Appendix A. Public Advocate Ccnemnts on the Codstal Management Strategy for new Jersey (Septemlber, 1977).3 2 Sea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~ , Note 1, supa See Appendix A, pp.1-3, for a discussion of Public Advocate cases 4See, Appen-dix A, pp. 4 to 11i for a fill discussion of this paint. Involving coast~al protection. 113 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~mo- m m ~m-m-m pernat. The "Coastal Resource and Developrent Policies" are onmplex short, reversing the order may produce quicker and cheaper decision and do not constitute an easily consulted reference tool which can inform making. the public or help the public to plan for the future. 'Ilsis lack of whatdevelpfent policies, they apar to be may be called "prior notice" means that no sites are evaluated until a a "fine tool" which can be adapted to all parts of the coast. nut the developer decides to build on a particular lot. nlus, the "best, site need remains for an initial mapping and delineation of the coast, which for a particular facility remains unknown; indeed, it will never be nJwnm. would facilitate truly prospective planning. Tlhe policies in the nay and Ocean Seqent do not provide for a oearison A major part of this system depends upon the reliability of a between potentially acceptable sites, but only distinguish a site as either 204-line chart, the "Land Acceptability Tables." 'lls chart sets out the acceptable or unacceptable in a particular case. 204 possible types of land in the coastal zone and the "maximumn acceptable The BOSS in fact transfers the responsibility of mapping to the development intensity" permitted in each one, based on combinations of developer. Mapping of the site thus becomes the first step in the CAFPRA six variables. These variables are divided betvren four (4) wwhid assess permnit process. 'Ierein lies the second fault in the process: that the sites the environmental constraints or sensitivity of a site, and two (2) which must be dhosen, mapped and evaluated before there is any assessment of the i set forth its development potential. (lie 204 lines represent the 204 need for the development. The management program, as now established, first possible coxbinations of variables.) While the four generic sensitivity evaluates (maps) the suitability of the individual site; then evaluates factors appear comprehensive, the development potential raises certain the site and project in terms of the use policies, and finally evaluates questions. For example, the sixth column is "Regional Type," either "growth the impact of the project on area resources. This ordering of priorities area" or "limited growth." Designation as one or the other is intended seems backward. Public service facilities in particular -- such as energy to further the policy of concentrating new development, and thereby reversing or sewerage facilities - should he entirely evaluated on the basis of a historical propensity toward "sprawl" or "sluburban growth" which degrades need and alternatives before money and tine is spent mapping and evaluating the environment, wastes resources, and undermines the recreation-tourism individual sites. Indeed, once a developer has performed the probably appeal of the coast. costly mapping it is unlikely that he will be open to discussion on whether Clearly, the DEP wishes to advance laudatory goals. However, the the facility is "needed." Moreover, need is a determination which can be made independent of the site. If a sewer interceptor has no justification Or cursury review of the Massachusetts coastal zone plan suggests that this sensitivity mapping is a reasonable requirement ("it's nriot needed") then finding an acceptable route is irrelevant. In whid at least one eastern seaboard state appears to have accaplished. -4- -3- 114 mapping of the coast:, which appears on p. 90 of thie 10S5 -- intjo "q rowth". nihese tables and] policies may, fit fact, I-A, reasonnihe and arcurat-e or "limited growth" areas - is a crude tooil. for ahileving this goal. asseesmients. Unifortimately, Mhere is little way for us to judqe. The map is too general on its face and, mors isport-antly, lacks the basis In our opinion, Whs explanation Is poLent-iniy het-li dininqpnuom's an(] necessary for verifying its accuracy andi meaning. For example, growth dangerous. It is disingenuous for Its failure- to Yecoqni7.e the freqjuently areas ate defined in tenms of "municipalities where extensive developwant inco~nsistent trends in prior DEP decisions, and its failure to identify the has already occurred and theme is a history of high development pressure *"specific trends which, Mie acasmio law codijfied by statlute,, it winthes to (p. 97). Additionally, the tEP has relied 'in part" an the state W-velopwmet formalze. it is dangerous due to the ease inconsistencies - MEP nny Guide Plan, together with its 'analysis of likely areas of development pick the "trend" it wishes and Ignore others to suit the rmenut. 1' 1Iiie pressure based on the experience free, 1973-19701 in the CAMR permit programs we do not allege that MhIS would occur, the absence of a detailed evaluation * "(1d.). Mlainly, these factors; Include a high measure of subjectivity, of the! actual basis for CLM~ strips It of considerable auithencticty. lack. quantifiable standards, and, overall, provide a fuzzy yardstick at I I PC CUEPIM heat for decision-viikring. Accordingly, .their inclusion in Lnit - on an eemyuspoie ngerahv bnIpoedv-rtpIiil equal basis; with the sensitivity factors - Is questionable. p o i i s o t h taeyaiugsmofurcrm nmnnn%,v(.le CLAP4 way suffer frria other infirmities related to Its basic and eea nryFcltvS ngPiysildxnnotqirUa uly background. For example, it is not clear freem the accompanying explanation applicants deamenstrata that there are no "feasible and prudent aIlternatives" how eah of tese dtermintionswas wae. Alhough ie MPstabe~ thatto the proposed facilities although it dues ext~end the crite-ria of dcoenntrat-ing "these acceptability levels are based on current: UT~ policy, particularlyI I ~~~~~~~~need to all energy faiite. as articulated In the detailed CAM~ pormit; application decisions," (p. 120) it adds that txmmparisons between actual permit decisions and these tables 'lie Public Advocate currently is; preparing a case-by-casf- evaluation of CAFPA decisions. Itile not yet cremplote, it shaws a has only hegun. Miese crmtarisons will be used to "tun" the tables MAj degree of varying treatxeant of different valurs for no apparent reason in different cases. For exasiple, CLAM, based upon prior decis5ions, is intended "develop a rationale for each line of the Lana Acceptability Taibles and each of � odsorge"pal rowth. yet tin EEP has PermittedA sprawl einduing develepment even when it recognized thle Implications. See, e.g., Opinion 19 the water's Edge policies.` (p. 121) Sc,,, can time tables or policies be based (Crestwood Village) and Opinion 32 jOcean Comity e~raqa Authority).- Tie forner licensed a m-esive retifresent crseaniry in a previously undeveloped on permit decisions if a comparison between the tables and the decisions is part of %,Lst~ern We~an County. 'fime second licensed a seweor inu-rceptor line f rom thre ocean La Crestwood, thereby ope-ning up the interrediate open yet: to be completed? And how reasonable Is it to deve-lop a rationale for land to sprawl. 7in many ways, the 'need" criteria is m'meningless excePt in the the im.,thod after it is promsulgated as a regulation?7 context of alternatives, end In light of costLs. For eap~iesuli thec~i f1;-d1or ~apow~er pjI~j- IfT-EwiTIYN -so cootly that Consummers will respond to price, signals by reducing their rase - scirl ais by InsulatiAng their dwellings and installing solar collectors; (i e. IN employing ealtorn ci ves")? Without requiring such a showing, it will be difficult for DEP areas of review in which possible differences will arise. Moreover, what to serve the interest sought to be advanced by the project in the rost differences will be significant enough to trigger the Review Board? environmentally rational manner. Additionally, there is no requirement that the Review Board limit its Moreover, the policy ao Onshore Support Bases (7.4.3) for servicing review to the record before it, or, if it finds that record insufficient, outer continental shelf (OCS) exploration and development still does not that it remand for the gathering of additional evidence. Regarding the prohibit support structures in undeveloped areas, where their impacts, determinations of "national interest" and "federal consistency" little especially secondary, could be severe. Instead, it merely encourages is revealed as to the process for decision-nmaking. Vlese omissions show such development in already-built-up urban waterfronts. In short, the that the DEP and the DOE have not fully analyzed or presented their views policy is too open-ended. 7ie several other policies concerning oil and upon energy-coastal impacts. gas facilities have been re-written andare a marked improvement over earlier A. Base Woad Electric Generating Stations versions. Our concerns with these policies as they were stated in the earlier We are in agreement with these policies. They should, however, Strategy focussed on the need for secondary impact evaluations of oil and be specifically extended to plants currently under construction, even if gas related development. (Secondary impact analysis has now been extended new legislation is required. The requirement that the DEP - DOE be to all facilities (Reg. 8.14).) satisfied that "no other feasible and ecoonmical energy alternative exists" 'ile energy policies must be interpretted from an additional should be extended to coal-fired generating plants, which also pose potentially perspective -- that of the Draft DOE - DP Memorandum of Understanding severe economic, environmental and safety risks. (Appendix J, p. 277). this Draft MOU affirms that the coastal zone policies B. Public Facility Use Policies will be respected in energy facility siting, notwithstanding the role newly 1. Solid Waste and Resource Recovery (7.5.6-7.5.8) accorded the WDE by the DOE Act of 1977. However, the MOU leaves several These policies are greatly inproved, although tlhere is no mntiol questions unanswered. For example, it states that where the WE's Energy I� ~ of reclamation. Sanitary landfills are unsightly and envirolmentally hazardous. Report analyzing an energy facility "differs from the DEP, the conflict may they deserve the same reclamation requirements as mines. be referred for resolution to the Energy Facility Review Board," p. 270 2. Wastewater Treatment Facilities (7.5.9-7.5.11) (enplhasis added). 'the contents of the Energy Report are not specified On-site sewage disposal systems should be preferred over regional (except for "evaluation of need"); accordingly, it is impossible to know the treatment plants except where there is no feasible on-site disposal alternative -7- 116 and where there is a waiter quality need which cannot otherwise be corrected. Systems. ,This policy does not differentiate between regional and other facilities, With lThe validity of a nluster of the tire Voliciuq in UWE,~, purticn-larly both given "encouraged" status. Rather, unnecessary wastewat-jer treateent energy and linear developrrent, depends on the spec] fiety Vind eti~-~esv systces should be prohibited. They encoutrage growth and can result in ness of the secon~dary Impact policy. An improved secondary limpact policy massive secondary imi~acts. indeed, the growth they generabte will probably will strengthen these other very Important policies. Produce Mmr (non'-point) wate-r pollution, than Would be cleaned by the E. Prism Agricultural Areas 46 .4.11) facility. Ilia policy an prisme agricultural areas is vagtue slid, as written, C. Industry - Ccimmrce Use Policies appears to f avor develepment ever continued farming vthen the tWo usmes xune 1. MinIng (7.6.2) Into conflict. The policy La conceatrate devpicpenft is one with which w. This policy needs to be smm restrictive. Crmpanies wishing are in fundamental agreement, but it should not be carried out at: the expense to expand should be required to reclaim prior dusige, and security deposits of losing actively farimed prism agricultural land. Tho policy that such, areas should be required to ensure that recliamation efforts are carried out may be- developed ror non-farming purposes if farming is, `incrqinptible with satisfactorily, adjacent development that carries out the policy to concentrahe the pattern t). Swe.~ry lpacts (8.14) of developmnt' appears to value farmland only If it swa.ts the ill-deftned Tha- addition of secondary impact policy to coastal zone concept of "compatibility." noampngrent policies which would apply to all proposed developsint lias been Thfe burden of proving "incompatibility" should be placed on the a major concern of the Public Advocate. Although we ame pleased to see a proposed development, not on the neighboring farnsid. Mrorover, "compatibilitiy' secondary Impact policy in Doss (P. 159-GO) the present wording In vague should he defined to exclude conflict with "urban preferences" - such an and Ill-defined. Thle policy states that 'the probable secondary impacts ordinances against the use of heavy machnery Ix-fore 0 n.m.9 as well as the proposed develepmnt Itself must oniform with the resource and Development Coastal Policies.,, Thee is, no Indication of the degree of ofth 8wnre not available or not wl-aesuch as stisRidrAixZed evalu"atious 0!teSecondary impacts of highways or airports, the. DEP would do welt to have them prepared. These could then be treated as "interpretive guides." Th1e-y specificity expected In this analysis. W~ would l~ike to see this analysis w o uld not have the status of regulations but they would s;how 1mw the MPP Interprets its regulations and policies with great specilcic4y. 'lime burden would tied to standard studies of secondary Impacts, where available, udasteta aluco he appisn ranther -i t hhmil im a pca rase which falls outside the scope of the. "guide."1 this is a coesrmn practice. DePart-1nt Of COMIaenity ~f fairs study, Secondary "sacts of ftmgional Sewer with several federal agencies. 9Indeed, it is difficult t~o limaglne any incoapatbihiit~y vibich is- not derived frmg these urban biases. rasinland Is tamisland whterever it is bound. Simply because the process of farming may dis;advantage certain residential values means nothing. Cibviousiy, primae farmland is an endangered, increasing~ly rare -9 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~natural resource. It should not be sacrificed to values derived finre a trcanrp anted life style. jjJ7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-1 Additionally, this policy should m3ntion the possibility of using in the DOSS devoted to "public participation," (p. 174) our earlier comoents TDn's (Transfer of Development Rights) to keep agricultural land actively are still valid. They can be summarized as follows: 'he DE, lacks a strong plan farmed.10 Overall, the DEP's agriculture policy should be further improved for public participation. It must show a conscious, clear preference for farmland preservation. (1) involve the public early in the decision-making process, including making the preliminary analysis F. Casino Developrent 17.3.5.) easily available to the pubXic; Ihis policy, as written, appears to exempt Atlantic City hotel- (2) require applicants to submit adequate Environmental Impact Statements; and casino developments, whichd can be anticipated to be high-rise, from the (3) offer financial assistance to public participants. general policy on high-rise housing developmzents. Although hotel-motel The DEP responded to these criticisms in the OSS by pramising: developments are specifically required to comply with the housing standard, (1) to inform the public of pending applications through local Atlantic City hotel casinos are not. Amrng these regulations are the planning boards and enviromenatal commissions and through thle DEP Weekly requirenments that new high-rise structures Bulletin, currently circulated to 1,600 people. In addition, owners of land (a) "...must not block the view of dunes, beaches horizons, inlets, bays, or oceans that are adjacent to the site proposed for development will be inforned of the currently enjoyed from existing residential structures, roads or pathways," application. Ihe DEP's file en a pending application is also available for (b) "...must not overshadow beaches between May inspection. and October," and these nmeasures simply are not adequate. There is still no guarantee (c) "...must not have an adverse impact on traffic and air quality." of sufficient time between public notice of a hearing and the hearing date In light of Atlantic City's severe traffic problems and the recreational, to ensure that the public will have time to prepare reasoned testimnoly. Also, aesthetic and economic importance of its beaches, the casino policy should reliance on a mailing list does not ensure adequate public awareness of issues be written to specifically apply the above requirements to casinos. or hearings.L2 Finally, permission to examine DLE docunments does not satisfy the public's need for access to the preliminary analysis (PA). The PA, IV. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION the DFP's initial Inon-binding) analysis of each application, is particularly In our comments on the Coastal Managqerent Strategy, we stated that useful to the public, in a way that the application itself is not. It is shorter, the DEP failed to "discuss or prarote meaningful opportunities for public less-technical and eould be made easily accessible. participation in the coastal process." 11 Despite the addition of a section 12See discussion of a DEP questionnaire on this point, Appendix I s1See Appendix A, page 52 for discussion of this point. of "Coastal Management Strategy: Public Ccatents and DEP Responses" Alidc See Appendix A, pp. 36-41. shows this graphically. - 12 - - 11 - 118 EIELAWAIIE "OVER FLA~tM ftM~ri P.OU. BOX 73GO (2) Inie OIMP stlill makes no guarant~ee that it will re( uire adqute WEST TV1ENTtIN.NEW JERSEY UJIAGM Utnvironnental Tirpact Statamnpns (ns) with the CUlM pennit application. 'in \fas ,r.3,I, "ID" the past, a mnajor frustration of the public has been insufficient rISs. since G ERALD M "AALR IIv enacbmant of NEPA, the VIS in what the public looks to for a copehnivL- July 3, 11)78 review of applications. 'Me ltP should ensure that the 11IS is c~repiete before the public hearing, n~~~~ roq'"~~d ~ ~ Mr. David H. Kinsey, Chief before tire public hearing, a s r e q u ired in CAM. ~office of Coastal Zone Management (3) fsgaring inancal asistnce o Intrves~rnthe rp apearsto ~Division of Marine Services (3) figardig finncialassisance o intrvenos, th MP apearsto beDepartment of Environmental Protection placing its efforts on indeblaite "hold" until the Public Advol--te crises forth P. 0. Box 11189 Trenton, New Jersey 011625 with a specific propoeni. Vihile we are eager to work with the l1EP, the tflip Dear Mr. Kinsey, appears In have imposed a burden of proof on the Public Advocate to show that subject: New Jersey Coastal Zone Management Prograim, Bay and ocean Shore Segment, IDraft Esnvironmental Impact "this idea would be workable anid beneficial."13 litere should be no question Statement _________ that ubli funing ill nrichthe ecison-tokin procss b proidin theThank you for the opportunity to review the subject statement. Thfe Delaware River neans for largely volunteer citize~ns groups to present more expert advice Basin Commission is particularly interested in the geographic segment of the state- ment relating to Delaware Bay since that area overlaps IRlIIc's jurisdiction fore regu- on proposed facilities. Acourdingly, the DMi should allocate a sufficient lation and development of certain water-related resources;. share of Its federal grant to citizen funding. Assuredly, a nunter of grotips N o w Jersey's proposed coastal management program appears to lie consistent with IIR1IC policies and objectives, including relevant criteria, standards, sad guidelines by can be expected to apply once the MlP agrees to fund, at least on a which to evaluate Impacts that could occur on tile environment as a result of im- plementing the program. We agree that implementation of thle State's managesent "dasmnstration" basis, public participation. program should generate net gains it preserving, conserving, and enha-ncing the en- vironment. we notice that many of tile factors considered in tile state's decision- d, ~~~~~~~making process are compatible with DRkiC's Comprehensive P'lan for development of tile pampectfully S ~ d water resources of tile Delaware Basin, including wetlands, and that there is enlough flexibility In the State's processes to allow coordlnation Of policies that could mu _ t-A-It ~ ~ ~~~~~confiict with other levels of government and with public aj~vncles. It. WILLIAM PUMIR we look forward to receiving the Final 11lS for the flay and Ocean Shore Segment Of beptty Director Noew Jersey's Coastal Management Program and also to receiving thle remainingl segments of thle program, as outlined in Chapter Seven of the subject FItS. SIMIUME TREAT Itesearch Assistant Sincerely, 13eP. 190.J..Thry hlnvironmental 1 nI t cc: S. Selzeri -13- m - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~119- --m- * 215 925-8780 * 609 963-6420 - 2 - 7 ELEXS31417 tAiuiiPoI1 U AW tARE RIVER PORT AUTEORITY The Delaware River Port Authority is aware of its compact obligations and we WIR1 II 0tIa) DDIV1....N are constantly updating the port planning needs for our region. There have been JAMES R. KELLY Brldge Plaza, Camden, New JeMsey 08101 DIRECTOR great advances made In maritime transportation technology in the past 14 years and June 30, 1978 we strive everyday to improve our cargo transfer facilities and port technology. The Honorable Daniel J. O'llern Commission Department Environmental Protection The basic reasons are economic. In recent years U. S. trade has compounded at a P. O. Box 1889 Trenton, N. J. 08625 regular 6X rate and this equates to a doubling of the transport demand every 12 Dear Commissioner O'llern: years. If this growth rate continues, and It appears likely that it will, then the Reference: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, State of Iew Jersey volume of commerce which will be handled during the next 25 years will exceed the Coastal Management Program Bay and Ocean Shore Segment total volume of commerce which has been handled in the entire previous U. 5S. history. The Delaware River Port Authority is a public corporate instrumentality of Port interests of the Delaware River, therefore, must plan for the continual expansion the Conmmonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey created with the of port capacity and the improvement of services. consent of Congress in 1952 by compact between the Commonwealth and the State. The other powers, is vested with the control, operation and collection of tolls It is essential that the Delaware River Port Authority protect its responsibility and revenues of certain bridges spanning the Delaware River (Benjamin Franklin, to promote the Delaware River as a highway of commerce for the economic benefit of Walt Whitman, Commodore Barry, and Betsy Ross Bridges). The Authority has also the 'region. Section 306 (c) (1) of the 1972 Federal Coastal Zone Management Act constructed and operates a high speed transit facility known as the Patco Transit states that "prior to granting approval of a management program submitted by a System. The facility operates between Philadelphia and Lindenwold, New Jersey, coastal zone state, the Secretary shall find that the state has developed and adopted as a wholly owned subsidiary. Through its World Trade Division, the Authority a management program for its coastal zone ... with the opportunity of full participation promotes the development and use of the Delaware River and the Port District as a by ... port authorities. Sub-paragraph (2) of this section further requires that highway of commerce. the 'management' program provides for adequate consideration of the national interest involved in the siting of facilities necessary to meet requirements which are other The Delaware River is one of the greatest resources of the eleven county Delaware than local in nature". It is significant to note that the ports of the U.S.A. handled Valley Region and the Delaware River Ports have the largest concentration of water- f$123 billion in foreign trade in 1974 on which trade the U. S. Custom Office collected related industries of any port in the world. The Delaware River handles 133 million $4 billion in custom duties. tons of cargo annually from both foreign and domestic sources and 77 million tons is international waterborne commerce with a value of $10 billion. This represents 34 We have reviewed your draft environmental impact statement, State of New Jersey percent of the entire North Atlantic market. In the eleven county area, which is Coastal Management Program Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, May, 1978. The following served by the Ports of the Delaware River, there are over 180,000 people employed comments are to be incorporated into the final draft. These comments are not listed In port-dependent industries and their total wages in 1977 was $2.5 billion. PHILADELPIIIA � NEW YORK * PITTSBURGH � CHICAGO ' BOGOTA HONG KONG � TOKYO � TEHRAN � BRUSSELS 120 3- 3 - - 4 - by any priority but in the order where they occurred in the draft environmental Chapter 3, page 12 impact statement. nDecision making on each coastal location is to be evaluated in terms of both advantages and disadvantages. Since this is the key to the entire report, e.g. Part I - Introduction decision making, this should he developed in great detail. Particular attention No objective has been stated for the program. The objective of the Coastal No objective has been stated for the program. The objective of the Coastal should be directed to the requirements of CAFRA which are to promote the safety Zone Management Program should be the same objective of the Coastal Area Facility and welfare and to improve the economic position of the inhabitants". The Review Act. These objectives arm: ~~~~~~~Review Act. These objectives are: ~management program should develop the coastal resources as specified by CArRA. 1. promote the public health, safety and welfare. Chapter 3 age 9 Chapter 3, page 19 2. protect public and private property. 1.0 Purpose 3. are reasonably consistent and compatible with the natural laws governing The four policies which are used to review CAFRA permit applications are the physical, chemical and biological environment of the coastal area. mentioned. The draft environmental impact statement falls to list the CAFRA 4. improve the economic position of the inhabitants. 4. Improve the economic poston of the inhabitants. objectives in its management program. The policies must be clearly stated to The four basic coastal policies should support these objectives. It Is vital show how they promote predictability and eliminate administrative discretion in that this management program follow the prescribed desires of the New Jersey meeting the CAFRA objectives. Legislatures and the Coastal Area Facilities Review Act of 1972. Chapter 3, page 20 Part 11, Page lO 4.0 Definitions The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act offers three broad options for Implementing The standards which are applicable to definitions must be clearly set forth The standards which are applicable to definitions must be clearly set forth the federal program: for evaluation. Technique A - Local Implementation B - Direct State Control Chapter 3 C - Case-by-case Review Figure 5 page 45 The draft environmental impact statement states: "New Jersey opts for the direct The water acceptability table for Open Bay 18'+ for boat ramps docks and state control approach". This draft environmental impact statement should have piers dredging maintenance dredging new and spoil disposal are in conflict with considered all three alternatives as required by law and let the people know what the fourth CAFRA objective which Is to improve the economic position of the in- their options are. We believe it to be very important that all three alternatives habitants. The draft environmental impact statement has prematurely made a be fully reviewed in public hearings to determine which alternatives or combination decision that there would be no development in the Ielaware Bay without considering of alternatives will best serve to carry out the CAFRA objectives. the fourth objective of CAFRA. This alternative should be developed so the people in the region could decide what option they desired. .... ---- - - - - -$- -6- Chapter 3, requirements as specified in the report in paragraph 7.4.4. 7.4.3 On-shore support bases, page 140 Disagree with predetermination of location, e.g. Perth Amboy. The management Chapter 4 Regional and Interstate Agencies, page 173 program should evaluate all alternatives. The Delaware River Port Authority, which has decision making responsibilities Chapter 3 in the Delaware Valley, is not listed as such in the above classification. 7.4.4. Platform Fabrication Yards, page 141 The report states: "Platform fabrication yards will be encouragedin built-up Chapter 4 National Energy Plan, page 178 area which have the requisite acreage, adequate industrial infrastructure, ready The report quotes the salient features of the National Energy Plan, and access to the open sea and adequate water depth, and where the operation of such specifically conservation. The report further emphasizes how conservation was a a yard would not alter existing recreational uses of the ocean and waterways in leading factor in deciding on the second policy of the report. All references to the area". The report further states that offshore platform construction yards the National Energy Plan should be deleted because the plan is only a proposal which would be located "along the Delaware River in Salem, Gloucester and Camden counties, has not been adopted by Congress. The draft statement should reconsider the second outside the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment". These statements clearly violate the policy. objective of CAFRA which is to improve the economic position of the inhabitants and the report's 3rd policy which states: "employ a method for decision making Chapter 7 which allows each coastal location to be evaluated in terms of both the advantages Completing the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, page 197 and disadvantages it offers for development". Apparently a decision has already The report states, "First, Chapter three and substantive Coastal Resource and been made to eliminate the possibility of on-shore platform fabrication yard in Development Policies will be proposed and adopted as administrative regulations of Cumberland county and this was done without the local consent and in violation of the Department of Environmental Protection, according to the requirements of the the reports stated decision on page 12, "Land and water decisions with limited Administrative Procedures Act (N.J.S.A. 52:148-1 et seg.) under the Commissioner's impact that affect only one municipality should be made by local citizens and authority under CAFRA and the DEP enabling act to adopt regulations". officials". "Comments on these proposed rules, as well as comments on the combined Coastal The principal error with paragraph 7.4.4 makes is that the bridges crossing Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and Draft Environmental Impact on the Delaware River prohibits the fabrication of platforms in Salem, Gloucester Statement, may lead to revision to the Program". and Camden counties. For fabrication of platforms there can be no height restrictions The above two paragraphs show that the intent of the State Coastal Zone Management of the platfornns and this makes Cumberland county an ideal location for platform Office is not to have full participation of the Delaware River Port Authority as the construction. There are no sites readily available in New Jersey which meets the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act so specified. The words "may lead" show that 122 -7- our full participation is optional to New Jersey's Coastal Zone Management. in -8- addition, if the heart of the program, Chapter 3, is adopted as Administrative regulations as recommended by the State Coastal Zone Management Office, then the requirements of National Environmental Protection Act of 1970 for full public The Delaware River Port Authority believes that the present boundaries of hearings on the adaption of management regulations, will be ignored. CAFRA are adequate. There Is no need to extend the coastal zone on the Delaware River. Chapter 7 Preliminary Boundary of the Coastal Zone Entire State, page 255 Federal regulations require that the coastal zone boundary be determined at Sincerely yours, the time this report is approved and sent to Washington for their approval. The State of New Jersey, Office of Coastal Zone Management, proposed to extend the James R. Kelly, coastal zone north of the present CAFRA boundary to all the tidal tributaries JR9/gra Director of the Delaware River, see figure 25, page 258. The justification, of this is the statement on line 38 of page 257. "Tidal influence makes the Delaware River region cc: W. W. Watkin, Jr., Executive Director immediately adjacent to these waters 'coastal' in the sense intended by the Federal Mr. Armour S. Armstrong, Maritime Administration, U. S. Dept. of Commerce Mr. Thomas A. King, Maritime Administration, U. S. Dept. of Commerce Coastal Zone Management Act". Freeholder, Director Cape May County, N. J. Freeholder, Director Cumberland County, N. J. Freeholder, Director Salem County, N. J. The Director, Office of State Programs of the National Ocean and Atmospheric Freeholder, Director Gloucester County, N. J. Freeholder, Director Camden County, U. J. Administration for Coastal Zone Management, Department of Commerce, Washington, Freeholder, Director Burlington County, U. J. U. C., advised the Delaware River Port Authority on the 27th of December, 1977, that as far as the Federal Government is concerned there is no reason to extend the coastal zone past the present CAFRA limits In the Delaware River. The report on page 257, line 43, states the same conclusion, "NOAA-OCZM does not require inclusion of the Delaware River within New Jersey's coastal zone as the quantity of sea water is less than 5 parts per thousand". 123 m~~~~ ismI ....-- --- mm- m - - - m m - V1111;:11411111111~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~1r r, 0.? 1h,,II 1. 't � ,,-t , E i, ,t II"h'+ I,. _2- , I',l,, ",,1 6.3.8.9.: Since marine facilities are located in coastal waters, we are concerned that this "limited" filling concept could prevent necessary filling for the construction of docks and wharves. We suggest that tile word "limited" be deleted. July 3, 1978 6.3.8.10.: This wording and Section reference on piling needs clarification. Mr. David N. Kinsey, Chief 6.6.7.3.: Industrial site potentiality should be determined by more Office of Coastal Zone Management than just proximity to a rail line or highway, which in isolation could Division of Marine Services introduce rigidities and ignore trade-offs with other locational assets. State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 7.4.1.: Until rules for siting arbitration between DOE and DEP by P.O. Box 1889 the Energy Facility Review Board are defined it is impossible to comment on Trenton, New Jersey 08625 general energy facility siting policy. Dear Mr. Kinsey: 7.4.6.: The discouraging of pipe coating yards in that portion of Middlesex county beyond the CAFRA area, and Union, Essex and Inudson Counties, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has reviewed the is inappropriate for inclusion in tile Bay and Ocean Shore Segment Program State of New Jersey Coastal Management ProRram: Day and Ocean Shore which does not apply these regions. This subject should be thoroughly Segment (May 1978). We commend you and your staff on a very exhaustive treat- reconsidered in the Northern Waterfront and Meadowlands Segment Program, ment of the subject. As you know, our prime interest at this time is in the and not foreclosed in that area. Ratitan Bay area, which is part of the Port of New Jersey and New York District, and eventually the Northern Waterfront and Meadowlands area, 7.4.12.: New or expanded, non-nuclear fossil fueled power plants which is the next program segment to be prepared. While you view these are directed toward relatively built-up areas where air quality standards two areas as separate and distinct, we do not. O(hr comments hereinafter would in effect, rule out their acceptability, thereby actually banning new will thus consider these two areas and their ultimate relationships, coal plants in direct opposition to Federal policy. and are identified by applicable section. 7.7.1.: Confinement of new port facilities to sites adjacent to 6.2.6.2.: We are very concerned over the prohibition of subaqueous existing port facilities may he encouraged, but should not be prohibited from disposal of dredge spoil, but trust that Section 6.3.8.7. controls this non-adjacent locations where there is no other recourse and the non-adjacent policy. site is in all other ways acceptable under the location, use and resource policies. (Page 182 would appear to afford such flexibility). 6.2.7.: We find this section unclear with regard to harbor approaches and channels. We trust that the prohibition of commercial salvage of wrecks Many of the facilities and services of the Port of New Jersey and will not prevent prompt removal of vessels sunk in navigable waters in New York relate to tihe "national interest" and "federal consistency" features keeping with Federal law, including the New York Harbor Collection and Removal of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (as amended). The conmmerce served of Drift Project, in which DEP is an active participant with the Corps of by the Port, and the Federal system of aids to navigation, waterways, Engineers. anchorages and other port activities, are but a few examples. Thus, how these matters will be carried out in the Northern Waterfront and Meadowlands 6.3.8.6.: We are very concerned over the general prohibition of Segment Program, as well as in Raritan Bay, become quite important. We also new dredging, though case-by-case exceptions are possible. Our concern arises hope that there will be some harmonizing of policies between these two areas, out of the lack of definition of "new dredging". We assume it does not since, as mentioned earlier, Raritan Bay is a functional element of the Bi-state include deepening, widening or other improvements to existing channels. Port system, with specific linkages to harbor deepwater channels, anchorages, aids to navigation, and marine terminals. 124 r.ONNFCIICUT tI JFJRSY WM YVORK TRI-STATE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Thank you for the opportunity of commenting on the Say and Ocean oprn r, flrE VF1 flV0.T1555'N Shore Segment of the State'l Coastal Zone Program. We took forward to M5E1NFW YOFIK, Mi.W YOIn 100413 working with you on tile Northern Waterfront and Meadowlands Segment. I I(I(~IINC 12121 9'.l"30n Sincerely, Clayton 0. pe.""W Deputy Directo/of Planning & Development June 2, 1978 lir. David H. Kinsey, Chief flew Jersey Coastal Zone Ianagement Project Department of Environmental Protection Box 1819 Trenton, flew Jersey 08625 Dear Mir. Kinsey: Regarding your Coastal Management Program - Da and Ocean Shore Segmaent we are happy to note that Tri-State responsibilities are slow menltioned specifically (page 173). However, the wording could be misleading to those vnirlni liar with tile planning network in the Region. Chairman Brooks' letter of Decemher 29, 1917 goes as follows: "responsibilities for assessing consistentcy between its plans financed by IIUD and DOT and the coastal management program." 'File wording in your latest version is "assessing consistency between state plans, etc." Tile word "state" should be "Its", I believe. I trust this correction can be made in the next version of the IN'P. Many thanks. Sincerely, Stephen C. Carroll, Director SEC:fh Regional Development Division feflri l ne tropnvlt,4p inl q rqnrn io' IS, Jl,,Isrr elrh.1 l of ,m CI,,, t. ir .., .lv.ry ,,,rf Nn. V',-, m m m m ~~~~~~~~ m m - -~~�Si~ AMERICAN LITTORAL SOCIETY American Littoral Society (2) ,1, ,, fI 6S,;dwr rueu M m 4 11I Administration (NOMA) to fulfill a segment of its coastal plan. If the plan is SANDY 11OOK � IIIGIILANDS. NEWJERSEY 0772. 201-291-1055n followed, it will lead to better environmental protection along the coast, and to Comments of D.W. Bennett, executive director, American Littoral Society, on State of New Jersey, Coastal Management Program, that extent, we can support it. However, there are deficiencies in the document, Bay and Ocean Segment, dated May, 1979. places where the language can be strengthened or rewritten so that natural coastal My name is D.W. Bennett. I am executive director of the American Littoral resources can better survive. Let me make some general comments on the document Society, an organization committed to protecting the coastal environment. The and then detail specific questions and changest Society has about 1500 members in New Jersey. We have participated in coastal zone Each draft of this document we have seen does a better job at being specific legislation in this State since 1969 when New Jersey's Wetlands Act was being about what can and cannot be done to land and water in the coastal zone. As it drafted. Since the Coastal Area Facility Review Act was passed in 1973, we have stands now, a land owner can go to the document and make accurate predictions of the attended meetings and public hearings on the different stages of that law -- chances of receiving approval for a planned development. A key part of any land the inventory, the interim guidelines, the alternative management strategies, use law is its ability to make clear what will be permitted and how to go about the final management plan, and now the molding of that plan into this draft en- getting permission. The steps outlined under the Coastal Location Acceptability vironmental impact statement that is the State's submission to the federal coastal Method (CLAM) are straightforward and detailed. There is no reason an applicant zone management plan office. cannot go through the process -- there is no reason for the applicant to be sur- In 1973, when it passed CAFRA, the legislature found that the State should prised with a decision by the Department of Environmental Protection. regulate land uses "within the framework of a comprehensive environmental design It is legal for the State to control some land use decisions in the coastal strategy which preserves the most ecologically sensitive and fragile area from zone. Both CAFRA and the Wetlands Act have stood up under court challenge. inappropriate development..." Neither law is arbitrary. Neither law constitutes a taking without compensation. Measured against that plraseology, we believe that the draft document under In fact, it is absolutely necessary for the State to have a say in coastal land consideration today falls short of the legislative intent of CAFRA but goes much use, for two reasonsr first, municipalities cannot withstand the pressures to of the way toward coping with land use decision making in the coastal zone. We add tax ratables at the expense of the environment, and second, coastal land believe, and we have said in the past, that both the inventory and the alternative use decisions influence environmental conditions far beyond the limits of the management strategies which the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) pre- development itself or the municipality where it takes place. sented as required under CAFRA were weak documents, and they led to a final manage- So, to the extent that this document protects the coastal environment and sent plan presented to the legislature last September that again fell short of does so in a clear, predictable manner, we can support it. But, there are the legislative intent of CAFRA. That DEP document has now been refined and weaknesses that need to be addressed: appears today as the State's presentation to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 126 American Littoral Society (3 American Littoral Society (4) American Littoral Society (4) CLAM IS REACTION, NOT PLANNING land use. The DEP still leaves the important first step -- what should happen to the GIUC NOMINATIONS ARE LARGELY IGNORED land -- to the developer, contrary to the intent of CAFRA which emphasized a state- LARGELY IG The DEP received 176 nominations from citizens for designations of coastal wide interest in the well-being of coastal water and land. Instead of a vision of plans to be Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (GAPC), yet the DEP has finally the coast, the DEP has decided to design "a program which accomodates the included only one of these (it mentions two others -- coastal wetlands and wet creativity and initiative of individual landowners, and developers, and others..." sand beaches, but both of these are already protected under wetlands and riparlan Rather than directing development (or non-development) on the coast, the State statutes). - a Iigbee Deaclih certainly deserves GchrC status, but so will react to the plans of others, plans which most often serve to get money from do many other nominations. Coupled with the DEr's decision to not map critical land rather than preserve the environment. areas of special biological significance, it has missed a prime opportunity to This Is not to say that CLAM is not a useful tool in coastal planning, but delineate areas where development would be banned. Citizen participation in the CLAN will work better if a plan, drawn from an inventory, sketches in some general GAPC process was goody State reaction to citizen participation was not. vision of the coast. ENERGY GROWTH AREAS NEED BETTER DEFINITION In general, we believe that the section covering energy is strong, clear, The map on page 98 showing growth areas is at odds with the state Development and much improved over earlier drafts. It appears to set into perspective the Guide Plan, partly because DEP has added to the growth areas "likely areas of relitive needs for new energy facilities (low) with natural coastal productivity development pressure based on the experience from 1973-78 in the CAFRA permit program (high). We do have concerns about how the DEP will maintain its premier position of regulating major residental development' (SEct. 6.6.8.2, page 97). This is as controller of coastal land use in the face of the efforts of the new Department another example of reacting to development pressure rather than planning it. of Energy to enter the energy siting discussion. I.Lgislation now in the Assembly Delineation of growth areas needs refinement. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, can weaken DEP's powers dn the m5rt. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ARE NOT MEASURED In particular, we question the legal strength of the memo of understanding be- Without an inventory or a plan, the DEP will wait for permit applications tween the two departments and its effectiveness in protecting marine resources. to arrive, weighing the impact of each against environmental constraints, without We note (page 280) that the Energy Facility Review Board, which will settle disputes acknowledging that an accumulation of developments can cause environmental stress. over energy siting between the two departments, is heavily weiglqd toward energy Also, because residential construction of less than 24 units does not re- interests and does not provide for third party participation. quire a permit, there can be an accumulation of small impacts through small develop- COASTAL AUTIIORITY mente. There are cases where many more units than 25 can be permitted with little We believe that the State must maintain control over land use decisions in environmental impact and other cases where a single unit can cause serious en- vironmental damage. Environmental sensitivity, not number of units, should guide -. mll -IY - - - - - - ,,r~,;; ,~..: r. ^:-; . Ai E~.[;i; ':I' : , I .:1" ' ~'f*'American Littoral Society (5) Bi .ah Za!Z dt~~ <. the coastal zone and not delegate its authority to counties or municipalities. 2,:;4J-: : l X Ep. ~- Beyond that, the State needs to approach communities to see that their zoning sija ~s ;'J": ",F':; !1. ordinances conform to coastal policies. Already we see development of coastal I- _ *28'.~"7 .~.;~g 2 7land for 24 units to avoid CAFRA (see clipping). While this document speaks a..9.. i'*- o about dune protection, it fails to come to grips with single-family development on .N-i -." 5'-lX~3.aq'~ Q dunes. Barrier beaches can be heavily developed under present regulations. A coastal oe-='"s~-1,ta.;::~ e" m plan that cannot control construction on dunes and barrier beaches is too weak. L' ye F Further, mosquito commissions impact heavily on coastal natural resources. Their g~.'-;.- 5B :- S gaa!' n work whould also fall within the coastal plan's regulations. .,gi~.-. ,77 .*< ::.-t , . MANPOWER NEEDED TO PROCESS PERMITS 77 03767 gnaiiS~"g>*a73 t The DEP does not have enough staff to do a thorough job of processing CAFRA 55 6,b0a a~a: E ��7 -"@>5^7applications. While this document states that its policies can be enforced under {U O S~ _; ~--.Y present law (Wetlands, CAPRA, Riparian, Shore Protection), this is only true if g3 4 ">XEt j there are enough people to process applications. Staff in both the CAFRA and !;a5 rggv> C' nt-"F~a ) =Wetlands Sections must be doubled. We also suggest that procedures for regulating 70stR 's~g~ nS~art>7lae, t land use through the Office of Shore Protection be made a part of this document Basi85� n eS~9,i n5i 5 C4 as CAPRA and Wetlands are (Page 285). 05E~f.b aaa<7_ P In general, we can be comfortable supporting the policies outlined in this ,-i 0u-p 87 >,}g t3>document and in the process set up to regulate land and water use. But we cannot 707g3 75-= ?." ~'~"~'4 77'J moI)7 support all the document's details. In addition to the more general comments t177 =_4{}^7�lr. (ma) contained here, we plan to submit more details on specific wording. 57r2, : ;i~a;ll J. In summary, we think that the document under discussion, the Bay and Shore = - " ' ,~,3; a Segment of the State's Coastal Management Programjis a step toward coastal en- ,�,ts7irh~lB!p 23 - 7'-^, ,, CVironmental protection with room for improvement. 128 AMERICAN LITTORAL SOCIETY AMERICAN LITTORAL SOCIETY SANI)Y 1100K IIIG-I.ANDS. NEWWJERSEY 07712 - 201-291-1(055 SANDY HOO(1K 1116IIIIANDS, NIWJIRSlEY 17112 - 201-2'1.mul5m July 7, 1978 July 7, 1978 Mr. David K. Kinsey Office of Coastal Zone Management Department of Environmental Protection Mr. David Kinsey Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Office of Coastal Zone Management Department of Environmental Protection Dear David: P.O. Box 1n09 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 In addition to tile statements made at the public hearing JtlIe 14 and 15, on New Jersey's Coastal Management Program, BOSS, the Americajl Littoral Society sub- Dear David: mits these further detailed comments on the plan for inclusion in thile final draft of July 21. The attached are comments prepared by Anne Penna and Dana Rowan. I endorse them. The three of us are concerned about the advisability of Section 303 of the Coastal Zone Management Act 11972) acknowledges, in its adopting Chapter Three, as it stands, as rules and regulations. I rec- wording, the traditional pressure of economic development at the expense of "eco- comend two steps: logical, cultural, historic, and esthetic Values..." The Coastal Area Facility Review Act (1973), likewise notes that certain parts of tile delicately balanced 1) Get someone from the Attorney General's office to look at Chapter natural environmental resource called the coastal area are presently suffering Three, to make sure the wording is specific enough to be law. serious adverse environmental impacts and calls for a "comprehensive environ- mental design strategy" to halt the trend. 2) Hold Chapter Three open for comments until August 1. It is taking us real time to go through its many parts. The current Coastal Management Program, BOSS, is a step toward a comprehensive environmental design strategy, a significant improvement over the Coastal Manlag- Sincerely, ment Strategy Sept. 77. lowever, the Program seeks to he a developer's handhook as well as an environmental impact statement, serving neither aim well. As an Environmental Impact Statement, this document falls far short of what D.W. Bennett the Department itself requires from a developer in assessing proposed facilities. Executive Director At the least, developers are required to submit an EIS wliich contains an inventory of existing conditions, mapped clearly. While the Littoral Society is aware of financial limitations repeatedly cited by DEP-OCZM, we question the completeness of this program as it now stands. Without an inventory and mapping, examination of adverse impacts is superficial at best. In a 350-page document, fewer than 10 pages deal with negative impacts of the Program. The Introduction (p. iii) touches on the Environmental and Adverse Environmnetal Effects, and further ex- amines irreversible commitment of coastal resources on (i l' 201-205, 225. Only three paragraphs speculate on the adverse impacts of the Program on the 1376-square mile CAFRA area. There is no examination of facts. This is not sufficienlt to pro- vide a balanced, thorough EIS for federal review. Secondary impacts (p. 159, 210) are recognized as having significant influence and as such are included in the Resource Policies, Chapter 3. while these policies are good, it is hard to see a working relationship with CLAM. For example, the Lakewood case study shows high intensity development acteptable adjacent to cran- berry bogs. With o0% of tile site paved as allowed under this designation, drainage patterns, especially parking lot runoff, would contaminate this sensitive area. Pipes through wet terraces (p. 121) could act as subsurface dikes, distlnring nutrient m _ m m m _ m _9 ' _ ' m m _ - - AMERICAN LITTORAL SOCIETY (2) A AMERICAN LITTORAL SOCIETY (3) flow and pollution filtration, thus affecting surface water. DEP's statistics the layout of Upper Water's Edge Policy (p 74) makes it clear that all conditions show a link between high incidence of cancer and use of surface water for drinking, must be satisfied, then lists them in an easy-to-read manner. The following should as noted in the revised runoff policies. be standardized: To achieve the Basic Policy of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of p. 46 Boat Ramps those in the coastal zone, as well as fulfill requirements under the Clean Water 47 Docks and Piers Act, government officials have a responsibility to minimize risks of contaminated New Dredging surface water. Dredge Spoil Disposal 48 Filling DEP-OCZM anticipates that the limiting factors of secondary impacts will help Offshore mining control sprawl (p. 210), the characteristic land use pattern of New Jersey's re- 49 Cable Routes cent development. Concentration, rather than dispersal, of development as one Overaead Transmission Lines of the four major aims of tile program, should be controlled. Directing sensible Pipeline Routes growth patterns should be achieved through projection and planning, with particular 59 Flow Hazard Areas attention to mass transportation rather than reaction after the fact. If measure- 69 Wetlands Policy mentsof secondary impacts are to be helpful in limiting sprawl, parameters to be 78 Retained Water's Edge examined by the developer should be specified in the Resource Policy. Such factors 134 High-rise Structures should include impacts on property contiguous to wetlands; socio-economic effects; 136 Hotel-casino Location Rationale projected service needs of schools, shopping, sewage, water, transportation -- in New Marinas short, cumulative impacts. 17 New Amusement Piers 141 Pipeline Corridors The Littoral Society questions the validity of the DEP's claim that this plan 145 Nuclear Stations is one of direct state control (p. 10) as defined in the federal CZMA sec. 306(e) 147 Public Facility Use Policies (1) (a). The plan states (p. 6), "Most regulatory decisions will be made through the 149 Shore Protection Use Policies permit process," leaving the balance to the discretion of municipalities. While 153 Intensive Development Area Policy the DEP is limited to regulating activities specified in state law, "accomodating the creativity and initiative of individual land owners, developers and others..." The document is lacking an index. The following should be cross-referenced has led to misuse of coastal resources. This plan is actually a combination of within the text if a separate index is not developed. all three management techniques! local implementation, direct state control, and case-by-case regulation. Local implementation governs developments of fewer than Page Item Cross-reference 25 units, and density of larger projects through zoning. The Littoral Society urges consistency of local and state regulations for building in the coastal zone. 30 5 units/acre 119 mod intensity devel. Coordination with the Department of Labor and Industry to devise a taxation system 36 dredge spoils deposition land uses which encourages open space, in conjunction with Green Acres purchases.could further 48 piling 47 docks protect coastal ecosystems. Transfer of Development Rights would concentrate building. 18 retained water's edge 71 beach policies The DEP could also encourage consistent application of the Management plan through 135 recreation policies its contracts with regional government agencies, requiring municipalities to under- 84 wet soils 121 septic systems take a natural resource inventory and land capability analysis within a specified 96 barrier island devel. 89 devel. potential criteria tile limit. 159 secondary impacts 210 secondary impacts 223 secondary impacts Tile 176 Geographic Areas of Particular Concern nominated for protection two years ago resulted in only three areas so designated iD the Coastal Management Program. The Universal soil toss Equation should be included in the text, or i all Two of the nominated areas, coastal wetlands and wet sand beaches are regulated appendx, for the benefit of readers without engineering backgrounds. under existing legislation, and only Higbee Beach-Pond Creek Meadow area is protected by BOSS. The Littoral Society sees GAPC designation for dunes and specific areas Water Uses/Water Acceptability should also follow a standard format, laid out as of high erosion as a significant means of protecting these fragile, productive eco- are the Special Water Areas: definition, policy and rationale. systems against development which falls below the CAFRA threshold. Includiig a more extensive GAPC list under Chapter Three will give DEP proper legal authority The Bay and Ocean Sfore Segment is a lengthy document both intimidating and when these regulations are adopted under the Administrative Code. redundant in its current form. It would be more manageable broken into two parts, the first comprising the function of the program; ic, part I, part II chapters 1-3, Thile format for conditional approval should be standard throughout the document; Parts III-VIII. The second volume would represent the structure of the program: the federal CZMA, CAFRA, Wetlands, riparian and shore protection statutes, DEP-DOE Memorandum of Understanding, and the Energy Act; in addition, Part II, Chapters 4-7 with an expanded explanation of the CARS, EFRB, NRC and the appeals processes. A schematic diagram or timeline which presents the application process in a straight- forward manner would be helpful. (Such as the one attached.) 130 AMERICAN LITTORAL SOCIETY (4) I To provide adequate legal authority as required in the federal CZMA, the DEP proposes that Chapter 3, "Coastal Resource and Development Policies'." be adopted as administative regulations (as per the Administrative Procedures Act (N.J.S.A. 52:14H-1 et se_.) prior to program appeal. After adoption, the regulations would be equivalent to law; revisions to them would require a lengthy process of drafting, reviewing, and passing amendments. Therefore, elimination of ambiguous. language is crucial to: 1) increase predicability of the permit process, 2) assure consistent regulation with changing administrations, 3) be understandable to non-specialists as required by CZMA, and 4) fulfill the intent of New Jersey's Coastal Area Facility to Review Act. Sincerely, Anne Penna and 0 CC: Diane Graves William Potter Daryl Caputo Frances Beinecke a 131 , . I .j0" Ai-ia .nilulO ~lcsl ue ~i~i~Ii~iAWiiis Asoil~ Ofc Ulniversitly WomonMnn 14 1 d9oi >~7IU' N,:~ct J~n~ts tUiersety Womesn q i 'I, Oll'i OF THlE lqrsW jEISSY DIVISION OF TIlE AIqRICAM ASSOCIATION OF p.L- 7T 'jstI Uimo 1N4VEMIiTY WOIEI l)EIV~,1 Byy WItIlp1PED 1. istjn.:, OF BRIANT BEAC11, LEC1ISEATIM:l CIIAXIIIAl OF THlE 14ET1 jELgEY DIVISION AND oi~ 71frN 13A~iNGAT LIGRT AREA 13iiMlC!I OF THlE AAIIW, ON ilE T EWJE IifHE1Y COASTALIANAOEI1iT to stop ocean dumping 1ION will move us mrrcl grlef. 'kilo ficed for lamle- 1'ROUIIAE - BAY AT'D OCEAN MHORE'SUII N31~ 'lbiEl~~ diatO action WAS enrphASIxed by Dr. Donald 1.. Lear, llroirrrem tdvisor fur FPA Region 1II, when lie told the WillY Viddlo Atleritic fle tonal Conferenrce this peatweekrend that there In a potential derspg'r Iii tile renppenrance Ily namne Is Winifred D. Payer, and I represent approximately 7000 t h s prnofgenaleonhece lorIdetngieps'lbiy collge-ductedwomen In flow Jersey, members of' the American Ansocla- of oxypen loss. 'win all remember what happened tar) yearn lf~go whenl a tioir or' University Woman. In April, 1970, at the N.J. Division's cmiatno re lyoadsrn corninni~onof reenslie en st~_n Southwont winde cniisaerl r nnrrsive V'esting, their representatives unanimously approved the DivistonF3 Legis- fish kIll off oitr coast. [la believes wo could fnee rittrC of' tire nestle Itstive Propram (attached), which an part of its Community Policy has unless programs to diminish ocean durrrping stnd to lnutltuto better the fo11lfoing statement: snewornr.'a tree trnnt he given lrtuivedIA ae nd Ei-.3:;MTJIi iitt tonti tin. `4oe support the protection and conservation of water resourcoe through local and stilts implementation of the Nastional Environmental Policy Retgarding High RIsIr Erosion Arenas, I suereet thri; eftfr the desmege dfone Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, and by our northeastere to the Barrier Jlnlnds thin wInutor plan"- tp etiddl- the Coastal Areas Facilities lieview Act (Cafra), Including, citizen tionel bailding permitted on the dunes this sprinir - irt ,oir" Venoir) perticipation in liater Quality Flannizir (2013), ocean and wetland, pro- I sland particularly- that not only Iinrrref~To TLlrit anrt othel-I tritlhct era tection, and preservation of' fresh water resources such as the Pinelando." listed, hurt other areas of theso berrier Islands nrc niter 11ighi r'lin erosion areas. Tfire '~egwaint on pagle 51, i2hetior tl.l.2.uI oa In a volunteer organization such as ours It 13 Impossible to study "Development in high risk erosion nrovs is vrohhhti ted except 1'or '-Alroa thoroughly a document am far-reaching as the Eel and Ocean Shores p o e t o vnue htstsytl hr rtrinueplco" n Segment within the reaection timre limit set by the National Oceanic and Rrnjn n e)Rrr"pg ~5 Scinp... "Developinsnt on diunns In prohlbiited, Atmospheric Adminisitration and our own office of' Coastal Zone 111nnagement. ihtexcponftecntrto f1wtd In f~eet, to pot better citizenn partiblpation, loiimer stuady tiara would sportaA oil nllen nihovn tile dunej silrfnce. . borpe thud. M-13~ loInnf:3 tie t be moat desirAble. 'lowever, we have some isoanted reactions based upon teeilN xMfipoeletI "r'o nnaa our policies. proteF.ctive durnes. 11Fl urn 13 or' ireur all of, Cliff 9f,"woniti. ,rnpil*~l One to an ocenn dumping. We hove felt for some time that the 'JiiLiwn 'rons ru'll[r Ilan V10"t~ld'~e V11ture pretuctiotr. In rinet, It In hnrd to demand of the American Littoral Society and of other coastal proups nundlerst-aru' why lisrte of our berl~ier talan",j wriro eVjoery jf!Cjq-r0o ~~trre seensirjreo, 1! ire !luutiernus nld parts of Cnupa Cod in 11th !i jjn1nr oixp-uternes to 132 F'*~~/ ~7fj~,'1Aimtiyi.n Arnrviation of Unierity Women Ant-Oc-mvjI A'ia, A-.aniirnn of tJflvertriiiy Wm p. -Tec~tjmonyp4-Teton the ee. Howvor, ethou~ Netue's notheecere ed othe eroiin~ ~and ultimately, oin the mainlanvd, Is incron-titip notsbly, the rrocxlt; of tore .nre out of outr jiirisdictlon, the curtailment of hNIlding thnt the Incr-eamed use of' water since the counvty swo-iegointlto. threantenis rI l] ntqfroys our (111n000I ri~ot. It i.* In oxir interost to The recommendation Is that present wells lie ibenridoned "tic wnter piped tvfvoVr fi1' a bit e.ortomiO01a? lO no0s thait we do nlot lttntlrvmtely lest~roy In from the rinela~nds, whore drilliec wouxld bske pince. oircul'eonciut,ri ecnoiiy b-r losring our benches, and coti soqniutly the tiomeuct' nIII other qronsenvl vi-11torn vio are niost responr~ble for our mhorelaencl Conservantion becomes a most Inrr-ortsirt factor inI these Pnricrsy-relaitod erolinry. ma~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~itttern. Therefore wo appland the rer.mnnt'Iq policy of 1)concentretrine, rnteth hadsprrli. the pwrtl;ern or contelI rr'sldrrn- A neJor litrret ixpoi notr linys virii shores In of course that of offshore Um3, commicerciail, lindulstrial, arid renorl;-orleitntd dvloe n 01.4 11 1 r. '.I coinpend the VP;P nncourrpeigonift of' Oter Continenthl Shelf P) encourriginp the pres~ervation of open apace. r,'Intr'd f.tc~li ties only In Ortreloper' tAreas, anI blip feet theit pTi'alines will be conditInually ncceritmblo only If they follow slrendy developed CosraIoin eneirgy leads its to altetrinat nourcos, ccnons o~ Irv the i'ri rts-of-vaty. Minrticirmove, al~thounh the Segment prohijbits .PJ-rllne Setnt Th ivIflsatrnp httee~oldh tign lia colrri~dors for lenldinig oil inI thle Conti-el Piro ritirrera Prea of tile 1iullica tione on the time of nuclear reactors, mnd agecelorention of, thei tochilp- 1,.iver, Coclar Croak vtfwternliei, slid rortions of the R-itionsos Croeek end logy leendivng. to the development of aidequate etnerg-y sources other- thawn Turms Rlir iintorshnids, ,.-a feel etrontly thet the nsamo prohlihition should nuclear, with emphasis on renewable solircon., iann, wind, tidles, co-rovne- aplply to all possible prillutents, mind in II much lareer section of the rattion, and geo-thermin. What area cnn hotter lend Itoolf to the ]iec T'In Unir~ys nrn. he raso fnrtfis thiciinsi isthe retthatourof stin and wind thmn the Coastal Area with practicelly Tno ithred entr anu undov~,ounri ater reerves n the ine Derens or all on hip lke, alost constaint wind? If we can put; a men onl the moon, we certainly tind whatever, p.~llilne oneo retinplueitlI*W canno afod e tilitte sun oend wind more Ineapenisively a~nd efficiently thaen we do to jpollutq ontr wiltcir r,).x~rves whether it lie thint dnVeloprinyt end It now. All vie need Is to accelerate the tochiiolorgy, rind we irea flow Jersey rOlericletrit polluxtyntsl or tliri Voqv~lbl oil or rns lenlkage, The~re crnnbe to "Vse all means of) all levels of rovernment; to meeot that chall~nge. Tno Falen te tihol. pollution w;ill nort orccr InI eny ense. tinovi-t evcnite- We wish to compliment; the Office of' Coaistnl. Zone KrngnmPement i,ob only. on to i~t i ltelnl loostrucen- Indicitc Vi-it~ tic v-!-, roprd tihnno une "-itvei well tllouurht-oub document, but also on itsV Intensci effortn to socner theni 0.,aO(t~cd. Tor Intritinc", moe te Vioach h'TP-c~r. Vrics of .Jli,,F 7 noi'g itznpriiaini th PT'YAll'Ylfl strvre of Min (j-dtredilon which replorts pleets for a -ruivniAl water syrt-111 for s't.1cnrn PCenrl County Flew Jorsey will inn. Thbis Inthe demncr-itic Iiny, basedf orirlineily u1pon liore"ilsn tite sn' t. 101ovl in Mtb ~ o frow iu hwr'l1 ru:~ Loll(' 15-nrh II rld, - - - - ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~133--m---- (7/VJYI ~~~~~~~~~~~N.J. Divisiot -Proposed Legislative Programn ITIGUIS of TIIE INDIVIDUAL naio.r ttlndia,iiilinitrott:tiir 1o project the tights of thre idvidtutta under tule conirditit1lon Go fle tcetel-p c,,tofrer aodvt rollr,,'O wtheC15 a g~s~iribodiiv, se 013 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~United Stales and the State ol New Jersey. we SuPPort: T~~~~m--9t2!-11iT2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I. The guarantee GI full equaltiy uniter file lain fog all; active en CULTURAL l'OLICY couaragemnt etl national ratitication of file Equal tlights Amnirdment tho tcien meecittflrs itt the l5 coloni ee where ~~~~~~~~eveybody lind his Say tottie United States Constittiton. loeandotrvwntand romoe - lltediill1iiaieiin-rotincrii. -c s-P the to Goj.L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~jjp.9 where ev ~~~~~~~~~~~~~2.LAwsiest,,tngilie privacy olite rodividril. 1.001 Ceel t u5 e1~~~~~~s~~ l~~dee o, ~~by this miethods but we 3. he litminapwtiontze r~ tof aiaill oo andsoetl dsoqrimination ,oe soiliotIntesy f eel we plot ma y dune; ir patesId tmurne;qal pot is, Ini ulity aii 2.Iinoino cnncca n abeI ioiiiio hs trd also F k~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 Iligli to milndiduat choice in fthe determinaten of onie's reproductive lrevl siocilically deigiri i 100 mthe treefods et N I resid-ii. thle a people.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~tle C"litt at a Id Criialuraial rise of niass tredia irutah"l. ig lie is~tl by the pociple liccol~~~~alT governmen'ft :for the peoples mnd of the Se p ~ . The N.J Division on Women aind its develoiiiret anid tInancuig oIn l el ~~~~qiality c~cito,1,r1~n,.iotiti iriig bllli IV. -Rl, AAili asarto by tbe 1)00ple lieco~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~y~~~f ~ ~provide direction and guidance to cope with ide's iegyldies thrOugIr source wtiercer leasible: and the sopiporl el public editoraliia Treaty programs, research, resources. counseling, and referial toOai television. propriate agencies. 3 Pioi etiries a-t lirHiorrii br the I-re-e'.rtoi ole oll 01 N. ulI's Thu 1105.1 Jer~~afy Divis~ion 01' the Alnuerlan A33sOC.ation Cr11' 0 ~ r t 6. Continued reoie anil revision of all Paimt systenis and tourt pro, a,,l Iiiii,jil tI hitq.iju. perpeiiiali P.l.!Hi.u if. tlietiPiiof~ all i"to The flow Jer ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ceduies wilt, reiphasis on inipioved faniily Couil retorn,, one silaote irie. womon , f fo 1, S ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~8 The right el citizens lo ibe informied beivie public meetings with ac EDUCATIONAL POLICY curate data and to participate in decisio,,,,lakig. ID Irlovillp rol'I"Ard onr vintuml ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~pointodarid elecleitotlicals. deaits. and protessiorials at all lhorts. wih -riy )itiiiiiies for the COMMUNITY POLICY 2. A etlicientiy adminsteriedl proZara, of puiblic educatilon adeqiiately Tltisytic you ni thrs~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ limes ot ,tiuiid nod equitably funded oil all levels.~~~~~~$d quiabl fud e onall levls 1.Coirservalioi by residents and inrusiry. conipielirrisive pitanmiin. ciDtomliionsniis eirvirvi'i) !".cuivrti.iliir.rii I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~4. Strong emphasis In elrviitoatp aiud seconrtaipel r.riy on tic, r'o- I2. The accelerationi of technology leading to the devetiipmniit of vetopmnrrtnlllneh rsc shills olrr-riaiiii. wtivr. auovi riieo~iatc, adequate energy sources other than nuc~lealr: with remplasin GOr sun, 5 Dv .itoer va c~ode aiii prom. mit, ,. lIi i:ml iellc lv fle. coal. . wit separate tuidv on cactib 'itltringent tuerltatlons on the use of nuclear reactors and thre assign' 6 Expansio 01 eitir faliitso, aici' tiy rit iitis avi tIh'~r. u, I mental high, priorlit Ia the selutlun 01satety questions and waste di,. ziteqimae ti IiiVii potsa probilens: nucleary energy shr mcrsdrdolya i a y iar ticil oviiie li it i.iiiif iiladtIoriliu u term, source of etlectric power In cases where Conservatiotn arnd after- thre State. 1 ii,oe Sily -Ha..nte energy source5 s-mnnt meet reasonahle deiniands. 6. A tlnorooi.1i revew of pnicvnrhii anI its iiiiti civrittiilti 11" 4. Develoiiieiit of citizen parliilaipabi in stlae and local uimplemneita. Depraitrivint of letter i'rlinntIit eiloto tOm rvrccrneuil I (t lion of a tederat urban tinlicy aiid prograiiis to Preseree and sattisai ult driti rehablitiale our cities. 9 Aileterae provisroti foi virten.iii... .ii trIi I..Co1 n I-vslgroiadaie -57frotectieri nod conservationt ol water resoirrces through local bard warth ',sate tIeplenrenlatlon of NEPA tfile National Envilroinmental Ponilcy tO Caiitiroheiisie exort tIntily lMe aird sen editirtivir g . .. . icii in I A'Dt. thre Federal Water Pollation Conirel Act Amendments of 1972. grates~ K~ll~tnop 12 and the Coastal Ae,,a Facilities Rleview Act ICA1`A): ircludingt Citizen participation Inuter quality platnang (208). ucean and wet' FOEITGtN I'OLICY I lands, protection, and preservation altIresir water, resources such as the rrietands. We suiport tiroceij irrsarri 1i .[:"a.,S fattul lIi II'-" tl Deeelopinet ofla safe and balanced mass truirspuraolii sysltem ati I titrri riorl rvviiation. irclfittloi a Colle "t coilut la, riillt eluding a variety of forers of iransParlaleiil ayprvpriate to a give" nitivirita coilporatioiis. em"Pirptr~siet filtorb eal.ieui alo;,d. area, such as rapid irasit in cities aridbikitig paths in he suburbs energv. rilni at li'Soamesr. arid ptoj1rlahluei _77-014011i1C ISSlOES 2. ihe tUN 'tid its atuidit,1 agenicies and rd-rl'a!ii el lire ifali.ii 7. Equitable and adequate governmniital funding tirrnigh a realistic gtsrmenii. tomhintionethe toiowing:a Ial~strarprvlreslve Icoietiwith3 Courtrttitd iiifiiiraiion cInimlaral rcdoiiiiu antI cnovurtit a- ieauiv.-ni Its atteridard conitrol of lttr preperty ta.; a salts tax; othert necessary with, sycid -ii tof d-lt iucrO parelttmeitl.i .rid ofl' itti -Ii.-oto B Pronotoiot el Consumne; proleclion at the local. stic. arid natron i 4 til'ravvlielvaii'ii;iiutielrri.l levels. 5~l. eu otao~i l culti, at arid lntiritctrat l tao arming it,- 9(Qaltiy day care pregirors w',tuern alte i tol, ,d. lead ir: to eqnal jr,,Oiti iiall'i ol -itree In r Ie.Developrricir of a cnnuprehvrtenvr' '.carruuniiy based hearth. systeir. nonticuSilar. arvt toritli Mrituee-rnPatiii unroersatip available. destroe] Iltp Tivniue .1 lull r-oug of qiarily tieallh services. tirsidtlutlovt atid -lnf iiistitutorl uncalt rg iii enrii I!r,, Aiirrinii 'l.ipr't i i -sc l alaive as well as acute ca.re 134 iPLY TsO: LehAiute Olfce TNNYONX, n.j. 00.0O L ga0 0.-7414 The League for Conservation Legislation local zoning laws and the Bay and ocean Shore segment. There Box 605, Teaneck., ?N. J. 0466 ~should be careful monitoring of development not covered by CAFRA. The cumulative impact of numerous housing COMMENTS DELIVERED BY MICHAEL HAVRISKO, LEGISLATIVE AGENT developments should be addressed in this document. FOR THE LEAGUE FOR COItSERVATIOV LEGISLATION, OM 6/15/78. A policy statement in the document discourages development which would damage or destroy the value of Good morning, thank you for giving me this historic resources. Development which would allow demolition opportunity to speak on the Coastal Management Program, of historic sites should be prohibited. Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. My name is Michael Havrisko, The CAFRA policies and guidelines must be specifi- I am the legislative agent for the League For Conservation cally outlined with respect to energy siting in the coastal Legislation. zone. With new legislation being proposed which would give I would like to commend the DEP's Office of the DOE the lead role in the siting of energy, it is Coastal Zone Management for their conscientious work in imperative that specific guidelines be developed. Furthermore. putting together this document. I have a few comments on Commissioner Jacobson's statement that pipelines may have how it may be improved. to go through the Pine Barrens raises further concerns. The The lack of an inventory of coastal zone resources Pine Barrens must be protected from exploitation by the oil and of detailed mapping causes some concern. One of the and gas industries. first steps in preparing a comprehensive management document The Coastal Plan asks that conservation of energy be would be to completely inventory the natural areas, fisheries, historic sites, industrial development, residential housing, encouraged in coastal development. The League feels this polic should be required. wildlife habitats, and other featuresof the coastal zone. The Plan mentions policies directed towards the I do not believe this has been adequately developed in this preservation of open spaces. By naming hotels and restaurants document. as desirable structures along the coastline, the above The Department may now regulate construction of policy seems to be self-contradictory. housing developments of 25 or more units. Haphazard develop- ments along the coastal zone could have an adverse effect. At this time, there seems to be a lack of coordination between -~~ ~~ - - In closing, I hope that the vast resources necessary to administer and enforce the coastal program will be made available. If properly administered, the program should provide an equitable management program for the New Jersey coastal Zone. Comments of the Natural Resources Defense Council Michael Havrisko on the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment of the New Jersey Coastal Program Frances Beinecke Altantic Coast Project June 15, 1978 136 2 The Atlantic Coast Project of the Natural Resources Defense management program New Jersey has been provided with financial Council (NRDC) has reviewed tile Bay and Ocean Shore Segment of the assistance and certain guidelines with which to design a program New Jersey Coastal Management Program and would like to comment on geared to its unique problems. In return it must produce a pro- those key areas of particular interest to NRDC. NRDC is a national gram which meets the requirements of the federal Coastal Zone public interest organization which specializes in natural resources Management Act. and environmental problems. In 1976 NRDC established an Atlantic Over the past two years MRDC has worked with statewide Coast Project to focus on protection of productive and fragile environmental organizations and the Dclpartment of Rnvironmental coastal resources. Protection in an effort to have our concerns for New Jersey's New Jersey became an early focus of the Project with the coastal resources considered throughout the planning process. scheduling of the first Atlantic offshore lease sale, number 40, Today we would like to comment briefly on those parts of the off its coastline. NRDC was a plaintiff in the lawsuit over the coastal program which have improved significantly over the past inadequacy of the environmental impact statement for Sale 40 (NRDC six months as well as those which continue to need Improvement to v. Secretary of the Interior). The Project's involvement with New qualify for federal approval under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Jersey's coastal program was a direct result of that litigation New Jersey has been involved in the coastal planning pro- in which onshore impacts of OCS activities were a major issue. The cess since the state legislature passed the Wetlands Act in 1970 offshore oil and gas leasing program is an example of one major and the Coastal Area Facilities Review Act (CAFIIA) in 1973. Over federal program which could have a determining effect on the extent the past three years the Department of Environmental Protection of development and its location in New Jersey's coastal zone. It has designed a coastal program that is based on those two statutes is this kind of new activity which the federal coastal zone manage- as well as the state's older riparian statutes. During this plan- ment program was designed to address through a statewide planning ning phase the DEP has developed a very innovative review process and management program. for evaluating applications under these progrnms--the Coastal The second largest contribution to New Jersey's economy is Location Acceptability Method (CLAM). We conmmend the DI)partment tourism and recreation, and the long term survival of that econ- for designing a methodology that so thorohllhly considers the ilnter- omy is dependent on the continued health and vitality of the relationship of a natural ecosystem in its permit review process. coastal resource. By participating in the federal coastal zone One of its most commendable features is itsr prdictability for project applicants as well as for the illterented public. Althriuqh - m - - - m - - mY m m - - - 3 4 there are certain modifications in the specific policies that we ment is required before federal approval can be given to this would like to see, we can support the thorough approach which program. The general points we would like to address are: the DEP has developed. 1. The program must meet the requirements for segmented A second area where we see substantial improvement from approval by showing significant progress towards a completed the initial coastal Strategy is in the energy policies. We feel statewide program (923.61). that this document represents a significant effort to tighten 2. As enforceability is a major requirement for an approv- up these policies and make some clear distinctions between what able program, Chapter III of the document must be adopted as a is to be permitted within the boundaries of tile Bay and Ocean rule before New Jersey can qualify for federal approval (923.42). Shore Segment and what is not. Although there are policy changes 3. As all policies of the coastal program must be enforce- we would like to see, we commend the DEP for the substantial im- able and legally binding, New Jersey must obtain an Attorney Gen- proveeents represented in this document. We believe the policies eral's opinion on the binding nature of the memorandum of under- clearly reflect the intent of the legislature to protect the standing between the Department of Environmental Protection and natural resources within the coastal boundary. the Department of Energy (923.42). A third area in which this program has improved relates 4. The program does not adequately protect fragile ecosys- to the national interest determination as required by the federal tems, particularly dunes and barrier islands, from cumulative statute. It is NRDC's belief that the federal Coastal Zone Manage- impacts of a number of small scale projects. ment Act and its findings and purposes presents a clear indication 5. The program is not adequate to meet the requirment for of Congressional intent to interpret national interest as protec- geographic areas of particular concern. tion of fast dwindling coastal resources as well as providing for 6. The program does not adequately define a procedure for necessary energy development. New Jersey thoroughly evaluated designation of areas for preservation and restoration. all elements of the national interest by incorporating the intent As New Jersey has chosen to submit a segmented program to of federal programs which affect the coast into its policies, the Office of Coastal Zone Management, it must comply with the Recognizing that coastal management is a constantly evolving federal requirements for segmentation. These include an indica- process, and that the Day and Ocean Shore Segment is still in draft tion that the remainder of the program will be completed in a form, we would like to indicate those areas where we think improve- timely manner and that the boundary and national interest component 138 6 of the entire coastal program be included. In this document New Jersey has not demonstrated the timeliness or boundary A second concern to NRDC is whether this ptroq-n1m i.s provisions satisfactorily, adequate to protect critical natural resoxurces within the One of the basic federal requirements for an approvable coastal boundary. These resources are RnoW protected onlty program is enforceability of a program's policies. At this time from major projects which require a CAPRA permit but not New Jersey's program is not enforceable because the policies are from small scale but cumulatively destructive residential not yet adopted as regulations governing the riparian, wetland and commercial development. We recommend that the DEP' eval- and CAFRA review process. Although the document states that uate mechanisms to enable cumulative impact review of many Chapter III will be adopted as a regulations unlder the Administra- small projects in critical resource areas, enpecially barrier tive Procedures Act, we would like to point out that this is islands and dunes. These resources have been most critically essential before the program can be considered for approval. We ignored throughout thie evolution of this program. They serve understand that this can be done by the Commissioner as soon as essential natural functions of flood pr-otection, buffetrs to the program is finalized and urge that it be done as expeditiously productive wetlands, recreation, filtering out pollutants, and as possible. Furthermore, we urge that the policies included in wildlife habitat. In addition they are fragile and vullncralhe to Chapter III be applied to any DEP decisions which would affect htuman impacts from small scale development. The program ignores coastal resources within the Bay and Ocean Shore boundary. At a both their contribution to natural ecosyst ems as well as their minimum this should include actions undertaken pursuant to the fragility and flood potential. New Jersey must include in its state water statutes which were passed last year. Other DEP program a mechanism for protecting these valuable resources. actions should be evaluated for possible inclusion under this The Coastal Zone Management Act provides a mechainism or regulation. attention to special areas by designating thrm geographic areas An additional requirement of enforceability is a demonstration of particular concern. This component of New Jersey's costnal that a memorandum of understanding is legally binding. The Draft MOU program is seriously inladequate. A year ago the DEP. rccogllized between the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department public concern for coastal resources by rreguegstinlg public nomin- of Energy does not adequately demonstrate enforceability. The DEP ation for geographic areas of particular concern. T'he DEL' received must obtain an Attorney General's opinion which indicates that both nearly 200 nominations. However, only three ;reas are proposed the Department of Energy and the Energy Facility Review Board are for this status in the document and two of th1oe,,, wetlands and bound by the energy policies and can be challenged if these policies wet sand beaches, are already protected by state statutes . GArC are not felliwc!d. -lrlr m~ -I - 9 '-- mm mm m m i m mm - m m m - - m Natural Resources Defense Council, Illc. 917 I5TH STREET, N.IV. IVASIIINOTON, D.C. 20005 status is an essential component of a coastal program because 37_5oo 202 7357-5fo it is a protective, rather than reactive, device. Once an area IrnlkrOlJie Ne..Io,&Oite 2545 VALE SL 2l2*T is designated as a gapc a special management program must be PALO ALTO, CALIr. N. .IlI9K NV 195(17f was nominated. NRDC is concerned that New Jersey has adopted an approach based oi two basic errors. The first was to seek and then ignore public comment; the second, to avoid using gapces as a mech- anit-m to protect critical resources. Comments Of The Another requirement of the federal program is a procedure Atlantic Coast Project for designating and managing areas of Preservation and Restoration. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The program gives one page to this process with little explanation except to say it will be part of the Green Acres Program. There On is no discussion of how the process is intended to work, who will New Jersey's be in charge of it, or how we are to be assured that the program Bay Ald Ocan Shore Segment staff will be tied into and act consistently with the program's policies. In conclusion, although there are a number of key areas wthere New Jersey's coastal program requires additions or modifi- cations, which we will comment on in detailed written comments, this document shows substantial improvement over previous drafts Frances Beinecke Natural Resources Defense Council and we commend the DEP for its effort in these areas, particularly Na917 15th Street, N.n.cil 917 15th Street, N.W. tne energy policies. lie hope that the next draft will incorporate Washington, D.C. 20005 even more modifications and will address the concerns we have July 5, 1970 raised today. lt2,% INrtylJ" rub 140 3. A legally binding and enforceahln mochanism must The Atlantic Coast Project of the Natural Resources be established to ensure conformance of energy facility siting Defense Council, a national public interest organization con- decisions of the Department of Energy, and th,; Ellirgy Facility cerned with the protection and management of natural resources, Review hoard (S. 306(b) (F) and 923.14). has reviewed New Jersey's Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. These 4. Tie? program mtlst ilrclucle a muichani.lm for the comments are a detailed supplement to our oral comments delivered 4. The program must include at the public hearing in Trenton, New Jersey, held on June 15, protection of fragile ecosystems, particularl dunes and barrier 1978. The comments are divided into two parts: the first islands, from cumulative impacts of a number of small scale addressing New Jersey's program measured against the require- residential and commercial projects (55 302 and 303). ments of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972; the second 5. The program should designate barrier islands as geographic areas of particular concern (5� 305(h) (3) and 923.20). criticizing the Chapter III policies and their ability to meet 6. The program must establish a procedure for designa- the intent of the Act and to implement the program, tion and management of areas for preservation and restoration (SS 306(c) (a), 923.24). I. Meeting Federal Requirements In our review of New Jersey's document we have identified six major areas where we believe additional work must be com- pleted before the Day and Ocean Shore Segment may qualify for approval under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. The six areas that we have identified are as follows: 1. The program must meet the requirements for segmented approval by showing significant progress towards a completed statewide program (� 306(h), 15 C.F.R. Part 923.61).1 2. Chapter III of the document must be adopted as a rule in order to make the program enforceable (923.3(a) (3) and 923.42). 1/ 43 Fed. Reg. 8,378 - 8,32 (March 1, 1978, effective April 1, To78). 3 4 1. Segmented Program it can: New Jersey has chosen to develop its coastal program . . . exercise policy control over each seg- ment of its management program prior to and in two segments: the first, the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment; following its integration into a complete state management program. Demonstration of the second, the Delaware and Hudson estuaries. In submitting this control will include (i) completion of the management boundary determination for its program in segments, New Jersey must meet the applicable the entire coastal zone . . . and (ii) con- sideration of the national interest through- requirements under Section 306(h) of the Act and Sectiob 923.61 out the state's entire coastal zone in the planning for and siting of facilities cited of the Interim-final Regulations. This section of the Act in 5 923.52. reads: In the document New Jersey devotes less than one page 301(h) At the discretion of the state and (pp. 198 - 199) to "completing the State's Management Program." with the approval of the Secretary, a manage- ment program may be developed and adopted We do not believe that what is in this section indicates that in segments so that immediate attention may be devoted to those areas within the coastal adequate progress is being made towards program completion. zone which most urgently need management programs: Provided, That the state adequately In this brief section New Jersey indicates that the coastal provides for the ultimate coordination of the various segments of the management pro- boundary for the Hudson and Delaware portions of the state gram into a single unified program and that the unified program will be completed as has not been completed but that a study is being done which soon as is reasonably practicable. will "help define an appropriate coastal zone boundary, based NRDC does not believe that New Jersey qualifies for in part on water quality, wetlands, and aerial photographic segmented approval at this time because of the extremely analysis." This makes clear that New Jersey has not determined cursory work done so far on the Delaware and Hudson portion what the completed coastal boundary will be. A complete boundary of the state. Approval of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment for the entire coastal zone must be delineated prior to must be delayed until both segments are complete or until the federal approval of the first segment or that approval will be state has met the applicable statutory and regulatory require- illegal and subject to challenge. ments to assure development of a single, unified plane. Appendix F further substantiates this impression by The information on the remaining segment in the document discussing the "Preliminary Boundary of the Coastal Zone -- does not indicate wheat kind of program is anticipated for Entire State" on pages 255 to 263. Tile inland Preliminary that part of the state. The state has not demonstrated that Boundary for the Hudson and Delaware portions of the state is 142 defined loosely as the "first road or cultural feature." At this time there is a large gap in New Jersey's proqram New Jersey's opinion that this is only a preliminary delineation because of its lack of authority over cumulatively destructive is clearly indicated in their conclusion: projects or over protection of fragile resources such as . . . the inland boundary of the coastal floodplains, specimen trees, steep slopes, prime forest areas, zone beyond the boundary of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment is a proposal to be bogs and white cedar stands. In Chapter IV the document outlines debated and refined as DEP conducts future coastal planning in 1978. the other offices within the DEP whose activities affect the 2. Enforceability Before Approval coastal zone. New Jersey has not adequately included these Enforceability of policies at the time of program approval other programs in New Jersey's Coastal Program. Without in- is a key requirement of the federal Coastal Zone Mangement Act corporating these other programs, New Jersey cannot comprehen- (�5 923.3(a)(3) and 923.42). This is an essential requirement sively control activities which affect coastal resources or because it is the only way to ensure that development will be coastal waters. controlled in conformance with the policies and goals of the The Shore Protection and Waterway Maintenance Program coastal program (S 306(c)(1)). In this document New Jersey is cited aS controlling beach erosion and waterway maintenance, recognizes the necessity to adopt enforceable regulations and barrier islands and shorefront access. Tiis is only described proposes Chapter III as a rule governing actions under the by a single paragraph on page 167 and the discussion does ,lot riparian, wetlands, and CAFRA statutes. In the document and at clarify whether this program will be hound by the coastal policies the Trenton public hearing New Jersey admitted the need to adopt in Chapter III. In the EIS this program (and its statutory this rule prior to submission of BOSS to the Office of Coastal authorities) must be clearly explained. This program must be Zone Management for approval. We would like to reiterate our bound by the policies affecting the resources and activities belief that this must be done before the program can qualify it controls. for approval. If the rule is not adopted according to the A second area of concern is the Iater ResouIrces program present timetable federal OCZM cannot approve the program. within the DsP. The last paragraph on page 167 discusses the Additional concern arising from the document is the lack limited extent that the water resources program may luse coastal of enforceability of policies or other actions affecting policies. As CIAM defines a process for evaluating applicatioes, coastal waters which are not covered by the three key statutes. we believe that the Commissioner could make the procedure Imw ieve h h Cser _ _ i r o c r apply to all relevant programs under his jurisdiction. We adhere to the policies. The programs we are most concerned recommend that thile Division of Water Resources programs be bound with are actions under the Shore Protection and Waterway by the policies in Chapter III. certainly water quality Maintenance Program, the Water Resources Program, and the Green Acres Program. programs and floodplain management programs in a coastal zone Green Acres Program 3. Enforceability of Interageency Agreements have a direct impact on coastal waters (S 305(b) (2)). New 3. Enforceability of Interancy Agreements Jersey seems to have lost sight of the section of the statute Appendix . of the document contains a draft Memorandum which discusses coastal waters. This is especially important of Understanding between the Department of Environmental Pro- as the document states that the water resource programs "will tection and the Department of Energy. Section 923.42 of the Interim-final Regulations clearly indicates that MO0U's must be coordinated and made consistent" with the coastal program. Interim-final Regulations clearly indicates that MOU's must The only way to ensure that coordination is to require all be enforceable and legally binding to be acceptable. As they decisions to be made pursuant to these statutes and consistent state: Each state agency that exercises statutory with the enforceable policies of Chapter III. authority that ise s statutory authority that is to be incorporated into the mlanagement program must be legally Thile third program where inadequate evaluation has been bound to exercise it oathot be legally bound to exercise its authority in con- formance with the state's enforceable made is the Green Acres Program (page 169). Green Acres is policies. Interagency agreements (such as memorandum of understanding or agree- the primary open space acquisition program for New Jersey and asment) mrandust be binding and enforceable in order to constitute acceptable legal as such has direct relevance to the access and areas for preserva- authorities. Interagency agreements will be considered enforceable if the management tion and restoration requirements of the CZMA (55 305(h)(7) program and state authble orites in support of the program provide grounds for bring- and 306(e) (a)). The document indicates that DEP/OCZM will ing an action to ensure compliance rof net- worked agencies with the program. review Green Acres projects but there is no mechanism for worked agencies with the program. DEP/OCZM to propose projects or for critical coastal projects We are not satisfied that the draft memorandum of understanding binds either thile Department of Energy or the Energy Facility to be ranked with other programs. To conclude, our review of this section leads us to Review Board to make their decisions in conformance with coastal To conclude, our review of this section leads us to recommend that the coastal policies be applied to other programs policies. The Review Board exists for the specific purpose within the DP whi have an affect on coastal waters. Such of deciding disagreements between DOE and other state agencies. within the DEP which have an affect on coastal waters. Such For example, the MOu states that "DOE may refer a DEP decision action would bind the decisions made under these programs to 144 Disruption of dunes and barrier islands can be created by that differs with DOE's Energy Report to the Energy Facility storms themselves but more devastating are human activities such Review Board" (page 280). Although the Energy Report is to as flattening out dunes or halting normal littoral drift actions be made up from both the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and the to stabilize areas for construction of second homes. Alolg Energy Master Plan, there is no language in the MOU which says that the New Jersey coast most projects on barrier islands are well that the Energy Report is bound by thle coastal policies, it below the 25 unit requirement of CAFRA, and yet the impact of simply says that those two documents will form the "basis for a number of themnt can be tremendous. formulation of the DOE Energy Report." We find the MOU un- Yet, the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment does not ensure acceptable as a mechanism to ensure the enforceability of the control of these developments and hence the protection of these coastal policies in the energy facility siting area. The Energy resources. As a result it violates tihe intention of the Coastal Department must be required to act consistently with coastal Zone Management Act. In Section 301, Congressional Findings, policies through an enforceable mechanism such as regulation, the Act makes clear the extent of Congressional concern over an executive order, or a secretarial order. This requirement threats to coastal resources through human exploitation, and is a key link in developing an acceptable program because it the Congressional intent of state involvement in "land and water is the only way to ensure that the energy facility siting decision use decisions of more than local significance" ({S 301(a) - (h)). of the Energy Facility Review Board or the Department of Energy New Jersey has chosen to interpret these decisions based on would be in conformity with the program. the size of a particular facility rather than on a resource 4. Protection of Critical Resources which in itself is of regional or statewide significance. We New Jersey has devised a coastal program which does not maintain that this Act was passed to protect coastal resonrc's adequately protect critical coastal resources, particularly and that these resources themselves are of greater than local barrier islands and dunes. These resources are both fragile and significance. In thile President's Environmental Message in Mlay extremely important flood protection to back bays and mainland of 1977 he focused attention on barrier islands by indicating areas. These systems consist of thin barriers and a small break their threatened status and requesting the Interior Department in the system can have a devastating effect. Essentially one to both inventory and develop alternatives for their protection or many small infringements on the systems cuts into the and management. continuity and threatens the longevity of the entire resource.. - m_ - -Li - - I m - --m- - Clearly activities undertaken on New Jersey's barrier to activities undertaken in the Special Water's Edge and Land islands have a direct impact on the state's recreation and tourist Areas (5 6.4 of Chapter III). This review should not be limited economy. If New Jersey's Coastal Program is unable to address to major facilities but should include any project which impacts these resources which are the base for a great part of that a critical resource. New Jersey must study the mechanisms available to implement such a review. If inadequate authority recreational activity -- that portion of the state's economy available to mplement such a review. If inadequate authority could be seriously jeopardized. Furthermore, these islands play exists, legislation should be considered. A third option available for cumulative impact review an essential role in protecting back bay areas which produce A third option available for cumulative impact review valuable commercial and sport fisheries. By ignoring the piece- would be to limit state aid or public services to communities meal and cumulatively destructive residential and commercial which did not make their zoning decisions consistent with the development on barrier islands and dunes New Jersey is violating policies for Special Water's Edge and land Areas and the Resource the intent of the federal statute, as well as jeopardizing the Policies. Throughout its planning process New Jersey has not cniu hel ofi torta r s ebecome involved with the local communities within the coastal continued health of its tourist and fisheries economies. We suggest three ways in which to reduce this problem. boundary. An early effort should have been made to get communities The first is to designate barrier islands as a generic geographic to adopt local ordinances consistent with the state's policies. aea of particular concern. Te details of this will be dis- By ignoring this major gap from the beginning New Jersey has area of particular concern. Tihe details of this will be dis- ended with a program thlat has virtually no control over land cussed in the next section. At this point we would like to ended with a program that has virtually no control over land point out that the Division of Marine Resources notified us in and water uses which are cumulatively destructive to critical a letter earlier this year that barrier islands would be desig- resources. ~~nated as gapecs. This never happened. ~It should be pointed out that the predominant activities nated as gapcs. Thils never happened. The second manner in which to deal with this problem is undertaken on barrier islands are commercial and residential. The second manner In which to deal with this problem is It is clear from CAFRA thlat the minimum sized residential to develop a cumulative impact review for New Jersey's program. It is clear from CAFRA that the minimum sized residential This is essential for small scale projects on the coastal water's development that the state can consider is 25 units, yet much of the piecemeal development is less than 25 if not intentionally edge and on critical resources such as barrier islands. We restricted to 24 units. 'Phis means that the primary activity believe that the Department should adopt a cumulative impact restricted to 24 units. This means that the primary activity review procedure as part of CLAM. This review should be limited undertaken on the islands is not under CARA's jurisdiction. 146 14 13 bibliography of information available on New Jersey's coastal The other major development activity is commercial. resources. It then requested the public to propose areas of CAFRA does not have any specific authority over commercial particular concern. Tlhe state never evaluated the nearly facilities except if they are associated with a major public two hundred proposals which resulted from this process to deter- facility such as a parking lot or sewer system. New Jersey has mine whether they were of state or regional concern. Thus, the not yet clarified the extent of its legal jurisdiction over requirement quoted above was not met. commercial facilities. The New Jersey Public Advocate's office Secondly, New Jersey has not adequately designated recommended in their comments on the Strategy that CAFRA be areas of particular concern. The three areas designated -- wetlands, amended to specifically include commercial facilities. We wet sand beaches and Iligbee Beach -- are of concern and certainly certainly support that as a long range goal. In the short term merit designation. However, many other potential areas were we would like some clarification over the. extent of CAFRA's not properly evaluated, designated, nor was any procedure jurisdiction over parking facilities. The document does not adopted for future designation. clarify this. The paper on Public Comments and DEP Responses Finally, New Jersey does not include special management indicates that only parking facilities with 300 spaces require techniques or plans in the docunent for iligbee Beach, the one CAFRA review. We find this to be a completely arbitrary cut proposed gape not specifically covered by an existing statute. off point and one that is not sensitive to the potential impact A management program designed for the problems perculiar to a of smaller facilities on critical resources. For that reason designated area must be established. we suggest that this be modified to 50 spaces for special land NRDC asserts that New Jersey has repeatedly ignored a areas with particular emphasis on barrier islands. major requirement of the CZMA and in doing so has jeopardized 5. Geographic Areas of Particular Concern approval under the federal program. This is evident from the As NRDC has specifically stated in public meetings and state's reluctance to meet federal requliremenets that require correspondence, it does not believe that New Jersey has ade- efforts which would supplement existing state authority. quately met the requirements for "an inventory and designation New Jersey has failed to use a procedure which would of areas of particular concern within the coastal zone" (S 305(b)(3)). First, the state of New Jersey never completed an in- 2/ Nominated Areas of Particular Concern, New Jersey Office of Coastal Zone Management, December 1977. ventory of areas of particular concern. It completed a -11 111 - m - IS m -I - -I -- - 16 15 Furthermore, the only technique which this section proposes is enable management of critical resources not otherwise covered the use of acquisition powers. There is no discussion of by the three coastal statutes. As the Interim-final Regulations what kind of areas or problems are to be addressed under this state: section nor any indication that the administration of the Green . . . where a State's general coastal management policies and authorities are insufficient to Acres Program would have to consider the coastal program in address the nature of a State's concern . . . then designation of areas of particular concern any of its decision making processes. is especially important. For New Jersey to qualify for federal approval under the As stated in the previous section, we believe that New Jersey's CZMA substantial improvement must be made in meeting this program does not adequately protect critical resources of statewide Importance, particularly barrier Islands, and that requirement. Particular items to be addressed are the following: statewide importance, particularly barrier islands, and that (1) The Division of Marine Resources must develop it must use this section of the Coastal Zone Management Act criteria to determine if an area qualifies as an APR. to devise a program for their protection. (2) A process and a responsible office must be 6. Areas for Preservation or Restoration Section 923.24 of the Interim-final Regulations calls officially designated by the Commissioner for fulfilling the Section 923.24 of the Interim-final Regulations calls responsibilities under this section. for the designation of Areas of Preservation or Restoration responsibilities under this section. (3) The relationship of this program with existing The requirements for this section are: mandates of the Green Acres Program must be identified and (1) Describe the criteria by which areas can be designated for the purpose of preserving accepted in an agreement between the Division of Marine Services or restoring them for their conservation, recreational, ecological or esthetic values; and the Green Acres Program. and (2) Describe the procedures by Which such (4) A formal process should be adopted to process public designations can be made. recommendations for APR designations. This process should In the one page description of APRs in New Jersey's contain an appeal process for citizens proposing APRs that are program (page 146) neither of these requirements has been met. not acted upon. The document mentions the primary program that will be used to meet the requirement (Green Acres) but does not suggest any criteria for determining how an area would qualify as an APR, or procedures for getting an area designated as an APR. 148 17 to permit the siting of any additional nuclear facilities. 7. Meeting Federal Requirements We are concerned that this list contains no environmental Additional federal requirements which New Jersey must concerns except for the disposal of spent fuels. Of particular adequately address to qualify for federal approval include concern to us is the impact of a plant's cooling system on consideration of the national interest, federal consistency and adjacent waters. This should be of primary interest to New public participation. Jersey's coastal program and should be adder to the list of a. Section 306(c) (8) of the Coastal Zone Management criteria. Act requires "adequate consideration of the national interest b. The description of federal consistency procedures involved in planning for, and in the siting of, facilities (pages ]86 - 192) contains some disturbing language which must (including energy facilities in, or which significantly affect be clarified. On page 187, the document indicaters that the such state's coastal zone) which are necessary to meet require- Department of Energy "will participate in the decision of the ments which are other than local in nature." NRDC is concerned state of New Jersey to issue a determination of consistency." with the discussion of "Regional Benefit Decisions" (pages 192 - Regulation 923.53 requires inclusion in the program of "(1) All 193) which indicates that the Board of Public Utilities in the indication of whether the State agency designated pursuant to Department of Energy can overrule local decisions. There is no subsection 306(c)(5) of the Act or a single other S-ate agency indication whether this Board has similar overrule authority will handle consistency review." New Jersey has not met this over CAFRA decisions, or how energy facility siting decisions requirement but llas listed two agencies without delineating made under CAFRA could be affected by this Board. New Jersey's their respective roles. DOE is not the appropriate agency program could be seriously jeopardized if the Board of Public because its actions are not bound by this program and it has Utilities has authority to override decisions made under the no ability to review projects unless they have energy implications. coastal program, and if the Board is not bound by the coastal Federal consistency review extends far beyond review For enerry policies in Chapter III. Again, NRDC urges that DOE issue projects and for that reason DEP should be the authoritative regulations establishing the consistency of its actions with review agency. the policies in Chapter II. review agency. The Bureau of Land Management must be added to tihe In the discussion of nuclear facilities on page 180 agencies under the Department of Interior whose activitiec and the document lists criteria which must be met for New Jersey m_ _ '_ m_ m_ ' _ m m _ - 20 19 public input into its decisions. In addition, we support the development projects must be reviewed for consistency. This public Advocate's suggestion for public funding of public agency makes decisions under the OCS leasing program which public Advocate's suestion for public funding of public participation. This is an essential element of public involve- relate directly to the state's coastal program. Prelease sale participation. This is an essential element of public involve- ment as administrative proceedings are lengthy, detailed, decisions can have a determining effect on activities which ent as administrative proceedings are lengthy, detailed, would fall in New Jersey's three mile boundary both off and quasi-judicial, and expensive to participate in. onshore. In addition, we recommend that New Jersey reserve the right to exercise consistency review over the licenses and permits issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This right has been reserved by Massachusetts in its coastal program and we think it especially important in New Jersey because of the proposal for floating nuclear power plants off its shores. c. A final area we would like to address is New Jersey's treatment of public participation in its coastal program. On page 174, the document indicates the procedure the DEP will follow to notify the public of pending permit applica- tions in the CAFRA, riparian and wetlands programs. There is no dis- cussion of how the DEP expezts to address public concerns raised through this process. This is a serious oversight because the CZMA requires a public participation element which must be more than an information program. New Jersey has not previously demonstrated a willingness to incorporate public interest or concensus into its decisions as evidenced in the gape process discussed earlier. New Jersey's coastal program must have a much clearer discussion of how the DEP will process and factor 22 21 Generally, we suggest eliminating qualifying language such as "to the maximum extent practicable" throughout the II. Basic Coastal Policies (Chapter III) regulations. Strong, definitive language should be used through- As an introduction to the Coastal Location Acceptability Method (CLAM) the document lists four major coastal policies which guide the more detailed policies in Chapter III. We rec- 2.0 & 3.0 Authority and Jurisdiction ommend additional policy requiring that the ecological carrying.0 3.0 Authoity a sdicti These two sections make clear that the only actions to capacity of critical resources be evaluated. Concentration of which this rule applies are those which require permits under development, particularly in areas of critical resources, such CAFRA, wetlands and riparian statutes. We find thin too limiting as barrier islands, and in areas where the air and water quality as other actions undertaken by the DEP within the BOSS boundary limits are being strained, may have reached the limits of the should also be required to adhere to these policies, particularly possible carrying capacity without new development. We do not those affecting critical coastal resources. Small actions which think that following the CLAM methodology will automatically affect resources of statewide significance must be controlled to flag this if a specific site meets the requirements. the same degree as large projects whose scale makes them of reg- A second general concern focuses on the development of a ional significance. methodology (CLAM) which is sensitive to the bay and ocean shore segment but which does not evaluate other portions of the state 4.0 Definitions where projects are directed. We believe it is irresponsible to Although the DEP has made a real attempt to define the propose development in already urbanized areas without a detailed qualifying language of the policies, a great deal of ambiguity analysis of the capability of these areas to accept additional still remains. For example, both "discouraged" and "conditionally development. We are wholely supportive of directing noncoastal acceptable" require meeting additional conditions before approval. dependent development outside of the bay and ocean shore segment, but The specific conditions must be spelled out in each policy which we think it will be difficult to uphold such a policy without utilizes either of these definitions. adequate analysis of those noncoastal or already industrialized areas. Although the policies themselves evaluate the potential 5.0 Coastal Management Decision-Makinq Process of a particular site to withstand a certain activity, there is This section again describes how only those actions under no capability for regional decision making. the three permit programs within DEP would be boulnd by thelse 'po- m'�~" mlYr~. m m-r --m 24 23 6.2.4 Fish Migratory Pathways. The list of activities icies. There is no reference to other state actions outside of wh igato asue st o ages the DEP which might affect New Jersey's coast and ocean shore whiih would require mitigation measures must include changes in the DrEP which might affect New Jersey's coast and ocean silore segment. Both the Department of Energy and Energy Facility salinity. Review oard should be discussed in this section. 6.2.5 Submerged Vegetation. The developer must be respon- Review Board should be discussed in this section. sible for seeing that the replanted vegetation lives and that reclamation is successful. This may require putting Ip) a perfor- 6.0 Location Policies mance bond for the duration of the reclamation project. 6.2 Special Water Areas 6.2.6 Navigation Channels. This policy discusses exist- 6.2.1 Shellfish Beds. This policy makes conditionally 6.2. Navigation Chanels. This policy discusses eist- acceptable water dependent development which requires dredging ing, but not new navigational channels. Does this imply that new channels are prohibited? adjacent to shellfish beds. Dredging activity next to productive channels are prohibited? It is good that the relationsh]~p between erosion and shellfish beds should be discouraged, not conditionally acceptable. It is good that the relationship between erosion and maintenance dredging is recognized. 6.2.2 Surf Clam Areas. Developments which would result in closing productive surf clam areas should be prohibited and 6.3 Water Areas directed to other areas where surf clams would not be affected. 6.3 Water Areas 6.3.5 Definition of Water Body Types. This section gives "Within a specific area" should be defined more precisely. 6.3.5 Definition of Water Body Types. This section gives 6.2.3 Prime Fishing Areas. Disposal of domestic or indus- a clear indication of why mapping is essential for New Jersey's 6.2.3 Prime Fishing Areas. Disposal of domestic or indus- trial wastes must be prohibited from these areas. There is no coastal zone program to operate successfully. The definitions trial wastes must be prohibited from these areas. There is no of semi-enclosed and back bays, for example, are brief reason why New Jersey can't adopt a stronger policy than federal of semi-enclosed and back bays, for example, are brief with few examples and no comprehensive list of each type. standards to protect its fishing resource. This policy should with few examples and no comprehensive list of each type. 6.3.7 Water Acceptability Table. It is unclear In the indicate that dredging or disposal of dredge spoil would also be definition of "prohibited" whether the exception is limited to prohibited. 6.2.4, 5, 6 Finfish Migratory Pathways, Submerged Vege- existing riparian grants or whether new riparian permits could tation, Navigation Channels. mitigation measures" should be e granted and then be also subject to an exception. The con- tation, Navigation Channels. "Mitigation measures" should be fusing element is the extent of the state's jurisdiction over defined more precisely and specific types of mitigation measures subsequent actions once a riparian grant is allowed. Because it should be outlined. 152 25 26 26 is unclear how Special Water Areas are to be addressed in this 6.3.8.7 Dredged Spoil Disposal. This policy is incon- Table we recommend extending the Table to include Special Water sistent with 6.2.6.2, the policy on navigation channels, and Areas. This would require an additional section outlining tile the definition of 'brohibited." If disposal of spoil is "prohibited" conditions in those Special Water Areas, such as 6.3.8 for the (p. 36) it cannot be deposited under certain conditions. These other water areas. The Table and the text on Conditions are not policies must be uniform throughout. compatible. The Table should should be modified to reflect the 6.3.8.9 Filling. Same comments as above. If filling conditions in the text. is prohibited, it cannot be permitted with conditions. 6.3.8 Aquaculture. The qualifiers attached to the aqua- 6.3.8.10 We recommend deleting this if piling is always culture policy make it in fact a "conditionally acceptable" policy, associated with another, already controlled activity. not an "encourage" one. The adverse environmental impacts which 6.3.8.12(b) Offshore Sand and Gravel Mining. There must may result from aquaculture make the conditionally acceptable be performance standards to control physical and chemical impacts designation more appropriate. The last sentence should read "do from mining. not cause adverse off-site environmental impacts." 6.3.8.13 Dridges. "Acceptable" secondary inpacts must 6.3.8.3 Retaining Structures. Shoreline retention struc- be defined. tures should be considered only if nonstructural stabilization cannot be used. This policy should be modified as necessary as 6.4 Special Water's Edge and Land Areas the shoreline erosion component of New Jersey's coastal program 6.4.1.2 nigh Risk Erosion Areas. We strongly support is developed. The Table should be changed to reflect the text the prohibition of development in "high risk erosion areas." which is "discourage." Also, "in principle" development in areas thl,t will be eroded 6.3.8.4 Delete "to the maximum extent feasible." in less than 50 years should be prohibited, not discouraged. 6.3.8.5 Dredging Maintenance. This section has given no The causes of erosion should be included in tie list of consideration about whether existing maintenance dredging opera- factors affecting policy on development restriction. tions are necessary or desirable. The DEP should undertake an Structural solutions should be acceptable only if non- evaluation of all dredging going on in its coastal zone to deter- structural controls would be ineffective. mine what is absolutely necessary. The above rules apply only to facilities which require a CAFPA, riparian, or wetlands permit. Many structures in high 28 27 risk erosion areas would not require any of these permits. and individually adversely impact barrier islands and amplify Local governments are not bound to act consistent with these the need for federal and state subsidies for inappropriate rules so significant development in high risk areas can development. Furthermore, this policy in no way reflects the continue. New Jersey must develop a method to address this potential hazard to barrier island development from flooding, problem, as such actions have statewide and national sig- nor the ability of the islands' resources to withstand increased nificance as established in the Executive Order on Floodplains, development. May 24, 1977 (E.O. 11988). This process must be developed 6.4.4 Flood Hazard Areas. By what authority does the state regulate "most uses" in the flood fringe? Will these to meet the Erosion Control Requirements of the CM.A. 6.4.2 Dunes. The stabilization of existing dunes and rules be applicable to that authority? These questions are the creation of net dunes should not be encouraged. Artificial not satisfactorily answered in this section. stabilization of dunes which naturally shift in response to Furthermore, this section must meet the requirements a number of factors, particularly winter storms, will result of the Executive Order on Floodplains (E.O. 11988). To do this in increased erosion. New dunes created in areas where no the policy should reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the dunes previously existed are not likely to last very long and impacts of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and could also result in erosion through disruption of overwash. restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served Dunes should be protected and repaired, but not created or by the floodplains. stabilized. 6.4.6.4 Specimen Trees. Only specimen trees to be New Jersey has no state authority to control activity impinged on by CAFRA, riparian or wetlands projects will be on dunes unless a facility requiring a CAFRA permit is proposed. protected under the program. What authority is there to This is a serious shortcoming in the program. protect other specimen trees? 6.4.3 Central Barrier Island Corridor. This section 6.4.7 Prime Forest Areas. This policy applies by encourages development on barrier islands whereas all future definition only to white cedar stands. What about other prime development on barrier islands should be prohibited or dis- forest stands within the coastal area? We recommend including couraged. The state does not have control of non-riparian, the Pine Barrens vegetation under this definition. non-wetlands, smaller than CAPFRI projects which cumulatively The program has no authority to govern cumulative impacts 154 29 30 program to notify the public of exactly where activities will which can be a major source of forest destruction. be prohibited. "A significant percentage of stems" is not an adequate definition of a white cedar stand. 6.5 Beaches Policy 6.4.9.2 Prime Wildlife Habitats. Development causing Any development on the beach must be in the public minimal feasible interference with habitats is listed as interest. A developer's proposal to build on tile beach or "conditionally acceptable," but no conditions are established. dunes, even if there is no feasible nonheachl location, is not Development that is destructive to endangered or threatened sufficient to permit development. "Ilo prudent or feasible species must be prohibited. To adequately enforce this policy alternative" should be deleted from this section. This policy prime wildlife habitats must be inventoried and mapped, and makes no reference to tihe wet sand beach gape designation. a management program developed. We recommend such areas as This should be clearly detailed in this section. gapc's. 6.5.2.2 Water's Edge. Criteria for determining the 6.4.9 Public Open Space. The overall policy of en- need for specific facilities (not solely ill terms of demand) couraging the concentration of development will curb sprawl, should be added to tihe list of conditions for a water's edge but could also reduce the open space in urban areas. A major location. impact on public open space as defined here would result from 6.5.3.2 and 6.5.4.2 Retained Water's Edger, Filled activities on the fringe. This policy should more specifically Water's Edge. Development is conditionally acceptable provided address fringe activities by listing the types of activities that "the development provides a net benefit to the environ- acceptable adjacent to public open space. ment." {low will "net benefit" be determinnd? The policy does 6.4.10 Steep Slopes. Development on steep slopes not reflect the continued effects of erosion on stabilized should be discouraged, not conditionally acceptable. shorelines. The policy is too confident that stabilization 6.4.12 and 5.4.13 Bogs, Stream leads. Small-scale techniques work permanently. activities which would damage bogs or stream heads are not 6.5.3.3 Retained Water's Edge Rationale. Restaurants subject to CAFRA, but these areas should be protected under are not water dependent. the coastal program. The location of bays should be mapped by the coastal m - - - - - - m - m -~~~~~~~~~~L 32 31 6.6.7.3.3 There should be low potential for development 6.6 Land Areas of any facility incompatible with existing land use. 6.6.3 Depth to Seasonal High Water Table Factor. Why 6.6.7.4 Campground Development Criteria. Secondary would the creation of surface ponds in areas with a shallow impacts should be a criterion in determining both high and low water table render the area unsuitable for open space use? It potential sites. seems logical that such areas would be suitable only for open space.*~~~~ ~6.6.8 Regional Growth Potential Factor. The document space. does not clearly establish how growth areas were chosen and 6.6.4 Soil Permability Factor. This policy has a very whether carrying capacity of air and water resources were direct bearing on New Jersey Coastal Program's ability to utilized as ~a basis for the determination. The State Development meet the requirements of the federal Coastal Zone Management Guide Plan was prepared prior to the creation of CLAM and we Act. One of the basic requirements of the Act is that activities are not convinced that its contents can be accepted as part of must be controlled so as to protect coastal waters. The most this document without a review of its conformity to the conservative policy must be adopted to ensure minimum runoff principles of this process. on the surface and minimum affect on subsurface flow which principle of tis process. 7.0 Use Policies reaches coastal waters either directly or via streams. 7.2 lousinq Use Policies - Definition 6.6.7 and 6.6.7.2.1(b) Development Potential Factor, The program identifies no authority to control cumulative Residential Development Potential Criteria. For the infill impacts from housing projects of less than 25 units which may criteria, "existing residential development" should be defined have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters. quantitatively. For example, what is compatible for infill have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters. adjacent to a commercial or condominium area would be substan- tially different from an area which was predominantly cottages. 6.6.7.3 Commercial and Industrial Development Criteria. CAFRA does not give the state explicit control over commercial facilities. The final document must delineate more clearly how commercial facilities are to be controlled under the public facilities requirement. 156 33 34 7.4.3 Onshore Support Bases. It should b, cle-arly 7.2.7 By what standards can an applicant's claim that stated that onshore support bases will not be permitred in restoration is impractical and infeasible be judged? fragile areas as defined by the location policies. 7.3 Resort/Recreational Use Policies 7.4.5 Repair and Maintenance. Repair and maintenance 7.3.1 Placing resort/recreational uses as the highest facilities can be allowed only at existing shipyards where no additional dredging is necessary. priority is inconsistent with the program's primary goal to 7.4.4 Platform Construction Yards. Tills policy sust protect coastal ecosystems. Coastal protection should be the recognize the potential impact of dredging which would be highest priority with resort/recreational uses second.- necessary to accommodate such a facility. If there are sites 7.3.3 Does New Jersey have authority to require access with adequate water depth, those sites should be identified to the shorefront for resort development? If so, the document by the state. should indicate what it is. 7.4.7 Pipelines. There should he a prohibition to 7.3.6 Marinas. The conflict between preservation of crossing barrier islands or any part of the Pine Barrcns to wetlands and other special water's edge areas with development minimize the adverse impacts of such crossing on the geological of new or expanded marinas should be addressed. and biological properties which makes them unique. Section (f) Dredging of dry land should be "discouraged." not of this policy does not adequately protect fragile coastal "encouraged." features from major impacts resulting from pipeline corridors. IAs we stated in our comments on the Strategy, "s alreas to be 7.4 Energy Use Policies -_t excluded from pipeline corridors, which should be specifically NRDC is generally pleased with the improvement of the delineated, should include undeveloped portions of barrier energy policies over the Strategy. We are still very concerned delieated, should iclude udeveloped portios of barrier islands, areas designated under the Wetlands Act of 1970, areas about the relationship between the Department of Environmental islands, areas desinated under the W necessary to protect groundwater resources, and other fragile Protection and the Department of Energy as discussed in an resources valuable for wildlife or wildfowl habitat and recreation." earlier section. We recommend that this relationship be more 7.4.0 Refineries. VRIDC strongly snlpports this policy firmly established through an enforceable mechanism prior to as we believe that available information indicates that the approval under the CZMA. 157 m m mmm _ - _ _ _ _m _ _ 36 35 7.6 Industry-Commerce Use Policies Mid-Atlantic already has adequate refinery capacity to meet New or expanded coastal dependent development should be foreseeable demand. conditionally acceptable, not encouraged, at or near existing 7.4.9 Gas Processing Plants. This policy is over sites. "Sites" should be qualified as developed sites. qualified with "to the maximum extent feasible." 7.6.2 lining. What is the justification for excluding 7.4.11 Tanker Terminals. New or expanded tanker terminals mining from the Location Policies? We cannot accept this policy should be discouraged for siting which would result in increased as it is very brief and gives inadequate explanation of why dredging. mining should be allowed. What constitutes an "acceptable" 7.4.12 Base Load Electric Generating Stations. The reclamation plan? issues of coastal dependency and demand should be addressed 7.6.3 Parking Lots. There is no information in this in this policy. This policy is extremely vague in comparison document to describe the size of facilities covered under with the specificity of many policies for activities of smaller commercial facilities. We would like to see a much more impact. specific policy here which controls parking lots of 50 spaces 7.4.13 Nuclear Facilities. We commend New Jersey for or more. We think that 50 is a large facility for coastal establishing a strong policy relating to nuclear energy. areas that are on or adjacent to "special areas." A limited 7.4.14 LNG. We support this policy which recognizes number of spaces is essential if air and water quality impacts the risks associated with siting LNG facilities. are to be controlled. 7.5 Public Lanid Use Policy ~7.5 Public Land ~~u~~se ~p~olicy 7.8 Shore Protection Use Policies 7.5.1 There must be a policy regarding the capacity, 7.8.2 The source of sand for beach and dune nourishment location, and conditions for hook up for sewage collection projects should be addressed. systems. 7.8.3 The type and efficacy of shore protection struc- There should be a public facility policy to discourage tdres are linked to the causes of erosion. Structures should those facilities on harrier islands, especially those facilities only be allowed if they will really work, and a project by project such as sewage treatment plants or hook ups which generate analysis must be done to ensure the project would accmplish analysis must be done to ensure the projeet would accomplish expanded development. 37 38 In conclusion, nRDC's review of New Jersey's Bay and its goals. Ocean Shore Segment has found six major areas where additional 8.4 RResource policies work must be completed before New Jersey can qualify for 8.4.1 "Surface water disturbances" should be defined. approval under the federal Coastal Zone Manaqement Act. In 8.4.2 The policy refers to water quantity, not quality, addition, our review has identified numerons weaknesses illn the S.4.2 The policy refers to water quantity, not quality. Coastal Policies in Chapter III wh1ichl we believe mslst be 8.6.2 Runoff. We support the runoff policy for Inten- sive Development because of the direct affect that runoff has rectified before Chapter III can be adopted as the reulation for the Coastal Program. We look forward to discussing these on coastal waters. 8.16.1 Solid Waste. This policy is unclear and should comments and reviewing any subsequent drafts that New Jerecy be rewritten in the final document. prepares. 8.17.1 Energy Conservation. It is legally possible to require energy conservation: "encourage" is too weak. NJCF - Mr. David Kinsey - July 5, 1978 - Page 2 � kW (Cjlbor erxtl~w7 The case by case approach avoids answering, or even raising, fundamental queslions ~ ~~DOU~~~~~~~dafioR~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~necessary for proper resource planning; what and how much of specific functionilng ecosystems WFou jda~tion are necessary fto protect, what are the total waaer and air assimilative capacities of the 300 Mendham Ronad coast, what are the Interconnections and interdependencies of coastal resources, what are torristolvn NJ 07960 the syergistic Impacts of development on coastal resources? Without raising and subsequently an- 201-539-7540 July 5, 1978 swering questions of this nature coastal resources become allocated on a first come first serve basis; a process which could preempt the opportunity to establish desirable future uses of coastal resources. Instead of providing maximum flexibility the case by case approach will most likely limit future resource allocation opportunities. A process whereby coastal resources are identified and geographic areas are delineated for specified uses based on the ability of lhe Mr. Do vid Kinsey Chief resources to accommodate such uses would result in a more equitable distribution of resources, Office oF Coastal Zone Management preserve Future land use options and allow present land u se decisions to be made with more Division of Marine Services complete knowledge of synergistic environmental impacts. In addition, such a plan would Dep.orment of Environment al Protection serve to guide both private and public development investments, thus, bringing about its own P. O. box 1889 1Implementation. The applicalion of a somewhat simplified version of CLAM tllroughout the Trenton, New Jersey 08625 entire coastal area would be an appropriate beginning. To summarize we feel lthat the Coastal Re: NJCF Review: New Jersey Coastal Management Program, lay and Ocean Shore Segment and Management Program does not reflect thhe planning mandates and purposes of either the state Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Dear David: Additionally, we would like to point out the following: Dear Dovid: The New Jersey Conservation Foundation has been following with great interest the 1. Growth areas as defined in the plan are based on the State Development Guide Plant It is significant that both state and We object to the inclusion of the growth designations of the Guide Plaon within this document since state's formulation oF a coastal zone m anagement pln. It is significanf that both scate and the Guide Plan has not had official state or Federal acceptandce ' v-irtually no public input Federal legislation require the formulation of a management plan for the protection and proper and since the designations include all the coastal area as a growth on limited growth area; development of coastal resources. It is also significant that four years and several millions of obviously in contradiction with the number one coastal policy; Protect the Coastal Ecosystem. dollars have been invested into the preparation of the present plan which is largely being sub- mitted to meet the requirement of both statutes. The plan, recently submitted and the subject of 2. Hundreds of places were nominated as geographic areas of particular concern, yet the above captioned environmental impact statement, Is a comprehensive collection of proposed only three places were mentioned In the document and two of the three are already subjected to state departmental policies designed to insure a balance between resource protection and development. control. This Is indicative of the state's consideration of public input throughout thle Formulation The Coastal Location Acceptability Method (CLAM), as outlined in the document, is an innova- of the plan. tive attempt to establish a rational decision making process for individual development proposals, 3. In the 350 page report, which is supposed to be an environmental Impact statement on however, the nature of planning implies much more than reacting to specific proposals. the coastal management program, only 19 pages discuss impacts and 90% of the content of these The coast's natural resources are the foundation for its social and economic system. A pages consists of a summary of the management program. We feel that the document does not destruction or misuse of these resources will create adverse reverberations throughout the soalal adequately assess the programs environmental Impact. and economic sysltems. Planning in the coastal zone, therefore, must include the protection and appropriate allocation of natural resources. In order to accomplish this adequate knowledge of coastal resources must exist. As we have previously mentioned an adequate inventory of the Sincerely, coast's resources has not been compiled. In view of this deficiency thiere is little alternative for formulating a plan other than setting forth lose policies and reviewing projects on a case \ by case basis. This case by case allocation of coastal resources will only through luck, not through rational planning, provide for long term stobility of the coast. DFC:Js Assistant Director CC: Ms. Kathryn Cousins OFfice of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm. 3300 Whitehaoven Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 23235 160 .rnue 22. 1978 STATE.MENT of? Tjjr INDEPENDENT 1,TqUID TERlMINALS ASSOCI ATION Ms. KathtI.ryni Cons ti s NORT11rAST1-'RN Rr(;i(N AND NEW *iPRSEY NCN8En f LT'A fR91qlafs Mniosgr - North Atunotic Reglion Office Of Coastal Zone M.111gc'mont ON TUlE Natural Oceanic arid Atmospheric Adminlistraion 3300 White flavcn qtrvec. N.W. ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~DRAFT rNviRONMENTAl. IMPACT STATEMU.NT FoR1 TJlE Washirintoni, 0. C. 20235 SIATE OIF NW JERSEnY CO~ASTAL 7.QNC MAUAGE.MENT PROCRAfI Opar Ms. oiLo !tAY AND OCEAN SHOI-RE-SE-tE-NT-DATE-D--NA-Y -1970 Enclosed please find the statement of the New Jersey independerif 1.1,4id Terminals Association onl the Draft Environmental impact State- menit ffor the state or Neil jersepnsa lna~mn rga aynod Oce4an Shorc Semen (olay 11478). I rE~ret that We Were UnablIe to haive t1111 to Youon OlMonda1y, Jillne 19 alld thanki Yon again for pgrantlog us the extra time to file OuIr statement. Sincerely, Thomas V. O'Neil N.J. INUEPENDENT LIQUID TERMINALS ASSOCIATION -I GPARK PLACE -SUITE 15109 NEWAR1K, N.J.071102 622-4141 - - - - - m m m - -awl commodities handled, stored and transferred Include a wide variety if chemicals rl oil, refined petroleum products, animal fats and oIls, molasses anti vegetable oils. The Independent Liltdi Terminals Association welcomes this opportunity to ohrcnndte ade loIcueIesfrtepamc-~vl omtc n comment oil thle draft Environmental Impact Statement concerning proposals for tile drug Industries. An such tile terminals are a vital link In thle manufacturing and Day and Ocean Shore Segment of the New Jersey Coastal Zone linnagement Program, production chain of commerce In this state and directly and Indirectly play anI Tile ILTA Is aI national trade association which represents more than 40 important role In providing employment and contributing to a healthy economny. independent Companties In tile business of providing "for hire" bulk liquid terminal We realize that In our business that if we do not handle tihe commodities pro- and storage servicesa. the independent liq~uid terminal operator does not own the perly It canl result In a number of environmental problems, some of them quite products stored III Its storage t;plnk as ownership remains with our customsers major grave. That is why we do not dispute thin need for uniform, Informed alkdl rea,;onlable petroleum or chlemical comipanies. Therefore, since we do not own tile product In regulatIon. Since tile inception of the New Jersey Coastal Zone Mianagement Program our tanks, our p~rincipal business Is leasing storage space to owilers of tile tile New Jersey ILTA members have been active In mottitoring Its Progress and pro- commodities ill our facilities and providing, the customers warehousing and terminating viding Imput at various meetings. Although tile New Jersey memibers of ilTA endorse services. It Is estimated that Now Jersey ILTA members handle anilually ever 70 tue concept of molmnd reasonable coastal zone management we are deeply concerned million barrels of bulk liquid commodities essential to Now Jersey and other nearby o e h prahotie ntl rf I ouet manullfalcturers antd producers. Additionally, our coilcer lai centered on tile relatively short reriodl (f tinme (in fl Iatillual level, ILlTA members ollerate bulk liquid terminal itg and storage Sgivn to review tile latest 350 pag-e document wifet counide'red ari~ll-M tile v.1st facilities on tile FEast Coast, Cuif Coast, West Coast, Great Lakes anid inland water- overall impact of suchf a program an tile future of otir State. An stated in tite dncument walys of ihe Inited States. We operate 150 dieepwater 011(1 bargev terminals itt 35 and by NOAA-DCyfl representatives, participation in tile Coastal Zone lalg'~el states lucltldinp, Hawaii. 'These i50 terminals have at any given time the capacity Program Is voluntary In nature. Therefore, should tile State of New .ierst-y elect to hol11( colnservatively at least 115 million barrels of bulk liquid commodities and to participate to, tile program sufficient time milnuld be allowed for its citizevti. annuaily it Is estimated that tiley itatdle over 300) million btarrels of bulk liquid private and industrial to submit opinions Ott wilat type tlf plarticipaltiton thety wisit1 cominodi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t ilste Suite to undertake. It was apparent at tile pitbiic itearitngs ttur rLeprt'sttltat ivi-s These terminals are all Importailt part of tile nationai commodity distribution attended that environmental groups, private citizetts atld inldustry were igeneraiiv sys;tem. They Intlerconnltect and Provide services to thle various modes of 11tak liquid displeased for varliots reasons with tile actions takeil bwy tile New Jersey D~epartmentt carriers name I y tailke r.-, tank barge's, tank t rtcks , rail cars, and p1itotint's;. The of Environmental Protect ioti (DEP) to date. Suffic lent t inl to adelti-tlttly v"1111nett was not available anti ite format aotd content of tile propo'sed prog~raln w;is vvyr iosl y qtiestioned by all parties. -3- -4 - Time major concern the ILTA was -it thisi stage Iin time Coasmtal M~anagement pro- lndustriamtized arena but, ilso tipey aeem to prevent mexmm,,mn i rsitlm.miii" poatti is that the program as we understood it van to address the portion of thle In arena deslgimnted for suclm authorized uses. Policiles of thin mmatmite acm-rn t, crm-I,,m State now covered by the New Jersey Coantal Area Facility Review Act (CAPRA Act), even Imirther the ability of .m mmumnicipality to mictermille It-; miw de-stilly. that to a limited portion of sahre tline designated an requiring specini protfectloio mlhtnyhtreinlndahol bcnndrdndldedti im by the elected officials of thle State. However, at thle hearings on thle draft Elsineto-heedrloaalZe namntAttinirrcioa onmirtmn It was apparent to many participants that the DEP proponaila alluded to to tile are weighed before ;a coastal policy Insrmlgtd however, only selectedaplcin document are Intended to go beyond the CAPRA boundariten mandated by the State o einlne nepoe ytePPi hi oiindaietm atta i~egalatmre.indeed thle policlen mentioned throuphout thle text and especially In for a viable regional recvonomy to prow and pronper currents liuduatrial airenn musmt Chapter 'Three take time form of "ieginlation by regulation". Several panssages also be allowed tot prow avid prosper. If those activitica am-e severelyrmtrti (pages 165, 250-263) clearly indicate tihe intent of OFIT to extend the currently by regmilationa an4 timey nerm to be then curtalilment will occur and regiomnal wcnomic existlng or proposed policern deaipinated for the CAFRA zone, wimicm eonnenitinly needs will stuffer. ILTA viewa time coastal management prugram emmvl~IatIone tiy conea restrict sany kind of Industrial development to extremely small low economic and acmrhniertoa n esnbeto oeal ttnWt ottlrgoi employment yieldling, bualnennes to zonen not delineated iti time first sP' rtewlhaacdmnaegment pln or thei qaalre. Coastal Zone program. This procedure could he constrimed as Implementing regulations Thtlmremgommt history our nation ham depended uponm its coast for IatiptlioI and policies before comment In solicited. Heavy indnustry easnemtiai to time economic foreign and domestic maritlime commerce an well an for consmervamtion amid reereatianal well heimig of time state avid region in effectively restrained in time CAPRA zone. pmmrposen . Timeref ore, It womi Id smcci thmmit Commpgrean littviiim't-d thir I mirfnr hal aiveim,-ch Whitie time DrPi-fiCZ~f might neay Industrial development would be allowed under developed for timene -activitten m odmngmn taipy e tapasta CAPRA rumies. not one luimimmetrial. application ban been approved nince time rules were DEP in t[pp ing tile inca t towa rds time protection of thet vmvI ruuwmumii i- mpn mi mpm implememmted in 1973. Naturally It to reanonahle for us to fear time some result may needs of other activtitnon a"time coast and further' extending thmeir fower ibcvoimd timi occur shmouldi the( CAFI1A zone or Policies applied to it be extendied mmndrr time CAFRA zone. which hasi lieei du.,igmmated by time leilfuemn time, nvairoimmiotnily sciuist lv, questionalble authority of other acts an stipuilated In time document. Hiowever, many area of time State. N. reanuiimalile ;alternative acem" to meeut limmil will al imiw tm-r heavy flodistrica dependent upon waterfront activities are already located or aimould industrial growttm zonnea an tiiene ar-can are not ilenil I fled t~y time, Pp.1 proimgm-am. tIme, he able to locate or be sited In arenas deslgnated far much linen. Thme 1ilE-OCZN fallsn policy qeemq aim rcestrictive indusatry mimat aink: "W1ill we hue- faiml, Iii mmmnt loin' t, opcrafm?" to identify thene ar-can. We have cauae for apprehmension a~imc time couim-ac fur Rhegional mieutia inictiti time mamintenance of industria li wel ith le, limp d grii Piwfi restrict ive policies for all Now Jersey comastal areas alreamdy medium-s, tim lie "et by In certain area's, These art-a-, shuliod he clearly deini ied Iii mimmie i tim,' mwoeimsy DEP. Nim protection exinto such an grandfatimering for emmiativlmp fnc ii tien. No-t only of time qtmmte. will lie proteeteml an wm'i " a tilt, coiastal 7-mue. eage. 2511 ii'm- hi iat do time proposed pot idea and regulaitimons seem to limit now devuipetiiNwery Pdenic odiilaencata opehmNe emney tA i In treamt thim mammat lie dectermneimmd by tOil- State leg[ainla turme . imwuirPi iius1mm:m m m ~~~~~~~~~~~~~163-mm-m- they do not neced to "olls it either thle public or thle legislature as they repeatedly state that their policies will apply to all coastal areas In the future. Therefore, uIytprtcpetoildmcrt poes Again, we welcome the opportuiyt atcpt ntm eortcpo m fit our opinion tile hearings held on tile ocean and Bay Segmt-nt should not he considered of public comment. However, we feel that a reasonable and rational appmroachm to as the forum for imput onl regulations covering other areas of thle State beyond tile the mandate given by Congress to provide equal and balanced uses of time coastline current CAPRA zone area. for recreational, economic and Industrial purposes has yet to be adequately addressed Thle Federal Coastal Zone Management Act stipulates that areas beyond tile current CAPRA zone on time iDelaware River need not be Included In time State's Coastal ytm e esyporm itinapement Program ats the salinity content of the water to less than 5 parts per thousand. Hemre again, New Jersey DEP-OCZIin our opinion Is exceemhing time mandate of tile L~egislatumre as well as going beyond the requirements of the federal statute. In conclusion, we request that further time be givemi to allow smibstantive comment on the draft EIS. Wie also wisim to Insure that time public will receive sumfficient notification on time availability of time final EIS an this subject. Secondly, IL.TA feels time public ihearing~s held on time Coastal Hanagement P~rogram Bay amid Ocean Shore Segment should nut be construed as a hearing covering policies procedures or rogmilatlomma Intended to coviir areas outside the current CAPRA limits to include. the( Dmolaware River waterfront north of time current CAPRA limits, nor nortim of the limits of CAPRA from the Raritan Bay, Arthmmr Klli, Kill van gull, Hlmdson River cc: David Kinsey, Chimef Office of Coastal Zone Management to time New York-Ne-w Jersey state line. Thmirdly, It Is recommended sepmarate pmbhifc iDivision of Marine Services Department of Environmental Protection hearings; he callcd imy time DEP comicerning Its proposed rules and regmulations outlined 110 Box 1889 Trentomn, Now .lerney 083625 as Chapter 3 of time draft EIS before adoption. These hearlings shmoumld be hoeld In the comemunities imito wlmichm DEP wishes to extend its CAPRA jmiris(ictiomm. Very few if any pumhlic imearimig participants realized that time poimhic imearingps on time draft EIS were also to he the foromm for commsentnn the now rule,% cited lms NJAC 7:7C-1.1 et seq. (Docket nummmer DEl' (13-78-04). Homles of sucim magmmi tmde camnnot lie amdcmuately addressed as thmey Imave been to miatim. 164 1111(.1)NAI. V111I.IC RELATIO)NS. I N(. SIXFWY PAFIX PLACr NFWAK. NW JF'rY07102 .luly 3, 1978 Hr. Thivid Mioney, Chielf OIffice of C-Asital 7one Itnci~ieeflt I)lvilrfn of "Itrl"e qervice.9 Decpartmenft of Envi ronmental 1Protect ion P.O. Boax 1889 Trenton, New Jersey 086'25 SA~IN FTENWJHF Ies Fir. Iinsy! SATEENT OFTE E IRE Enclosed please find a' statemenft of thme New Jersey IOPNETLQI hHNL SOIA!O Independent Lijquid Terminals~ Associamtionl on proposedo nPOSE US ruls o Cost~ Reaurce and Developmenft Policies. 'POOE UE rule~~~soincrly.asa R ON COASTAL RESOURCE AN!) REcIONAL PUBLIC RELATIONS. INC. EE O M N T P LCE Thomas V. O'Neil viup President Tw(0st - 2- Trail cars, and pipelines. Tile commodities handled, stored and transferred INTRODUCTION Thie New Jersey Independent Liquid Terminals Association (ILTA) wel- include a wide variety of chemicals, crude oil, refined petroleum products, comes this opportunity to comment on rules proposed by the Department o animal fats, molasses and vegetable oil. Other commodities Environmental Protection (DEP) concerning Coastal Resource and Develop- handled also include Items for the pharmaceutical, cosmetics and drug ment Policies. Industries, As such our terminals are a vital link In the manufacturing Tile II.TA is a national trade association which represents more tian and production chain of commerce in this state and directly and indirectly 40 independent companies in tihe business of providing "for hire" bulk play an important role in providing employment and contributing to a healthy liquid terminal and storage services. We are its New Jersey affiliate. economy. The independent liquid terminal operator does not own the products stored We realize that in our business that if we do not idie commodities In his storage tanks as ownership remains with our customers, generally entrusted to us properly it can result in a number of environmental problems, major petroleum or chemical companies. Therefore, since we do not own some of them quite grave. That is why we do not dispute the need for uniform, the product in our tanks, our principal business is leasing storage apace informed and reasonable regulation. Since the Inception of the New Jer3ey to owners of the commodities In our facilities and providing the customers Coastal Zone Management Program the New Jersey ILTA members have been active warehousing nad terminaling services. It is estimated that New Jersey 1TA in monitoring its progress and providing mputt at various meetings. Althoullgh memlbers handle annually over 70 million barrels of bulk liquid commodities the New Jersey members of ILTA endorse the concept of sound, reasonable essential to New Jersey's economy. coastal zone management we are deeply concerned over tile approach outlined Onil a national level, II.TA members operate bulk liquid terminaling in the proposed rules. and storage facilities oil the East Coast, Gulf Coast, West Coast, Great USPATION OF LEGISLTIVE FUNCTIONS Lakes and inland waterways of the United States. We operate ISO deepuater The proposed rules upon wbich we comment can be found in a 350 piage barge terminals in 35 states including Hawaii. These 150 terminals have volume entitled State of New Jersey Coas ta l a_.y:_met__tl'raI iln BOsy.?nid at any given time the capacity to hold conservatively at least 85 million Ocean Shore Segment. This la a draft Environmental Impavt Statement barrels of bulk liquid commodities and annually it is estimated that they United States Department of Commerce. handle over 300 million barrels of bulk liquid commodities. These terminals are an important part of the national commodity I We note in passing that this draft EIS violates President Carter's distribution system. They interconnect and provide services to tilhe various recently annonced policy that such documents should be limited to 150 pages, or 300 pages If particularly complex issues are Involved. modes of ba:lk liquid carriers namely tankers, tank barges, tank trucks, We trust the final ES will comply with the new Federal policy. 166 SIXTY PAIPK PI-Arr NFWARK, NEW JrRTET 07502 12011 522.4141 JIilly 3, 19711 Mr. Onvid Kinsey, Clrif Office of Conelsl zoe Mniageement Division of Mnarlne Services IOcp.rtment of Envirnnmentna Protection P.O. Box 1989 Trenton, New .Jrsey 08625 [)car Mir. Kinsey- STATEMENT OF TIHE NEw .lERSFY Enclosed plense find a statement of the New JersCy INIDEPENDENT LIqUID TERMINALS ASSOCIATION Inudepndenprt lqid Terminals Assnocition on proposed rifles on Coastnl Resourcre and Development Policies. ON PROPOSED RULES Sincerely. ON COASTAL RESOURCE AND RECIONAL PUBLIC RELATIONS. INC. DEVELOPMENT POLICIES Thomais V. O'Neii Vice President fVOlst OT! losigre 1~~ - - - ---- - 2 - INTRODUCTION rail cars, and pipellnes. Tile commodities handled, stored and transferred Thile New Jersey ndependent Liquid Terminals Association (ILTA) wel- include a wide variety of chemicals, crude oil, refined petroleum products, comes tills opportunity to comment on rules proposed by tile Department of animal fats and oils, molasses and vegetable oils. Other commodities Environmental Protection (DEP) concerning Coastal Resource and Develop- handled also include items for the pharmaceutical, cosmetics and drug ment Policies. industries. As such our terminals are a vital link in the manufacturing Tile II.TA is a national trade association which represents more than and production chain of commerce in this state and directly and indirectly 40 independent companies in the business of providing "for hire" bulk play an important role in providing employment and contributing to a healthy liquid terminal and storage services. We are its New Jersey affiliate. economy. The independent liquid terminal operator does not own tile products stored We realize that in our business that if we do notllhandlelcommodities in his storage tanks as ownership remains with our customers, generally entrusted to us properly it can result in a number of environmental problems, major petroleum or chemical companies. Therefore, since we do not own some of them quite grave. That is why we do not dispute the need for uniform, the product in our tanks, our principal business it leasing storage space informed and reasonable regulation. Since the inception of the New Jersey to owners of tihe commodities In our facilities and providing the customers Coastal Zone fanagement Program the New Jersey ILTA members have been active warehousing and terminaling services. It is estimated that New Jersey II.TA in monitoring its progress and providing Imput at various meetings. Altolugh members handle ;anually over 70 million barrels of bulk liquid commodities tile New Jersey members of ILTA endorse the concept of sound, reasonable essential to New Jersey's economy. coastal zone management we are deeply concerned over the approach outlined On a na;ltlonl level, II.TA members operate bulk liquid terminallng In tile proposed rules. and storage facilities on the East Coast, Gulf Coast, West,Coast, Great USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS Inaker and inland waterways of tile United States. We operate 150 deepatere proposed rules upon which we comment can Tile proposed rules upon which we comment can be found in a 350 page barge terminals in 35 states Including Ilawaii. These 150 terminals have volume entitled State of New Jeraey Coastal HnnngemelIt Przlgram Bay_.ly nd at any given time the capacity to hold conservatively at least 85 million Ocean Shore Segment. This is a draft Environmental Impat Statement barrels of bulk liquid commodities and annually it is estimated that they submitted to tie United States Department of Commerce. handle over 300 million barrels of bulk liquid commodities. These terminals are an Important part of the national commodity We note in passing that this draft CIS violates President Carter's distribution system. They interconnect and provide services to the various recently announced policy that such documents should be limited to 150 pages, or 300 pages if particularly complex issues are involved. modes of bulk liquid carriers namely tankers, tank barges, tank trucks, We trust the final EIS will comply with tile new federal pollry. 166 REG10NAL PUBLIC RELATIO1SIAI'I(NS. INC.. SIX"V PAnK PLACr NrWANR"K NEW JEr,11Y (17(02 .inly 3, 1978 Hr. David Kinney, C-1ief Office of cnastal Znne Management Wlvtilon of 11nrine ServIces Ilepartment of Envilronmentail Protection P.O. Box 1889 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Dear Mlr. Kinsey: STATEMENT OF TIME NEW IERSEY Enclosed plesne find a statement of the New Jcrscy INDEPENDENT LIQUID TERMINALS ASSOCIATION Independent I.iquid TermlnnaIs Anociation on proponed rulien oil Coastal Resonrce and Developnment Policies. ON PROPOSED RULES Sincerely, ON COASTAL RESOURCE ANID RECIONAI. PUBLIC RELATIONS. INC. DEVELOPHMENT POLICIES Tlhomas V. O'Neli Vice Prenident fIVOlet PEnclosuare -- 5 - 2- INTROIIUC'TrION rail cars, and pipelines. Tihe commodities handled, stored and transferred Tie New Jersey Independent Liquid Terminals Association (ILTA) wet- include a wide variety of chemicals, crude oil, refined petroleum products, comes this opportunity to comment on rules proposed by the Department of animal fats and oils, molasses and vegetable oils. Other commodities Environmental Protection (DEP) concerning Coastal Resource and Develop- handled also include items for the pharmaceutical, cosmetics and drug ment Policies. industries. As such our terminals are a vital link in the manufacturing Tile II.TA is a national trade association which represents more than and production chain of commerce in this state and directly and indirectly 40 Independent companies in tile business of providing "for hire" bulk play an important role in providing employment and contribulting to a healthy liquid terminal and storage services. We are its New Jersey affiliate. economy. Tihe Independent liquid terminal operator does not own the products stored We realize that in our business that if we do not jihndlelcommoditles in his storage tanks as ownership remains with our customers, generally entrusted to us properly it can result in a number of environmental problems, major petroleum or chemical companies. Therefore, since we do not own some of them quite grave. That is why we do not dispute tile need for uniform, tile product in our tanks, our principal business is leasing storage space Informed and reasonable regulation. Since the inception of tile New Jersey to owners of tile commodities In our facilities and providing the customers Coastal Zone Management Program the New Jersey II.TA members have been active warehousing and terminaling services. It is estimated that New Jersey II.TA in monitoring its progress and providing fmput at varlous meetings. Althougi members handle sannually over 70 million barrels of bulk liquid commodities the New Jersey members of ILTA endorse tile concept of soundreasonable essential to Now Jersey's economy, coastal zone management we are deeply concerned over timhe approach outlined On a national level, IITA members operate bulk liquid terminaling in the proposed rules. and storage facilities on the East Coast, Gulf Coast, West Coast, Great USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS Lakes and inland waterways of the United States. We operate 150 deeplater Tile proposed rules upon which we comment can be found In a 350 page barge terminals in 35 states Including Ilawaii. These 150 terminals have volume entitled State of New Jersey Coastal _nnagemelrtPr!_graqmB_~y_.nd at ally given time the capacity to hold conservatively it least 85 million Ocean Shore Segment.! This is a draft Environlmcntal Implact Statement barrels of bulk liquid commodities and annually it is estimated that they submitted to the United States Departnment of Commerce. handle over 300 million barrels of bulk liquid commodities. 'imesle terminals are an important part of tie national commodity We note in passing that this draft EIS violates President Carter's distribution system. They intercomnlect and provide services to tile various recently alnominced policy that such documents siomtid he limited ti 150 pages, or 300 pages if particularly complex issues are irvolved. modes of bulk liquid carriers namely tankers, tank barges, tank trucks, We trust the final EIS will comply with tile new federal pollry. 166 -3-- We contend that the Department lacks tile legasl authority to ndupt. IEP rejects thin arpgument.2 Given tills impasqe, thme issue c-an not be Tv- these policies as rules. The Legislature defined the CAVRA zone In193 solved In comments upon ithe rules, but most lbe referred to either thle Only the Legislature can change those boundaries. We do not believe thalit legislative or judicial arena. DLI' can get around the Legislature by relying In part upon the W~etlands Because we believe these rules usurp legisintive perogiatives, It is Art and riparian lawn for Its proposed Imposition of CAFRA policles upon difficult for us to comment upon the specific langujage of the rulies. No municipalities excluded by the Legislature from the CAFRtA zone Int 1973. word changes or nlmendisentn would nddress our co.ncernm. The Federal Coastal Z.one Management Act does not mandate this We further Iluestion Whtether they are rules at all. Thevy neither bureatucratic expansion. Indeed, participation In the Federal program In took or read ns rules. They are replete with statements la1beled "poli'y" voluntary. Now that five years have passed since enactment of thle CAPFtA and "rationale". Thils format reenforces our contention that DEl' is law, the Governor and Legislature might want to tm-examine New Jersey's attempting to perform a function constitutionally dedicated to the lepgin- participation In this program as well as the 1973 decIsion to take away lative branch. Governmental policy is not by tile Goverllor and tile leirF]- from local government and to delegate to DEP jurisdiction for coastal lature, not by all administrative agency. facility siting. After such re-examination the Legislature might even agree to the MS expanded boundaries DEP seeks. And titen, the Legislature might delegate Teepop~ ue ilfnaetlysildtietly[hr to DtFP authority to adopt thle 144 pages of rules whielt appear In the Mray uo ieeooyo e esy enit iertmaeC're n"ni,1" 1978 draft EIS. out that is not the procedure being followed now. In- at eea em f"oiis n rto.ae" ecntuybgnt estimate theft econoumic Impact by looking at tle. track: re-ord of the stead, i)EP necks to adopt rules and policies whicit will apply beyond the enforcer or tl~e rules. Day and Ocain Shore Segment to the second segment which the L~egislature hasn't even defined. How can you regulate when you don't know what art-am you are regulating? 2In the "ay 19710 Coastal Managremert 5tratery Pul'uic Cenmmeitt avO We realize that we are not the first or only commentators to contend DEP Itemipoe wnoersnses stud as" ~ an det tue a coastal zone withount changing the boundaries of state laws." that only the Legislature may define the coastal zone. And, we realize Vint (Comment IN) In response to an inquiry from lhartz llo,,uita11to]i- dustries on incllusion of Secaucus.. "it will lhe Itteluded when DEP prepares- tile progiram for the rest of tihe coastal i otn ' (Comment 21) We manltain that that aIt a ob for tile l.Vgislatuire. "Thle (CAFitA) bcoindaries will he reexamin~ed d~urliog I'97F flirotigi, tile public comment on tile Segment." ((Comment 2) - - ~~~~N7- mmm---- - 6 Industry essential to the economic health of our state hais been Section 7.7 on Ports provides tbst "expansion miay only occur effectively restrained In the present CAFRA zone. Not one industrial adjacent to an existing built-up port." This clustering may present application has been approved since the rules were implemented in 1973. potential safety hazards as well as imposing economic burdens. Port We can only assume that similar results will apply if DEP obtains this facilities are an essential link in the chains of interstate and inter- proposed expansion of power. national commerce. We question whether such onerous restructions are We believe that thoese rules should be held In abeyance until an consistent with federal laws. analysis is done of their economic impact. We don't believe that New These are but a few of the ambiguous sections of the proposed rules. Jersey should abandon its economic recovery efforts in two-thirds of If such general language is adopted it will be most difficult for our the state without even knowing the price tag. member companies and other economic interests to plan alid assess their The balancing of environmental and economic interests is a delicate future in New Jersey. task. It should be performed by the elected officials of the state, not PUBLIC PARTICIPATION by an agency which Ihas a clear self-interest in the outcome. We object to tihe procedure by which these rules are being adopted. Because of the vague language of the proposed rules, it is difflcult We don't believe rules of this consequence should be considered as part for olr members to determine if they will be able to grow or even continue of a draft EIS. to exist in New Jersey. Specifically, dredging and filling referred to To date, three public hearings have been held on the draft EIS. in Sections 6.3.8.5 - 6.3.8.9 under certain circumstances make both Two took place within the present CAFRA zone and tile third was held in economic and environmental sense. It Is unclear if nld when slch operations Trenton. We respectfully request that separate public Iearings he called will be permitted. by the DEP concerning its proposed rules and regulations outlined IX} Policy statement 6.4.4.2 provides that "developmenrt Is discouraged Chapter 3 of the draft EIS before adoption. These heartlo~,s should Ibe boll in flood hazard areas." Does this apply to new development or does Chapter 3 of the draft I before adoption. T in the communities Into which DEP wishes to Impose its CAIRA jurlisdlctton. also act to retard up-grading and expansion of existing facilities. Very few if any impblic hearing participants realized thlt the public hearings Section 7.4.11 encourages "multi-company uise of existing and new on the draft EIS were also to be the forum for comment on tihe new rules. tanker terminals." Thils may not be economically feasible anal may com- Rules of such magnitude can not be addressed adequately as they have been promise certain proprietary interests. to date. 168 we contend that tile nepartment lackg the legal authority to ndopt. MP rejects thin arg'tment.2 Given tills IMPannse, tile Imete ran not be ti.- theme policies as ruies. The Legimlature defined thle CAFRA zone In 1913. " D i ved in commlents utpon thle ruies, but inant be refrerred to elither thle Only the Legislature can change thoqe boundaries. We do not believe that legislittive or judiciol nrena. UEP can get around thle Legislature by relying In part upon tile Wetlandseaus we beliiv these rules usurp leptinlative Perogatives, It I s Act and riparian laws for Ito proposed Imposition of CAFRA policiest upon difficult for tnt to comment upon thle specific In"Plilge of tile titles. flu municipatltes excluded by the Legimlature from the CAR~A ;,ote. In 1973. word clangpen or atneodmenita would address our Poncernn. the Federal coastal zone Fianagement Act doees not mandate this We further question whether they are miles at all1. Th'ley ncitticr bureaucratic expannion. indeed. participation In the Federail program Is took or tend an rules. They Fire replete with satiements labeled "Pol i'y voluntary. nlow that five yeara have passed since enactment of thle CAVRA and "rationale". Thin formal: reenforcen our contention thait IIET Is law. the Governor avid Legislature might want to re-examine flew .Jersey's attempting to perform a function constitutionally dcdlicstedI to tihe le-gin- participation In thisl prograa am well an the 1973 decision to take away lative branch. Governmental policy to set by tile Governolr and] thle lvpf,:- from local government and to delegate to DEP jurisdiction for coastal lature, not by van administrative agency. facility siting. After much re-examination the Legimiature might even agree to the - These proposed mulen will funodamentally rand detrimentally imj'icat expanded boundaries Upr meeks. And then, the Legimlature might delegate to tIEP authority to adopt the 144 pagen of rules which appear In the f'lay uo ieeooyo o esy eas ierlsaelorbdI miu~ 1970 draft EIS. gut that lo not the procedure being Followedi Dow. I-aidgnerlt-so plce"ad"ai".leew ;nol ~rnt aitead, DEP meekii to adiopt ruies and policies which wtill apply beyond riteetmte hiecnm Impc yloiga ieta~'r fte enforcer of the rtules. Bay and Ocean Iiuore Segment to the mecond aegment which thle I'vglnlature hasn't even defined. flow can you regulate when you don't know what areang you are regulating? 2In tile May 19711 Coanstl Maagmntitruy GPublic Comments :fand We realize that we are not the First or only commentatorm to contend flgp Reopone enterpnenmctan. .tIr Ia, -fin- coasial zone without changing thle onundaintes of retite lawn." that only tile l~eginlature may define the coamtal zone. And, we realize that (Comment i16) In renponner to an inquitry from ]artz, Mtiontali in- duntriem on inclusion of Secaucus-n "it will be fircluded whenm DUV prepalreq the program for the rest of tile- coamo l zn" (Comment 23) Wde Maintain that that in3 a li'lb fer rte einlhre "Tile (CAFRA) boxitdarie.9 will he reexamined duiring, l'7R thrirt"rhi the public comment on the fjegjmen.` (Comment 25). - - - - ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~67 - M -6- Industry essential to the economic health of our state has been Section 7.7 on portn provides that "expansio al y only occur effectively restrained in the present CAFRA zone. Not one industrial adjacent to an existing built-up port." This clustering may present application has been approved since the rules were implemented in 1973. potential safety hazards as well as imposing economic burdens. Port We can only assume that similar results will apply if DEP obtains this facilities are an essential link in tile chains of interstate and inter- proposed expansion of power. national commerce. We question whether such onerous restructions are We believe that these rules should be held In abeyance until an consistent with Federal laws. analysis is done of their economic impact. We don't believe that New These are but a few of the ambiguous sections of the proposed rules. Jersey should abandon its economic recovery efforts in two-thirds of If such general language is adopted it will be most difficult for our the state without even knowing the price tag. member companies and other economic interests to plan and assess their The balancing of environmental and economic interestt is a delicate future in New Jersey. task. It should be performed by the elected officials of the state, not PUBLIC PARTICIPATION by an agency which has a clear self-interest in the outcome. We object to the procedure by which these rules are being adopted. Because of the vague language of the proposed rules, it is difficult We don't believe rules of this consequence should he considered as part for ollr members to determine if they will be able to grow or even continue of a draft EIS. to exist in New Jersey. Specifically, dredging and filling referred to To date, three public hearings have been heldon tile draft EIS. in Sections 6.3.8.5 - 6.3.8.9 under certain circumstances make both Two took place within the present CAFRA zone and the third was held in economic and environmental sense. It is unclear if andl when such operations Trenton. We respectfully request that separate public hearlngs he called will be permitted. by the DEP concerning its proposed rules and regulations oetlined in Policy statement 6.4.4.2 provides that "development is discouraged Chapter 3 of the draft EIS before adoption. These hearings should be heli in flood hazard areas." Does this apply to new development or does it in the communities Into which DEP wishes to impose its CAI"RA jurisdiction. also act to retard up-grading and expansion of existing facilities. Very few if any Irlbilc hearing participants realized tlilt tile pnlblh' bearings Section 7.4.11 encourages "multi-company use of existing and new on tile draft EIS were also to be tile forum for comment on the new rules. tanker terminals." This may not be economically feasible and may com- Rules of such magnitude can not be addressed adequately as they hayw been promise certain proprietary interests. to date. 168 We Contend that tile Dlepartment lack" time legnf authority to adopt. I)Fp rejects this tirg-iment., Given thitl Impasne, tile [Ignite ems not be le- these policies a~s rules. Tihe Legislature defined time CAFRA zone Ini 1973. solved In comments mipon thle rules, but must ibe refer-red to rciiher file Only the Legtisture can change those boundaries. We do not believe thfint legliisltlveoCr judicilal arenl. DEP can get around time Legislature by relying In part upont the Wetlands Beccause we believe these rules otgurp lelislative peroga.tlint's, It Is Act and riparian lawn for its proposed imposition of CAFRA policies upon difficult for ton to comment upon the specific lanrgijae of the ruics. tim municipalities exrluded by thle Legislature from thes CAFRtA zone In 1973. word changes or amendmentsl would address our concernn. The federal Coastal Zone Management Act does not mandate this We further question whether they are rulies at all. The~y eOthe'r bureaucratic expansion. Indeed, participation in the Federall program is took or read -ma rules. They are replete with statements latIdemi"oid voluntary. Now that five years have passed mince enactment of thle CAM~t and "rationale". This format reenforces our Contention tlsat j)Fj is law, the Governor and Legislature might want to re-examine fNew Jersey's attempting to perform n [unction constitutionally dedicatecd to tihe lepin- participation In this prnlgram as well as the 1973 decision to take away lative branch. Governmental policy tos set lby the. Covernomr and time lg from local government and to delegate to DEP jurisdiction for coastal lature, not by an admilnistrative agency. faclility niting. After such ro-examluation the Leglislature mighit even agree to tile ____C O CMMC IEI NWJRE expanded boundaries DEP seeks. And then, the Legislature misfht delegate These proposed rules will fundamentally nand detritm"Intaly Iimp'aut to IDE' autho~rity to adopt tile 144 pages of rules which appear In tile t i y u o h cnmyo N w J e s . BcausyierlnaecoridI miu 1970 drft ETS Riot hat tonot th proceure beng folowed n~. In-and general terms of "policies" and "1rationialesg", we canl only begin to stead. IIEP seeks to adopt rules and policies which will apply beyond thesimae hiecnm Iptbylong'tietrkir-rdrth enforcer of tits rmmles. Ray and Ocean Slmore Segment to the second segment which time Legislature hmasn't even defined. llow canl you regulate when you don't know whant areas you aire regulating? 2 fit tile May 1978 Coastal 11a.1~ i Itratcg POO lIC Commenrammm We realize tlmat we aire not the first or only commentators to contend Dl epne eIoersossnea ...1F omdfim coastal zone without changing tile boundaries; of state law!;." that only thme Legislature may define time coastal zone. And, we realize timat (Comment 16) In response to an inquiry from flartz Mnimmtamlm 1mm- dustrie's on inclusion of Secnmmcms: 'it will lbe lmmcltmdmd when DEP pmrep~ares taIme programs for the rest of time coastal 7on"W. (Comment 21) We malintainl timat tiaut Is a 1.1, for thle tmEsmim "Time, (CAFRtA) bummmmdaries will he reexamined dumrinp 1978l tlmrongi~i tile public c'mmment on thme Segment." (Comment 25). - - - ~~~~~~O7 -- -5 - 6- Industry essential to the economic health of ollt state bas been Section 7.1 on Portn provides that "expansion may only occur effectively restrained In the present CAFRA zone. Not one industrial adjacent to an existing built-up port." This clustering may present application has been approved since the rules were implemented in 1973. potential safety hazards as well as imposing economic burdens. Port We can only assume that similar results will apply If DEP obtains this facilities are an essential link in the chains of interstate and inter- proposed expansion of power. national commerce. We question whetiler such onerous restructions are We believe that these rules should be held In abeyance until an consistent with Federal laws. analysis is done of their economic impact. We don't believe that New These are but a few of the ambiguous sections of tie proposed rules. Jersey should abandon its economic recovery efforts in two-thirds of If such general language is adopted it will be most difficult for our the state wlthloult even knowing the price tag. member companies and other economic interests to plan and assess their The balancing of environmental and economic interests is a delicate future in New Jersey. task. It should be performed by the elected officials of the state, not PUBLIC PARTICIPATION by an agency which has a clear self-interest in the outcome. We object to the procedure by which these rules are being adopted. Because of the vague language of the proposed rules, it is difficult We don't believe rules of this consequence should be considered as part for our members to determine if they will be able to grow or even continue of a draft EIS. to xlist in New Jersey. Specifically, dredging and filling referred to To date, three public hearings have been hIeld on tile draft EIS. in Sections 6.3.8.5 - 6.3.8.9 under certain circumstances make both Two took place within the present CAFRA zone and the third was held In economic and environlmental sense. It is unclear if and when such operations Trenton. We respectfully request that separate public hearings be called will be permitted. by the DEP concerning its proposed rules and regulations olutllned 1i Policy statement 6.4.4.2 provides that "development is discouraged Chapter 3 of the draft ElS before adoption. These hearingps shoulid e beld in flood hazard areas." Does this apply to new development or does it in the communities Into whicll DEP wishes to Imlpose its CAI:RA jirisdicttion. also act to retard up-grading and expansion of existing facilities. Very few if any piublic hearing participants realized that the pbllc hearinl:gs Section 7.4.11 encourages "multi-company use of existing and new on the draft ElS were also to be the forum for comment on the new rules. tanker terminals." This may not be economically feasible and may com- Rules of such magnitude can not be addressed adequately as they have been promise certain proprietary interests. to date. 168 7- New Jersey PclerolcunI Comtllcil tIvlttOl Or *ur AUnSleCAH rttnOLCUU INslTIUVP IWe can not help but notice the contrast between your process andO W ro ,mIRW. W LP VcI-lHOHE t (oD)1 5' o0oo the one currently being followed by the Department of Energy. It in W H SiOWl. J iCA. t. UPP n... nl h,. M. u.J .;n. CA;-i. 0. o. ,A-Lr. A-,;.r, 04.,., holding ten public hearings at convenient locations throughout tile sthte on itn proposed Energy HMater Plan. Commissioner Jacobson has gone to July 5, 1978 the Legislature to make the case for the rule-making and other powers he seeks. And the Legislature has held and continues to hold public benrlngs Mr. Robert W. Kneclht Associate Administrator on his proponnsals. Though we may not always endorse the results, we must Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrntlon respect the fairness and openness of that process. 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20235 There in no compelling need to rush these DEP rules. Action on Dear Hr. Enecht: the second segment of tie Coastal Zone Management Progrnam is not required On behalf of the New Jersey letrolesm Cooncil (IJIC) aid its memier conpanies until 1979. These proposed rules need not be adopted for your EIS to I am pleased to submit the attached comments ol tile i)raft Eirvirolml-tot Impact Statement for tile New Jersey Coastal Zone llMngemelt Program: Bay and Ocean Shore receive Federal approvals. Segment. W1hat you prropose here Is clearly interrelated with New Jersay'ns ! llpon reviewing this document, thie NJFC oas concluded that tile New Jersey Program requires substantial revisions and refinements before any action is energy policy particullarly as it impacts ulpon our industry. nr taken to approve it in its current form. Additionally, tie state must initiate an effort to enact legislation which can ameliorate several serious deficiencies specifically recognizes this in that it reserves Section 6.6.7.5 for in its existing legal authority to implement tils program. "Energy Facility Criteria." We think you should reserve any action on Consequently, at this time, it ti our position that tlhe n ew Jersey Program should more properly be considered for preliminary approval putrsoent to Section any of these proposed rules until the Energy Master Plan Is adopted. 305(d) of the Coastal Zone laongement Act. At that time, DEP would be in a better position to act consistently The NJPC appreciates tils opportunity to cname'nt on tie New Jersey Program and pledges its cooperation in working witIl the appropriate state and federal agencies with that Master Plan. If not, our industry fears it will be trapped to insure that titns plan satisfies all of the requirements of federal law. In the Inconnistencies of the coextensive Jurisdiction of DEP and DOE. Sincerely, We would also request that after this examination of the Master Plait you adopt procedures that foster rather than frustrate public and legislative particiption. Executive Director tlml/d s _ _ _ _ _i i i 9 M _ M INTRODUCTION .-A There are two (2) basic issues which must be considered in analyzing this document: Does the New Jersey Coastal Zone Management Plan (the "Plan") for the Bayand Ocean Shore Segment satisfy the requirements of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and implementing regulations promulgated thereunder? COMMENTS OF Does the Draft Environmental Impact Statement THE (the "DEIS") satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and NEW JERSEY PETROLEUM COUNCIL guidelines adopted to implement the objectives and policies of that legislation? ON THE At the outset, it should be noted that one (1) issue related DEIS FOR THE to the first broad question posed above should and will be con- STATE OF NEW JERSEY < AT sidered before all others. This issue relates to the Plan's COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM failure to satisfy some of the basic prerequisites for the sub- BAY AND OCEAN SHORE SEGMENT mittal of segmented plans for approval. MAY 1978 On a practical note, references in this document to federal and state statutes and federal regulations will be noted in the text where possible. In order to minimize any confusion, the following list of statutory and regulatory citations and abbrevi- ations is provided: * Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. Submitted: * National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Leonard H. Ruppert, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et e Executive Director July 5, 1978 * Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et sea. ~~~~~~~~170~~~~i 170 -7- New Jersey e Pdi-olcun .otwcii A 01010101.0 Ort A11LrUICAH PO~lnOLEUM *OOOIVUO! We can not help but notice the contrast between your process and ..0 W.In .TOITO. .IC.N.Hw ,In0IV 00000 trlrruo~~~~~~~~rtso�Hn)rrn. ,r.hjlog the one currently being followed by the Department of Energy. It in l.H OALOWIN JO..aCl-s .. . Aasi~r. fli~lr m. . hA0eY. Vl' CALW.- oi holding ten public hearings at convenient locations throughout the utbte on its proponed Energy Manter Plan. Comminioner Jacobnon hbn gone to July 5, 19711 the Legislature to make the case for the rule-making and othper powers he neeks. And the Legislature lion held and continues to hold public hearingos fr. Robert W. Knecht Ansocinte AdUInistrotor on his proposals. Though we may not always endorse thle results, we must Office of Coastal Zone Matnogement National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminirtration respect the fairness and openness of that process. 3300 Wlhitehaven Street, 1.W. Wasnhington, D.C. 20235 There in no compelling need to runh thene DEP rulen. Action on near Mr. gnecht: the second serment of the Coastal Zone Manogement Program is not required On behralf of tile New Jerney l'etroieeen Council (hIJi'C) mild itn memller compnpl~en, until 1979. These proposed rulen need not be adopted for your P.1 to I mm pleased to nubnit tile attached comments oil the Draft Enviroumpntal Impact Statement for thle New Jersey Coastal Zone Mlatngement Programn ily and Ocean Shore receive Federal approvalo. Segment. Wllnt you propone here it clearly interrelated with New Jersey'a Upon reviewing thin; document, the NJPC has concluded Cliot tire New Jersey Program reequiren substantial revisions end refinements before any action is energy policy particularly on It impacts upon our industry. DOF token to approve it in its current form. Additionally, the state munt initiate An effort to enact legislation which can ameliorate several serious deficlenctes specifically recognizes thin in that it reserves Section 6.6.7.5 for in its existing legal authority to implement Cthin programn. "Energy Facility Criterin." We think you should reserve nny action on Consequently, at this time, it is our ponition that tile New Jersey proprom should more properly be considered for preliminary approval pursuant to Section any of these proposed rules until the Energy Master Plan in adopted. 305(d) of the Coastal Zone tionagement Act. At that time, IDEP would be in a better position to act consistently Ilie NJFC appreciates this opportunity to conmpant on tihe New lersey lrogram aend pledges Ito cooperotion in working with time npproprinte state nod federal agnccles with that Master Plnn. It not, our industry fears it will be trapped to insure that this plan satisfies all of the requirements of federal law. In the inconsistencies of tie coextensive jurisdiction of DE1' and DOE. Sincerely, We would also request that after thin examination of the lanster Flait you adopt procedures thmot foster rather than frustrate public and legislative participation. Rxecutive Director 1l.iR/ds - - - I I - - -169 INTRODUCTION There are two (2) basic issues which must be considered in analyzing this documents Does the New Jersey Coastal Zone Management Plan (the "Plan") for the Bay.and Ocean Shore Segment satisfy the requirements of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and implementing regulations promulgated thereunder? COMMENTS OF Does the Draft Environmental Impact Statement THE (the "DEIS") satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and NEW JERSEY PETROLEUM COUNCIL guidelines adopted to implement the objectives and policies of that legislation? ON THE At the outset, it should be noted that one (1) issue related DEIS FOR THE to the first broad question posed above should and will be con- STATE OF NEW JERSEY .J sidered before all others. This issue relates to the Plan's COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM failure to satisfy some of the basic prerequisites for the sub- BAY AND OCEAN SHORE SEGMENT mittal of segmented plans for approval. MAY 1978 On a practical note, references in this document to federal and state statutes and federal regulations will be noted in the text where possible. In order to minimize any confusion, the following list of statutory and regulatory citations and abbrevi- ations is provided: * Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. Submittedt * National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Leonard H. Ruppert, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et sea. Executive Director July 5, 1978 * Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ~~~~~~~~~170~~~~i 170 -7- ~~~~~~~New Jersey . - PilcnCocl W4e can tnot help but notice tile contrast between your process and .eW~ #~ 155 ANO.C0,nS ~l thle one currently being followed by the Depnrttsent Of Enerpgy. It Is W I AUON Jl(S~~~ .C*~rs.p,.nt, holding ten public hearings tit convenient locations throughout the etlite on Ito proposed Energy 14aster Plan. Commissioner Jacobson has gone to Jl ,17 the Legislature to make thle case for the rule-making and other powers he seeks. And the Legislature has field and continues to hold public hearings Mr. oiat W Adiisctrao on his proposals;. Though we isay not always endorse thle results, we must Office of Coasntat Zone Management National oceanic and Atisospheric Administration respect the fnirness and openness of that procens. 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.V4. There In no compelling used to rush these DEP rules. Action an lDear fir. Knecht: thle second segment of the Coastal Zone Management P1rogramn Is not required On behalf of tile New Jersey Petroleum Council (tlJI1U) and Its mewbner companies, until 1979. These proposed rules need not be adopted for your ElI to I am pleased to submit [ile attached commsents oil tile Draft EvironMenta ipat Statement for the New Jersey Coastal Zone Maunaement Program: Ray and Ocean Shore receive Federal approvals. Segment. 'Mint you prtpoq ern clal nerltdwt e esy"nolreviewing this document, the 14JPC ties concliuded Clint the New Jerecy propose hre in clarly intrrelatedwith NewJersey'sProgram requires substantial revisfona and reffinmen"ts before. any action Is energy plicy paticulary Sin I Import upon or Indusry. OrTtaken to approve It in Its current forms. Additionally, the. state must Initiate energy polcy particlarly an t impacts pon our idustry. ~an effort to enact legislation wh4ich con ameliorate several serious deficlenctes specifically recognizes this In that It reserves Section 6.6.7.5 for In its existing legal authority to implement this program. "Energy Facility Criteria." We think you should reserve ainy action on Consequently, at this time, it to our position that tile new Jersey Program should more property be considered for preliminary approval p~urs..nnt to Section any of these proposedt rules until the Energy Hlaqter Plan In adopted. 305(d) of the Coastal Zone Management Act. At hattim, DP wuldbe n abeter osiionto ctconsistently The NJPC appreciates this opportunity to comi,,Pnt onl lthe New Jersey Program, At that timeD~l' would bein a better psition to actand pledges Its cooperation in working with the appropriate state and federal agtencies with that Master Plan. It not. our Industry learn It will be trapped to Insure that thin plan satisfies all of the requirements of federal law. J" the Inconsistencies of the coextensive jurisdiction of DCI' and Dog. sincerely, We would also request that after this examination of the Master Plan you adopt procedures that faster rather than frustrate public and 'P legislative participation. EeuieDrco agg~~~~~~~~L i INTRODUCTION There are two (2) basic issues which must be considered in analyzing this document: Does the New Jersey Coastal Zone Management Plan (the "Plan") for the Bayand Ocean Shore Segment satisfy the requirements of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act {CZMA) and implementing regulations promulgated thereunder? COMMENTS OF Does the Draft Environmental Impact Statement THE (the "DEIS") satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and NEW JERSEY PETROLEUM COUNCIL guidelines adopted to implement the objectives and policies of that legislation? ON THE At the outset, it should be noted that one (1) issue related DEIS FOR THE to the first broad question posed above should and will be con- STATE OF NEW JERSEY sidered before all others. This issue relates to the Plan's COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM failure to satisfy some of the basic prerequisites for the sub- BAY AND OCEAN SHORE SEGMENT mittal of segmented plans for approval. MAY 1978 On a practical note, references in this document to federal and state statutes and federal regulations will be noted in the text where possible. In order to minimize any confusion, the following list of statutory and regulatory citations and abbrevi- ations is provided: * Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. Submitted: * National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Leonard H. Ruppert, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. Executive Director July 5, 1978 * Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. i 170 * Clean Air Act (CMA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 1' I. Does the Plan satisfy all of the reguirements of section 306(h) et seq. of the CZMA and the approval regulations concerning the submit- tal of segmented plans? � coastal Zone Management Approval Regulations ("Approval Regulations")}, 15 CFR 923.1 et req., Section 306(h) of the CZMN authorizes the Secretary of 43 F.R. 8378, (M{rch 1, 1970). Commnerce to permit a state to submit its coastal zone manage- � Federal Consistency with Approved Coastal Management Programs Regulations ("consistency ment plan for approval in segments, provided that "the state Regulations"), 15 CFR 930.1 et seq.. 43 P.R. 10510, (March 13, 1978). adequately provides for the ultimate coordination of the * Coastal Area Facility Review Act {(CIRA). various segments .... into a unified program." The key factor N.J.S.A. 13119-1 et seq. in determining if a segment should be processed for ultimate * Wetlands Act of 1970, H.J.S.hA. l39A-l et seq. approval is whether the remaining segments of the federally- * Riparian Statutes, N.J.S.A. 12,3-10 et seq.. 12t5-3 et seq., 13.1B-13.2 et sM. defined coastal tone can be integrated into the Plan and will The New Jersey Petroleum Council (NJPC) believes that upon be subject to the same or similar planning and control reviewing these and other appropriate legal authorities it will mechanisms as the first segment submitted for approval. Thus, be abundantly clear that the Plan is not ready for approval at the statute requires that segmented approval only be permitted this time. The New Jersey Plan represents a bona fide effort by in cases where a unified, legally enforceable plan can and will the state's Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) to develop be in place as soon as is reasonably practicable. a workable management scheme which satisfies the many rigorous This fact is duly noted in the approval regulations which requirements set forth in the CZMA. IIowever, in our review of require a state to demonstrate that: this document, we have noted numerous serious deficiencies which "(2) A timetable and budget have been established for the timely completion of the remaining must be ameliorated before any action is taken to approve the segment(s)l and Plan. (3) The State will exercise policy control over each segment of its management program prior Furthermore, it is the NJPC's contention that the analysis to and following its integration Into a complete State management program. Demonstra- of the environmental impact of this proposal is deficient in tion of this control will include (1) comple- tion of the management boundary determination many respects. Consequently, for these reasons alone, this I-1 171 proposed federal action should be delayed until thile substantive -~ for the entire coastal zone throughout tile State and (ii) consideration of the national interest and procedural requirements of NEPA are satisfied as required by throughout the State's entire coastal zone in the planning for and siting of facilities cited law. in � 923.52." 115 CFR 923.61(a)ll (Emphasis added.} Finally, it must be noted that these comments are limited These two (2) regulatory provisions establish several in their scope. They merely address those issues which, in the crucial prerequisites which must be met in order to approve NJPC's opinion, need to be identified and discussed at this time, the submission of a management plan in discrete segments and By no means should these comments be construed to be an exhaustive, to approve the initial segment of a plan: all-inclusive compilation of the petroleum industry's opinion(s) * A timetable must be established for the regarding this proposed action. completion of the plan for the remaining segmentsa and, * A state must demonstrate that it possesses the requisite legal authority to manage and regulate land and water uses in the entire federally-defined coastal zone before any segment can be approved; and, * A state must delineate and adopt the boundary of the entire federally-defined coastal zone before any segment can be approved. The DEIS includes one (1) chapter, with less than one (1} page, devoted to a discussion of the necessary action steps which must be completed in order to develop a consistent, complete and unified plan for the four (4) segments of the entire coastal zone. [DEIS, pp.197-1991 Thle DEIS refers to research which has been completed and to future detailed coastal planning efforts, but nowhere does the document specifically outline those tasks which must be completed in iii I-2 172 order to develop a comprehensive plan for the entire coastal '-% and, likewise, only the Legislature can authorize the OCZM zone. to extend the planning mandate of CAoFnA to other areas of The most distressing aspect of this failing is the total the state or insert this mandate as a consideration of other absence of any discussion of the legislative and regulatory telated state legislation. steps which must be taken to authorize the OCZM to define the The Wetlands Law is similarly defective. This law is entire coastal zone and to manage and regulate development in limited geographically to an area south of Raritan flay. the other segments, notably the Delaware River Area and the JN.J.S.A. 13f9A-2) Additionally, delineated wetlands may not Northern Waterfront Area. The legal authority which the OCZm be regulated pursuant to the management strategy developed relies upon to manage and regulate development in the Bay and pursuant to CAFRIA. INJSA 13S19-191 By virtue of this expressed Ocean Shore Segment at this time Is virtually useless for the provision of CAFPA, these two 12) laws must be administered purpose s) of controlling development in the other segments separately and may not be integrated or combined to expand of the coastal zone. ' the statutorily defined boundary of the "coastal area." The New Jersey Plan cites four (41 state statutes an the Lastly, the Riparian Statutes only authorize the state source of tile DEP's authority to delineate and adopt a boundary ,to exercise its control over development which takes place for the entire coastal zone and manage coastal resources in upon riparian lands within the established pierhead lines. this area. This list includes "the DEP enabling legislation, tHence, any development in these other segments which does not CAFRA, the Wetlands Act and riparian statutes...* ODEIS, p.101 take place on such riparian lands would not be subject to Each of the latter three statutes is limited in their geo- control by the state. Thus, where cAlFRA and tile Wetlands Law graphic scope and their juri.sdiction. cannot be used to regulate development in these other segments The CAFRA law does not authorize the OCZM either to regu- of the coastal zone, the state's reliance upon the riparian late or conduct any planning efforts outside of the defined statutes to manage these coastal resources is ill-founded. "coastal area." [N.J.S.A. 13z19-41 The boundaries set forth The enabling legislation which established this agency in CAFPIA can only be expanded by an act of the legislaturet is cited as the fourth statutory bases for the DrEP to define 1-3 1-4 - - -� m - s YI� 11I iI define the coastal area and to plan for and manage the use the entire coastal zone and to extend its planning powers to define the coastal area and to plan for nd manage the use of coastal resources in the state's entire coastal zone touches regulate development in this expanded coastal area. The DEP enabling legislation, which was enacted in 197, states that very basic, well-recognized principles of law in New Jersey. enabling legislation, which was enacted in 1970, states that The courts in New Jersey have long recognized the dis- the department shall have the power to E.Prepare, administerandsuperviseSttinction between making law and the execution of law. In the "... f. Prepare, administer and supervise Statewide, regional and local programs of conservation and regional and local proe g rams of conservation and fexecution of law, administrative action "cannot subvert, environmental protection, giving due regard for the ecology of the varied areas of the State and the enlarge or deviate" from the principles and policies set forth relationship thereof to the environment, and in connection therewith prepare and make available to in an agencies' enabling statute. Abelson's Inc. v. N.J. appropriate agencies in the State technical informa- -- tion concerning conservation and environmental State Bd. of Optom. 5 N.J. 412, 75 A.2d 867, 872, (Sup. Ct.) protection, and cooperate with the Commissioner of Health in the preparation and distribution of (1950)} Similarly, it is an established rule of New Jersey environmental protection and health bulletins for the purpose of educating the public, and cooperate tht e purp ose of educat ing the public and cooperate law that "an administrative agency is a creature of the with the Commissioner of Health in the preparation of a program of environmental protection." jU3SA Legislature" and that "its primary function is to carry into 13-1D-9! effect the will of the State as expressed by its limitations, These generalized powers were conferred upon the DEP three (3) effect the will of the State a expressed by its limitations, and its powers are limited by the statute creating them." years before the Legislature empowered the DCZM to execute the functions and exercise the powers prscribed by in Rosenthal v. State Employees Retirement System, 30 N.J. Super the functions and exercise the powers prescribed by C"%F!A in 136, 103 A.2d 896, 899 (Super. Ct., App. Div.)(1954)] (See the statutorily defined "coastal area." (See Toms River also NaqY v. Ford Motor Co., 6 N.J. 341, 78 A.id 709 (1951).) Affiliates v. DEP, 140 N.J. Super. 135, 355 A.2d 679 (1976).) also i v. Ford otor co., 6 N.J. 341, 7 A.2d 709 (1951).) The enactment of CAPA represents a grant of specified The Legislature's subsequently expressed intent regarding The enactment of CAFRA represents a grant of specified the geographic limitations of the DEP's planning and admini- administrative powers for the execution of statutory policies. strative functions for the purpose of conserving coastal The exercise of these powers is of necessity restricted and strative functions for the purpose of conserving coastal restrained by e declared policy of the statute and the resources is quite clear. This subsequently enacted measure restrained by the declared policy of the statute and the 'in unambiguous in stating the limitations and authorities of criteria, standards, terms and conditions which attach to this i unambiguous n stating the limitations and authorities of the DEP with regard to this matter. As such, the DEP's legislative action. The issue of who retains the power to 1-5 I-6 authority to conduct planning efforts and to regulate develop- must be taken to regulate development int the entire coastal ment to fulfill the mandate of CAFRA cannot be enlarged upon zone and thereby complete a comprehensive, unified plan. by virtue of previously enacted enabling legislation authoriz- 115 CFR 923.61 a)(2)1 The crucial question of the need for Ing this agency to exercise certain generic functions. This legislative action to authorize the OCZM to plan for and very fact is recognized in the DEIS. {See DEIS, p.219.) regulate development in the remaining segments is not This interpretation is supported when these statutes are adequately discussed in the DEIS. The discussion in the DEXS read in part materia. The IDEP enabling statute authorizes regarding future steps which must be taken to complete the the agency to "prepare. administer and supervise regional plan is too vague to allow one to determine whether the state- programs of conservation and environmental protection." (NJSA wide program will proceed in an orderly fashion, and whether 13,lD-9(Ef1 CAFPA is a subsequently enacted measure which it will adequately reflect the needs and capabilities of the authorizes a regional plan for the limited purposes expressed entire state coastal zone. IDEIS, pp.190-1991 (See also therein. CFPRA is a clear statement of the Legislature's . 15 CFR 923.61(c).) intent both to authorize the DEP to execute certain functions Furthermore, this discussion points up the fact that the and exercise certain powers in the defined "coastal area," state currently does not possess the requisite legal authority while reserving to the Legislature alone the power to expand to exercise effective management and control of the remaining the boundaries of the coastal zone and exercise or delegate segments prior to their integration into a unified plan. the authority to regulate the conservation and use of coastal thereby failing to satisfy the requirements of 'the approval resources in the balance of the state. (See N.J.S.A. 13t19-19.1 regulations in title regard. 115 CFR 923.61(a) (3)1 This too The OCZM is not empowered to define and adopt a boundary for raises questions concerning full compliance with the require- the State's coastal zone, nor is this agency empowered to plan ment to consider the national interest In planning for and for and manage uses of coastal resources in the other segments. siting of certain enumerated facilities. s upraJ {See also The foregoing discussion raises serious questions regard- 15 CPR 923.52.) Although the DSI alleges that the national ing the state's efforts to identify the necessary steps which interest considerations set forth therein apply to the entire 1-7 1-8 _. _ _ _ _ _.' -- - - debated and refined as DEP conducts further coastal zone, this contention is of dubious force and effect coastal planning in 1978. The final boundary for the entire coastal zone will depend in when thile state's authority to plan for and regulate the siting part upon the legal authority to carry specific coastal policies to be defined for these regions of such facilities in thile remaining segments is non-existent. of the coast. At this stage, however, the most important boundary is the one defined in Chapter {DEIS, p.1761 Two for the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment." [DEIS, p.2631 (emphasis in the original) Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Plan does not The proposal discussed in the DEIS is the approval of include a delineation of the entire coastal zone as required. this Plan under section 306(h) of the CZMA. [DEIS, p.iJ 115 CPR 923.61(a)(3)1 (See also 15 CFR 923.30.) The segmenta- The key concerns are set forth in the NEPA summary. supra) tion option recognizes and allows for the dynamic processes Hlowever, one major consideration has obviously been overlooked, involved in a planning effort of this magnitude to take place i.e. the OCZM is not empowered by state law to define and over an extended period, however, the regulations require one adopt the boundary of the state's entire coastal zone. To (1) constant to be present during the planning process for the rean date, its efforts in this regard have only resulted in a remaining segments: . "proposed," not a legally adopted, enforceable delineation ".... Regional agencies and local governments may play a large role in developing and carry of the coastal zone. out such segmented programs, but there must be a continuing State voice throughout this process. In conclusion, the NJPC contends that the very decision This State involvement shall be expressed in the first seqment of the manaqement proqram in the to permit submission of a segment for approval is, at this form of evidence that i}) the boundaries of the coastal zone for the entire State have been time, unauthorized since the state has failed to delineate defined (pursuant to Subpart D) ...." (15 CFR 923.61(c).) (emphasis added) the entire coastal zone as required. This deficiency, in The DEIS fails to delineate an explicit boundary for and of itself, militates against any further consideration the entire coastal zone. The DEIS recognizes this shortcoming of approval of this segment at this time. Submittal of this and erroneously downplays its significances segment for approval can only take place after the boundary "In conclusion, the inland boundary of the of the entire coastal zone has been defined and adopted in coastal zone beyond the boundary of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment is a proposal to be accordance with the specific requirements of federal regula- I~~-9 ~1-10 176 tions. [See 15 CFT 923.301 At this time, the OCZM is not r- II. The next broad issue to be considered is wheLher the New authorized by law to delineate and adopt a boundary for the Jersey Plan satisfies all of tile procedural and substantive entire coastal zone. Furthermore, the state's Inability to requirements of the CZMA, as set forth in the federal approval demonstrate that it possesses adequate legal authority to regulations. Discussion of this issue must be divided into regulate development in the remaining segments at this time several sub-issues relating specifically to the requirements and its failure to specify the necessary steps which must be of the CZMA, most notably sections 305 and 306, and the taken to complete a unified, enforceable Plan are significant corresponding provisions of the federal approval regulations. deficiencies which must be ameliorated before any action is This issue has been subdivided in the following mannert taken to approve this segment. A. Does the DEIS demonstrate that the state currently possesses the requisite legal authority to enforce the proposed Plan in accordance with the requirements of the CZMA and approval regulations? 1. Are the legal authorities relied upon by the ,-.% state adequate to ensure the implementation of the proposed Plan in accordance with the requirements of section 306(b)(7) and 306(d) of the CZrm? 2. Does the Plan satisfy the requirements of section 306(e) (1) of the CzFi? 3. Does the Plan satisfy the requirements of section 306Ie) (2) of the CZrM? 4. Does the Plan satisfy the requirements of section 305(b) (6) and 306{c) (6) of the CZWM 7 B. Does the Plan include legally adopted, specific policies and standards which satisfy all the requirements of the CZMA and approval regulations? 1. Does the Plan satisfy the requirements of section 305(b) (2) of the CZMA and the approval regulations? II-1 -1 --1�11111 -1 - - - - -11 2. Does the Plan satisfy the requirements of that the plai prescribe a legally enforceable method of lassur- section 307(f) of the CZMt? ing that local land and water use regulations within the 3. Does the Plan satisfy the requirements of section 306(c)(l) of the CZAR? coastal zone do not unreasonably restrict or exclude uses of a C. Does the Plan define the boundary of the entire coastal regional benefit." These statutory requirements raise numerous zone as required by section 305(b)(1) of the CZtMA? issues which must be discussed in detail. D. Does the Plan satisfy the requirements of section 306(c) 13) of the CZMA and the approval regulations? i. Are the legal authorities relied upon by the state adequate to ensure the implementation of the pro- E. Does the Plan satisfy the requirements of sections posed Plan in accordance with the requirements of 307(c) and (d) of the CZMA and the approval regulations? section 306ab) (7) and 306(d) of the CZMA? F. Does the Plan satisfy the requirements of sections The DEIS identifies three (3) principal state statutes 306(c) (2)(A) and (B) of the CZNh? as the basis for the state's authority to implement the G. Does the Plan satisfy the requirements of section 306(c) (4) of the CZMA and the approval regulations? Plan as proposed. [DEIS. p.91 As noted previously, the 305(b)(8). Doesf the requiements of section state does not possess the necessary authority to regulate 305(b) ( ta p rndevelopment in the entire coastal zone as required. A. Does the DEIS demonstrate that the state currently possesses The mere identification of tie legal authorities upon the requisite legal authority to enforce the proposed Plan in accordance with the requirements of the CZMh and approval which a state relies is not sufficient. The CZHA and the regulations? Section 306(b)(7) of the CZMA requires that the secretary approval regulations require that the Secretary, or her designated representative, assess the adequacy of the find that the state has the necessary authority to implement state's legal authority. llS CFR 923.41(a}(l)l The the management program and satisfy the requirements of sections regulations emphasize that the authority on which a 306(d) and (e) of the Act. A necessary and related requirement state relies is a crucial element of the enforcement of is the establishment of an organizational structure to imple- program policies. 13 CFR 923.40(a)1 Ultimately this ment and administer the program. [CZ/M, 5305(b)(6), 5306(c) authority must be adequate to meet four statutory require- (6)1 Additionally, section 306(e)(2) specifically requires ments and must form the foundation of the control 11-2 technique chosen by the state. II-3 Prior to approval, the State must identify adequate introduced in June of 1972, a full four months prior to legal authorities which must include the ability tow the enactment of the federal CZMA. During nearly a year "(1) Administer land and water use regulations of pendency in the Legislature, the original bill was in conformance with the policies of the In c onfo rmance with the policies of the amended substantially. Yet there is no evidence of any management program, (2) Control such development as is necessary intent to amend the legislation to include an expressed to ensure compliance with the management tprogramsen-lure provision to authorize the OCZM to develop a comprehensive program{ management plan to satisfy the requirements of federal (3| Resolve conflicts among competing uses{ (4) Acquire appropriate interests in lands, law. waters or other property as necessary to achieve management objectives." 115 CFis nteresting to note that CAFRA, whil was 941 (e8) enacted over eight (9) months after the CZMA was passed The OCZM relies to a great degree upon the clFRA by Congress, never uses the phrase "coastal zone manage- statute for implementation of the Plan in the Day and A D~ment plan." The choice of the phrase "environmental Ocean Shore Segment. The OCZM has continually maintained design strategy", rather then "coastal zone management that this statute indeed provides adequate authority to plan", was a conscious choice by experienced legislators prescribe and administer a management plan, in the area who knew and appreciated the deep roots of the concept now designated as the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. A of "home rule" in New Jersey. Tihe very thought of a careful analysis of this legislation casts doubt on the state "management plan" is repugnant to municipal leaders OCZM's position in this regard. in New Jersey. It is not clear whether aWfI~ was intended to authorize This choice of words not only evidences a clear intent the OCZM to develop a comprehensive coastal zone management to avoid a clash with municipalities in the coastal area, plan, or, whether the Act was merely a regulatory measure but it also indicates that the Legislature intended to which required the OcZM to protect and preserve unique The statute uses the rest~ilt the OCZMl's authority. The statute uses the resources in the coastal area. Although the law was phrase "environmental design strategy" i.e., a plan to enacted in June of 1973, the legislation was initially II-S II-4 I-I .I - - - -I -I - -II II I achieve certain specified goals. The goals of CAFRA and water resources of the coastal zone." CzMA, S 303 are quite clear; {b)) This very deficiency was noted over a year ago by "... to encourage the development of compatible the OCZM's own consultants: land uses in order to improve the overall economic position of the inhabitants of that "legative authority of various kinds does exist, area within the framework of a comprehensive particularly CAFRA, riparian, air and water environmental design strategy which preserves permits. The state thus has the authority to the most ecologically sensitive and fragile veto specific undesirable proposals... It does areas from inappropriate development and pro- not. however, have effective mechanisms of vides adequate environmental safeguards for the positive authority to guide facility siting into construction of any facilities in the coastal those areas which might be preferred...' IWho's area." [N.J.S.A. 13t19-21 in Charge? Government Capabilities to Make Energy Facility Siting Decisions in Hew Jersey, This is not a mandate to undertake comprehensive Center for Environmental Studies, Princeton Univ. (July 1977), p.2051 planning or to develop a "management plan" for the Without the authority to guide facility development to coastal area. The primary function of CAFRA was to pre- the most preferred site for wise utilization of coastal pare an environmental inventory of coastal resources and r"%, ~ resources, it is difficult to perceive how the OCZM can assess their capability "to absorb and react to man-made rely upon this statute as the nexus of their authority stresses." [N.J.S.A. 19-161 In other words, the OCZM to implement their proposed Plan. A policy promulgated was to identify specific "areas of particular concern" pursuant to this Plan is only effective in its ability to in the coastal area and prescribe minimum safeguards in prohibit - not provide for - uses of coastal resources. order to mitigate adverse impacts on coastal resources - This misplaced reliance upon CAFRA is at the root of in the balance of this region. this dilemna. The OCZH views CAPRFA as a comprehensive This is why there are no permissible uses per se identified in the Plan. CARA authorizes the OCZM to planning statute, which it is not. This statute merely identified in the Plan. CAFRA authorizes the OCZM to authorizes the OCZM to develop an environmental design veto development in the coastal area, but it does not strategy for the expressed purposes of state law, i.e., authorize the state to direct facility development to to develop a regulatory tool to enable the Commissioner take place at sites which "achieve wise use of the land to enhance his ability to make Permit decision" concern- -~program In to develop a framogwork- within which the state alone or in concert with local levels Ing specific applications for certain kinds of develop-. of government has the legal au-1Oritj- mni- mernt the policies developed.' CAFRAt Legal ment in the cosatal area. Ironically enough, the Commisi- Inventory. P-i. qundated) Iemphasis added) sloner's mandatory findings prior to the issuance of a It to evident from this statement that If the WC7M permit do not require that 1he find that any proposed must "develop a framework" to implement the strategy development is In accordance with the operative provisions the CAMR statute by Itself does not provide adequate of the "environmental design strategy." IL-....lgat authority to Implement any coastal z~one managemenlt 13: 19-101 plan. The confusion regarding the function and purpoae of The N4JPC concurs wit!, the OCZrW al conclusion that thin "environmental design strategy' is. In part, the CAI'P statute by Itself does not provide adpquate engendered by the statute itself. The statute requires legal authority to implement the policies of 'the proposed that the "management strategy" be submitted to the coastal zone management plan. The IHJPC submits that this governor and Leg~~~~~~~~~~~~~~istrbtIloboutyslets due to the fact that this statute was never Intended regarding what these parties must do when they receive to serve this purpose. However, before rendering a final it. J1....13119-11 The uncertainty regarding this judgment regarding the oCZM'a 'networked' authority to issue, as well an the question of the adequacy of CAPPA Implement Its Plan, one must examine the other statutes to ensure implementation of the strategy once it to relied upon by this agency. developed, in perhaps best Illustrated by this quote Riparian Statutes from the OCMMs Legal Inventory# Tile extant riparian statutes have been construed to "In new Jersey the coastal Area Facility Review Act 9.J.S.A. 1319-1 et seq. (aidy requires limit the State'sl authority to granlt, transfer Or Other- preparation of an environmental design to be presented to the governor and Legislature. wise alienate Its right" to sublmorged tidal lands out to Such design to be implemented must be based on teeitn ukedadpeha ie.(tiv sufficient legal authority i.... Theultilmatateexsngblhaad eta ie.(pj v goal of the legal component of the management IX-9 Driscoll 19 N.J. 363. 117 A.2d 265 11955)1 The state this time, thile CZMA requires that such legal authorities does not presently possess a mechanism to pass title be in place prior to approval of a state plan. In view to or lease lands beyond this point out to the three {3) of this deficiency, the state's submittal for approval mile limit, which is the seaward boundary of the coastal of the Plan is untimely, and NohA's proposed action is zone. (See 15 CFR 923.32.) This too was noted by the premature. The OCZM has no legislative authority to aforementioned Princeton University studys plan for and regulate the use of submerged lands in the "However, since the Natural Resources council coastal zone and the associated impact(s) of such uses is not authorized under New Jersey's existing riparian statutes to make grants of land within on thile waters of the coastal zone. the three-mile limit, seaward of the pierhead and bulkhead line, special legislation may be required before any oil or gas pipelines can Wetlands Law enter New Jersey's waters from the Baltimore Canyon Trough OCS area." [{Who's in Charge? The inclusion of the Wetlands law as an element of Government Capabilities to Make Enerqv Facility Sitoin Decisions in New Jersey. Princeton Univ., the Plan's legal authorities does little to enhance the 1July 1977) at p.471 ' adequacy of the Plan. As noted previously, the Wetlands On this issue, the report concludes by saying (id. law is very limited geographically and otherwise. p.199): The Wetlands law is special purpose legislation "As noted in Chapter II. the legislature has not delegated to DEP for to any other executive which cannot be integrated into the OCZM's Plan established branch agency) authority to issue riparian grants in the offshore waters of the state, pursuant to CAFPA. outside the pierhead and bulkhead lines. There seems to be no legal question that the state The extension of CAFMA's design strategy to regulate has this power, but as of today it remains in the hands of the legislature itself. To resolve development in delineated wetland is expressly prohibited any uncertainty associated with riparian actions in this critical area - for oil or gas pipelines, by statute: for example - we recommend that the legislature act soon to pass necessary legislation." "The provisions of this act shall not apply to those portions of the coastal zone regulated While proposed legislation to ameliorate this pursuant to enforceable orders under the Wetlands Act, c. 1319A-i et seq., section 16 deficiency is pending before the state Legislature at however shall apply to the entire area within the boundaries described herein." (N.J.S.A. 13119-191 II-IO Clearly, wetlands cannot be included in the segment The DEIS identifies the New Jersey Plan as a subject to the OCZM's policies developed pursuant direct state control or "Technique B" plan. nDEIS, to CAFRA. It is difficult to perceive how, if at p.101 The DEIS cites several statutes as the all, this statute augments the OCZM's alleged sources of authority for this direct state control authority to regulate coastal development. approach: In conclusion, the state does not presently "In particular, the DEP enabling legislation, and the Coastal Area Facility Review Act possess the requisite authority to manage the (CAPRA), Wetlands Act, and riparlan and shore protection statutes, as well as the resources of the entire coastal zone. The state Department of Energy Act, provide a strong mandate and basis for direct State agency has limited authority under three (31 pre-existing involvement in kev decisions involving the coastal region." [DEIS, p.101 (enphanis statutes to veto development in certain areas. added) This segregated authority is restrictive, not As noted previously, CAFrA, the riparian statutes permissive, in nature. As such, it fails to ensure and the Wetlands Act do not provide adequate legal that the stated policies and goals of the CZMA will authority to ensure that the policies of the Plan be achieved as required. will be implemented to achieve the goals of the 2. Does the Plan satisfy the requirements of section CZMA. The OCZM's failure to recognize and account 306(e){l) of the CZMA? for the numerous deficiencies of these statutes is, The CZMA recognizes three (3) control techniques for in and of itself, contra the expressed requirements enforcement of a plan's requirements. (fZMA 306(e)J of the approval regulations. 115 CFtR 923.42(d(3)3 The approval regulations acknowledge that a plan which The approval regulations concerning networking require proposes direct state control may have to rely on various a state Plan to identlfy, state laws and the powers of several executive agencies ()i the extent to which existing, special to comply fully with these regulatory requirements. purpose laws adequately reflect and will be operated in conformity with 15 CFR 923.42(d)l the State'e comprehensive management policiesa 11-12 II-13 m -~ - - - - - m -.I -I - - - (ii) the extent to which and when rules and regu- in the coastal area, the DEIS includes only one 1) draft lations of networked authorities need to be altered; and inter-agency agreement with the DOE. (iii) the extent to which executive orders intra- In view of the limitations of the legal authority departmental or interagency agreements, memoranda of understanding or agreements which the OCZM has chosen to rely upon to implement the are binding and enforceable. [15 CFR 923.42(d)] Plan, it is difficult to perceive how the state opted for Howhere in the DEIS is there an analysis of the extent the "Technique B" approach. The state does not in fact to which special purpose legislation and regulations need have direct control over development in the coastal area. to be altered. Similarly, though the DEIS includes one As the DEIS notes, the statutory authority cited by the (1) unsigned, draft memorandum of understanding, there OCZM is a basis for direct state "involvement" in certain is no evidence in the DEIS that such agreements are legal, decisions involving the coastal area. IDEIS, p.lO Ilow- binding or enforceable under New Jersey law. Notwithstand- ever, this authority is limited by the zoning powers of ing the comments set forth in the approval regulations. each state must determine, for itself. if state law local municipalitiei "The New Jersey Coastal Program can influence other authorizes such agreements between agencies of the levels of government with coastal responsibilities, even though it may have no direct statutory power Executive Branch of government. (See 15 CFR 923.42(d)(4) over their decisions. Municipal and county govern- ments, and regional and interstate agencies have (5).) Furthermore, evidence of the legality of such agree- significant planning and, in some cases, regulatory ments should be included in a state Plan to ensure that roles in the Segment." IDEIS, p.1731 networked authority will achieve the goals of the CZMA. The IS notes that the authority of local governing bodies will continue without change. [DEIS, p.1721 More Finally, the DEIS fails to demonstrate how other state importantly, the DEIS states thats agencies exercising jurisdiction over development in the "A locally approved proposal cannot;be constructed coastal area will be required to exercise their authority without receipt of relevant state jpprovpls, and likewise, a state-approved project must receive in conformance with the state Plan. Although numerous local approvals." (DEIS. p.1721 (emphasis added) other state agencies have jurisdiction over development 11-14 II-15 184 Given this fact, how can the New Jersey Plan be considered exclude land and water uses of a regional benefit." The a direct state control program? approval regulations detail the specifics of what is The OCZM, and the DEIS, confuse state 'involvement" required to meet this statutory mandate. (See 15 CFR with direct state control. Under New Jersey law, the 923.13, 43.) degree of state involvement is limited in two (2) ways. The Plan attempts to define those facilities which First, the state's authority is limited by the existence are deemed to be beneficial to the coastal region as of concurrent zoning powers at the municipal level. required. (DEIS, p.1921 (See 15 CPR 923.13(a)(1).) Secondly, the OCZM's involvement in coastal decisions is At the outset, it should be noted that it is not clear only prohibitive in nature. The OCZM can prohibit if all facilities in the national interest are to be development in the coastal area but it cannot direct considered uses of a regional benefit. This point should development to occur at site which is deemed most prefer- be clarified especially with respect to energy facilities able. which are deemed to have a regional benefit. (See CZMN The OCZM hag recognized this weakness and "is continu- S 306(cl(B).! Furthermore, it would be helpful if the ing to explore the feasibility of new legislation" to list provided were more specific. For example, the remedy this dilemma. IDEIS, p.2451 In view of this phrase "energy facilities using oil" is confusing. Does fatal defect, it is submitted that the New Jersey Plan this include pumping stations or surge tankage7 Or. in cannot be approved as a "Technique B" program. this term restricted to facilities like oil-fired 3. Does the Plan satisfy the requirements of section generating stations? It would also be helpful if the 306(e)(2) of the CZMA? OCZM were to disclose why certain uses were excluded Section 306(e) (2) of the CZMI requires each state to from the definition. e.g. casinos, hospitals, port facili- demonstrate that it has the necessary authority to adopt ties and light or heavy industrial development. These and enforce "a method for assuring that local land and uses undoubtedly have greater than local significance. water use regulations do not unreasonably restrict or 11-16 II-17 -I -es -II - -I -III - -- - More importantly, thile CZMA and the approval regulations has apparently opted for the first technique cited, by require that each state plan include a lawfully adopted listing four (4) basic sources of State authority to provision which provides a method to assure that uses of insure that local regulations will not restrict or a regional benefit will not be excluded or restricted by exclude the defined uses of a regional benefit: local regulations. 115 CFR 923.42(a)J As noted previously, thile Board of Public Utilities (nPU; and under New Jersey law the OCZM is not authorized to override * the power of eminent domain! and local zoning decisions which prohibit or restrict the * the 'fair share" housing guidelines development of uses of a regional benefit. On the contrary, of the Department of Community Affairst and CAFRA expressly preserves the integrity to local zoning * the state's coastal laws. authority and powers. [N.J.S.A. 13:19-191 Thus under The broad definition of public utility set forth in New Jersey law, local governments can exercise absolute the DEIS is misleading. The Board's jurisdiction to veto control over uses of a regional benefit. This too regulate the operations of energy facilities involved was recognized in the previously cited Princeton University in interstate commerce is questionable. The regulatory study (id., p.10), authority of several federal agencies preempts the Board "Under CAFRA, the state may veto a project that received approval at the local level. The from exercising jurisdiction over such activities. (See corollary, however, is not true. That is, the state is not authorized by this law to override N.J.S.A. 48,2-15.) Even the courts in New Jersey have a local government's denial of any project. Thus, while CAFRA is an innovative state statute, recognized this limitation on the Board's power. {See its authority and jurisdiction are restricted." Erie R. Co. v. State 51 N.J. Super 61, 143 A.2d 224 The regulations cite three (31 specific examples of (19581 .! acceptable techniques which may be used to assure that The Board's authority is also limited by virtue of local regulations do not impede the development of uses its statutory grant of authority. The Leqal InventorY of a regional benefit. (15 CFR 923.43(c)1 NeW Jersey 11-19 11-18 186 cites an important case which held that the Board's no mention of the Board, nor does it bind the MC or statutory powers do not make it a statewide planning Board to exercise these powers when necessary. and zoning agency. (in Re VIubl0 agervlce me akid With respect to the other sources of authority cited. Electric 100 N.J. Super 1. Il tl9691.J 1Se1 a several comments need to be offered at this time. First. Lerlel Invent Pry. pp.99-90.) there are no legally enforceable documents in the DEIS The pLeal lnvntor goes an to note that the Supremle which bind the other state agencies cited, notably the Court of new Jersey has held that the Board has a dutY Department of Commuity hffairs (DCM end the Department to achieve an accommodation between energy needs and of Transportation (DOF). to exercise their powers in a local land use needs. U. R lon"mouth Consolidated manner which will assure that uses of a regional benefit Matter Ccaa. 47 Hi 251. 259-60 (19661.1 gifven these limis- will not be unreasonably restricted or excluded by local tions upon the Board's jurisdiction and authority, this regulations. Seccndly. the WCA's authority to enforce agency hardly seems to be equipped to satisfy this the yet to be developed 'fair share" guidelines is requirement of the czVM. doubtful at best. Finally, the DIeS feile to indicate perhaps more Importantly. although the DEIS attempts if any earmarked funds are available to the Oreen Acres to cite some authority to meet this requirement. it fails program which can be used to satisfy this requirement of to provide a method to ensure that the Board will exercise the CZMA its authority in such a way so to Implement the policies In conclusion, the Plan fails to adopt an enforceable and objectives of the Plan. owhere in the proposed method to assure that uses of a regional bennf it will not State regulations is there a provision to be adopted be restricted or excluded by local regulations. At the which specifically prescribes an override mechanism or present time. the state does not possess the requisite conflict resolution mechanism. "lkewtse, the proposed legal authority to satisfy this statutory requirement. memorandum of understanding between the DOr and DEP makes Further connideratiom of any action to approve the Plan 11-20 11-21 -~~~~~~~~i I~~~~~~~- - - - - - - - -I for this Segment must be deferred until this requirement tional structure to Insure that these agencies will can be satisfied- exercise their authority to implement the Plan. The 4. Does the Plan satisfy the requirements of Plan must provide for and adopt a process whereby these sections 305(b) (6) and 306(c) (6) of the CZWM? Sections 305 (b) (6) and 306 (c) (6) require that: each agencies in exercising their authority are effectively integrated into the coastal zone management program. state plan include a description of the organizational Similarly, the DEIS does not include any legal structure proposed to implement the program, including documents which bind these other agencies so that they a delineation of the responsibilities and interrelation- will exercise their authority to implement the policies ships of local, state and regional agencies in the process. and goals of the Plan. This is clearly required by the The approval regulations specify what is required for the approval regulations, and, more specifically, by section Plan to satisfy this requirements 306(e) (2) of the CZtm. (See also 15 CFR 923.4(d)(3).) "In order to fulfill the requirements of sub- sections 305(b)(6) and 306(c) 16) of the Act, Lastly, the DEIS fails to indicate that local and States must describe the organizational structure that will be used to implement and regional agencies have been integrated into the required administer the management program. This description must include a discussion of those organization to implement the Plan. [DEIS, p.172-173J State and other agencies, including local governments, that will have responsibility for This topic will be discussed in greater detail herein- admninistering, enforcing and/or monitoring those authorities or techniques required after. pursuant to the following subsections of the Act: 306(c)(2)(B); 306(c)(7)! 306(d)(1) and The Plan, as proposed, does not adequately describe (2); 306(e)(1) and (2) and 307(f). Further, the State must describe the relationship of the necessary organization to implement this program. these administering agencies to the State agency designated pursuant to subsection As such, the Plan fails to satisfy the requirements of 306(c)(5) of the Act.' 115 CFR 923.45(a)) the CZMN and approval regulations cited herein. The DEIS briefly describes the responsibilities of other state agencies which relate to the Plan. (DEIS, p.170-171) However, it does not describe an organiza- 11-23 11I-22 188 B. Does the Plan include legally adopted. specific policies This requirement is reiterated in section 9_3.3(atl, aid and standards which satisfy all the requirements of the (2) CZMA and approval regulations? "(1) That the management program is comprehensive. Section 305 (b) 2) of the CZEIM requires each state plan It must address and provide for the manage- ment of those significant resources, uses and to identify what shall constitute permissible land and water area that the State lan determined, through its development process and in consultation uses in the coastal zone. For segmented programs, this with all relevant interests as required by the Act and these regulations, make its coastal requirement extends to both approved segments and segments zone a unique, vulnerable or valuable area requiring various forms of managenentr which will be approved in the future. 15 CFR 923.611 (2) That the policies, standards, objectves and Section 306 (c)(1) of the CZwm requires each state plan criteria upon which decisions pursuant to tile program will be based are articulated clear and are sufficiently specific to provide (i) to be adequate to carry out the stated policies and objectives and are sufficiently specific to povide lip a clear understanding of tile content of the of the Act as set forth in section 303. This statutory re- program, especially in identifying who will be affected by the program and how, and (ii) quirement has, in turn, been interpreted to require state a clear sense of direction and predictability for decision-makers who must take actions msanageument programs to be comprehensive, pecific and pursuant to or consistent with tile management ,'--'emt pprogram." (emphasis added) complete. This emphasis on specificity is consistent with Congress' The approval regulations note this requirement repeatedly. intent to autborize the approval of only ione etate plans Section 923.1(c) (2) of the regulations statest which are adequate to achieve the policies and objectives "(c) In summary, the requirements for program approval are that a State develop a management of the CHA. program that ... Additionally, the CZHA requires each management plan (2) Reexamines existing policies or develops new policies to manage these resources. to incorporate the requirements of the clean Air Act and These policies must be specific, compre- hensive and enforceable, and must provide Clean Water Act in the process of developing the management an adequate degree of predictability as to how coastal resources will be managed." program. CZMF 4 307(1f) 1I-24 11-25 m'' -~�R' - -- -- -- -- Lastly, the CZMA expressly requires that management plans , Individuals who are able to secure the services of trained must be "developed and adopted" in accordance with state law. professionals will be able to use this process to assess (CZMA � 306(c)({1) (See also CZMA S 304(11).) the acceptability of a specific site using the CIAM 1. Does the Plan meet the requirements of section method. Those who are unable to afford such assistance 305(b) (2) of the CZMN and the approval regulations? may not be able to gain a clear understanding of the The Plan describes a process to define permissible program. uses in the coastal area. [DEIS. pp.19-1641 It is sub- The most striking deficiency in the program is the mitted that tile CZMA requires a definition of permissible absence of any energy facility siting criteria. This, uses, not just the establishment of a process to deter- undoubtedly, is due to the fact that the DOE laster Plan mine what uses will be encouraged or prohibited. has not yet been adopted. Nonetheless, it is extremely The process developed by the state includes three difficult to assess the impact of this Plan on the (3) steps: energy industry in view. of this failing. * Location PolicSesi and, The location policies, as set forth in the "Water - Use Policies: and, Acceptability Table" require comment. [DEIS, p.451 * Resource Policies. [DtIS. p.22-231 The Plan establishes policies for dredging, yet this Each set of policies set forth in the DEIS is far more activity is not listed in CAFRA as subject to regula- complex than those which were included in the previously tion by the OCZM. (See N.J.S.A. 13119-3(c).) Regard- published Coastal Management Strategy for New Jernev less of this point, dredging of any kind should not be (Strategy) (Sept. 1977). This increased complexity is prohibited outright. Existing and proposed water- probably most evident in the CLAM process. It is very dependent uses should not be deprived of water access. difficult to agree with the statement in the DEIS thats Each application for the construction of a facility "Any interested person should be able to fill in the characteristics of a particular site which requires dredging should be reviewed independently and determine its acceptability under the Coastal Program." (DEIS, p.23) 11-27 11-26 190 to assess the impact of this proposed activity. The reviewed indepndt. There hold be no bn facility's construction should only be prohibited if prohibition of effluent discharge(s) in certain areas. the impact of this activity is deemed unacceptable. with regard to the Plan's use policies. again the The prohibition of pipeline development in certain most striking deficiency is the absence of the Depart- water areas does not appear to be valid or practical. sent of Energy's Master Plan. This will be discussed Pipeline construction in these areas will result in in detail hereinafter. temporary environmental disruption. However, the pro- The policy with respect to onshore support bases hibition of pipeline construction in certain areas is too restrictive. This use is not encouraged any- would not appear to be warranted in all cases. practically where in the Bay and Ocean Shore segment. While this speaking, such prohibitions may preclude the development type of supply activity is unique to the oil and gas of pipeline corridors along preferred routes. It is industry, it is not unlike similar water-related uses recommended that there be no blanket prohibitions of which are presently operating in ports within this pipeline construction in any water areas at this time. area. It is important to note that such a facility may similarly, the prohibition of effluent dischargeis) also serve as a storage site for spill containment and in certain water areas is also overly restrictive. If cleanup equipment. It is especially important that such these criteria are used to review consistency certifi- equipment be located in close proximity to the current cations for existing NPDES permits. numerous dischargers and proposed lease sites. In shott, it is recommended in the state would be required to modify their effluent that this use be encouraged at suitable sites in the handling facilities. similarly, otherwise acceptable Segment. development may be precluded by virtue of these prohibi- The policy with respect to oil refineries should tions. Each application for the construction of a define what is meant by the terms "expansion" and facility with a point source discharge should be "modification." hdditionally, this policy should reflect the need to consider the national interest in lI-29 _ possible refinery expansion proposals. II-29 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m The policy concerning storage facilities is in some Tfhpentr As it is presently written, this policy would be inter- respects unenforceable. The Plan attempts to regulate preted as banning deepwater prts of the New Jersey preted as banning deepWater ports off the New Jersey uses outside the coastal zone by banning all new storage Coast: facilities from sites outside of the port areas of "New tanker terminals will be discouraged on New york/New Jersey and the Delaware River. The OCZM other parts of the coast, including the by and Ocean Shore Segment." [DEIS, p.145 clearly does not have the authority to ban such uses Finally, the Plan does not include any use policies in areas outside of their jurisdiction. This policy with respect to ocean dumping, dredging and dredge spoil should include an expressed exemption for small tankage disposal. In view of the importance of these uses, the required to refuel vessels and underground tankage OCZM is urged to adopt policies regarding whether, or required at service stations. Furthermore, the policy required at service stations. Furthermore the policy under what conditions, these activities will be permitted should define the term "hazardous liquid substances." to take place in the coastal zone, rather than include The policy with respect to surge tankage should be -~. these issues in the Location Policies. reconsidered. This policy should permit the construction The Resource Policies, which were more appropriately of such facilities in the Segment when it is necessary referred to as performance standards in the previously or when no other site is acceptable for this purpose. published Strateqy, require greater specificity to bring Given the overly restrictive policy regarding storage them into compliance with the requirements of the facility construction, surge tankage would be prohibited approval regulations. These policies, or more properly virtually anywhere along the most likely pipeline performance standards, must be sufficiently explicit corridors. to indicate what uses will be permitted in the Segment Does the Use Policy concerning tanker terminals and under what conditions. pertain to deepwater port construction? If so, the pertain to deepwater port construction? If so, the The failure to include the permit processing regula- policy should specify that it applies to such facilities. tions and permit decisions in the Plan is, in part, 11-31 11-30 an ' ment plan. The approval regulations recognize this responsible for uncertainty concerning what specific requirement but apparently fail to grasp thle aignifi- conditions will be imposed on development in they ignifi- cance of this statutory mandate: Segment. The Plan, as proposed. must include all of "With respect to the document submitted for the materials relied upon by the OCZM to evaluate the approval, it is sufficient that the program state that the requirements of the FWPc compatibility of specific proposals with the Resource state that the minimum water and air pollu- tion control requirements applicable to the Policies, as well as specify what conditions must be management program and are incorporated by reference." 115 CFR 923.44{c)(1)] met to initiate development. The failure to include This regulation goes on to state: these documents in the Plan and DEIS circumvents the This regulaton goes an to state Incorporation of the air and water quality CZMa's requirement of full public knowledge of and requirements should involve their considera tion during program develpumint, especiallY participation in the Plan's development. jCZM\ S 306nations and designation of areas for .special management." (c) (1)1 This failing also deprives interested parties a (mphasis added of an opportunity to review what specific conditions The legislative history of the CZMA evidences Congress' must be met to comply with the otherwise general intent to ensure that these legal requirements were requirements of the Resource policies. factored into and considered in the process of develop- In conclusion, further refinement. greater specificity ing an approvable management plan. and the inclusion of certain key documents in the Plan Section 307(f) had its genesis in the legislation is required to satisfy this requirement of the approval which was enacted in 1972. (See istory regulations. �fi ffi __ _/_a Amended regulations. .of the Coastial _one ManaZ-ment Actof 1972--as---mended 2. Does the Plan meet the requirements of section in 19 and 1976, Senate Comm. on Commerce, Dec. 197).) in 197 and The Conference Committee amended the entire bill and 307( if) of the CZHA?7 pursuant to section 307(f) of the CZMA, each state The conference Committee amended the entire bill and substituted a compromise !louse bill in its stead. The plan must incorporate the requirements of the Clean Air substituted a omprome e bill In Its otead. Tile compromise Ilouse bill included the now section 307(f), Act and the Clean Hater Act in its coastal zone manage- 11-32 11-33 _- ,_ _193 _- _ _- _- __'193 problems which have led to New Jersey's designation as which was, in effect, embodied 1i section 307(e) of the prob s wih have led to ew ersey's designation as a non-attainment area, particularly for hydrocarbons original House bill. With regard to this provision, ~~~~~~~~the House report stated: ~and photochemical oxidant precursors. the 11ouse report stated: Development of this type obviously will increase "Those laws [OVA and CWA] continue to apply, and the specific requirements as to their air pollution from "indirect sources", yet the Plan implementation must be taken into account in the develolment of the States' programs." ithdeeomnofteStes'_.._pY29rams." includes no enforceable provisions to mitigate these [supra, p.2341 (emphasis added) Theact temhatthisprvis to found in thctionproblems. On the contrary, one (1) of the basic coastal The fact that this provision is found in the section policies encourages the concentration of development in which concerns interagency coordination and cooperation pic i noute crat i olti a manner which will undoubtedly create air pollution and the national consistency requirements is no accident. problems and may have a significant impact on water This represents a conscious choice to elevate our quality. Uation's air and water resources to their proper places quality. The Plan should be re-evaluated to account for and resources in the national interest. resoues trulyheaniongfal itheeiretsofthe incorporate these crucial factors in the program planning To be truly meaningful, the requirements of the OVA and development process. Until such time as these and CWA must be considered and factored into the planning important factors are incorporated in the planning and process used to develop the management plan. Upon review- mportat factors are ncorporated in the planning and development of the program, the Plan fails to satisfy ing the Plan's Use Policies, especially those set forth this requirement of the CZarP. in the housing, resort and transportation sections, it this requirement of the C . Additionally, it should be noted that the failure is apparent that the requirements of the CAA have notttonide ths the p s v to consider these factors in the Plan'sB development been adequately considered in the process of developing tseris d s n the a' devono casts serious doubts on the OCZM'S consideration of the program. [DEIS, pp.133-150] the planrnougrage s dvelopment DI the co asfacilities in the national interest. The consideration The Plan encourages development in the coastal zone which will admittedly exacerbate those air pollution given to the siting of energy facilities in the coastal which will admittedly exacerbate those air pollution K) 1-35 II-34 194 zone, which are in the national interest, is seriously z C. Does the Plan define the boundary of the entire coastal zone deficient if such development would be precluded in the as required by section 305(b)l1) of the CZWM7 future due to inadequate consideration of these factors Section 3051b)(l) of the CZMA requires each state to in the development of the Plan. With the existing identify the boundary of the coastal zone as defined by the development pressures in the Segment, especially in Act. (See CZMA 304(1).) The DEIS. however, does not define Atlantic City, adoption of the Plank' proposed Use and adopt a boundary for the entire coastal zone for under Policies will undoubtedly preclude future energy facility New Jersey law this power rests in the Legislatures hands. development from occurring, while degrading the air and The need to define and adopt the inland boundary for the water resources of this area at an alarming rate. entire coastal zone is extremely important. A comment in the 3. Does the Plan meet the requirements of section approval regulation perhaps best illustrates why this require- 306{c)(1} of the CZMA? ment must be satisfied prior to any action to approve the Plan. Section 306{c)(1) of the CZMA requires the substan- "The primary purpose in defining the coastal zone tive requirements of each State plan be 'developed and boundary is to assist coastal residents and property owners, resource users and governmental adopted" before approval. HNeA has proposed approving entities to understand the geographic scope of the management program and to assist them in the New Jersey Plan, but the Plan has yet to be adopted determining whether, where and how they are affected by the program. Accordingly, it is by the state. This proposed federal action is violative anticipated that the program submission should contain maps, charts or other graphics appropriate of this expressed requirement of the CZMW. Submittal to understanding the provisions and geographic scope of the management program." 115 CFR 923.31 of the New Jersey Plan for approval should be deferred (f)l until its substantive provisions are fully enforceable Since the Plan does not include a definition of the by virtue of their lawful adoption in accordance with boundary for the entire coastal zone, it fails to satisfy the requirements of state law, the requirements of the CZMn and the approval regulations. D. Does the Plan satisfy the requirements of section 306(c) () of the czMr and the approval regulations? Section 306(c)18) of the CZWM provides that, prior to 11-36 approving a state's management program, the Secretary must 11-37 * _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __195 - m mm I m m - - m find that the plan "provides for adequate consideration of are necessary to meet requirements that are more than local in nature) during program implementa- the national interest in planning f and in the iting of tion, including a clear and detailed description the national interest in planning for, and inof the administrative procedures and decision of the administrative procedures and decision facilities (including energy facilities in, or which signi-ts where such interests can be considered. 115 CFR 923.52(b)J ficantly affect, such state's coastal zone) which are neces- Furthermore, as to energy facilities each state plan must: wary to meet requirements which are other than local in "(11 Consider any applicable interstate energy plan nature." It is submitted that the approval regulations, of program developed pursuant to section 309 of the Actt and which merely require the establishment of a process to con- (2) Meet the requirements for an energy facility Sider the national interest, do not satisfy this requirement planning process pursuant to the requirements of S 923.14, except that, of the CZMr. The CZM7 mandates that all agencies with permit- (i) States with a-management program ting authority in the coastal zone must consider the national approved prior to October 1, 1978, that do not meet the requirements interest in their decision-making, not just establish a of subsection 305(b)(8) of the Act shalls process to consider such uses. The approval regulations, how- ) ) Describe existing or developing ever, specifically require that each state plan: management to energy facility planning and siting; and "(1) Describe which national interests in the planning for and siting of facilities (which are necessary (B) Describe briefly the status of to meet requirements that are more than local in the planning process required nature) were considered during program development pursuant to subsection 305(b)(8) and the sources relied upon for such consideration: of the Act. 15 CFR 923.52(c) (2) Indicate how and where the consideration of these Thus, each state plan must develop and adopt a program which national interests is reflected in the substance of the management program including, where appro- satisfies or will satisfy these requirements of the CZ~i. priate, indication of when and where national interests in identified facilities may compete or (CZMX 5 306(c)(1)) conflict with other national interests in coastal resource conservation. In cases of such conflict, The DEIS describes the resources and facilities in the the program shall indicate how the conflict has been or can be weighed and resolved national interest, and briefly indicates where identified (3) Describe a process for continued consideration of national interest facilities may conflict with the concomi- identified national interests (in facilities which C II-39 11-38 iqr6 tant interest in preserving and protecting national interest /-~ state. Subsequent proposed development of facilities in resources in the coastal zone. IDEIS, pp.177-1861 There are the national interest may be precluded from the coastal Inconsistencies evident in this discussion, notably with region or, for that matter, the entire state. This points regard to maintaining air quality in the coastal zone. The up both the need to consider this crucial resource in the preservation and "allocation" of thin one resource impacts development of the plan and establish a more comprehensive upon the other national interests and the Use Policies process for continued consideration of national interest identified in the Plan. However, the failure to consider issues. this important factor adequately raises serious doubts The DEIS describes the proposed process to consider the regarding the adequacy of the oCZ11's consideration of other national interest on a continued basis. {DEIS, p.1771 The national interest resources and uses in and of the coastal proposed process is not adequate to satisfy the requirements zone. ! of the CZMh. First, it must be noted that the CAFPA permit For example, the proposed Use Policies permit certain procedures are not included in the Plan document. Secondly, OcS-related activities to locate in the Segment, as well as, the permit process by itself does not consider the full range other areas of the coastal zone. Nonetheless, other Use of factors which must be analyzed collectively and cumulatively Policies, regarding uses which are not in the national as development takes place in and affecting the coastal zone. interest, encourage development in these same areas which The permit review process is limited to an analysis of dis- will result in emissions which will exacerbate the state's crete development projects. It is unclear what, if any, inter- existing air quality problems. Thus, emission increments relationship there will be between the Plan's proposed national for the purposes of PSD permits may be exhausted by encouraged interest considerations and this review procedure. Discrete development which is not of national concern and/or such projects by themselves may be deemed acceptable, yet there is development may cumulatively contribute to the future non- no overall process to relate these individual proposals to the attainment status of air quality in the Segment and the much broader national interest considerations. Finally the II-40 11-41 - * m uW I - - - m rn m m - - - - - statements of national interest are not in whole included does not include a "clear and detailed description of the as legally adopted, enforceable elements of the Plan. administrative procedures and decision points where such The DEIS also notes that the OCZM has interpreted the interests can be considered." (15 CFR 923.52(b)13)} The phrase "public welfare" in the CAFRA statute to assure that Plan must be revised to include an adopted, legally enforce- the national interest will be considered as described in the able and comprehensive process to consider the national program. [DEIS, p.1771 However, this phrase is extremely interest which is clearly detailed and specific. limited in its scope. CRFMA is purely a creature of state The CAFPPA, Riparian and Wetlands laws provide an admini- law. As such, the state's interest in its inhabitants' strative appeal of any permit decision by the state. [See public welfare cannot transcend the state's federal constl- DEIS, pp.174-1751 The DEIS does not indicate if these tutional limitations. CGFRA is quite clear in indicating appellate bodies are authorized by law to resolve "disputes what public's welfare it is concerned withi which involve national interest use and resource protection "The Legislature finds and declares that ..- conflicts" as required. 115 CFR 923.52(h)! Nor does the certain portions of the coastal area are now suffering from serious adverse environmental plan include these national interest considerations as effects ... that would preclude ... uses which ... are in the best long term social, expressed, legally adopted and enforceable provisions of economic, aesthetic and recreational interests of all people of the State# ... it is in the state law which could be reviewed by these bodies if they interest of the people of the State that all the coastal area should be dedicated to those are authorized to do so. The Plan must satisfy this require- kinds of uses which promote the public health, safety and welfare ...'" NJSA 13z19-21 ment before approval by the Secretary. (emphasis added) The DEIS does not adequately describe the status of The permit review process is a response mechanism which current OCZM-sponsored energy facility planning programs as is extremely limited in scope and purpose. This proposed required. (15 CFR 923.52(c)(2)(i1) The DEIS briefly notes review procedure is not an adequate process to consider the that the Department of Energy is preparing a Master Plan national interest on a continued basis, and it is doubtful which "will become a primary resource for energy facility if it could ever serve this purpose. The process as described I1-43 11-42 198 siting decisions by DE&P." (VEIS. p.1711 Surely these bilportant At the outset, It must be noted that several point% programs deserve more Ink titan this and Mont assuredly even require clarification. The Plan should clearly indicate this very brief description falls to satisfy this requirement wile" or If msodifications and renewals of federal Permits Or of the CZW% end the approval regulations. MS ~ plans will require a consistency Certification. While in conclusion, the Plan does not satisfy this requirement the Plan's consistency review is extended to certain activi- of the cZiIA, nor does It even mpet the less stringent require- ties In a seventeen county Brea, it fails to specify Whether ments of the approval regulations. ~~~~such activities are included in this category. [DEIS, p.1871 P. floops the Pla~n satisfy the requirements of sections 307tc) and The ocZ14 should reconsider the boundary of the area In which (d) of the C7MA and the approval regulations? Section 307 (c) (31 (A)P of the CzMv requires applicants atvte ilr~ieacnitnycriiain h for federal licenses or permits for activities which affect area, as defined. is large and densely populated and the OczM the costal one t apped to heir aplicaion~s ~ cetifi-will be inundated with many federal assistance and parmit cation that the proposed activity complies with the state's applications filed by parties in this area. It to suggested approved program and that such activity, will be conducted inta hsae edcesdIn sz rta h CI eii amanner consistent with the program., a similar provision the number and types of federal permit which must be reviewed applies to governmental agencies' applications for federal f rcnitny assistance. JC1 5 307(d)l The approval regulations requireThD15ntsht blcnieadpulceris that each adopted state plan Include 'the provisions they will be provided purgsuat to the plan. Iflor'S, p.l871 Duty will use to -implenent the Federal consistency requirements, adopted regulations should be promulgated to implement thisl of the CMM. (11 CFIR 923.53 la)) specific requirement of the MMi4. The DEIS provides a brief description of the plan*s con_ It is submitted that duty adopted regillations should be Z'stencY review PX01me'sm. JIDETS. pp.M-1871Itdetfs ncluded In the Plan to reveal to Interested parties! the federal ctivities. lcenses and prmits which ill 1,~ * Wat Information will be required the federal acivities. licenes and permitswbicb will, befor consistency reviews? subject to review by the 0CFH. Joel$, pp.187-1921 IT-4S 11-44~ ~~~~9 m m m - - - m m - - - ma * Who will conduct consistency reviews? a schedule to expedite the consistency review process. (See 15 * How will these reviews be conducted? CFR 930.59.) The inclusion of such a provision in the Plan * flow and when mediation will be would appear to be consistent with New Jersey's stated policy utilized? to coordinate and expedite the permit review process at the * What specific criteria will be examined to certify to the consistency of a state level. federal activity? F. Does the Plan satisfy the requirements of sections * What time frame will be prescribed to 306(c) (2) (A) and (B) of the CZH7? complete the review process? Sections 306(c)(2)(A) and (B) require the Secretary to (See 15 CFR 930, Subpart D.) find that: The last two (2) questions posed are especially important "The State hass (A) coordinated its program with both to the potential applicant and interested parties. The local, areawide, and interstate plans applicable to areas within the coastal zone existing on DEIS does not indicate what specific criteria will be used to January 1 of the year In which the state's manage- ment program is submitted to the Secretary, which conduct a consistency review. If the OCZGM intends to utilize plans have been developed by a local government, and areawide agency designated pursuant to regula- the Plan's coastal policies to conduct consistency reviews, tions established under section 204 of the Demonstra- tion Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, these policies must be reviewed and revised. In their current a regional agency, or an interstate agency ... (B) established an effective mechanism for continuing form, these policies would severely restrict and even preclude consultation and coordination between the management agency designated pursuant to paragraph (5) of this essential activities in the specified 'consistency" area. For section and with local governments, interstate agencies within the coastal zone to assure the full example, the Location Policies would prohibit essential main- participation of such local governments and agencies in carrying out the purposes of this titles ..." tenance dredging in the entire coastal zone. It is recommended The DEIS identifies those local and regional agencies that these policies be revised or that the Plan include which the OCZM has been in contact with regarding the Plan. separate, specific criteria for consistency reviews. IDEIS, pp.172-1731 It also discusses the history of the Finally, consideration should be given to the establish- OCZM's involvement with representatives of local governments. ment of a multiple permit review procedure and/or a mandatory (DEIS, pp.247-249] Unfortunately, the DEIS omits any reference 11-46 I1-47 to various agencies, boards and commissions of the state which must be entered into to bind such agencies to act in a minner possess statewide or regional planning or regulatory powers whidl is consistent with the Plan. and which influence or affect development in the Coastal Zone, The CZMA and the approval regulations also require each for example, the Economic Development Authority, the State adopted plan to include an effective mechanism to notify local Health Council, the Mortgage Finance Agency, etc. The OCZM governments of any management program decision, as defined, must also coordinate the Plan with the ongoing programs which conflicts with any local toning regulations. jCZf% administered by such agencies. S 306(cl) 2)(B)1 (See also 15 CFR 923.47(a).) The Plan does The approval regulations also require each State Plan to, not include a duly adopted procedure to establish such a "Identify conflicts with those plans of a regulatory process which is enforceable under Hew Jersey law. 115 CFR nature that are unresolved at the time of program submission and the means that will be used to 923.57(f)(1)l resolve these conflicts." l15 CFR 923.561a)12)1 (emphasis added) In conclusion, the Plan fails to satisfy the noted sub- The DEIS does not identify any such conflicts with local, stantive and procedural requirements of the CZMW and the regional or interstate plans. This is an extremely crucial approval regulations. These deficiencies must be rectified oversFight or failing, especially in light of the current before any action is taken to approve the Plan at this time. autonomous zoning authority of local governments. The DEIS G. Does the Plan satisfy the requirements of section 306(c)(4) of the CZMA and the approval regulations? notes that there may be conflicts between the Plan and local Section 306(c)(4) of the CZMN provides that prior to toning regulations which the OCZM is powerless to rectify approval of any state plan the Secretary must find that at this time but fails to indicate how such conflicts may be "the management program and any changes thereto have been resolved in the future. {DEIS, p.173) Further, the OCZM reviewed and approved by the Governor." The approval regula- apparently has been unable to reach the stage of identifying tions specifically require that the Plan must include docu- such conflicts with regional and Interstate agencies. [supral mentation to the effect that the Governorf It is submitted that the CZMi requires that lawful agreements rr-48 11-49 m m - - - - m - ml - "(1) Has reviewed and approved as State policy the management program, and any changes thereto, management program, and any changes thereto, }However, the Plan otherwise does not provide a description submitted for the approval of the Assistant subdminsttedfors the approval of the ttof the Master Plan and how it relates to the status of the Administrator; developing OCZM energy facility planning process as required. (2) Has designated a single State agency to receive and administer implementation grantsl and administer implementation grants; [15 CFR 923.52(c)) In view of the overlapping interests of (3) Attests to the fact that the state has the authorities necessary to implement the manage these two state agencies, the Plan should include a more authorities necessary to implement the manage- ment program; and explicit description of how the Haster Plan will relate to {4) Attests to the fact that the State is organized to implement the management program. 15 CR the OCZM's efforts to fulfill this requirement. Additionally, to Implement the management program.' [15 CFR 923.47(a)) the Plan should provide a more thorough discussion of the No such documentation is included in or with the Plan. status of the development of this OCZM planning process. Suffice it to say, no action to approve this Plan can be The DEIS merely notes that the "DEP and DOE will take steps taken until the necessary documentation is provided by the to conduct a joint Major Energy Facility Study." [DEIS, Governor. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Governor. ~p.l971 The completion of this crucial element is required H. Does the Plan satisfy the requirements of section 3051b)(8) of the CZMA and approval rfigulatiOns? by October 1. What steps must be taken and when will they 305{b){86) of the CZt'V and approval regulations? Section 305(b) (8) of the CZMW requires each state plan to be completed? The approval regulations clearly require the OCZM to include "a planning process for energy facilities likely to The approval regulations clearly require the oczm to be located in the coastal zone," however, no management program develop a separate and unique planning process to accommodate must meet this requirement before October 1, 1978. {CZM energy facilities in the coastal zone. 115 CFR 923.14(a) S~~~~~ 306(>~~~(b)(1~5)}1~ ~It remains to be seen if such a process can be established � 306(b) (5)) The New Jersey Plan does not include this element in the in a timely manner, given the duality of state agency program. The DEIS notes that the Department of Energy is functions and the complexity of the task. preparing a Master Plan which "will become a primary resource The absence of any significant comment(s) regarding this for energy facility siting decisions by the DEP." DEIs, p.171 requirement may be due, in part, to the Legislature's recent efforts to enact legislation to assign the energy facility II-50 siting function to the Department of Energy and authorize NII. Does the DEIS satisfy the requirements of 4EPI and the guide- lines adopted to implement the objectives and policies of this it to exercise certain attendant powers. On June 1, 1978, legislation? the Senate of the State of New Jersey passed an Administra- NEPA Imposes several substantive and procedural require- tion-backed measure which would significantly alter the ments upon federal agencies to consider the impact(s) of existing authorities of and relationship between the Depart- proposed actions in order to ensure that careful consideration ment of Energy and OCZM. (5-1179! is given to the environmental implications of major federal The enactment of this legislation would undoubtedly initiatives. 142 USC 4321 et seq.) The most important of diminish the OCZH's powers in this regard by shifting the these is the requirement to prepare a detailed environmental decision-making authority for energy facility siting to impact statement to assess and review 'every major Federal another agency of state government. (See 3-1179, Sections action affecting the quality of the human environment." 18, 19. 20, 25 and 31.) This legislation has some desirable [42 U.S. 4332(s6) CI) Calvert Cliffs' coord. Con. v. U.S., provisions concerning using the power of eminent domain to 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 19711) acquire state-owned riparian lands out to three mile limit At the outset, it would be helpful to review the courts' for energy facility development and, the establishment of a views concerning the purpose of the NEPA process and this mechanism to override local zoning decisions. However, enact- impact statement requirement. It is an acknowledged fact ment of this legislation would require extensive-time-consum- that the requirements of NEPA were established specifically ing changes to crucial aspects of the Plan. to effectuate substantive changes in the decision-making The CZMA requires that before a state management plan is processes employed by Federal agencies. (See ..I.. v. approved, it must be complete. tCZiM S 305ld) In view of Butz, 498 F.2d 1314 8th Cir. En Bane, 1974.) The courts this impending action, which would significantly affect the have gone so far as to note that the requirements of NEPA proposed Plan, it is evident that this critical part of the were designed to counter an agency's inevitable bias in program is far from complete. Approval of this program should favor of a proposal which it has developed or recommended. (See EDF v. Corps of Enc., 470 F.2d Oth cir. 1972.) I1-52 * _ - _ _ _ _ _, _ _ ._203 - beefrre ti oriate amendments to the plan can be The NEPA process was established both to sensitize and developed and implemented as necessary. with the advent hance of OCS exploration efforts, and hopefully some day resource of OCS ploratio efforts, and hopefully Borne day resource the interested public in decisions to initiate major federal development activities, full approval of Octhis explorlan atr thetisr development ctiities, full aproval of this lan at this action(s). Thus, it is absolutely essential that an impact tvelouldmbeunwite andcpertir Approvaitul Iostaf the programvide a decisin-maker with a "detailed and care- including the granting of consistency powers, would result ful analysis f te relative environmental and oio in irreparable economic harm to many affected parties left merits and demerits of the proposed action. merits and demerits of the proposed action." I~DC v. na1ot to cope with changing authorities, requirements and policies 524 F.2d 79, 92 (2nd. Ci. 1972). 524 F.2d 79, 92 (2nd. Coro 1972). While perfection is not as these state agencies grappled with implementing this legis- required, "nothing less than a lation and re-developing many crucial elements of the Plan. lation and elping many crucial elements of the plan. fulfill the law. EDF v. Froehike, 473 F.2d 346, 350 (Sth Cir. On the other hand, if the Legislature does not enact this 1972). (See also ca1e eird Club v. laird, 359 F.Supp. legislation the OCZM must include an energy facility siting 404, 411-412 (W.D.Va.) aff'd. 484 F.2d 453 (4 Cir. 1973).) process in the Plan by October 1, 1978. To date , there is i proce in the plan by October 198. o dte there is An impact statement must also provide "sufficient informa- nothing in the Plan to indicate what is the current status of tion and material, contemplated by Congress, in a form suit- this developing planning process and it is doubtful that thisers able for the enlightenment of others concerned" with regard requirement can be satisfied in a timely fashion. to the impacts of the proposed action. HRAD v. Horton, 458 F.2d 827, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1972). Environmentalist commenta- tors appear to concur with the holding in the Gillham Dam case which established the following standard to evaluate the adequacy of impact analysis by an EIS: "At the very least NEPA is an environmental full disclosure law The "detailed state- Ient" required 102(2 C should, at a 111-2 11-53 204 minimum, contain such information as will alert the President, the Council on Fnviron- (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commit- mental Quality, the public and, indeed, the ments of resources which would be involved congress, to all known possible environmental in tEe proposed action should It be i.ple- consequences of proposed aqency action." ented. 42 4332E11)C)) v, Corps of Enq.. 325 F.Supp. 728, 759 (E.D. Ark., 1971)1 {See Rogers, 'The National The guidelines established by the council on Environmental Environmental Policy Act," Federal Environmental ~nvironrnentsl I'oLaw, ELFederal envo1974ne.n Quality {CEO) expand upon these requirements and detail what Law, ELI(1974).) However, an impact statement must not only "catalog environ- is specifically required to fulfill the mandate of NEPA. mental facts," but it should also explain fully the underlying (See 40 CFn 1500.1 The CEq's requirements are embodied reasoning and conclusions in order for the courts and the in the approval regulations which require the followingt general public to assess and critically evaluate the agency's "(1) A description of the proposed actions decision. EDF v. Froehlke. supra, 473 F.2d at 3511 Fly v. (2) A description of the environment affected� Velde, 451 F.2d 1130, 1139 (4th Cir. 1971). 13) The relationship of the proposed action to land and water use plans, policies, and In short, an impact statement must provide an unbiased controls for the areal analysis of detailed facts regarding all known environmental 14) The probable impact of the proposed action on the environment! impacts of a proposed federal action, and, the statement I5) Alternatives! must provide an agency's reasoning and conclusions regarding (6) Probable adverse environmental effects its decision to proceed on its chosen course. NEPA requires that a detailed impact statement address: (7) The relationship between local, short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance ("i) the environmental impact of the proposed and enhancement of long-term productivity! action, {8) Irrevocable or lrretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the (11) any adverse environmental effects which proposed action should be Involved Aente cannot be avoided should the proposal be proposed action should it be implementedy and cannot be avoided should the proposal be Implemented, (9) Consultation and coordination with others." (111) alternatives to the proposed action, (15 CFR 923.62(a)] (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the mainten- 111-4 ance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and 111-3 mmm m mm _ m m -_ _.r -- Some comment must be addressed the the requirement to Admittedly, there is a difference of legal opinion regard- Some ommet mut be adressed the the requirement to describe the proposed action. g15 CFR 923.62(a)(l) The ing when it is appropriate to begin the NEPA process. However, describe the proposed action. [15 CFR 923.62(a}(1}! The federal action proposed is the approval of the New Jersey in this instance, it is abundantly clear that the CZMA requires Plan, as set forth in Chapter 3 of the DEIS. The CZMM re- a state plan to be firmly in place before consideration can be quires that each state plan be "developed and adopted" given to its approval. before approval by the Secretary. ICZMN 5 306(t)(1)) The As it stands now, this proposed federal action is too statutory definition of the term "management program" rein- tentative to enable one to assess its impacts. Interested forces this interpretation since this phrase is defined as parties are being asked to evaluate the effects of a proposed "a comprehensive statement" which has been "adopted by the federal action concerning a proposed state action. In some ~~~State." J~CZM~~A~ S 304(11)1~ ~instances this might be acceptable, but given the many changes State." (CZMA 5 304 (11)J Although the current approval regulations are silent on contemplated by the OCZM, impending substantive changes in the this requirement, the former regulations interpreted this to Legislature and the numerous deficiencies which must be ~~~~~~~~~~~~mean that:-~ remedied, one must ask - "Evaluate what?" mean that~ "The management program has been formally For example, how does one evaluate the impact of the Plan adopted in accordance with state law or, in its absence, administrative regulations." when' (15 CFR 923.31(a) (1), 40 FR 1683, 1691 (Jan. 9, 1975)| the boundary is not defined{ and, The substantive provisions of the Plan have not yet been * the Plan falls to indicate how or where federal consistency procedures will be adopted in accordance with state law. (See NJSA 52s145-1t appled and what criteria will be used to evaluate these other activities{ and, et seq.) The CZMA clearly includes this requirement and the the Plan doe not nclude the E aster �the Plan does not Include the DOE Maister plan which will be the basis for energy approval regulations mandate that the Secretary find that facility siting decisions. facility siting decisions. the requirements of the CZAR have been satisfied. [15 CFR the requirements of the c have been satisfied. 15 In view of these facts, the DBIS analysis of this proposal 923.72(a)l must be considered inadequate on its face. Presently the 111-5 ' _1-6 20611- 206 many of these requirements have not or cannot be satisfied New Jersey Plan has not been adopted in accordance with state under New Jersey law, notably thlose pertaining to the ldenti- law as required. It is submitted that this fact alone requires fication of legal authorities, authorities related to uses the deferral of the initiation of the DEIS process and the of a regional benefit, and plan coordination. Clearly, the approval process, until the Plan satisfies this basic require- Plan's failure to meet tile substantive requirements of the ment of the CZMA and NEVA. CZMA and adequately discuss these deficiencies in the DEIS The DEIS stipulates to the fact that the Plan does not evidences the fact that this requirement of NEPA and the define the entire coastal zone as required. IDEIS, p.2631 approval regulations has not been satisfied. This deficiency makes it impossible for the DEIS to provide Similarly, the analysis of the soclo-economic and environ- an adequate "description of the environment affected." 115 mental impact(s) of this proposed action is superficial at CFR 923.62(a) (2)}) This failing is especially frustrating best. This is especially evident in the discussion concern- since it makes it impossible to assess the impact of the ing the socio-economic effects of the Plan. The DEIS raises Plan's policies on the resources and uses in the other seg- numerous issues and offers many unsupported conclusions, but ments. Suffice it to say that until the boundary of the it falls to provide any facts concerning, entire coastal zone is delineated and adopted, the Plan cannot * the increased costs of new developmenti and satisfy this fundamental requirement of the approval regula- * the costs and benefits of encouraging high tions. density developments and. The DEIS does not adequately discuss the "relationship * the full range of effects upon future economic development in the Segment and throughout the of the proposed action to land and water use plans, policies etatel and and controls." (15 CPR 923.62(a)13)1 in a comment, the - the increased public costs for the maintenance and development of recreation-related facillt- approval regulations Indicate that this requirement may be ties and the development of public transporta- tion facilities in the coastal area! and, satisfied by cross-referencing certain hey elements of the ; the increased costs of public infrastructure Plan. l15 CFR 923.62(c)(3)1 However, an was noted previously, development in the coastal area, notably water, transportation and sewerage facilities. The assessment of environmental impacts is also lacking. The DEIS fails to consider one Important programatic The DEIS fails to discuss or analyze the environmental implica- alternative to the proposed approval of this segmented plan tions of the basic coastal policy which encourages concentrated preliminary approval. (See CZMh S 305(d).) One may choose rather than dispersed development. As noted previously, this to rebut this contention by asserting that this alternative policy in conjunction with the Use Policies would appear to is not available under the circumstances. (See 15 CFR 923.74 be inconsistent with many of the statutory objectives of the (f).} However, this rebuttal assumes that the Plan Is CAA. Yet, this obvious significant impact is glossed over in eligible for segmented approval. The alternative of prelimin- the DEIS. Similarly, the DEIS does not analyze the effect of ary approval must be fully discussed especially since it concentrated development upon the water resources of the would appear that this is the only viable alternative to coastal area. This must be remedied to determine if the basic ensure the continued development and ultimate completion of thrust of the Plan's policies will indeed preserve and enhance the Plan. Additionally, it should be noted that there is the coastal environment. At present, the DEIS In replete with legal precedent to support the position that an agency must conclusions but there is a paucity of facts and analysis which even discuss alternatives which are beyond its powers to indicate that these conclusions are supported by empirical implement at this time. (See NRDC v. Morton. 458 F.2d 27, evidence. 035 (D.C. Cir. 1972).) The failure to consider this It must also be noted that the DEIS is addressed only to important alternative to this proposed federal action is a the direct effects of the proposed action. It does not address fatal deficiency. This alternative must be recognized and the secondary or indirect consequences of the Plan's many far- discussed fully to satisfy this requirement of NEPA. (See reaching policies. This analysis is clearly required by the Township of So. Brunswick v. N.J. Turn. Auth., 129 N.J. Super guidelines established by the CBO. (40 CFR 1500.8(a)3)(ii) 126, 322 A.2d 478, 482 (1974).) The DEIS does not consider alternatives to any of the The discussion regarding the environmental and socio-economic The DEIS doe not consider alternatives to any of the impact of the proposed action requires the presentation of Plan's policies as required. (See NRDC V. ERDa 11 ERC 1607 more factual and analytical material not merely conclusions (1978).) At minimum, alternatives to the Basic Coastal which are unsupported by any record. " III-10 111-9 208 Lastly, the DEIS must discuss the OC, H's efforts to con- Policies and Use Policies should be posed and examined in st w nd crdint ith other agencies of federal state suit with and coordinate with other agncies ofederal, state order to comply with this statutory rpequirem5ent. and local governments. As noted previously. the OC(" has similarly, the DEIS does not adequately analyze and failed to satisfy the substantive requirements of the CZMR in this regard. Perhaps it is mont important to note that * relationship between local, short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance the DEIS does not: and enhancement of long term productivity, or * inc l ude a discussion of existing inter- * irrevocable or irretrievable commitments of agency conflicts, as required by the CZMAY resources. and, Once again no analysis is offered, rather the DEIS merely � indicate to what extent, if at all, the plan has been coordinated with local and regional recites conclusions which are unaccompanied by any facts agencies and. and are unsupported by the record. Contrary to What the - identify certain important state agencies which exercise regulatory and planning powers over development in or affecting the coastal DEIS alleges, approval of the plan will encourage the use over developmen t in or ffectin the coastal and consequent loss of certain resources. [DEIS, p.2251 zone. The DEIS concludes that extensive coordination and con- The basic coastal policy to concentrate rather than disperse The�basiccoastal policyto concentrate rather than disperse sultation with all local, state and regional interests has development commits the Plan to a course which must of taken place, yet it would appear that this effort in really necessity result in the irretrievable loss of urban open in ts infancy. EIS p.227 nless additional facts are space. The priority accorded to coastal-dependent develop- presented to support the Op2'7 contention tat etensive presented to support the OCZM's contention that extensive ment will also result in irrevocable commitments of resources, is unsupported by the record. yet the DEIS fails to describe and assess these commitments n5ncnsulttin a ocurd, hsconli Of resources as required. 140 CFR 1500.B(a}I3)(l), 5, 71 of resdources ts required. 14o th 1500.8(a)t(3) t)a t. fIt is doubtful that this document can be said to satisfy Thia no doubt is related to the fact that the DEIS fails to any of the NEPA requirements set forth in the approval specifically identify the unavoidable adverse effects which will result if the Plan were to be implemented by the state. [DEIS, p.2211 (See 42 CFR 1500.i(a){5).) III-l1 209 i _ � _ mm ~I - M m m m m - m - - - mm regulations. The DEIS simply does not provide any facts TESTI[IONY ON BEHIALtF OF TI NE9W JERSEY RUILDERS ASSOCIATION which would permit one to assess the conclusions reached by CAFRA COMMITTEE ON TlE STATE OF NEW JERSEY COASTAL ANAGCEMENT PROCIRAMI, DAY AND OCEANl SHIORE N~ONA. In fact, impact analysis is expressed merely in the SECMENT PMlAY, 1978, oldrFT ENVIRONMEIAThL IlPACT STATEMENT form of conclusions, thus subverting the very intent of HEPA to open the agency decision-making process to informed Good evening. My name is Joseph Todino and I am Clhairma debate. The statutory standard of full disclosure is far of the New Jersey Euilders Association CAFRA Committee, a standing sub-committee of the New Jersey Builders Association from satisfied by this document. Environmental Committee. We have been involved with CAFRA Additionally, the DEIS fails to consider one important since Its inception in 1973 and have seen tile program grow programatic alternative which must be evaluated to fulfill in scope and content. Previously we have been asked to this requirement of NEPA. It also does not consider any comment upon the Coastal Zone Management Interim Land Use alternatives to the substantive policies of the Plan. In and Density Guidelines, the Coastal Zone Management Strategy, short, tile DEIS simply does not include sufficient informs- and received, in March of this year, a pre-publication tion to provide for "a reasoned choice" of alternative working draft of the document under discussion this evening. courses of action. NRDC v. Horton, 458 F.2d 827, 836 (D.C. We distributed copies of the draft Environmental Impact Statement to numerous builders and their consultants, includ- Cir. 1972).. t ing Jngineers, planners, environmental consultants and realtors. A workshop meeting was held with representatives mechanical attempt to satisfy the procedural and substantive of the Office of Coastal Zone Management on June 7, 1978. requirements of NEPA. It serves only to justify this action At this workshop the discussion focused upon the glaring without regard for either the adequacy of the Plan or a care- engineering and planning deficiencies in the document as ful analysis of the impact of its implementation. The DEIS well as inadequacies in the scope of the Draft Environmental must be substantially revised in order to satisfy the require- Impact Statement. Therefore we have requested that the ments of NEPA and the CZMA. comment period should be extended for at least sixty (60) III-13 210 davs. The draft Environmental Impact Stntemrent wag submitted husaCorefevn tilzdbop1-exmifd by a document entitled "Coastal Valaqpmrsnt Straqegy - Public to thle Federal Environment~al Protection Agency on April 28.,I 1919 and a Notice of Availability was published In the Federal C n i e t n E btio.mn ~ yihsz,~ Register onl May 5, 1978. The period for public comment to m n f tl omnsa iecatlKngm~l cavy some 434 lit number, and offers a responsef to those votmmets the F'ederal Office of coastal Zone flanagement: extends only -ir until June 19, 19713. Furthermore, It la proposed that I t n u f o u a ehwvr a H eplsInom Chapter 3 of Part it of this document be adopted an formal I s a c s sfl is niain O 7n~n0)sm rules ad reguationssometie In Setember The dadlineof the criticisms. Would It not: be far better to engage in for comments to the State DePartyment Of Environmental Protectionad i l g e otl-r men7vryOeouQesos; to July . We fee It Is ufair, togay the east, toremain unanswered at face to Fare meetnttis uantil sulch a is J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ublic wri.e Weumn fee it isunfair, tno flartniy thelat o mandate that comme~nts on a 350 page document be submittedpulcritndumtisubihditnopotntyo within such a short period of time. Ito environmental benefits respond. Above and beyond tile lack or dialogue ihrsett will accrue by expediting the acceptance of this draft: ihrsett Environental mpact Satemen by th federa goverine~t.previous comments and criticisms of documents published by Environmental Impact Statement by the federal government.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ the New Jersey Office of Coastal Zone angmtthere. are It would apipear that the more prudent: course would be to I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~some flrn ndoaisi h rsn ldll~S e allowI a sufficient time to comment and then discuss those lrsnaeucsIntepsntdumtsFo commen~ts and resolve the Issues Involved. We were Informed I s a c . tescino uofwudI fftpoii at the une 7 orksho meetig trialthe poicy Onrunoffdevelopment In almost all areas In the CAPRA zone. The would be altered and there was a document that would be Ucino e~~~n fwtr deaesi ofsn n VV~~b~lshed to that effect. certa~~~~inlyti oacag nteI some cases misleadIng. There are certain engineering Hand planning decisions embodied In tihe draft Environmental proposed rules and regulations and cannot possibly he imPlement- ea unti thereto anoter annuncemet of tht subsantiveImpact Statement which are questionable and have no basis lit change in the new jersey Register and time Is afforded for 11- ouet hthv hsfrbe nd vial.Tl land actaltytables on Pages 103 through 11I are comment on this change. actually a detailed plan for the acceptable- development of -2- the ay and Ocean Shore Sequent of the Coastal Area. The opinion of tile Chief of the CAFRA permit section that if the Office of Coastal Zone Management has failed to analyze how criteria on the location acceptability table are not met for much of the bay and ocean shore segment of the coastal area medium and high intensity development, that there is not will be eligible for high and moderate intensity development enough flexibility in the document to allow for such medium based upon thie land acceptability tables. This is extremely and high Intensity development. important because pursuant to the provisions of the draft Furthermore, there Is little rationale set forth for Environmental Impact Statement if high and moderate intensity many of the policies in this document. The restrictions on development is not allowed, then the use and resource policies high rise development are simply not based on any logical need not even be considered, because they will not result in and professional planning concept and in fact do not make the allowance of moderate or intense development. Thus, common sense. On the one hand there is a policy to encourage there is absolutely no analysis of the effect of the land aand foster low and moderate income housing. Obviously, the acceptability table on thile bay and ocean shore segment of greater density the more opportunity for low and moderate the coast. Nor is there a basis for the conclusions drawn Income housing and the greatest density of all Is high rise on each line of thle location acceptability table. Until development. By restricting high rise development to areas that basis is clearly set forth, there is no way to evaluate which already contain such development, such as Keansburg, the validity of the land acceptability table. Thus, there Atlantic City and Asbury Park, as a practical matter you may is no rationale for the decisions reflected in the land be discouraging thile construction of high rise dwellings, acceptability tables, a table which in effect serves as a because there is very little incentive to construct low and plan for the bay and ocean shore segment of the coastal moderate income high rise housing in Atlantic City, Asbury zone. Park and Keansburg. As a matter of fact federal monies may There are other significant deficiencies, the most not be available for high rise developments containing glaring of which is that the document in question leaves no children. There is no question about the fact that in some room for flexibility, judgment, and imaginative planning. areas high rises would be completely incomparable with Most of the policies as set forth are completely inflexible surrounding uses, however, where high rises are not incompatible and as a matter of fact at the June 7 workshop it was tile with surrounding uses they should be explored and not discoursed - 4 -5-21. 212 or prohihiter. Tile idea that dweilings along the shore in tile sebjecf: mtter of a contract for SIndY and no coriclor-lon should not block thle view of the ocean afforded to other Ivan vet been reached with renpect to this topic. people who live in the area in reflective of the mort The policien in thin JRnvironmonltal Impact Statomotit are regressive "last in shut the door" thinking. Why should alno inconnictent with other etate toltclen. l'or inatance. people expect that Just because they buy property near the the State Development Vulide Plan sovm~n to elicnilrage I111(111 shore that hlas a view of the ocean that they can enjoy this rice development along a certain portion of thle 1kw dlerney view forever, notwithctanding the fact that another property owner owns lands between their dlwelling and the ocean. coant, which in not encouraged by thiis tnvironlienta Impact Statement. flow are thede two differing the ocean. There are numerous examples of planning policien and a pollec reconcilecl? engineering decicions set forth with absolutely no bacis In Tie noJicY on giting of Industrial facilitien withil the coactal area in alco mulch teolaflexibiZe and banl no hacigs in fact. For instance, what in the source for allowable percentage fact. Only if exinting induntrial altec are domonetratod to of impermeable paving, permeable paving and structure9? For instance for high density development 90% impermeable paving be Impractical will new cites be ncceptabie, providing that is allowed and for moderate density development 30% impermeable there in a high ratio of jobs created an oppened to the acres of the site utilized for development and the development paving in allowed. WhaRt in thle level of dencity allowed for Posen no conflict with the resort-recreatlon uses of tile impermeable paving between 30 and 90%? Where is the basio I coast. (Page 140s). There toi really no logical has~is for for the definition of ntream head and the 300 foot buffer around a stream head? We understand that thin very Issue to this policy except the statement that there are "cignlfirant the subject of a contract for study that lian not yet even, environmental impacts of moat Industrial development", a atatement that certainly is not horac out an a general been completed. flow can the office of Coantal Zone Manage- ment possibly include definitions of areas without absolutely proponition. Furthermore, there in Io necondary impact any basis in fact? The same holds true for the definition of thin and many other rolicies contained In the draft VRnvirovmental Impact Statement. of upper water's edge which in defined partially as 50 foot This leadn to a vory significant discussion with respect horizontally from tCle lower limit. Where in the basis fo r thin 50 feet? Again we are of tile understanding that thin to ti sufficiency of the entire rnvlronmnntal impact State- ment. Parts Ill to P'art VII, which supposndly address -6- -7-� I I I Ws I /m.__ . - - - m of the policies as enunicated in the draft Environmental environmental impacts is superficial and totally inadequate. Impact Statement are not analyzed. It is ironic that considering tile pains that developers must not In conclusion, we feel that/until a basis for each of go through in order to satisfy the Department of Environ- the policies as set forth in the draft Environmental Impact mental Protection with the level of analysis in an Environ- Statement is enunciated, until many of thile inconsistencies mental Impact Statement submitted in order to obtain a CAFRA are explained, and a sufficient Environmental Impact State- permit, that this document ostensibly prepared by tile National lent is prepared analyzing the environmental and socio- Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal economic effects of all of the policies contained in the Zone Manaqement is woefully inadeouate. For instance, what draft Environmental Impact Stntement, can the Secretary of is the secondary effect of a restrictive policy on industrial Commerce approve the Coastal Zone Management Program (Bay development considering the fact that people in the coastal and Ocean Shore Segment) of the State of New Jersey. Only area may have to commute by automobile to noncoastal areas until all the alternatives are considered should the Secretary in order to be gainfully employed? What will the air pollution of Commerce approve tile Program. To expedite the approval effect he of the extra vehicle miles traveled? There are of this program for no other reason than to receive a grant a myriad of other secondary impacts that have not been even when the Program is without a basis in engineering and addressed by this Environmental Impact Statement. It is planning and even when the Environmental Impact Statement is significant that one of the reauirements for applicants f I n~iedInths nvrometa Ipat taemntist~atfatally defective would be a disservice not only to tile contained In this Environmental Impact Statement is that citizens of te coastal area n New Jersey, but to all te citizens of the coastal area in New Jersey, but to all the they present a secondary impact analysis for their projects. cltizens of the State of New Jersey and to the country. we Notwithstanding the fact that we do not necessarily agree are willing to work hand-in-hand with the State and Federal ith this reouirement, certainly if thile requirement is offices of Coastal Zone Management in order to produce a imposed upon applicants, the same requirement should be workable document, and In fact another workshop session il imposed on the very agency imposing the requirement of order to discuss in detail the general comments and criticisms analysis of secondary impacts. Even assuming that secondary contained in this testimony is scheduled for June 21, 1978. impacts need not be addressed, the primary impacts of many Hopefully, the September 30t2 deadline will be met with a 214 010 IIOANO, "ALLFRA1` & CIIAOAY ~~~~Jo,,COflA0. S. Aylo~nHCVS Al LAW -aorctnvn ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r,,CPId rllv Ztim~t j. Vrll .01.4 *T-OAs A~to,%WK' 1:1tt 341 9800 0? '4? Impact Statement is not revised accordingly, unfortunately oos It:wil beto iledetriment: to all concerned I nldn the J4?C AtAlt. L. Jun 0?th CO?0?O New Jersey office of coastal Zone Manageen ad tile citizenry AY.ro I6fgOtP . "?Ato. of State. OAO. tNfo ofthin A-n? s. flPS CERtTIfIlED HAIL, Office Of coastal 7,0le ,lnnagemient National oceanic &Atmospheric AdministratiohI North Atlantic! itcgion 3300 Wlhite Unven Street, UNA. . Washii1gtofl, D.C. 20235 ATTENTION: Mo. Knthryll cousins5 ftegional Manager iRE.- STT O iE SEy, COASTAL, MAHAGCHMEITrcI, DAY AND ocrAN SEGMtENT, DRAFT ENVIRQUIIIE4TAL IMtACT -STATEMENT DATED MAY 1978 Dear Mo. Coulnina! Thle followling constitute thle C011111'ent" on behalf of thle New Jersey Builderg Association with drespect to thle above- mentioned document. Thle New Jersey nluillern Associationl presented testimofly at- the public henrilig heed oil Julie 14th, 19-78. That tes timony should be Incorporatedi herelin and I enclose a copy for your informlation. The New J('rSey fluilders Association participated in a worl-shop sessi1on hrld, on Aprill 1, 1978 at tile Offices of tile new jurs ey office or Coastal Zone318 ilaageisent In Trenton. The subject- of this work-lioip was a pre-publicationt draft of the Environmen1tal Impact statement. Thore were also two 12) other sessionse with David Elue,011" on Julie 7th and tile last session on June 21st. There- were numerous changes suggested at the Julne 21st workshop rel1lsita, all o whih were noted by fir. Kitnsey, bitt lie inflIcatv"I that lie would not be able to respn oorcselSads)t~ oi ro to July 5th, 1978. the extended deadlitle for colMmc,'1t. Therefore. these commient" are made notwithstandinlg tile (nct that they )fave already been Presented to the State office of Coasta'l Zone Management. The followinig documents are Included herewith andf qhould be Incorporated herein as cosmments from inalvIdLIril Invited to tile DuIIdsr/Work5IloP Meetings. The. documetits art- as follows! - -- -- - - - - , - - - m m - - Glo No HAERAN C IAY ORDANO, HALLERAN X CRAHAY Gr~~~~~~~~~~lo"V~AH~O~. "ALLER~AN 9~ CR~AnJAY ~ATTOOIIFYS AT LAW ATTOnrFEYS AT LAW Ms. Rathryn Cousins Mu. Kathryn Cousins June 30th, 1978 June 30th, 1978 Page 2 Page 3 1. Comments submitted by Craig O. Cunningham on too vague, general, and conclusory to satisfy the requirements behalf of Canetic Corp., Berlin, New Jersey. of 42 U.S.C.S. 5 4332. It is clear, for instance, that an Environmental Impact Statement must contain a detailed statement 2. Memorandum from Dresdner Associates, dated June as to all feasible alternatives and not merely a conclusory 12th, 1978. statement that the alternatives were evaluated and rejected. It is also clear that the underlying reasons for the conclusions 3. Letter dated June 16th, 1978 to Federal Office reached and findings made in the Environmental Impact Statement of Coastal Zone Management from George A. Van Sant, P.E. of must be clearly set forth. Also, the Courts have held that Wilcox, Gravatt & lHacunda, Inc. an Environmental impact Statement must provide sufficient data on a project's economic feasibility and economic affects to 4. hand-written comments submitted by Robert Maestro allow the assessment of countervailing Interests, feasibility of Maestro Associates. of alternatives, or full analysis of environmental effects. It is incredible that the impact analysis portion of the document 5. Comments on storm water runoff policy submitted is some twenty-eight (28) pages in length, when the body of the by Fellows, Read & Weber, Inc., Consulting Engineers to David document is almost two hundred (200) pages in length. The most N. Kinsey, by letter dated June 20th, 1978. glaring omission is a failure to assess the impacts of tile Land Accessibility Tables on pages 103 through 111 of tile document. 6. Letter to Michael J. Gross, Esq. from Barry These tables are the plan for tile coast and without assessing lecshnak, Vice President of Barrymor Enterprises, Inc. dated current land use and current land characteristics, one cannot June 9th, 1978. determine the affect of the Land Accessibility Tables on tile development in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. 7. A copy of a letter dated June 30, 1978 from Thomas A. Thomas of Townplan Associates to David N. Kinsey (under separate It is also unclear as to whether the Federal Regulations cover). have been complied with in the Coastal Management Program. One of the comments to 15 C.F.R. 5923.4, indicates that present owner- 8. A copy of a letter dated July 3, 1978 from Ernst, ship patterns of the lan-i nd water resources, including adminis- Ernst & Liisseniden, Engrs. (under separate cover). tration of publicly owned property must be considered as well as present populations and further trends, including assessmentsof the impact of population growth in the coastal zone and estuarine environ- The sufficiency of the Environmental Impact Statement ments, present uses, proposals for changes and long-term is addressed on Pages 7 through 9 of the Testimony submitted on requirements of the coastal zone, housing requirements, mineral behalf of the New Jersey Builders Association at the public resources requirements, transportation and navigation needs, and hearing. It is our feeling that an expansion of this point is communication facilities. It is submitted that these items have warranted in our formal comqment submission. Initially, it.should not sufficiently been addressed in the Coastal Management Program. be noted that 16 U.S.C.S. 1452(b) declares as congressional policy Also in this vein, there does not appear to be a sufficient in- the development aii- impementation of management programs giving ventory of natural and man-made coastal resources, a requirement of full consideration not only to ecological, cultural, historic 15 C.F.R. S 923.12(a) (2). Thus it is questionable whether the and esthetic values, but also to tile needs for economic develop- Coastal Management Program complies with the applicable statutory ment. One would expect that an Environmental Impact Statement would and regulatory provisions. Beside frome the obvious deficiencies assess not only tile impact of the Coastal Management Program upon in complying with applicable Federa' statutes and regulationls, the ecological, cultural, historic and esthetic values, but also upon Coastal Management Program should serve as guidelines and not as economic development. There is only a cursory discussion of any definitive rules. We object to the adoption of Chapter 3 of Part of these elements in the Environmental Impact Statement. II as rules and regulations, since we see no requirement for such adoption in the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, nor do we feel It is submitted that the Impact Statement prepared is GOInoANO, IIALLEeAHN & CAI4:AY OIO"lDAHO, IlALLERAN & CnAll4AY ATTo0ntYS AT tAW ATOnErYS AT tAW Ms. Kathryn Cousins June 30th, 1979 Flu. Kathryn Cousins Page 4 June 30, 1976 Page 5 that the adoption of these rules and regulations are mandated by the Federal Regulations adopted pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act. Most of tile rules and regulations are far too inflexible and may reflect a textbook attitude towards manage- proposed Rule 6.4.11 is also inflexible, because it does not ment of resources, but does not reflect practical real world ex- account for the situation wherein a farmer no longer wishes to periences. This is especially true with respect to the policy farm a particular tract of land, can find no purchasers for said on storm water runoff. The policy is unworkable and Impracticable. tract of land, and does find a purchalser who wishes to develop tract he land for residential or other uses. Since the land wopld Many professional engineers and consultants have commented on the storm water runoff policy to the New Jersey Office of Coastal not be utilized for agriculture, it would seem that some Zone Management and we feel that at least this policy should be flexibility should be allowed so that tile farmer can dispose of studied further prior to its adoption as a regulation. the premises. The nasic Coastal Policies on pages 11 and 12 are de- As indicated in the public hearing testimony, we dis- ficilent in that they do not consider the legitimate economic agree with the whole concept of Stream Heads as a new concept asr.irations of the inhabitants of the Coast. There is also no with absolutely no basis in fact. Flone of the professional means to carry out the policy enunciated on page 12 to consider engineers or planners involved in the nuhldor/Workshops have only coastal resource and coastal land and water use decisions ever encountered this type of definition and certainly, do not of greater than local significance. agree with the 300 foot buffer zone. The Wetlands Policy (proposed Rule 6.5.1.2) does not include tile criteria to be The State in a sense admits on page 19 of the Program utilized In the new procedure pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:7A-1.71b)l that administrative discretion will be limited. It is submitted et seq- As indicated in the public hearlig testimony, there that administrative discretion will be virtually non-existent is no basis for the definition of tipper Water's Edge at 50 foot under this Program. For instance, proposed Rule 6.3.9.3 dis- horizontally from the lower limit which ever is further from courages bulkheads, revetments, and seawalls and other retaining the lower limit. The policy in proposed Rule 6.5.2.2 is much structures. These retaining structures can be acceptable if there too inflexible and does not take into account peculiarities and structures. These unique characteristics of certain sites as well as mitigating is a danger to life or property or if water dependent uses cannot unique characteristics of certain sites operate without the structure. Rip rap is indicated as a preferred measures which can be undertaken. construction material for such retaining structure. There is absolutely no analysis, however, of the affect of this policy on We take great exception to t i ye policy for pettaned hater's the development of lots fronting on lagoons. Also there is no Edge as found in proposed Rule 6.5.3. inits ally, the olicy tant rationalefor discouraging the construction of bulkheads as a general runoff from paved areas may not be disclharged directly lilto ad- policy. The same inflexibility is shown in the policy for new jdcent water bodies Is ludicrous, since there as no place else to dredging included in proposed Rule 6.3.9.6. In order to be con- dispose of runoff trom lagoon development than into lagoons. Thern sidered acceptable, new dredging must meet six (6) different I n also evidence that such discharge improves circulation and conjunctive criteria, which may be almost impossible to meet. There the water quality of these lagoons as opposed to lagoons in which is little flexibility to allow something like new dredging if it no runoff is discharged. The statement that the waterfront is can be shown that this dredging will not have an adverse environ- a scarce resource in Rule 6.5.3.3 is totally without basis. IlIs mental Impact. Another example, is proposed Rule 6.4.10 which dis- an actual survey been taken regarding the amount of waterfront cusses Steep Slopes. The policy is to allow development of steep space available? Are lagoon lots considered waterfront? There is slopes only if there is no prudent or feasible alternative site. also no reason for lagoon development to provide a net benefit to It would seem that the only criteria that should be utilized is the ehvirotinI:. this is not required for any other type of develop- if any adverse environmental affects can be mitigated, not if there ment and one questions whether this is equitable. We also question is no prudent or feasible alternative site. Again, the lack of the requirement that such development be water dependent or utilizPd flexibility is evident. The policy on Prime Agricultural Areas in for public recreation or resort use. Trnaditionally, tie State haS (I- -- -~ - I - - -7 - - - - -l~ GIORDANO, HALLERAN & CRAIIAY GIORDANO, IIALLERAN & CRAWAY ATTOR1NFYS Ar I AW AtOCNEYS AT tAW Ms. Kathryn Cousins Ms. Kathryn Cousins June 30th, 1978 June 30th, 1978 Page 6 Page 7 not considered housing to be water dependent even if the We also take issue with the definition of "intill". All of tilhe housing is purchased by persons who wish to utilize the lagoons public infrastructure and community facilities may already be and bulkheads for recreational boating. We contend that such in place in individual cases of expansions. Therefore, there uses are water dependent and in any case, there is no basis may, as a practical matter, be no difference in tile environmental for the policy of requiring water dependency. The indication affects of some infill as opposed to some extensions. Again, that new private housing would be an inefficient use of a this must be determined on a case by case basis and Rule 6.6.7 scarce resource as opposed to hotels and restaurants is also does not offer this flexibility. Again, it is obvious that not based on any practical experience. As a practical matter, development is discouraged by these policies since High Potential more paving will probably be required for restaurants and hotels Sites must meet all of seven (7) possible criteria and Low than would be required for residential development on lagoon Potential Sites must merely meet any one (1) of four (4) criteria. lots. Also restaurants and hotels will probably not be compatible with adjacent uses. We also take issue with the definition of "Growth We also object to the policy for Filled Water's Areas". Although tile placement of a project in a Limited Growth Edge in that it is unrealistic and without basis. A twenty-five Area may not adversely affect an ultimate determination as to (25) foot buffer will probably result in most municipal zoning whether a permit will be granted in accordance with the land ordinances being violated by lagoon development. Also there is Accessibility Tables (Figure 18), it is important to note that the very practical problem of maintenance of any plantings. Most apparently all of Ocean County, south of Berkeley Township, is owners of lagoon lots purchase them because of the access to excluded from the Growth Areas. flow much growth can he recreational boating and it is submitted that it is simply not accommodated in these Growth Areas? It appears that again this practical to revegetate these lots. In many cases, it may be Environmental Impact Statement is deficient in failing to determine preferable to bulkhead the lots to prevent further erosion. The this question. lagoon policy is also discriminatory in that the development must provide a net benefit to the environment, when the State does not The siginificance of the I.and Accessibility Tables is require such a net benefit for any other type of development but addressed in Mr. Dresdner's comments and also in our Public lagoon development. As long as adverse environmental affects are Testimony and we reference you to those documents. minimized, most development should be allowed. The policy of a net benefit to the environment is not supported by any rationale There is absolutely no basis for the percentage of in proposed Rule 6.5.4. paving in intensive and moderate development areas incIthded in Rule 6.6.9.6. Furthermore, permeable paving has not proved We disagree with the discussion of Development Potential practical and again, this is textbook planning instead of practical Factors in 5 6.6.7 in that the statement in Rule 6.6.7.6 that High planning. Again, these percentages appear tp be inflexible and Development Potential Sites are most desireable from a developer's will take the innovative ideas and imagination out of the planning view point is not based on any extensive study and as a matter of process. fact, such a study is proposed for the fiscal year of 1978-1979. One ponders how IIugh Potential Sites can be determined when such The Use Policies are also very disturbing. It is a study has not been completed. The policy to concentrate the interesting to note that if the Lcation Acceptability Table pattern of development on a regional scale also has not been discloses that a project should not be built, then the Use and sufficiently studied. For instance, how much infill land is avail- Resource Policies do not even enter the picture. Rule 7.2.1 able for development within the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment of indicating that housing development In the Water's Edge is New Jersey's coast? Should not the impact of this policy be prohibited is much too inflexible as is the policy against dredging, determined prior to the adoption of the policy? The policy has also filling or bulkheading. tie would agree that housing which requires been altered. Previously, infill and extensions of existing develop- lagoons should be discouraged, but not prohibited. *We also question ment were encouraged. Under this new policy, only infill is encouraged. the basis for the statement that housing is not dependent on water access, since in individual cases, housing may indeed be dependent on water access. The definition of"clustering" in Rule 7.2.2 is questioned as being contrary to many other clustering policies. The Olo"1OAMO. ALLFRcAI N, CnA14AY AllobfANO. HAttlA L rAWI AT1onfl~rYs At LAW t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~in. Kathryn oinli.iatri CoUsIinS June 30th, 1970 June 3t,17 rag" 8 statemnt rearing applicaltlOt for municipal variaflces In The resOurCe policy Of' Runoff lflroposeld MOP 8MI) Is odrt lstaem efe~t ako ndrtndn of the planning simply not workable. It to our Information th1at extensive orderuicpllee. ic theo heaUng cr comiments iiave been furnishedi to David 13. lKlnsey of. tle IState, process at tiemncplle.snethesehaig r and we urge you to review these commeunt. 1II" aiso again urge quasi-judicial. the only way that DSP Lan nsaist anl applicatlt thtteRf oiyntb aotda uebtta is to Provide sworn testiiolly at a hearing which in subject thatk tocehe immed Poiaty formbe aod as odrtol" btudj tan acemil a rational and practical Runoff Policy. The policy on vegetation It should be clearly indicated that If a proposed use to plant appropriate native coastal rpecies (propo.5ed Rule8.1, Is not "encouraged" under these use policie5. It does not iseall may not be practical If such native coastal species are not avatl- tha sad a secanotbe built. we understand that these are able for planting.' What determiaiatiOns were moade as to thle In a SCense "bonus" factors which may allow a borderline use vialtyo-"i see? to be permitted. There IS absolutely no basis for Rule 7.2.3. hoiyo ulcAcs oteSoePoti which encourages a milt of dwelling types and age and Income Tdeficyei an thati there isto reldfntion ofe "coasta IaeS~ groups within housing developments. in there a socio~economic deiietllInh mhaynt n1ce ssaril areel wpitilio sof muncipaliwt~esv basis for this? Ve also qluestion tile plcInRule 7.2,4. wlhicghhae eynaote lawes ori areeuain sinkin watrfon muiiaccess What if a housing development me amnipality's fair share inconhvenienat, e elapwsi or rimpoasible forn wnon-resdnce i shoe ld of high income housing? we have already commented on proposed henconvend th texpnie CourtI posbl ofte aeor non resy illce Iet sbille Rule 1.2.8 regarding high rise dwellings In oily public testimsony this notedstionan itiours beyn thl tteprovincewo there wistll eem and refer to that as If incorporated hereinl. we object to ilqusonadI Inbydthprv iro fieCatl any exclusions of development as stated In this document In the Managdlement Program to effectuate such policy since thisl is within Pine hDarrenlt except In thle area of the Pine fiarrens Irv which the tile judicial province. permit programls referred to In tile Program have jurisdiction. we take issue with the policy on Sccondary Impacts Vie object to the reur 1eto bicycle anti toot paths in proposed Rule 9.1.4 In that the whole field of "Secondary In ~~~~~reqieta rjcsI uleISSinret nsmen c s , uhimpacts' to Imprecise , vague, and results in generalities. it bicyl nd fe ooti paoeths iny Rule a. n tadvrs nirn smena casfesch is Interesting to note that although? Secondary Impacts of Agicycl ano fleiblty pits incorpoated into i andves eiomenya affer proposed developments must be part: at an application for tieveloprn~let, Arinun lexbltis inoprtedintllsan ayotehs Draft Environmental Impact Statement does not Include such a Secondary Impact analaysig. Therefore, we believe that a We have aravaletdnthle secondary Ipcsof Secondary Impact analysIs should be required only on a selected proposed Rule 7.6.1 concerning industrial or commercial Siting.baiwhr anticipated.hr isualsotan asmtial in the raeiondarylet (pro- As a matter of fact, criteria in) would seem to be inconsistent atcpated, Rule 8in2 tatlseondary assmpctio arte pdicstatlae. (e with the policy of retaining open space, since the "lore open space psedRiusley .42 qethat suchaylypCH r predictabeliey that to retained, then 7.6.1 (a) could be Interpreted to mean? that eiulqesonScprdtalty this would have an adverse affect oil the ratio of jobs created to Wt epc obfes gi hr sn eemlaif the eanrng of sieuedfrd evelo pment . It: jutther buiding hand p ri n g as to the availability of native forest vegetation. There IS thereanin or "dveopen" Is it iustltheeuildingnad oe parein also no reason given for the specific requirements for buffers, including height of Saplings and spacing of plantings. tAlso, We also object to the policy on mining In proposed tile requirement that residential uses may have to buffer an In- Rutle 7.6.2 In that It reclamation plans are acceptable, mining dustrial. site Is contrary to accepted planning techniques of tile should be allowed even If It to not adjacent to current mining industrial Ilse buffering the residential ure. operationsa since mining may be an Importan~t economic factor iii the coastal economy. Again, no analysis hlas been made of the affect of this policy, albeit primary or secondary. GIOROANo, 1-1ALLITRAN F, CFIA$IAY s~rin~oryrAa LA," G(RATO 10fL4FRYS G Co#(AOAtlO, HALLSR ~ CmW21 tnr Itr~lr ATyC)"t4PYS Al LAW SO ,. 100S f4m AV KNUE"O VA9SCIMS K CPAiiAY poll, ortfrE TDt , JO ,"I S. urV.NC4T ASJ2 vuiiiite*44 oriivr. rCi*NX P. CICSLA i onI33 mge. K a t h r y n C o u s lins R E ""I Ju. fu Ill 3 4 1 - 9 n o o m o ty o s , yllo"Ag A.11'L11- t Page 30, 1919 "LE I,4.0VOKY JO ..IC. DIDRt-mo iage 10 June 22nd, 1978 ,4iCI4Ar l S. 1 InO 5 or 2263A ents , Which -3re ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~A. 00"HIEf C~nSTOP "~t5 S. #DAHLN TI0 " le are hopeful thAt these comments, which are INO. "r."Nnio intended as constructive criticiscs, will be useful andP1114 J Ark"" serve to strengthen tile Final Environmental Impact Statement. We have formally protested tie limited time within which to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We would ce more than willing to discuss any of the within comments with David H. Kinseyl wi llingyour I~taff. o~d "elcone to diseortunlty ~or a ainlogue, Chief Office of Coastal Zone Management yo ryour staff, and welcome the opruiyfor arnena Pilre DvdI. is whihYs OoUoftenbeen missing in the past. We again urge Department of Environmental protection that these proposed Begulations not been adopted as of September thtat ths rooe le'13PO Bx10 30, 1978 arid that the subject document be revised in accordance ison, Nof JreerseysB out comments prior to adoption. Trenton, ew Jersey with out C omments B.j AND 1889f4 Slionr Respectfully submitted, ASTA. NAEIi --.7c�~`;~i~,;5 Dear David: ?4IC)IIAL J *'CR-SG received your letter dated June 14th, 1978 with respect to the abovelaentirned matter on June 21st, 1978. As you know, it was my understanding that Kathryn Cousins had agreod to an extension of the June 19th, 1979 deadline for the close ou tile Vcdetai mj(, -Jil l omment Period for tile flow Jerse~y Builders r dated Jonune 1th Enc~losu~ZV~~ Nc Killseyr 3olrn Waczugat Lllen nres r;oorge Schiillngl July 5th, 1979. This was confirmed in a letter dated JPne a9vis, c:David N. Kinsey; Jelin Macrega; Allen Dresdner teoKtryne comme nt perioh you h NwJerey CiDPrsocain ni CClGeorge Lissenden; Wayne oldroyd, Rlobert tMaestro; William 1978 IoKtrngCuiS nwih o eecpe.Plseaie Galestoki Craig Cunninghaml Donald W. Smith' George Van Santt if this is not your understakding. -ims AThomas Marc R. Shuster Barry Weshnakl Joseph F-Ea n Theman atrica. Iaie Robert Williamsont Peter J. Ncnolnought I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, Karl. and Alseman: patricia Haines; ike for meeting with us on June 21st, 1918. AS you know, one of Jr.; Director Donbld T� Craham the problems we rhave had is that after these meetings the only commwli- cation from your office is when we receive another draft document or another final document. In this case, we would appreciate a continuing dialogue, since there were many questions raised at our meeting which merit further discussion. Approximately, the first hour was devoted to discussion of the runoff policy, It was pointed out that many municipalities will not allow retention or detention facilities, since they become a maintenanc problem. In a fee simple situation, maintenance Is the responsibility of the municipality. If a retention or detentioll facility is not main- tained, it usually becomes an eyesore. With respect to proposed R. 8.6.1, there is a question as to whether the runoff is limited to the runoff generated from thle subject development or from all upstream site 220 GlORnANo. HALLKnAN x CRAAHAY OIonDANO. ItALLMItAN x CRAHAY AttOnrNrS AT LAW ALttONr-S Al LAW David N. Kinsey David 11. Einsey June 22nd, 19791 June 22nd, 1970 Page 2 Page 3 I understand that this will be clarified. There was also a suggestion be considered no different from inland development in terms of the that the nature of the receiving stream should be taken into consideration, criteria applied. In R.6.5.3.2{c), there was question as to why since runoff exceeding mature forest vegetation may not in all cases lagoon development must provide a net benefit to tile environment, cause an adverse envirdnmental affect. when no other development must meet this criteria. te agreed to present you with the documentation showing that water quality in It was discovered that there may still be a philosophical lagoons which contained a storm water outfall was superior to lagoons difference with respect to recharge of aquifers. There is apparently which did not contain such an outfall. We also asked For a clarification a policy which has been established to promote acquifer recharge, when, of proposed R.7.2.1. in that the wording could be changed to indicate in fact, acquirfer recharge may not be suitable in all cases. This that only housing which requires new lagoons in proihlbited. again highlights our major criticism of the entire DEIS relating to the lack of flexibility of the document. For instance, If there is the next engaged In an extensive discussion os vegetation. We a high water table, ground water recharge may not be feasible. We have no quarrel with the attempt to preserve as much existig veqe- believe that feasibility should be introduced into the runoff policy tation onsite as possible, but we do quarrel with mandating that- a and allowances should be made for the physical aspects of the site developer plant certain shrubs and trees around eacih individual dwelling and desirability of detention or retention facilities. If it can be unit. Initially, it rermwes the freedom of choice whItih a purchaser ascertained that erronion and flooding will not occur without use of should have. Many purchasers do not want the landscaping offered detention or retention facilities, then perhaps those facilities are by a developer and would prefer to do their own landscaping. FUrther- not necessary. With respect to proposed R.B.6.2, there should be a more, this mandatory landscaping will add significantly to te cost clarification (c) in that the word "facilities" seems to be misleading. of a house, because, in effect, It is included in the mortgage. There- The word utilized should probably be either "technique" or "method". fore, over the life of tile house, the landscaping will be paid for Also some treatment techniques should be listed, such as traps, catch several times over. We discussed with Karl nrauul the Idea of offering basins, etc. Also when "the amount of runoff" is considered, it is a landscaping package to all purchasers witsh tle option that those unclear whether this is rate or volume. A Clarification of this purchasers could refuse this package and engage in their own landscaping. would be appreciated. Karl seemed receptive to the idea, but we would like some feedback on this idea. tith respect to proposed R.0.6.2 le), this seems to be even more stringent then Section 10 of the Statute which allows only minimal At thie end of the meeting, we focused upon the problem of lack adverse environmental impacts. The proposed Rule would seem to pro- of flexibility in the proposed Rules and Regulations. There must be hibit any adverse impacts no matter how InsignIficant. a statement some where on pages 126 to 127 allowilg flexibility. Per- tlaps such a statement could be incorporated in proposed R.6.9.R(h). With respect to R.B.6.2(di, it was indicated by the engineers Also, even if the site is not conducive to development according to present that it was impossible to analyze storm water runoff quality tie regulations, there must be a provision for mitigation of any or Indeed to predict such quality. I brought up the question of adverse environmental conditions. of course, the mitigation measures why the regulations cannot be adopted without the runoff section, since must be reasonable to meet with your approval. We believe that tills this policy has caused so much controversary. It was my feelIng that provision is extremely important and would appreciate your response the Federal Government would still approve the DEIs If you indicated as soon as possible. that a task force was studying this problem and that for the timne being, it will be dealt with on a case by case basis. The last subject discussed was proposed R.T.11.2. this regulation would provide that agreements would have to be provided showing We next discussed lagoon development in proposed Regulation 6.5.3 adequate levels of service by municipalities. tic would ask that the and 6.5.4. It was felt that there was not enough consideration given wording "through agreements with the relevant agencies" be deleted from to development on existing bulkheaded lagoons and it would seem that proposed n.B.11.2 as nnecessary. Miany municipalilien do Iot there should be no impediment to development and these developments should encourage growth and tils would be a great: way for them to eliminate m ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~norg-goh -n -ii wo l -e agcl -a -o -hmt lmnt GIOROANO, HALLEnAN E. CRAI-IAY i I ATTOMIC4YS AIL AW David M. Kinsey NTI 1SIINC. Page 224 ,9 7 a Juno 9, 19713 ail growth in their respective municipalitles' iraa 1llla _C.a cannot stress ~~~~~~~~~~~ Or. ~~~I.ichaiel J. Giross stogy client's feelings that It 1.0 IIooPe~' Avenue must have satisfactory responses on all et theseiseinodrr. iio 0375 to not oppose th acceptance oflte DCIS on the Federal level. IV ilr, Loll Jersey073 There must be a meeting of the minds on thle runoff policy and thereDrf must also be revisions made to tile proposed regulations to accommodate subjects coastal Zone 1,1anaIlowcni; 'o;a' r our reasonable requests. This is particularly true In thle areas Of tl,,,c ~tmi flexibility, vegetation, treatment of storm water runoff, lagoon Dvrne have previously been presented. we are requesting that all of these IDear H~ike: changes be reflected inl a written document which can be reviewed, and 11 are ir iAll with our Collr'ti .'lji very frankly, if we are not provided with this written document, I have the p111 rFs~o ;l .i ioi1'~ ~h' been instructed LO actively oppose the approval of the DEIS. I am hope- rosent; htt~eci nC. ful that this will not be necessary and that we can resolve all of *jdlsa~.IV io are the ,oth qaliie t111 i~le CI to our differences In an amicable fashion. I look forward to hearing from jncludiy i~ DrarecOl Initil ou1t vlif (,I inde 'Ira.'l IiLO you in the near future. 11les eii ~ouudt.-1 n r--.ins lis both nI-. oi cit ti~o a 0 f el ~ ~ o. ,s d n ali Very truly your ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~coce~rn :i. --'at thle draft docul.101l t rev i1.( (' urfl'dCR a delaj in subtitteIfll ga~il to IR1C. 1 on IIncl ti.11ltadblo ),ostJ)Ofca by tile D;P - t ii ip.1tiCtato oil i!.Il ~ deai -1.113 -a ipC Mat o~ Iur ,J assoclati-oll 011(1 clltneers' be -;Isreli a I'ilt ~p01#) "LA -lilty MICIIAEL J . G R O S S ~~~~to critique the documenit il deai osoio111*." 3 t t4IC~~~~~~l7~~~~EL GROSS ~~~~~~~~~prior to thel docuitflib's ~Aijas NJ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~il:mthe Votderal people. cc: Director Donald T. Graham Gn ftl pcrc r-r il ~iol 0 Kathryn Cousins %jjCjhr oee 1 - iv rol 's. i 1nr fir. oereMsne re as fol1ot:IS M.Allen Dresdner _n.Tile an .I.qut CaitS.lo Mr. ('norge E. schilli ngl . .S n ad i i la Mr. William ialesltok amid n1.ore ex:terliive iipil Mr. Conaig o minghm 3. 'je facit tilat a Jtnhas been laid. 011t for fir. Donald N . Smit h ~~~~~~~~~~~~~to ruch a Plan a3 e,::eilpli~fecd It 'IFi! 6re .18 on ail; 102. Mr. Gieorge Van Sant thp3aea noe olrules 0"', ru1nadiefuaii al)(1.i Mr. Il silas A. ThuronI Ve - t d clle t Hr. Barry -tehkiorrtl trated. in thre orfOI oc1ii irc ft. Shm ter Mr. Barry5Wshnak o detailed dcIlitio3o uhter fir. Ibbert Willialllon Mr. Petpr J. Mcflonouigh, Jr. 01 RIVER AVENUE * LAKEWOOD. NEW JLRSEY 00701 * TEL: (201) 361-222f Uj~~~4UULJ~tWi~rtU J Tau,,tnn Arinur, P.O. Snri 41. ftcrsi. N... Jrljcy noo I6os) ~I,7-4rst Mir. Ilichnel J. Gross rage 2 June 9, 1978 6. The need for a bibliography and list of the contributors relative to the preparation of the document in its present form and as these relate to future revisions and correction". 7. Treatment in the L.8. of the economic and social ram:tiricationls of these environmental June J9, 1970 regulations.� 1Ie feel it is imperative that the DEl' deo not act premtnurely in closint; the file oil this draft docnt by subiittin, anpic to parties outside the for. H r-11,101 Cronn state of Vell Jersey. 'de feel tile associatioti must POr.n1 o.r Aelino, talte any and all steps available to it to prevent P o n t Vrlcr Par N667 such a dan-,crous move from tnl:ing place. ToM7 River, Nfw jor. 667 1753 Very truly yours, DA!fItIIiOil EliTEl':ISf1Yl~ I~J. * l'lo~rd ii-.,- nfr.i thir outln Iiw f qrioot fn,I-: tri potlr gi~ ~ ~~~~/ a..; ari if; rof-i friti CAPPA Prar1Pv~~ir'itp mat 51'al'-m-ff 13urry VeWo uhillo 1 ?lat tifiirn pIobe tin (#o. Vice P'renident p Donald r CI(* CONKINCSAP rqjd -~~~~~~~~~~~M mm mm - mo mm mm -- 6.4..2 hgh isk roson aeas- no-stuctual olutonsare 7.3.7 Wi--i can assure that a mrn o aeai a etn 6412fih-ikersoaria o n srcturalgod luii n' (encoura ged) will not: be converted to a Prim-rl"y1 ,"'Yto 6.4.3.2 Central Barrier Corrida - policy Is vague, boat marina after completion. 6.5.1.2 wetlands Policy - Wilde does DPP dlefine as- development: 7.3.9 Dredging of dry land marina expingion Is encouraged - What that: requires water access or Is water oriented? about Elie effects of water action, erosion, new bulklieading, etc. an thils procedure? 6.5.3.2. Blulklieads - veveopme-nt It water-dependent Is acceptable In retained water's edge arras, or if for public recreation or resort use. Isn't residential hiousing (second homes) AWouldn't any development: In this area extend Central Barrier Island Corridor? Waterfront public hotels and restaurants are much more stress ftl than) private housing and also create much nore impe-rvious structures and coverings by needing parking, etc. Hotels also would cause shadowing problems. 6.6.9.6 intensive Puvelopiw-vt - No where defines pervious- pavin" (~~~Permeable).PrILal pavement will allow certain oli- desirable stibstances into gioundl water table. Two table.s for Foil Conservat ion avid Vegetation Conservation for Acceptable percentage are Inconsistent values. 7.2.1 Plonaing Usce Policies - Housing does not depend upon water access but, did encourage recreation and resort develop- mRh-t III water's edge( areas. 7.2.2 Eucouraclos -noting variance where minimum lot sizer preclude cluster. 7.2.3., i-loushin to Plovide mix of dwelling types, but encourages clustering and later malkes 1,1-rise structures virtually Ian- possible. 7.2.7 fle-dovelolmeunt and demolition Is disconraged - rationale (flat areas of hi storie and aesthetic value should be rehabilitated. What abouti areas that are neither of historic and aesthetic interest? 7.2.8 11igh-rise developments- (c) maikes any high-rise Impossible -any high-rise will to some, degree block the features. (d) high-rise will at snomle point create sh~adow on beach- wh-at do they consider '"overslvadow'? 7.3 UeotReraioai se - all these uses will be stressful on area - create nvore impervious surfaces, traffic burdens, air pollvvtiou from automobiles. flotel/casino tises InI existing resort areas is encnuraqed In Atlantic City, usually on water's edge locatio,,, while high rise housing tyjpos are discouraged. 7.3.6 Menw m-irina.5 are acceptable If demand Is made apparent, however, marinlas1 and r-elated activities are sources of' both severe air and woater pollut ion. Assoc.IATES ~~~~~~~~~~~regional type) to theo fonlt 14imaIucI AcIVjltuble lveliWt Indc. vt ii il~~pJ~fl~~flT~h tO~~vA ?ANT~ qunationg evolve out "I all onalyrin of Table 10. "a-Jill i~~~~lIONIE (Int) M-ill? -Do each one of tile LandI Area factoti have equal welff1ht or vaun'.? ~~~~~~~~~' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-Are any of the factorn exclui~Ive Or cotrll`ti endl-J1`r Of the 01-her MIrm"NIIUM, CIO?0,, factor"? Tot! ,118] Gro a n 141 -Are not neveral of Clio land !trea factors derirv-tive from solsc dlata. 1?1W h?417~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~.-r Vila therefacor" duilirtitvn de? ulccwr n ae reaalbe REt ?HJCZMahly and ocean shore S- Thle hiaximum Acceptable Decveloptment Inton"ttite"t In thle tight- of data anid Tilts revie o f the l~a ftnd o cea Share segm nt o f the nw Jereeyodology 7pre mentodo(ogyprese lted or hereoI)ck therebfh rsnyytinary n Its d ovv .mcmrut and Thin raeview 'of the flay,1p anocuean hor gmntfth flew .leraey Iontsi~ application. Table 18 must tented an a larger sicale. to determline Ito praetctletity andl It" real Impact on development i" kthe coactnt Zone. 1. implicatiofns of Table 10, pp. 103-111. and Eniotfonn Imct steeci 1) 2. hileguacy o Clin r~vironental impact tatement MIS)ConaiderIng thle signi ficance, tits geographic application and ille coistruverdnil nature of the MfiI. kthe BiTS in deficient. Indleedl, It. Ic fatially dlefectiAve Iln 1eiTPL tions of Table 10 trma of unalyzIng thle Impactit (consequentcest of tiny andl Ocean rlhore Svqffl~ni Tile CytiP in intended to control the development VIE tile conattul zone directly o i-C4P by the state (p. 10). Thill 19 to be sone. In Eth oinato of ounPr -The fllay and Ocean Shore Segment present" guidplineit (which will Inter definlition, policy ntatementt aend decilflon-maiC! proceititen dsrb become rules and regulatltritll for controllinlg d'-velopmrnt In a Although the report Statenl that the CZMP is to be applied "for 29! those selected r coaqtal decisions defined In the management: elatem?, particularly onl CAPitA, Wetlatnds significant portionl of thoe state of 11ew Jorney. Ilic-e rulen arid and riparian permit applicatIon!!", the report further states that the CZ14P policies regitlatiolla will usurp elements of local Iand line authority. "because of titeir comprehensive nature (can) be timed toq!~ ohr ecaln -Vont acreagen will fall Into one of four davvlopmfll'~t Iriteinit tea. tin not strictly subject to thle flew Jemney Coastal frogral't. stuidies or evaluatlona have been made no to the amouint or rlirtribnuioit- C. State review and approval of a W1.118 v a r i e ty of thene developmlent Itutenaitiea. of major 019111fic'nhce Is thle questiolt Of Title lIs an Oren door to aubstattiall tt eiwadapoa fawd ait whether developmettt Intenaities inhibit or CDo violence to local, county of activi ties, facilities and development" that heretofore have not been atdSaepni o aduedvlpici.con evatoto r-rain considered within Cho Purview Of the State's review procedure. It Is ImportantanS t e p iofrlndueevomn, ratnn rsrain that this open door be losed. it shoutld be losed because the phraae gives-Terue drgutittcolhaeangfcat matonmpymi. unlitmited application to MD3EP for management of the cOagntl zone. if Indeed -the roetucles "Ilatryegulation coulrhv al signcome levei _-ac nd ihe eonomy-i HJDEP in to have this authority it should be specifically granted by State th c o s r t i n I d ty huigf rallvli j'e u 1ivlom statute, and not be gained by adminiuttrative aqtistllivenca.ingeerl Table in I file memu by which UJI]IMP'" ontrol mehanism com n t o g e t h e . iTablen-Te haveelgeneratvedgneratedvcntyover hycwhic a l notno bebne n ddrevued. 10 eatablishcm thle Intenitity for development In the coastal cone. It Is to be Tile 191 ha glossed over Igitese of significance that' totich1 not only Oil "gad only when the 1130EP review applications puratiant to CAPRtA, HetandA9 or ioleooi mat u ~eo ieplot~i fgvratei il hec ripariani permitital however, as noted above, kthe open door could allotw Table lIn MOCht enm~ Imp8acts buigrti enaly nla l PIO!V of goeverynrancrrbeti and tisne Vistad bythe guidlacks. a rmoreu mubat~antofi tS ver realuriredn byi ?Issuefosn Inansd. to be usmed ano a control on many more aituationa. by Chot gubdlvineiolA than wusatal prigre for tireuia bymajor mi inifi t doctimelit Table 10 usurpa lend use peroigativea traditionally accepted to be local i" nature. 2 5 unit atfecta doeutCinn ofs poaai pitOd withi thes mcortald sione. cn dcm it ban, in all likelIhOOd, extenttive conflicts with local planning and zoning. wih"rvodzn fcmuiisw ti iecatlrle Title can only be determinted by a tent application of CnflP-a location policiesGeealCmet Oil several typical comain Itleit. Thisn baa not been done.Gera Comet Finally, Table tol lt not Internally connititent--or stated another way, chore In 14titout ctater regattte. tinder Cthe1 gnieeo substantiat (ator iey It'. cgive, 1.1iinl no ratiortt lng roicil forndAreoing rfromth tosen, lhignwaerAreautStaectoruc- iddepht ulttoo guea11,-onalFaleight] rgwaterIM table, permeability. moil fertility. vegetation Index. daveloP-ia't potenitinit and flJDtP Is impoiting a review sys~tema which pr~ledotetI~titn type anud lat,,n'ity OF l \ FELLOWS, READ & WEBER, INC. ~~~~\ ~ CONSULTING EtGINEtCRS developmcnt for all colmrlunlilies in tile coastal zone. Tile full inplilcations of tile guideliels cannot be known until they are tested on at least several typical CALE: rtitCO 010 COHMONWRALT7 *VE.U1 310 MAIM STfII�1CE Communities. P7 CO"HO~tE~t~lf 0. CGUX 240 HEW SltE Additionally, I have serious reservations regarding NJI)EP's ability to rHAO 0SOW. 2 140 0 nlNJ. nramleister its regulations in a timely, consistent and equitable manner. 'IPLY 70: Toms River June 20, 1978 ir. David N. Kinsey Office of Coastal Zone Management Dept. of Environmental Protection P. O. Box 1889 Trenton, N. J. 08625 Runoff Policy Dear Mr. Kinsey: I have read your department's draft of the segment of the Coastal Zone Management Plan concerning "Storm Water Runoff Policy for the Development and Operation of Coastal Uses" dated May 1978. While I can't disagree with the general policy that storm water runoff from developed areas can and is a major source of stream pollution, I feel greatly concerned with the draft policy as written for the following reasons: i. The draft policy is somewhat vague in the manner in which it must be implemented. 2. The policy seems to imply that runoff from a developed site cannot exceed that which would occur if the site were covered with a "mature forest vegetation." This is regardless of the existing condition of the site. 3. It does not appear to be a clear indication of the degree to which storm water must be treated prior to discharge. Are you speaking of treating to potable water standards, existing stream quality standards, or ground water standards similar to those adopted in the Pine Barrens or some other criteria not yet established. 4. Some of the retention requirements may be physically im- possible on the site depending upon topography, ground water elevation and other physiological features. if this is the case on a specific application, it may well preclude development. ""C. FFLL0WS, READ &- WEDIER,""fe Mr. Dlavid H. Kinsey -2- June 20, 17 5. it does not appear to be a concise rate at hc rtined storm water must be treated. This rate must be establise inorder to dtriethe sire of the treatment plant and no ic Its coat. in view of tile ambiguities. I would find It very difficult 09 a Jm consulting engineer to use the draft and appiy it to a specific ht* '* development site as a criteria for design, and 1, therefore, urge your department to postpone adoption of thils runoff policy until these matters can be clarified. I may lso sqgeatthat you contact the Consulting Engineers OFlj "~t rivir. Prolme'lt.on Couincil, P. 0. flex 359, Springfield, H. .1. 07081. Attn! PtrAleDvro o i'rn' frt~~ Executive Director, and ask that organizationl to offer comments orrirn ofCo'.~ 11~'Tingrurnffft from their various committees. Tr'ntn.J. 0f'6;15V Very truly yours. FELLOWS, READ & WEBER, INC. D"rDvd /~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A prI W yo -n- r.,.rI rf ' r j I J q r 1Jjn e 71 mrr1tf~ n In Tp',p n l'i k-r 'r lf ff .. , - M~~~~~~~~r1Of1~~~~~~fI eropl.or' of vr 'n om ii,,~ C7,1 l rlrt F.V!11 'l III!'..... ~'f"~0'. I - /,Joseph Pt. Read You ran dectifillr M, in:' sheIonr.,t"IhttW,. dg i~~~~~~~~~~~I thn't~~~~~~~~~~~~~,; errl'?f' proh1.imlnrn qo.st r.' Of'ff ' dq F-rrmm~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~v'iId- for uh,'that ni4j+ too-"Ibhr. Till flor-1-11ri -fv""' 1-11.r r~~i? c~~~ lion. John F. Russo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ nci"ee thin meral, rog~il~nfom- tlocTvvlhlq I hl've, v-'r. M-- i-jIar e rroym". N~ C. lion. John~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ P. Rss r. f.l it, Pnpr.,rfl In lyn too rtertricttvin 1,.- w"l'nhl'i'll, 1r-j: -Yr'- f 0v 14r. Peter Allen ll-I ,rnn~rsnoteeoe nnrl~1) ,r- I In 'Insiih ,,'hichi rmii' lld Ir~rnii or Illf" r rol','lj tf'1.0-1 I wool'l- bin hqfinlV to .IcrIrf'Y tiny of lay eorrnrvflt for Yfbo. If 0,'v VrIr trust! yw'o nob.art II. fruit -fst a -, n~m4: on -es - l 4c '91-," W41 Stage Two: use policies a',) ct izl S~t 1YeJ Cr~L' 1tqk+i'1 Stage Three: Resource policies I",b/' / TIle purpose of tile three-stage screening process is to increase the predic- ~ A ii / * tability of coastal decision by adding more specificity to tle decision-making X 91~ ~4 TC'dV - &ZtV I7 process. Explanations of these three stages may be uaeful before the detailed vu PAIZ Rtx o I t anf 2'i _ I~tA-,~- (l1~~'e~ ~ Al.tatement of the policies themselves (See Figure 4). ~ ggy COASTA '~YAD~f'LHE0 Iwo 4t peAa L1B.1Au/.1!e IHPACT:TA EtIEHT K Figure 4 DRAFT-FNV R(UMENTAL lHpAUT STA PeHeNT IT -1 le, e COASTAL MANAGEMENT DECISION-MAKING PROCESS A~t~to~es /ps6 M~d~l~c&�/ d- PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STAGE ONE ILOCATION POLICIES ( UNACCEPTABLE Plny 1915 v ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ACCEPTABLE (I~k~t~ hL �ta4V d~"'i/ LB~ STAGE TWO USE POLICIES 1-- UNACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE STAGE THREE IRESOURCE POLICIESI-- UNACCEPTABLE prepared by: I State of lew Jersey lu.S. Department of Commerce ACCEPTABLE Department of Environmental Protection N latfoOni Oceanic and Amospheric Division of "arine Services Admnirflatr ion ment Office of Coastal Zone liallagement office of coastal zone tasnage 3300 Uh1itehaven Street, N.4. p.O. son IR89 Washingtonp .C 20235 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 :First. the Location Policies delineate acceptable amount and intensity of develoyeient Tdi~ii~~..t pes of locations, by considering both the sensi- tivity, or disadvantages, of sites, as well as their development potential, or advantages. Thie process of evaluating the acceptability of locations Is called the Coastal Location Acceptability Method 4CLAH) and indicates where developments may take place. . 'I I__\Iri i'II I 4 ~ ~~~~~~22 v-.. <.;_.poposed devlelopmoentsl that patin- the- location policiecs sc-reen are LOCA T' IO MI M S - (thed evaluated in Lem of pcf bi~'lc tat more pe seil tit I (fa~C!(l ft~xtC acceptable tises of co~nI ladn% -a~~O~~5- uha lhr~ 6.1 int roductio a,/~ ~ housing and parkan -- from the perspective of a Prpoe de-Api!lt 56. prin ner lt' dlsinittsigolihed from a1 proposred locaotion. line polinies Indicate what 1557 take~ 6.3 water~ra 5i d / -/- place. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6.4 Sp'ecial water's"Fergr a I~ L an Ar a . 6.5 Writer rage Areaaf V, ,f. I j ~ ,Thirvk( muste devlsopcmenty 1tht meet tile standsatds-of-.the fi~rst mand second6. Land Areas i~41y 7,7 :c~~d "Igopo wimnpethI approrpriertrv.p6source FOliCAe- regarding Copoile possible effects of tieproposed develope to pm4rormf uha 6.8 preparation of Location Acceptability Fap.e . water, air, and public access to thle "horefront. 6.9 Deterlmination" of t-ocation Acceptability L�-1~dLf,911 6.310 Locaotion of Linear Facilties, In brief. theme stagpes. presented In qection 6.0. 1.0 and 8.0, define a 6.11 Cenveral Location Policy process for decinion-making to carry out the Basic Coantnl Policies at both tile regional and mite-sopecIfic. scale". 'Any interested personn should bet- able ac acs cccieccaaccaaAA to Fitt In the chnracteristics of a pnirticutor Rite or development project to determine Its acceptability under the Coastal Program. intodutio Before pregsenting thle Coastal Resource anod Development Policies, It Is Import- 631 Iupa ant to Braspl tile ktinds of declatoons these policies milk help to "take. First, ~ the policies will serve [is the standards for reaulatory declosoion, primarily Thie conxtni land and wteraeao e lre r ies h the three coastal permit programs. S e c o n d , t o o loodffllnm dvelopment placed 1'n difrea` lofain Nwil JesyAT"verdifferent ,under th he osa emt rgas eod h policies will nerve an w? ___ impacts an tile coastal ecosystem and b,,ilt nvosota" well a, stote, and local agencleswthteCoaa Program, third, the coastal different social avid economic Implications. Dijffentpliear policies will shaple _key sttalefnigdcsons ins the coastal 20on especially thrfreeurdfrdffrn oain. Ti ecltioalnt Atefe under thle Shore protection and Green ACre "Pen Space Acquisition and Outdoor t e e o e "Ilrdfrdfeet?,,i~-Ti eto eie Re"realtiown programm. Fourth, the coastsl policies will guide further pjlaqnnialeLc o"F esOth R91VrigomTinppoti- f and adviscacy actions by DEP as the state coastal management agency. Varpliiesdsegil and detaplex. Thsoe melho cofs ilage, This Chapter spells "'at Hem jersey's inubstantive coastal policies for tiesyhoevr reat iey smlApyn h oii s andl Ocean Shores Segment, In a manner that con be anted by prospective devel- 612 EgtSe rcs opera, DEP staff, other public apencis~ and Interested cititens to determine The locti_,,n rofiies rvd negh tppoes o eemnn wlhetlher or not a proposed development or activity should or should not take thie 1"acptaionpltyl forovd Aesn ,ntirl' -flat, f location forv ae" parti~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ tlcuar s.tlispones for eholwaseelpdb r-iN stages includes deflnitiona of Ideographic areas. tmama, and other terms, iemclthfo frdvlpr 'IaIndi sometimes referred to all the Covasltal Location Acceptability thin stage In [few jersey's Participation in the national coaestial toile manage- lta.Iadionothsqtpe ment program, It to Important to "tress that for the put-police of th federalPmllt Coastal Zone 14anagemen~t Act, the policies of this chapter apply only within Sources Policies. the! any livd ocean Shore Segment boundary defined in Chapter Two and to leeht ocinplcyspsTpirteidtfcto f thte developments under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Program, aso defined it deined wagter watern 'su edg, r an thoype, n the prepart In", of Chapter your. maps Indic~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~follating the dlsitrlutition of the vaionrosn location types present all a proposed site. Variolos policies Are, tsocite wih I I VT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~the different types. Moie final stomps in tole processlo idleotify tl~e I ,mst~~~~~~~~.\ distributi~~~~~~~~~~~Onf specific policies for time pro~posed site. U . Thle eight steps of anslyals begina h wtetprt ft" * ,.1. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~coastal region andl proceed uplan~d to itie *Iraie areas. TIle stepso, r/7 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~With tlheir relcivant section numbners, are as follows. Step I - Identify junk plop Special W-ter Areas (Section 6.2k In same wstqr aureas, sc,b as surf Clain l'Vmls or navitat ion clamn,.,, s ithere In a "Conentration of specifically Value Hele ,tmr *,aItual 23 m - ~~~~~~~~~229 l~~~l~tThis map allows the distribution Of existing Property to ascae ofl:ZOOO Th souce f date is the Ocean County Tax (step I. Identify and map Special Water Areas) Certain specific water areas merit foc'sed attention and special malnage.- ment policies. Thle tidal estuariea of Now Jersey are critical habitats for at least two-thirds of the state's Important marine coismercial and It Id ~~~~~~~~~~~recreational species of finfishes. These species are comrronly called "estuarine dependent", because their life cycles rely upon thle estuaries as nursery, wintering, and/or feeding areas. Finfish, like waterfowl end blue-claw crabs, are iiig1,ly mobile and seasonally migratory even- tures. Each uses various portion" of tile estuarine system at different Pt ~~~~~~ *' vi ~~~~~~~stages in their life cycles. depending onl seasonal and daily aquatic and atmospheric conditions. For theme reasons, thle entire estuarine system (tidal waters and coastal wetlands) must be viewed an prime finfish and shellfish nursery habitats and prime migratory waterfowl wiantering areas. This section defines the various Special Water Areas, andl indi- cates thre applicdlrle location policy.-f/ The Information requirements for each of these Spe~ Wate ra are similar; a map shall he prepared at' the scale a�'l2,O frPre- Ii - Ilypotbetical Marina Proposal application conferences and at least thre scale of l:,I-l fo plcation 1I - Hypothetical Housing l'roposals purposes, showing the distribution of each% Special Water Area on the - Existing small subdivisions proposed site. P'ROPERTY BOUNDARIES The assumption Is made for the purpose of illustrating the analysis 621SelihBd described in tile following sections. that proposal" have been 6.2.1.1 Definition received simultaneously on all properties marked "U'D for moderate density housing (5 dwelling units per acre) and on the property Eatuarine bay or river bottoms (tidelands) presently marked "M" for a max-Ina. support ing commercial or recreat lanaI qusot it ins of hard clams, soft clams, oyster or bay scallops. no such proposals really exist; this islo a 'purely Itypothetical This category Includes., open, seasonally open, and study to illustrate boir thme steps of tile lncat ion Policies (CLAJI) specially restricted water quality classes as shown analysis are done. in Shellfishing Area Charts I through 10, prepared by and available frosm IEP. Source areas for trans"plant- ing (relays) programs and depurstion processing are I-U' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~included, as well off natural orartificial oyster Lt") ~ ~ , seed (spat) aetting beds. Maps of shellfish beds can ,' ~~~ '4~~j �7&~~~it"'~~- J ~be found in It. Ilaskirl (19 3) "Ilistribut ion of Shell- I / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~fish Resources In Relation to New Jersey Intracoastal I' ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ I ~~~~~~~Waterway". .~ C "I", -'/i ,/!f. e/ 6.2.1.2 PolicyL' . L?'t~~~tI ~. ~~:' ~~'i-;~~~i ;1..t- ~~~ / / / ~Coastal development which would directly discharge * a-i') H'~~~ ~L~-~c41 untreated domestic sewage, aor lodustrial',ats / n/ A,/ .C,-c~i e e l ~ , toxic or carcinogenic agents o1r'A2t'%Vepllinity 114 ~~~~'~~' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I''~~~,'' ,. ~~~regime, or natural water flow patterns during oea ((4L4 /4:~~~.$C/h 17...( ./1~~~~~~,~i'(y' , ~~~) t~iof development in prohibited. Water dlependent- Ut4.C1 I a4 (1.-i ,,gve ment which requires dredging adjacent to / ~'- w~ in"' 'as' tt~'~5 I ~ al-'4 ~ .- ..~*.' ~'.. shellfish beds will be conditionally acceptable, provided thtnt the activity to managed so as not to cause significant mortality of tile shellfish' resulting from increase in turbidity anid sedimentation. resus- pension of toxic chemicals, or to otherwise interfere with thle natural functioning of tile shellfishi bedsl. 30 3 -.~~~~~~~~~~~~I iing which would alter rcinttiup, Itethymetry to a 6.2.2.3 Rationale' .11%iguficant degree no nim to redulce, the hish ffiltiery productivity of these areAq. lM~ponnmat ofdnnmctic Thle surf clam ffishety in~~' Y ~ "'Fo fluerelwane Jisr~ disoutpeda mu-tui't Important fisliery wital dock-aide landing Vall"oueutra "tI n ilourd n utme (wholesale) of $10.8 miltlion during 1916 anod eqti- iiapplicable stnti, and fr(Ierel effluent llynttitr'on mated retail Value of $21 million. The Inusr and water quality natendrdo. flevelopmpnt w11,i1h wottid annall RntrtenIn onies In excess of thle retail preclude exiatfog public access to fehoreliuc will lie vauesportumploymenterftn over 300 full and part prohibited. evel~,opment of regional OF natio".1l time people in employment of sub~~~~~~~~~~~~nolmnrine pipetines. will be directed to locate in an procen"lug, dintirlbuttiorladidnr evc significant areas of productive Witter arP presently Ialternate Corridor. closed due to water pollution. In addition, the MeaiOve mlirine fint ill dotter the summer of 1976 6733 Rtoae Wae eatimfated to have resuited In the logo of $69 million in aen tintural bathymetric feeture~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.s ,nd artificial rtr,,c- mil~lionto menca tock" over a seven year period. Unlvlhtlmet1 rtt, Surf! clam harvestriug within New Jerseny's territorial I turen act ma co"Fregat ion areas for molny epeclem of "en In reguletud by HJUMP The Hid-Atlantic Reptional fiufinh. ehlia, nd a diversilty of invertebrate Ft-iereg angemnt OUIC1. rguate set laming speclea Which tire ragential to marine ecoslyitem within thle Fiehery Conservation5 zone (200 mile funcretionil ngdTq commerc al fihermen. u verp~ b.y limit). flarvestlog to required to be compatible with milleaionapole aundallypertialfglpfte in mrier spor theme ageociem, no appropriatei. harvest quotefi sind milliong peopl annulpatichipat In 14ev .crey Thsrparo other management measutes have been adopted for BenfgtgadfiNewjre 1"rpe. oc~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ean wt"i et thle higheet nu'mber of Partiripants in any tilemn Fishery clramtio za one.os atate, tro ain ffe to Mihrylisud. of that total , 1.6 the Fiehery Coneervfit~~~~~~~~~~~~~~u ~million reside to Rev Jlerrvey, With tile ream"Iinig number colminig mostly from i'ennnyivnll n 4vYr 6.2.31 limFish fing Are ns (192.000 and 3109,000 respectively.) 6.2.3.1 Definitl~~~~~~~~~~ur Fi 6.2.1 ~~~~~ Finfg 1bHhigratory i'athwey" Title category include-; special tidal water arenas and .1,l ifntin any water's edre arens Which have a demanntrateble 6...1 bfniin his tory of supporting a Rignlficnnt local qua nil~ ltere (ivee temcekhym of ihe recreational fishing activity. Included ar l aewy"(Iig teni.t1kb~Radin" cometni jettien and groins end public fishing littrs , k c known to serve em passspr.VlYq for nnadrafomou Fish to or docke-. prime fishing aream also includes all red I 1 .- ofrmssnisawngreonlirted by, hi. V.. line delineated features within the state of Niew .4 1 'Zich 11971) "tlfw Jersey AnnArsimitu fint, jnventory-l in'~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~I.1 1. 5i NJilFri 111gcellinenums Report. Its. tit, and includfing Jersey'" three mile territoriall see illuntrated .n A St ~ S ' ton 'otin of, th "Iso an -ce eRvr Guide to the United tatken. Atlantic Coasft Fisht, I IVAA w"thi thle con91tel .one htday 1pecies of concern Flsh~~~jroudC and Fshing Faclitles. Section I1I Tell I e ncludes alevife. (river herring) (Alone neuoar ____~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bulfc -rn (Al"ne ne~st Avelis). and~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e Bin.,.11. hd (Alit9 meideee), end triped~v hem _ioroo 6.2.3.2 policies?~ saxatilie). ,./." I - fermissible ogeon Incltude recreational and "'i rmericali ( finfishing mind aheliflebing, an comercla62.. Plcis presently ~ ~ IOeelpen ta hick nipa emem . so o nd by NJ ilivestors of Fish, Caine, anod shellfighetien, eeomnthtitntrteaM Ir. a sd- scubas diving *and other watter related recreational riu pIe apoilfe.maue ill_ activities". Ftmhting SCtivltIee in theme Neras be- required for "ivy uhevelormeut 1iil rmt seaward of (few Jersey's Coastal Zone Boundalry (within inToeig iPie XYgen levejm, rolt-'siop. the Fishery conservatios zone) are reqluired tot be 1.toxic chemicals, raisilp, embient Water temperature consistent wfith regulations adopted by Hid-Atlantic Iimpinging on ofridufloct lug Mperle., cantirlp ail- Regional Ftsherl~~~~~s ftandge~~~nt C o u n c i l. ~~tattoo, or ralislup turbigiitty levels daring springo Regional Flmberiem I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~migration p"rindn. V~nter's edge dieveiopment Whichr li-it J,(fl!~~ iiyj'.v- ,!6t1 incorporetem sip~~~rat Ion ncccss structresrP, IMCh, aml ~~~~~~~~~~ '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f~~~~~~~1 m ~ nt am Sld VISI~jg~~7H dignated nod functioning fish ladders, wthle Saecored pof~ thew Jo Utid) Titleji provided tht the Hi Division Of Fish, came, and fth ttofHwJrsey. ndrTteIII of tile Shtfseisaprovistededino thet acesarine protection, itesearci. and Sanctuaries Apt of sht~fgelf provesthre.dsg ftiea 1972 (P.L. 92-532), a marivne sanctuary can be establ- Ilshed for thle purpiose of preserving or- restoring 6.2.f,.3 Rationale: marine areas for various values. To date, there are no designated marine sanctuaries within Now Jersey. Striped bass are one Of New jersey's most Prized Thle Office of ocean Mainagement within HOAA In pri'- sport Fiat, and fire actively sought wherever they Beatty reviewing all nomina11tions and recommnlf)Pdations9 occur in Hoew Jersey. This species spawnis In the within thle Hild-Atlanstic slatels. I)FV-OCZN submitted Delaware, Hudson and Maurice Rtivers. American Shall, six recommendations to HOAA In 1971. Including the once, much more nulmerous and formerly anl Important Hudson Canyon, Shrewsbury Rocks, Grest Dlay estuary, commercial species, continue to make an annual shipwrecks, inlets, and offshnre sand ridgels. Final spawning run In the Delaware River, where there 1s an definition and designation of marine sanctuaries in active sport fishery. A much reduced commercial Na y Jersey's nearilhore nod offshore areas reqturies flishlery exists In Delaware 1ay. Ilerrings are import- joint actions by the covernor of Niew Jersey and tile aat forage spncies and spawn annually in many of Niew I I S e r t r f C m e c , w t a prvalb Jersey's tidal tributaries. flerringa a r e f i s h e d ~ the President of the United States and could take durIng sprimig runs. for direct hiumman consumption and place during 1918-1919. for use as bait. .-. oiy 6.2.5 Submerged Vegetation Management principles In the selected areas will 6 2 5.1 Defin~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tion: ~~~~~~~~serve to preserve and protect the areas,' as wellI as 6.2.5.1 Definition' __:> A r t ~~~~~~~~~~~CI indlicate what actions are not permissible In thle This special water area includes estuarrine water J~6Jarea. Hon-permissible vises will be dependent an supporting rooted vascular aeagrassesa ~has)vIdgeo" t ai proena F~~~~~~~~~.- QJY, P biIc ude: hablItat areas, species areas, research ,1 ~~ij~ sod the green algae sea lettuce (Uliva lactuca). ' ~Jareas, recreational and esthetic areas, and unique of Eelgrasa beds are limited to shallow portions of 1.t -\ fs(exceptional areasl. After designation, activities not .Ij t Sandy Nook Bay. Shrewsbury River, lower Barnegat Blay j '' .-compatible wthi thle basic purposes will be prohilbited and Ltittle Egg Harbor. Widgeon grass to for the moat o etitd u ngnrlalohrue r part imitd toshalow aeas f uper Brneglt fay. - 4 allowed. Final policy In marine sanctuaries insst be ILJA partaimied tom alwares of upper disribto nfte aboest~..l\ approved jointly by the Covernor of New Jersey and S~~~~ht --)species for L~ittle Egg harbor are available from DEE'.j' the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. Id -n tile DEp-oC7zH sponsored study, In R.S. Good- -et RAJA l~O\ C, I,l al. Analysis and Delineation of tile SOYbmtr~d Ve etfl- JiJ% .6.2.8.3 Rationale: tioan: A Case history of Little fg&_1IarbOr. In areas t ...' ~~~~outside of Little Egg hiarbor, a developer will be I'g' Certain portions of the Atlantic Ocean anid adjacent required to survey this resollrcm until DEP completes estuaries ore of special national and regional valise add~itional surveys, which could be adversely Impacted by development likely to take place in the future, especially 6.2.5.2 policies, activities related to offshore all and gas develop- asent. It to In the long-term interest of tile people Destructo ofsbegeleeato bd isprohi- of the notion to identify, protect, and manoge tblse bited. Mitigation measures will be required for all special areas. developments which would result in erosion Dr increased turbidity within this special area. 6.2.9 Illustrative Example: Special W~ater Areas ~,- '-) Dredging for energy pipelines and submarine cables of ~~-rP~' ( notion-al significance will be conditionally accept- The msap below shlows, to a scale al 1-24,000, the Specvial Water able, provided there to no Prudent or feasible Areas present in thle ill,,strative site. Tile only special water % alternative site, and it the site to restored to ae r sn oAarlogFsigaeswihl nurdI original bathymetry sand replanted with pre-develop- the Finfish Mligratory Pathwaysa. Tito data sou~rce for tIhia t~ ~sn veeato.informtIon to the "new Jersey arnsdromous Fiash Inventory" ment v e g e t a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~tion-aicellaneous Report No. 61 NJilEP as listed by II.E. Zich (1977). 35 232 6. 3.t, (eneral loForinftioll leqUIrcm1'nt." A fmap shall ibe prepared at thle scate" Of 1 :211.Ofi for pre-appi'l- - ~~cation Cunferecfl!5, "Ad at least ti'e scale of lt2,'.DO for ap~plication purposes, showing ite distirihotlnl tif various waiter * body type" ani till proponed site I- 6.3.5 1, Deitili of B~trhoa-Tye special Y~~~~~scer Areas '~~~~ Thle waiter arena of the coastal ione have been classified Into eight water boady types, as defined below. nddto. os ~~~~~~.d~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 water bodly typed are further classified accordhiop. to tIle depth AF' I flwdrd'lC'"s IFIS1 , of tile water body type, or It" bathlylnetry. fl ~~~~6.3.5.1 Bnsln Types; (arranged by assImilative capacity fo at.,, A . . . I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6.3.5.1.1 ocean 6.3 Water AeasAS~P~ldItif~d~tiP Wae ra) '' *All "yen" of tile Atan~tic Ortral out to tile. General D efi n i t ion ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~limit of Nlew Jers;ey's territorial rsefl 6.3.1 enrlefito , three inautical miileo; from the qbhoreline. Areas below tile Mean high water line, Including intrraa wIlse thea extend ofr thw mrk ine bonaritnPy areas, and tiontidal Permanent sucrfcel water specifIC are wad okifa oth toe5t tthVew YokImaritnePa classified "water Area"". Water areas Include various aondSarly writi fie ota teof helawareine types of basins9 and ciannels. bou n d arely, w ear tile Stoty Porint. ar 5.3.2 General PolIcy 6.3.5.1.2 Open tiay The location policy for coastal wsate area5 varies according to bd hthsasoeielnt nete the deptil of tile water baslin, flIOU ofrthe water channel, avdAIte owttcnfnd nstwae prpsdwa ter chanel o this ravond specif ic water 0r eildbaein an of three times tile width of its; outlet to wtrcanltesadspecific coastal uaies are thefn tiua ed inelow.e tile spi, with, a major river mOlnti discharg- SretIttyTb elt pecific coastal policiesn tore tiels, ietaynt arsticplaedri atn aTier fidialltge Tabd lead specific llaens it condidevringbnth h outlet to typically wride and unrestricted potentifil) of various types of lucattarra, filling tbm coastal ty land. Delaware Buay, Itlritaln flay a,,d LoainA c c e p t a b i l i t y for h a (C Ld i r c t l in Adtio n U it he wterpper Depork i yaet heo n ly T hper Aretas Policies preslented heret, proposed coastal development tatfives of tisis type In New Jersey. must also comply with applicable state endt federal effluen"t 63513SniFrne limitations and water quality standards. 63513Sa-nlsdfa A partially confined coastal wanter body with a narrow restricted fillet "tlld with 6~~~~~~~~~~ ra to 3niemnn Imactioal seedeignficant freshl waiter Inflow, elicot no TIenie senstiit t wlt Great flay and Gorprit Eggp 11arbor. ormriyfn the assimilaitive capacity of thle specific water63516Bc a Assiilatve cpacity indicaste" the amount of adverse I acteor polltla ntSv Cat a water body can absorb and lietr -635.1 4Bc a l.Or Iize before It begins to display s ignificant reds ction i bilgcldiversity. l Iiao pitysiclil waiter quality. TV*Agnrlys al"olwoCnt ae b~ ~ ~~tvlm n sinlgicat e ( t eicle raeoatWtr body with rentricted inets, to tile s..a And factors -- watevomendfuhnraeturaehtwtr low freshwater Inflows, and limited tidal In a ch a nine l or b a s in to re pl c d --at o are u ceh An CLANk toe , a se te "Olminlati've capiacity of waiter basins lcllinsd sShakRvr hrea determine~ ~ ~ ~ Ly th prslaewater volumte depends upon the Bay, Ifeeds Blay, Abrecon PlAY, LAW"e' flay sod and vater channels respectively great Sound, Among otlhers. s,,rface area and depth o ae oy h oainPlc ii ~~~for writer Areals considerso flusihing rate in termso of titree typesl of VA te channels and three type" of bays. The development A~f.potential of water types for apacifir sshsbe nlddi thle Waiter Area Ace"ptabityTbe 39 6 -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3 MM-- M m -M --M- Figure 3 WATER ACCEPTABILITY TABLE Ocean 0man Bay Semi-Enclosed Sack Say Inland Man-lade Channel. Ba Baasin Harbor I "I Prohibited - - D - Discouraged - C - Conditionally - N a Accepcable r . E Encouarged - Q =mpractical Q - 0 - 0 * 0 4. . 0 4 0 2 Note: Wacer depths are a a - -3 a * a a a - a a � ao measured Erom - a a - aaal~gvPa a m 0 a~ a 0~ a a � a . ~2 1 41a a a a a A a) a A a a mean low wacer Q .9 -3 . 5 0 ar 0 Z a~ 0 0 I .n i Z 1 Aquaculture C C P C C C C C C C C C C P C C 0 2. Boat Ramps / c C I C C C C C C D C C S C C D 3. Retaining Structures C C ,C C . g - C: C C C D C C C 4. Docks and Piers D C CD C C C C C C C E C C D S.Dredging-Maiotemance C C P C C P C P P C P P P E C C P 6. Dredgiag-New I D P I P D P P 0 P P P 0 D D P 7. Spoil Disposal C P C P P C P P P P P P P P P P P 8. Dumping P P F P P P P P- P P P. P P P P P 9. Filling I P / P .o'D PID.D P P DOP 10. Piling 0 CD C C C C C C C C , P C C C 0 It. Mooring P P P D D C C C C C / \ P C Ca P 12. Offshore Sand mining C P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 13. Bridges I / I 0 D 0 D D D 0 0 P C C C 14. Cable Routes C C C C C C C C C C C C P C C C 15. Overhead Lines I I P I I P P P P 0 D 0 P\ P 0 C C 16. PipeLine Routes C C C- 0 0 P C C, C. C C CaP P 0 0 D ;17. Eifluent Release C P cp:,) C P P. P ' 0 , P C D P I~~~~~~~~~ .N j~~~~~18. Dama and Imppoundments P P P P P P I: , P P P I~~~ 5. Iq 11' 0a -- -- Io a~1 ~ C . 4 . 1 l ~~~~~~~~~~~00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~0 Z0 .0 -..o~ : 0*~~~~0 Q2 24fl 2 a4- es el.- 01Oa ,.. 72.~ paa - ac U~q~ a Q DWH-I~~A a'9ao1 33 9~52~ �2 .9' a9 52 ; a~ r a '4a 0- m .na 'aa a c Cn aa a" 33 a ~ 5a0.9n.fla~a020 aoG o a.ZU-0 3 0 a -'7 -4 9/) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M 9 'M 0go VsC 03J 3 a a,~l 04 OA a ~ ~~~~~~~ 'Ioa - -7 oo r- ~'a 0 I '2na0 c0. a � _ ~ ~~~ 05 aol. nC ~n Ca 0 . . �Z a .~~ie 033 -na aa ~ a~ c,. Oaa a. - a so 00 0. a M - ~~oa a - - 3 ~.a ra , a * a V - - a , /.. � 4 ,P9 a 0--3~,aa " a r - n,. n.., a .aao - Oa ' L R. 0 tr -P~r4r ~~~~~~~3 0 a a3a 0 .,ar a n5 a = -I -a - ~~~ 3 C~~- n O~~~Oo 3 O 3 3� ~~~~ r~~ 3 fo aa 0 o.a O, O~ n - - Pa : n"/. ~ ~ ~ ~ - 07' -31 0 L* .9 .99 �1O - a0. 'I *. 0 0 . 0 0.- n a g ,,o a 0 - a 0. a. --~ ~~ ~~~ a n a 0 5 0n -. 0~ '4 a '4 a a'9.- .l 5 a 0.1� a a Ca 0 a 0. a .9 ar 0.~ 0 ~ 0" 0 0 4 - 53 a la nr 7C Onr , - 0 . a a a 0-0.0. - a ZE. a a aa *r 0. -, a 0. a '- I 5 5 c ~~ ~ ~ - g.~~~~~.5 historic Resources ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6.4.6.7 policy 7 poeilopment to Pro~hibited thlot Wo,,l' Ioh gniiroutly 6. 4.5.1 De i i t nr s u c 5 i c u e o j c s t U t f ,rmelce thlens tannt Of light re .11or,h g e' co , s t r neighboriio~dsIncluteict j, ctod strn- tudeor sn- within the site, n(1,,PrqelY affect neighborhoodn'~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~h dunityostr ricts n la-aelo -III tile Otte, canne eroslon modified festures of the landscape, fatcludIntilengltyO aerrah nrch~flC~lO~i~il sitC5, wich either hae been 00 oror de.gositiofl of materiali to or directly adjacenot to are eligible for Inclusion in the Sste rhatiflite it.or Nathe~~ inj.etete. hroe~ na Register of historic places. Thle ctit v In sireof tl~e sIte is enourosed. Tile sitp extent. to tile defined by the nhational park service. The range of Outer limit of the buffer areas neepn.-Iy to "Vold historic re sources Stlong the coast to broad nod adverse ftimpctat, of So feet from the tree., whlrh~ ever architecture, to exmaples of New jersey's maritime heritag~e, tocolonial home", food indiso airtifactfl. .63Rainl 6.6.5.2 rolicy tinny specimen trees have been aqlotctoted With sipeni- ficant hItoilevn, in addition to their Development that detracts from, encroaches upon, scientific importance. Specimen trees "re the damages, or destroys the value of historic resources lalgent known represellt.tv of sspecies, d Idiscored cetfcrcrig~db eoa frequetitly tile oldest lresr-.. ntfltve, too. Specimen of the his9oric Trsourcee sI, t take Vince, If the Tre r rplebe .~ I' , prpsd development propossi would irreversnbly ( .J:- 7~V4 affect historic resources. Developmen~t thist Incur- 6.?,.? prime Forest &reasi v s, -11 porstes historic resources iii adaptive reue is6.17. eintion ' e n c o u r a g e d . 6 . . . e f n t o 6.6.5.3 Rationale Low ~~~~~~~~~~~~ lying Jesspprig tati htecdr (Cluamsecys I5tyoLnde) Fhee White cedarg compose Th ulc itretrqie8hpesvationofli ao 670ignIfIcftnt percetnhtae of sitemso Within a giveti representative and unique historical and archaeolo-srn. C erlzd o ctn pgf wh ecda gical (cultural) resources of the coast, to order to stands can be found in i. tic~ormick and L~. Jones, thle poiethe present and Ifuture gerlerfltiofl5 with a Tine Barren" Vegetation (173), "I'd Forest type saps sense of the people, who lived, worked, and visited wt i ieN J E ueu. oety in thle coast in the post. flgP's office of nistoric preservation maintaiire an up-to-date list of proper- 6.4.1.2 policy ties on tile flev Jersey state Register of historic places (h...*13219-15.110 et seq.) and the aeeomnt~ dvoroply niffects prime forest National Reitro isoi lcs If.rnenIcld white cedar stands Rod their sur- v I t 6 .4-7.3 Rationale~ 6.1.6.1 Definition ghis, cee "tads Mont commnoly occur In flood the~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ht arg (asaa ee t~. bogwihnfreunl underin WRY" satuatd Specisen trees are telarest ldaeter at 45 fet h~~ rplains and In the fringe areas;o riaewy n shove ground) known individ tu 5l tree " of each species orga ssn wic h pa r e posits. t hin de F niai Wi th p rt cura rte In New Jersey as listed by DEP-11"rean of forestry ogncp n eoi" hnmtra sP (see New Jigl tdus Seemer-Otoer 1971 for unsuited for development unless highly altered. ali nting of specimen tree "). A specim e n tre~e Bit e Whigie aed aona grround a ter tsbln 5 between zero to w ith to the area directly beneath the croon, alwo known as its e onlgudwertbnbte" the frpie oot. .!.< A /'t5,~~~~~j, ~~ )f~~ *' tE.L, ~~White cedar stands, ss well sa oilier lowlanld swamp '7 .J1tdtd , forests, plany an important role fin purifying water In r lj.~~~.A~t~~ ( t~~i'ir.. ~~~ ~j5 ~~Le... IC4/~~~-y~~ . coasta1 atresmsg, retarding runoff, Providing scenic I ~~~~~~~~~ f 1 ,, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~value-, avid serving ins a tl richhaittt for Many rare J.~~~~~~~~.j(~~~~~~~~~~ n~~~~nd endangered plant nnd anima~l species, an well ins Ic 1 (61 j.1 * I.-~~~ tyh gmspeceser, auch asl deer. 60 61~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i - MMinnnnniiimimi White cedar stands also act as forest fire breaks. ii.us pecesin New Jersey's moot valuable timer species and grave in discrete stands. The wood has a 4,- j'.The head to defined ao -3 300 foot buffer zone long tradit ion of maritime and local craft uses. * aU~lon~ troe loinetof hesre a lInteprsectsted plane Unfrtuateywhite cedars have been eliminated frots -~teln fte.tem nrsc teie muchof teir previous range inNew Jersey. 6defining telmtosaoa high wtrtbea ~~ i.,, I ...~ - - I. . pjll. * e~urface A stream head alno extruuds 50 FL-et on both 6.4.8 rime Wldlifeliabiate. ~ '~ ~ t"K.'.L. ist ae~v ides of intermittent or perennial stream channels, J.e. . when the limit of seasonal high water table at 6.4.8.1~~~ Deiito F 4 , surface does not extend to the end of tile stream 6.4.8.1 Definiio' j channtuIl. (see Figure ID). Areas known to he tile habitat of any flown or fauna .132Plc \ species identified as "endangered" or "threatened" on6...2 oiy (ederal or Rev Jersey lists of endangered or threat- Development that would adversely affect the natural ~~~ ~ cued species, lnjscujgj ~ i ara f I- dent dimension to eng~~jj-e continued__survi~jjij~he functioning of stream heads In prohibited. In ?.i~stadyothr lcal arena serving a critical .particular, paving, filling, effluent. dincharge, / role in maintaiing wildlife, paricularly in win-vegetation disturbance, and disturbance of drainage ,L' ~~ ~~ J(~ tering, breeding, And migrating. These habitats atrsar rhbtd ! j' / ~~includes but are not limited to: colonial nesting 66i. ainl ~(Y~i~' -~ l~2:2~1( bird rookeries and white-tail deer wintering yards. 661. ainl ve information on thle geographic distribution of tluin temhasnrea groundwater d shreareas r~~~~~ ~Special Land Area is sensitive and not widely published. Srashaasrea * qify~ that help maintain tile quality of the water regimen /6A. .8.72f Policy of atreama, and directly protect tile quality of coastal waters, Stream beads are the source of tin ~~~~e",,'. lcvelopmenlt that causes minimal feasible interference perennial and ephemeral streams. , *,.~, .<..,..wiih prime wildlife habitats is conditionally accept- P ILI�';* --able. DEP will review development proposals involv- F..~,.. ing these areas an a case-by-case basis. Fg.e1 6.4.8.3 Rationale Thle veiiue of endangered and threatened species can *STREAM H1EADS not be based upon commsercial or recreational indus- tries wlhlch they help support. for these industries are usually consumptive of nattiral resource. Rather, ..n,,~, --i'wt. -t , ago,, ..Fift I-Ott *i the State of Neu Jersey. as custodian of a particular , . se,. / portion of tile national wildlife heritage, has thle C"A*.*i (1 - - 1O.OiU aes obligat Ion of stewardship on behalf of the people of tw floe state and nation toward perpetuation o~f wildlife species with~in its borders. Natural forces andI especially huisan actions have steadily redueced tile unniber and diversity of certain species. The State has an obligation to uose its influence and authority to keep preventable losses to a minimumu and perpetuatej those species faced with possible extinction. (~ Further, this obligation -boa bee,, clearly specified by both state and federal legislation. Thle New Jersey Endangered and tiongame Speciles Conservation Act (F.1.. 1973, c. 309) declares thuat it in the policy of file State to manage all forms of wildlife 62 236 sandy beacI, or tile first cultural feature surb 0 Fitrure 12 road, aaw"If--or boardwalk. 'These two Lower writer, ' "I\ Irdgo, types shall hp known as wetlands and benches .. respectively. Natural water's edges without beaches or conatrl wetlands4, avid retained and Filed areas atUPPER W~AT E R'S EDGE tile mean high voter lisle, with no reniaining naturall wetlands or beach area, are considered to be Uipper tIPPER WATER's Water's Edge areas. rigure It presents sketches L / defining thle Lower Water's Edge. V 6.5.1.2 Wetlands Policy (a) in general,' development of all kinds Is diacour- LOWE R UPE aged In wetlands, unless DEP can find that tthe LIMIT LIMIT proposeil development (see I1.J.A.C. I.7-l-.4): (1) Requires water access or is water oriented asacentral purpose pofihe basic thec tonly/ / L 3 J to development proposed on or adjacent to waterways); (it) Mans no prudent or feasible alternative on a / /IE " on-Wletland Site, F ORESTED /toF RES ED UPPER LIMIT 0 ice:' / ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~VEGETATION VEGETATION SOILS WiTtl SEA! I~ (Will 11 result in a missimum fea'sible alters's- EITHER /MORI: THAN/ LESS THAN 111011 WATER TAI tion or impairment of natural tidal circu- S ENHG AE > 1 1101 /1'111 AT SUfRVACE LIP' ml latlon, and ~~~~~~~~~~~IN TIDAL WATERS , / / *~ ~:r'~,(IV) Will result to minimum feasible alternation -~-1RFRESWAR WELANDSO or Impairment of thle natutral contour or the UPR LMT1 0 IR7NAL 'A ~~~~~~natural vegetation of the 4ictlands. , 'TME LOWER LIMIT V" IV EDGE WHICH EVER UPER AE EOGE W"ICIIEVER IS Fl) (b) In particular, dumping solid or liquid IastH~lesO OWRLM IL ~~~~~and applying or storing certain pesticides on i IHR ~~ ~ .,'~ ~' wetlandsf are prohibited (See hl.J.A.C. I:7A-1.2). O (~~~~3xainl for*~ Wtadpoic NORMAL WATER NIS 7 orWtnsPlIy LINE NON-TIDAL--)_~ The environmental values, social values, and fragi- WATERS ~~. j.. ~ lity of coastal wetlands have been officially recog- Ac o 170(N.J.S.A. tA1e seq.) coastalI u ~~wetlands are undoubtedly tile most enviornisentally at vauble land areas within the coastal zone. . Coastal wetlands contribute to thle Physicali stability of the coastal zone by serving aa- (a) a tranlsi- "'v ~~tional area between the forces of tile open sea and 'N ~upland areas by albsorbtion and dissipation of wind ,y' (,.' ~driven storm waves and storm surges, (b flood water j ~~~~~storage areas, thus reducing Inland damage, and (c) sediment and Potrlluion traps. Also, wetlands perform / ~~~~~naturally the waste water treateavent process of removing phorphorous and nitrogenous water Polio- tanits, unless the wetlands fire stressed. I~~~~~~~~W - m - - - -~~~~m m leaves and dead plants tois washed to thile streams, which carry it to estuarine waters whiere the detritus becomej the basis for estuarine food webs. 6.6.4 Soll Fermeailllty Factor 6 .6.4.1 Definition (g) Hailntenance of Wildlife Hlabitats. Flood prone 6.6..1 areas are very important wildlife habitats. The branching nature o f streams serves as wildlife Soil permeability is thile rate of vertical movement f branching nature of streams serves as wildlifewater through a surface sediments, expressed I movement corridors. Even when development is intensed inches per hour. Tile permeabil ity variable h; between stream corridors, preserved vegetated buffers nches per hour. Te ermeablty varable along streams help maintain wildlife species diver- three levels: sity and numbers. (a) igh 2"+ per or (a) Ueiuh 2 "+ per hoar (hi) Recreation. Thile linear branching nature of (b) Hedtum 0.2" - 2" per hour (c) Low O.2 - 02" per hour streams also offers the possibility of providing (c) Low - 0.2" per hour green walkways and bikeways, if vegetated buffers are Where peeailty vres r so horizon to so preserved. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Wiere permeability variay Ervin Soil horizon to so preserved. horizon, the lowest permeability level shall I 6.5.2.4 Upper Water's Edge Information Requirements used. Development proposals shall map and label the upper I'd 6.42 Rationale water's edge areas of a proposed project at a scale | S"' _q i of 1:24,000 at the pre-application stage and at least t , r The permeability of soils has several Implicatlo e pstagint oiu lvndicatg e,'-> ~ the 1:2,400 scale at the application stage pran t er, indicatsvi lng sources of information and the lower and upper rd surface permeability to zero, nreasr ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I ,'~ sotface runtoff and decreasing aquifer recharg boundaries of the upper water's edge. These areas 1 ae e reas ader mct shall be labeled Upper Water's Edge. If the on-site Thi have the greatest adverse Impact on t permeability soils, inadequat e filtration of rtl( vegetation is greater than ,0 feet re height, as be E l hydrologic yst In high permeability soils a f )1! ~established by site survey, then the area shall be lesefctnloprmaliyol. Inh labeled FORESTED. If the vegetation is less than 10 myau on ,naioo g tr els feet high and not wetlands vegeation, the area shall 'nay cause contamination of groundwater, wells, be labeled UNFORESTED. Area growing freshwater sti discharge areas. In low permeability soils, inas vegetation shall be labeled FRESHWATER WETLANDS. quate drainage may cause flooding. Soils of modf vegetation shall be labeled FRESIIWATER WETLANDS.atpembityndhhioechgeav ate permeability and high ton exchange have I highest nutrient absorbtioa capacity and are ther At the application stage, the inland limit of thile h ighest nutrient absorbtlon capaity and are tie upper water's edge should be defined by an on-site ore prime areas or land application nutrie ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~soil survey. ~Upland (SIIWT 3 4-) soils of high permeability prime aquifer recharge areas. Soil permeability a 6.5.3 Retained Water's Edge affects thile suitability of soils for subsurf; sewage disposal systems but this is discaussed se 6.5.3.1 Definition of Retained Water's Edge rately the resource policy section. 6.6.6.3 Information Requirements Retained Water's Edge Areas are adjacent to either 6.6.43 noraton quireent water areas or lower water's edge areas as defined Data for tihe distribution of these perneabil above and stabilized with existing bulkheads, revet- Data for the dstrbuton of these permeabi meats or sea walls. The lower limit of the Retained rom te ol Conservat Water's Edge tois the line of the retaining structure. Service (SCS) surveys by linking the soil t distribution maps to tile tahular data tuidicating The upper limit of the Retained riater's Edge is distribution maps to te tabular data Indicating either the first public cultural feature inland from permeability of l types. Site surveydata fro the retaining strucutre (such as a road or boardwalk) percolation test program will be accepted as __ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~alternative data source for surface permeabilt or 100 feet inland, whichever is the lesser. Two alternative data source or surface pereabi types of Retained Water's Edge are defined: those provided that there is at least one test pit cent along open water bodies and those along man-made within each sot type area ndicated by scs d (where available) and at least one test pit pet- ! lagoons. Figure 13 presents a sketch showing the (where available and at least one test t per I extent of the Retained Water's Edge. acres overall. An applicant shall prepare a showing the distribution of surface permeability all areas outside the water's edge. 76 238 85 - '~"~ m tuti forest or i-arlIy nurce X gl~~i~ogral- Arortrapt with? a tree cfln1y heieRlit 6 .6.4 .3 Illustrative Example: Lend Area - Permeability 15'Z Ft-e orPine o r pym foarestgrwti . The map below shows to a scale of 1124,000 the permeability factor Included In the Illustrative VIbI) M , edium, - Open lanIa, agritul~tural loads, field example. The data source In tile SCS County Selli s , uccesslonal meadnows, area" w~itl acrub ver"Ptati survey. 1&A .W~' of lip to 15 feet in heighit, and vacilnt Itot ( (*' ~~�'~~d ~ i nettled area". ~~ f6 '~~' ~ ~ Low - ~ Developedn land withr struct"1re *~~~~ +.. Ct ,. avlng, mown lawman, nvid open arran immediat e ~~' A~ 1,~' 0' adjacent to structures, which may inclisde ci, ~ ~ 1J\~\t1' J.~ highly maintained lendlaCnPed or vegtetat ~~ I ~~~~ areas. we.,. fl' ~~~~' ~~4 tVL '4?~~~~5.6.2 Ratitonale ~ "~j~,tti~ ,4N The vegetation Intlex In includedi no a seonitivi Mile ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ variable due to thle importance of con"Prvinp fore I ~~~and vegetat Ion resourcen for ntvlmerouaq reason c/U' 'mij ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Including noil ntnlbilization, air anti water pul-11 '~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~cation, surface runoff Hand flood control, w;Ildi habitat, and visual quality. An abandoned ineado fr~imabi; Lty succeed through orrul, to early aticcegoionnl fore tile vegetation? index changen frome medillm to0 hig The- 15' level Was selected becausnt at thie height r fi~~~fi. 5 S a l l F e r t i l i t y F a ctor ~~~~~~~~~~~~~vegetation provides rirnificant vistial screeningp a 6 . 6 . 5 S o i l F e r t i l i t y F a c t o r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t hle e x t e n t o f t r e e g r o w t h i s s u f f i c i e n t t o P r o v i 6. 6. 5;l Definition - Sall fertility indicat-ec the degree of thle valued environmental fummctionsm of a (tires ' - n~~~uitebility of nolls for producing field crops and f,,' I wood. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6.6.6.3 Inforination Rlequilrements I ~~~~~~The Soil Fertility variable has three levels, The classiflcat ion of tIle site by ttme ftiree levels � (a) High - Soil Coneervation Service (SCS) Agri- ~~~~~~~~~Vegetation Imidex halhe meapped uaimit recent neri -7 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~photograplmy or aite eurveys an9 data sources. cultural Capability Clacees I and ii, Special 66I Soill for Biueberries, Cranberries, and Woodland * utaieRanl: lam ra-VpeeueKi Suitability Clean I- The map below nhowc to a scale of 1-74,000 t1 (b) moderate - Agricultural Capability, Clean fit and veettve i ne in feiale Ilutaive iie 11? Woodland Suitability Clogs 2. so re I narl phoograple. (c).Low - Agricultural iCapability Clans IV and below, Woodland Sultability Clean 3 and below. The U1.S. Soil Conservation Service misne two ranking eyntema to dencribe thle potential of noill for plant e growth. The Agricultural Capability classes ectimate thle soil productivity for agricultural crops and the Woodland Suitability classes eatimate the oill productivity for timber. 86~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~8 m m m 86 m -~ ~ -W - (I) Hoomouth County All municipalities within Bay and Ocean Shore Segment (g) Ocean Couloty ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~Beactiwood, Berkeley,- Brick, Dover, - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Island Deighits, L~akewood, Ocean Cate, Pine Reach, Point plealaant, Soutl, Tom.. River t$Eb ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(Ii) Salem County Salem ~~~~~~ F ~~~~~~~~~~~~6.6.8.1.2 Limited Growth Areas Include those mainland tt~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ii~~~~e tinoRI-W-H-thin thle Bay anid Ocean __ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L ~~~~~~~~~share sepment of all muinicipalkiT ea out.?lde 5ro-W01--re as. 6.6.11.1.3 Figure 17 Indicatesl tile areas within the Say and Ocean Slhore Segment included in the Growth and Limited Growth Area 6.6.8 Regional Growth Potential Factor categories. 6.6.8. 1 Definition 6.6.8. 2 Fiationale' The Regonal Grwth Potntial fctor diides manland 1Growth Areas are municIpalIties where exteunive Th ein . rwhptenticalifator dithide emanla n devielopment lies already occuredl and there is a into e i~ therBay and Ocean SorLited CT / ?9 tory Of high developm~ent pressure On remanillg1 ino ithrGothAeso Lite Growth -tAreas . ~ .,c-l'r j undeveloped sites. Access to infrastructtire, traila- This1q cassfiat~o-os.o~p that ports~ppj k(t Jj-aAC portation and major employment centers is good. municipalities Jocated on _barrier_-_ I e-slands, such an Because of the increased development potential harbor, ~ ~ ~ ~ on and hi-ildwoodi Crest. onlyte P associated with growth areas, a higher intensity of Paroran l dCet.entily Fathe Development :,,t r~ development is acceptable than in Limited Growth ~;i:T~iBarrie islan Corrior. v.. carry out the Basic coastal Policy to concentrate tile Barie pattern of developments at a regional scale. 6.6.8.1.1 Growth Areas Include those mainland sectiong Tile classification of municipalities into Growth that lie within the Bay and Ocean share Areas and Limited Growth Areas for the purposes of segment of the following municipalitlus, tile Location Policies Is based in part on tile pro- listed below by county: posed Growth Aces and Limited] Growth Areas presented icei ~ ~ (a r. in the State Development Guide Plan (Preliminary Absecon' LiwodNrtfild le-at Draft - September 191?), prepared by the Department Ville, Somers Point of Cosmmunity Affairs, Division of state and Regional 1/' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Planning, an well as upon DEP-OCZM analysis of likely V.1i ~ () ulngo Cut ara of development pressure baseed on thle experience t~ ~ ~ ~ Ii in from 1971-R978 in the CAFRA permit program of regiala- Ave(d.4, ting major residential development. (c) Gape Hay County ~~~~~~~~~~~6.6.8.3 Information ]Requirements None The entire site is either In a growth or limited (d) Cumberland County growth municipality, it not an a barrier island. Bridgeton, 11lllville The applicant shall[ note In which type of moenici- (e) Middlesex County pality tile site 1~ located. Old Bridge 96 9/ 9,40 USE FOLICIES 1.1 Purposei 1. 2.6 Tile development of housing nt loratif" ;n...,,, dens itIies that 1.7 housing contrIbute to tile feasibility of p.,hlic transportat ion in 1.3 or-era o 'encouraged. 7.4 Energy 7.~ lpublic Facility lstibonae 7.6 idsr-oiec 7.7 p'orts public beniitli and welfare concerns sylsost aiti quality. as well 7.8 Shore Protectionastl eesttolmtrr`yTqietia public policies and decisions reocurapge public transiportat ion. _____ Pups .2.1 Re sa i deni ta tio de uselopmsent Itiv ol-Iop t hil dem ol ition aud cede-,r many types of development "pelt location"s In the coastal zone. Tile second Impractical andi infeasible. stage In the screening procres of the Coastal Resource ansi Dievelopm~ent Policies spells pout a -let of policies for particular uses of coastal Ratilendle resources. A proposed development must me-et thestap r of tete Policies, in addition to the location rolicie. Tile use policies often 'Me prenervatiuso. restoration?, or rehabilitating of Pxittiog: reinforce acid hig~hligh~t Location policies. struictures le preferable to demolition andi re~developmetur in ________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~order to rove, structures and nseig~hborhoods w~~ith historii ansI _____ _______Use______ aesthetic Interest. Rehabilitation can often bep more laelsr Def~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~intointensive than construct ion of M new Ini l.1;ng WhiuchiM man"s1 Definition ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~that more jobs are created and legs energy is consumed through:l the production of new building mate~rinls. Apphlicnts whe o;IJii Housing In the Dany and cean" shore Segment includ"s both large noid small an devel"ped sites must demoinstrite fly e5gnt fog structures developments of single family detached houses, mulitl-fasialy unit" with, cannot be rehabilitated. apgrtmentg 0o7 town honuses, hipgh rime~ buildings suit mixed loge develop_ ments. T ioai ng~hiishc anlo wetliandsy OrAo! ad 'mu 7.2.8 All high rise housing devolopmneuts, defined an strucluree monre housing on wetlands or riparienjands sqd to hou~~I~lansixgpoet. .~~ta l (6) stories or more than slyly (60) feePt from Crude, moit~i~oher part~of thsfsyso Ocen Shre Slmen (Se are encouraged to local" In arena of existing hip,?, denusity, Chapter your for a detailed description of the Hanagement system). high-rise anod/or Intense nkttlemplits. lhip"ls rise honunge Is4 1101181t dempopmr."tin thewater'sedge t prohibted. louq109acceptable subject to thle following condlitions- that requires lagoons, dredging, filling, or bulltheading is s(a) high-rise structures within flip vie. of coanital waters C (' prohibited. must he separated Frosy coastal waiters by at trust one 4 ~~~~~T public read or an equivalent park distasucus, lb) thve largest dimension of any luighl-risse structure muust lie uA4~~jl~f~h1,~~ ~ flaning le not de-ppndent on water access, and does not qaiyoriented perpendicuilar to flt-e baenh or roacta1 waters, WCfor. anY excep'tions to the Policy of restricting developsiseor In J tutr MtJ% f I ) ,.sensi/tive areas,.C U'N"CI -C3tlhe proposed srcuemiunt not balock th,, view of dunease, ft11sl~ i'(L 'j#\ lu'4..-eadlnes, horitons, inlets, hays, or oc-ans tIlut are 7 Housing development that clusters dwelling units an the areas ILf)Zf s.currently enjoyed from exintinp. rei-hnritial struictuures, ~~~ ~~~ ~Of sites moat suitable for development are encouraged. ou roads or pathways, Ratilonale 'J, si tile structure must not ovrhdwhencles; harvetwu tiny aund Clustering in defined as an Increase of net density reahizej by wrl cobr reducing this qlxe of private lots. The open space that Is s W e the proposed struct~ure multr be In character writh tue stir- produced by clustering can bie returned to the cmuity as rt common open apace~ ~~~~.a Th oclcoiun l o ing transitilonal lie iphi a and rsdn ld'stis comos~i rsnt opn spae iThe loaion pol ic bps define certain ()h,,pooe tutr ~s u uv navreipc s sniieareas wlhere development is prohibited. $41len such OI- )trfic proosd strutr quatlinty. v e ~vreipc i areeara rsn n8sie the acceptable groan density t a f c a d a r q aiy 132 INS. ~~~~m - mm m m mm" 0.3 Water Quality ___ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~8.3.1 Policy 8.1 PFSurpos r`N11_ Cstl eelpnt shall conform with all applicable ,ric The third step in tile screening procede of the Coastal Resource and sand groudaeqaltstnrdnetbisdadamn- of its effects on various resources of the built and natural environment7:40etsq) o1f thle coastal zone, both at the proposed site as well1 as In Its sur- rounding region. These P~ts�P seve s 8.3.2 ast ionale developmentmmistfldbeiC-.. li~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ost of the nutural. commercial, recreational, industrial, and 0.' aesthetic resources Of tile coastal zone affect or are affected 8.2 tlsrine Vis~~~~~~~~t and Fisheries Jj,..~~~~~~~' ` by surface and gr-ound water quality. Specific coastal zone gncorganisms, toxic and hazaidous wastes, thermal dis- 8.2.1 polcy ~ ~. '\..'Y te qualityproblems nclude pllution b nutriensapgtso Development 19 condItiOnll"y acceptable to tIle extent that.cre, suspended sediments, And saline intrusion into fresh- minimal fessible Interference to caused to the natural func- '1water resourcesf. These pollutants can lower water quality tioning of marine fish anti fisheries, including the reproduc- ')sufficiently to prevent desired water uses. tive and migratory patternis of estuarine and marine estuarine \I' fi1 urceWtrte dependent species of finfish and shellfish. 8,4Srae ae-s 8.2.2. Rationale I! '< 8.1 Poic Fishery resouirces provide recreation and economic Activity In Proposed coastal developisent shall jlemon..trate that tile anti- tile coastal toile. Finfiah (freshwater, estuarine, and marine) cipated surface water demand of tile facility will flat exceed anid shellfish resources provide significant recreation exper- tile capacity of the local potable water suipply system or iencea for rsidents . Iflew Jersey nd interstae visitors.reserve capacity and that construction Of thle facility will not These resources also help the ftate'a economy. DEP estimated cueuacpal ufc ae itracs that marine fishing In Hem Jersey provides 36.07 million/personf days of recreation" annually, with approximately $10.42 In 0.4.2 Rat IonalIe expenditures per day, yielding a total of $375.8 million to the state economy. of this total, fishing yields aproximately Tile surface waters of tile New Jersey coastal tonle are an $217.2 millionand sheliffshng 0158.6 millon. DEP alsoinvaluable natural resource. Fresh waters maintain tile pro- estimates that 1,868,000 people participated In marineleatuairine comecalgrerationosablise sidndsral agiltural , and.hy ev aes- recreational fishing in 19)6 In N~ew Jersey. Commercial land- c m e c a , r c e t oaidsraarcluaadsa ings for all(transit an obellfish i New Jerseyduring 1976thet ic resources. Any development that affects sir face water were 226,988,000 lbs., valued at $34.55 million dockside and an quality will have a negative impact an thefse tses. estimated $86.3 million retail value, according to Department8. GrudaeUs of Coesserce statistics. . GrudteUs Indices of interference with fish resources Include actions 8 5.1 I " olicy that cause: blockage of anadromous finfish spawning runs, redmict Ion in Clio critical capacity of estuaries to function as .~ Proposed coastal developments shahI demonstrate that thc finfih nursery areas, reduction of summer dissolved oxygen ) niiae rudae ihrwldmado h aiiywl heavy~~~~~~~~~~~~n fietlds or sinfoatlyloer toxi icptdronwater wthdawabean f le.fcltywl ,I level below 4 ppm, introduction of hnv etl rotertic"' wl cause usalnly Intrilsions into p~resent potable gmnmmnmlwater A~ iY~�*fl gents into coastal Witter, rise in Ambient water temperature N w l ilso infcnl oe iewtrtbe reim e seial during stammser and fall periods, Increases In ,~~ regime lespecils, siltation, or resuspension of toxic agents, Coastal developments shall conform with all applicalmle tiFp t~~~~~~ - ~ ~e effl.urbidty ees, from dmsic slid 'Y requirements for groundwater withdrawal anml water diversion A .a nid- -n-tro-4 ton of untreate eflens doet n Induatrisi sources. ' rights. 151 152 D.S. 2 at 1onale I Groundwater, defined as water beneath the land neOvldvlodpi"ossvrl a primary nource of water for drinkNg and Industrial ullieitl dpd tSpc ~vrlifriv-,,l ierv. 'tie primary source of water for drink ~~~~~~~~load "t,.a required for de~tentionl basins may be diffie,,It to some arena of tile coactal zone!, especially arena In Hilattain. theP gpenernl locntion policy rel~miren that aminimuma of Sa~~lem n ap tin contesexnve lmonufts of grout 5X Dr Orly Rite lot preserved in berl, or MIT'll, Vegetat ion avid are being w11thdrawn. The problem stems from the.overpumff calculations indicate that this could Ic C "oph for detent ion grotondwalter tend reduction of aquifer recharge CGRbamenaustcihtemxiu 12.rpac fIprin Increased development and popuAlationa. Tit I fine led to a nimrfacen. f~or this reason. nppliatnt aire requried to ,lenmn- loWering of the water table that may change tile bane Flow otrnte why a storm water ftewer syestem in essentifal. conditionn of streams,- Or increase cAMt water Intruaon" I .1to the grounldwilter. 11.11 Ilia trunof from urban pavemeot In hirhly polluted. Uact" v. t., ? - --, ~~~~~~~~petrochemicals, heavy metals, cuilpliuric Arid and, other Pon- 8.6 Runoff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~that thre rate of cnneer mortahlty in teaited to the extent that 8.6.1 1,1oderate Intensity D vlpmenty A r e Pat Ic urface Writer in titled me a Moores of dint inng water. Known - ~~~~~~~~~carclinogens are prenent In pavement runo~ff which makee it " I F o o nrtens y developm~ent rulO~ff lo~rerative to Introduce Adequate filtrat ion between pavitig and In area" designate 1:11 tthtwudan s cofo mderinigaiterweh .1flnuacorite crossing a "ite boundary Shall not exee thle rethtwldnyorcoFMdikn ae hte o h ofc ri occur Ifthe sitewere covred withmat" a frest vegtation.ground. It pavement runoff Is concntratieds In a email deten- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~toccu ifle tA ie eecveewihmtefornt eeain ~nnae, particularly an P.romc q.-ndy Rolla with low 0.6. Intnsiv Deelopent reaPolicy filtration capacity, tile pollutanto may regich thle grounidwater 8.6.2 intennive Oevelolxcent Area a~~~~~~~~~quifer and dincharpge Into Wells or Forfore waiter hodies. In arenas designated for Intensive deve oparcet the amount of Applicanto are encouraged to matxrmirr the, Efforts ri-ocharge of cuoffo it" rout ndr Whall~ nt excee thos rtehat wudocurosif the pavement runoiff hult should provide evidence that una.ccept able area of ittruicturee were collared With, MRn ure forest vgttogonwtrpluinwl o eut inft from paved arena ma-btai ee aolilare~ T;~ Thle runoff from the roofs and wal IF. of ntiruct,,ren Is co- provid~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~edta iderahly teen polluted than that from pavement Arena and tile pr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~odrqie ovidhred tl"haeet O uif n oeesl .~(a) Thbe applicant demonatratee thalt it Is not feasilble to land reuraed. Stirchae tehniqean element ofirnof ie ,mtire ea.%ni -~ rechare pavemet runoffon-fite either for reasons of the land draira and gabiona are encouraged to recharge thIs runoff. A recharge qualiyoftemelentrnf In permeable sandyngoils, It may be possible to dirchares quantity ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~runoeff from atructures to the rrollnd beneath impermeable (h) Tire atrm water pie~ do not arry sewerne waste orpaving. Applicants shall Included calculationg to allow that dincb) TheIntorm watr pipes doe Inotcar werconett wanster the runoff volume from a 100 year 21, houtr storm shalt not diacharge Into, or othervias interconnect with annitary d~~~~~~~'amage pavinig or cauee front III-V". lesronn paving In also -~~~~~ n~~~~ever systems,.norgdttprtml ol poiigfi h plcn a ' Ic) Th~~e storm water pipes do not iacrewtr nosufc how that thle filtration capacity 1,et.entenra- n h X, o r ground ~water without pasaing th,, effluent through water table in sufficient to prevent pavement cnntamvionaur; from V 4 ~ ~~treatment facilities, htt l flun rmtet reaching tl~e saqufer. .t?` IV ( a ) IIIe applicant demonstrates thtteefletfomtet 7 Soft Irronfon and Sedimentation A ~~~~~~~~~~meet facilities whvether an or off-aite, marts all appiI- 1 plc cable Water quality standards, and 8.. Plc (a) lb, applicant dernonskttatem tha~t the vol"nne of treated Coastal development will be requited to restrict coil Inca Rod effluent wrill not cause adverse Impacts in the Freeivin control coil etonion and cdcnttonduring thle coostroct ion water body. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~And Sediment Control Act (Chapter 211, P.V.. 1975). an admini- 8.6.3 Rationale ' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~stered Jointly by DP.1 and thle 11.1. Dlepartment of ApricultuIre, inpicpe t isdniabl" to apl h aeaadr f~state Still Conservation Committee. ii ~ -....mentshall1 not exceed thle aanonnt whicth would occur if tihe cite ~~. "i! ~~~~were covered with medium density forevet With iidrhr n a 74 4~~\. \\ ~ hour storm of 25 year recurrence frequenocy. 153~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5 151M3 - m m - m m m - m m - - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ '~~~~~~' 'A -1- - 8.8.2 t.9Wlif I "I Tilie steady loss of vegetaltionl is a nearly wZ;-bl eut f~j;'t ~. urbanization. Terrestrial vegetation rtblle sol retar 8..selca..f' I erosion and runoff, piomotes infiltratiOn of surface water, The deino reduces tidfreo ilprovides fossh lean eeigtechniques which favor or maintain native wildlife habitats, sites for wildlife, and adds to aesthe tic values for recreation diversity. and nUmbevs, to the m"ximnul" extent Practicable. and domestic life. Tree re lease life-giving oxygen. filter particuilntepollu~tants, provide foods and fuel, with no energy . I mprtn ntrlrsucofteoa. eirlle Becase achsite is unique, thle percentages of vegetative 1.WlifIsmpratnualesreoftecatVsrhe presaereacho required will depend upon thle environmental g' 1 nsite wildlife i mangmttenqeswihcud iiae preservation adverse lmpsct5, and fav~~~~~~~~~112.or minimal feasible Interference conditions within and adjacent to tile development site. Tile Yt a9" g~ ,~ nldvre mpracrvtsnI and deiait t pu pceo estve percentalge of tile Bite to remain naturally vegetat.ed must be i nld prsevaio an ded haicati of fient with, oespaecal aong sensiivaew co'I'spat ible it lelsdescribed in Location Policy. In ly aln ringwy general, thegreater the intensity of developmsent permitted. ,.4( and waterways, topeserve wildlife movesment corridors, place- tl~e less veeainpreservation required. mqaent of floating boxes. and planting of vegetative wildlife food vegetation ;:~~~~~~~~~'\ .~~~~i\ ~species. "Ap~propriate native coastal species" mneans that species selec -~ t inul lts usut reflect the natural physiological limitations of ~ $l ir species to survive in distinct habitats. whilch include all environslental processes (natural and artificial) that operate A''.10.1 Policies within a site. lion-suitable species plantingsa will do poorly Catldvlpetsalcnomt l plcIl tt n or die, or if preserved through an intens.ive maintenance Co astal demissi otnts bl conformtiot aelliui airqulityb statearsil program of 'ph' adjustment fertilization and irrigation, will andea demeissaions cregiteian sambisen to mait requity stadardof cause unaceptable ground and surface water impacts. th eealCenAr At asrmet ofne i 91 n1ew vegetative plantings will reflect regional geophysical6.0. tial suitability and can be grou1ped into three categories: 81.. Ia ol (a) Harrier Beach Sites - Plants tolerant of salt spray and lThe attainment and maintenance of high, air quality Is vital for ccdasi, blac h y bachlitefoodng, bach gass baymerrcnhly, rdtore. The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1971 require hen c~~~~~f heather, e t c . ~~~~~~~~~almost all states to develop a State ImplementatlotPln ist(13ir) 0 1 X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~to attain National Ambient Air Quality Stanudards (UAAQS) f,,r Mb Pine B.1rijens _Sites -Plants tolerant of infertile sandy photochemical oxidants. ~-.5l~s(f~~p~et t~I) nd cic watr uh aptcan Since tile principal source of hydrocarbons Bud oxides of shortlya ie, oiantc wbitebedar dgwod Aerican nitrogen, the precursors of oxidanta, is the a,,tomobile, tlre strategies -to attaini the 14AAQ1S must include, in addlitioni to (c) inner Coasal Plain and outhern outerCoastal Plainemission control an vehicles and l,,dustrial sources, measures 13' (c) ~Plnter comastal l wlin n other fuer atile, wPldaine -iis to reduce vehicle Wailes tr avellied. by Inducing a shift to car Pelans comastible wihfemtleas,wbeach dkrainedogod pools; and other modes of transportatiomn. The Coastal Program blachka caserrn whiemlock, waks, birch, hickrey, etc.od Policies on transportation address these objectives, as do thle black ch~erry white pinewl~lte birchlaurel, etc.policies concerning concentration of development. 14itlhin these regional groupings, time selection of individual furthermore, new major statlonary sources of hydhrocarbonls will species sho~uld take into consideratiOn tl~e depth to seasonal cniu ob ujc orsrcila uha h urn high grou1Indwivter table. Species which provide food for wildlife cniu o b ujc or~rcinsc stl urn or ther desirable traits will be favored for new planting. rqie ett fstcls.lls iesvrt ftersrc Species should ~bmadnce a...ug tionq will depend on the progress made in rediucing emsiggions "quit c fo!npe hough landscapearchitecth during time next decade. ~~ ~ w4-e ~~i-'t 1~'2 l.(~~'4 Thle problem of attainment and maintenance of carbon monoxidhe 6: .C . &AAQ Infra ressc as Atlantic city is one primarily of ".~~.*:' ~ ' ~~1~fJ~l~~('~('(' ~~' ,,/I I- ~~/CJ~i traffic congestion. ~~~~ 4*'a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 156 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~151 A. 16. RIat onale 1. ��The construction of some *oastal developments and Puhlic facilities in partlcular, lead almost Inevitably to predictable 6"_ pressures or needs for other types of development. 11Is kind of development also tends to alter signiflcantly the develop- ,sent potential of surroundIng areas, which often quickly leads to new proposals for hooslng or other faclitie. July 3, 197 responlible derision on a particular proposal m,1st conslder explicitly suh predictable secondary impacts. File Ho. TPh-G-78 t'?,l NC1 noting the position and surptus capacity of the proposal, an assessment can be made of the type snd position of further )~ 9 ~-..iT development likely to be Indtced by the enlarged service David H. Kinsey, Chief cnpacity. This area will be analyzed using the Location Office of Coastal Zone Management P'oliti ce. If this secondary impact analysis reveals inouffl- J. J. Department of environmental % Ivtace"ptable R eeg rcapacity for thle miun ad type of Poeto /development likely to result from the enlarged service capacity. P. o. Box 1899 the proposal for the public facility shll be denied. Trenton, New Jersey 08625 'uffers and compatIbIlIty of uses Ret State of How Jersey Coastal Management Program - 4F r 8.15.1 .oDay & Ocean Shore Segment - Draft f.l.S. - Fay, 1978 near Mr. Kingeyl Development shall he compatible with adjacent land and water types, as defined In thle Location Policies, to the "aXimum I have had the opportunity of reviewing the State of lew extent practIcable. In partIcular, development that is likely Jersey Coastal Management Program, nay X Ocean Shore Seg- to adversely affect adjacent or surroundIng water's Edge Areas, ment, and the draft Environmental Impact Statement. I have Special Land Areas, or Special water Areas is discouraged. listed below the principal concerns about this document and its impact on the overall planning process for the coastal Developments that are Incompotibie with, adjacent developt*ents area of New Jersey. shall provide vegetated and other types of buffers at the sIte boundary of sufficient wIdth to reduce the Incompatibllty, to 1. The flay & Ocean Shore Segment is not a progressive tile maximuru ettent practicable. statement in terms of planning the coastal region of the State of New Jersey. Many of the general Industrial developments shall provide the following mninmum policies and statements coC n taine d in this docu- b~ffersn meat appear to be contradictory and inconsistont. The document provides little positive guidance Site Boundary Suffer. Alround thre perimeter of the alt# in terms of development location within the thore shotl ce a minima, of 50 feet width between the coastal zone region. Several of the policies boundary and the edge of structures, paving or vegetation have no logical basis or realistic application dist,,rbance. ThIs buffer shaltl be preserved lotsan ed to the development process In tile State of new with, whip saplings (mlnimuw of three feet bIght) of native Jersey. Several of the policy statements may be foreat vegetation, at a minimum of I per. log square in conflict with statutory powers given to feet. municipalities and/or county Planning Doards in terms of site plan and subdivision reviews and Lot Boundary u1ffer. When an industrlal site Is sub- other detailed planning and regulatory powers. ai Ji~i~~~-lio or more building Iot" there afhell be a minimum 12'-G" buffer on either side of the lot line from 2. The Day a Ocean Shore Segment reflects a lack of which structures paling or vegetation disturbance is coordination with county and local land use planning excludedl. TIs 25 foot buffer stiall be preserved, or efforts which for the most part are much more planted with native forest vegetation as in the Site detailed and based upon site specific analyses rather Boun11dary Ruffer, than broad philosophical statements as contained in the Coastal and Ocean Shore Segment document. 60 MtaICI. tLANIfNO A (XN91ME )itUtaht * ttV~leMtNvu. '!UttjltS 03?t tt An!nf:Ar'r eESIN sww'o- F-o l hl-ulr, Jvm ,,Im~xo * Itsdrs. I 57fl I Joeta,, TI 1� itn ittf' ,.l~ntort$ s ftms ai~t it Itt l It ll~rw)rrr~ ~~~~ * m m m ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ m - m m m -~~~l�r~(Cll( ~lnM'.Rm~b11m ~m-r~nrl Sheet 2 File No. TPA-G-7B uy3,17 Sheet 3 Sheetuly 3, 1S7 ~File No. TPA-G~-70~ ~J~~uly 3, 1979File No. TPA-G-78 July 3, 1978 Le: David N. Kinsey, Chief Re: State of New Jersey Coastal Management Program Let David N. Kinsey, Chief Bay & Ocean Shore Segment - Draft E.I.S. - May 1978 Ret State of New Jersey Coastal Management Program Day & Ocean Shore Segment - Draft E.I.. - May 197 3. The lack of mapping is a major flaw in the entire Coastal Management Program in the State of New coastal region to a "streamhead" according to the Jersey. This flaw has caused unnecessary dis- definition indicated. If the definition refers to agreements and confrontations between the Coastal intermittent streams which are identified on U.S.G.S. Management Program staff and local and county Quadrangle Sheets, this should be so specified. governments and private developers. The applica- tion of this document as a guideline within the 6. The section pertaining to waters edge areas (6.5) local and county planning processes is practically should be thoroughly reviewed and revised In ac- impossible when compared to a mapped master plan cordance with previous comments and discussions by or a county development plan. It is very difficult several engineers and environmentalists. Questions to relate the proposed policies in this document about the definitions of the waters edge areas are with the complex land and water inter-relationships important in terms of identifying potential project which exist in the coastal area. sites and site reviews by the CAFRA staff. 4. There are several specific areas which are referenced 7. Section 7.5, Public Facility Use Policies, contains within the report which should be identified in wording which, I believe, should be modified. map form. The prime agricultural areas which are Specifically 7.5.4 should read "discouraqed" rather referred to can, I believe, be identified in most than "prohibited" and 7.5.5 should read encouraged" areas with the use of U.S.D.A. information. I am rather than is "required." It is readily evident that concerned, however, about the identification and within a coastal area with interlacing streams bays, mapping of prime wildlife habitats. In addition, and oceanfront it would be physically impossible in areas of endangered species, including the many situations not to block some physical or visual suggested buffer areas, should also be mapped. access to a waterfront. Also, the construction of Other significant environmental areas which are bicycle and footpaths in residential projects may referred to directly or by inference should be not be desirable in all situations nor would fishing included on a composite map for reference by state, catwalks and platforms on new or improved bridges county, and municipal agencies as well as interested necessarily ever be utilized and in many cases private developers. may not be desirable from a safety point of view. Section 7.5.9 should also be modified. The most 5. The definition of streamhead (6.4.13.1) is very energy efficient treatment system may be prohi- confusing and unrealistic. The term "ephemeral" bitively expensive in terms of capital investment. is not one generally used within planning, engineering, Each wastewater treament system should certainly or agricultural circles, Taken literally, "ephemeral" be evaluated in terms of energy efficiency, but (which means short lived or one day in duration to require that as a sole criteria for prohibiting according to Webster's dictionary) could construction seems unrealistic and very result in a total prohibition of development in difficult to establish from a technical viewpoint. the entire coastal region. Within an existing developed area, for example, there are 'ephemeral B. In Section 8.5 the proposed policy requiring that streams" in back yards, vacant lots and even in an applicant "shall demonstrate that the anticipated parking areas, etc. Application of a 300' radius groundwater withdrawal demand of the facility will to all "ephemeral" streams would reduce the entire not cause salt water intrusion into present potable groundwater, well fields or significantly lower the water table," is a prohibitively expensive Sheet 4 File No. TPA-G-78 July 3, 1970 Sheet 5 File No. TPA-G-78 July 3, 1978 Le! David N. Kinsey, Chief Ret State of New Jersey Coastal Management Program Let Davis N. Kinney, Chief Day & Ocean Shore Segment - Draft E.I.S. - May 19789 Re State of New Jersey Coastal Management Program Bay & Ocean Shore Segment - Draft - r.I.S. - flay 1978 requirement and may not be technically possible, ex- cept on a regional level. Groundwater modeling has concerns about desirable buffering. I suggest that do- not been completed for most of the coast area by the tailed requirements for buffer be eliminated as not U.S.G.S. being appropriate as a "regional concern." (Enclosed for your review is an example of the new Dover Township 9. Section 8.6 (Runoff) is totally unmanageable as it requirements for buffer areas). is written. I would fully concur with the comments and observations presented by several of the engi- 12. While several of the policies contained in the docu- neers in tile coastal region, Including specifically meet are paraphrases or extracts from existing the comments submitted by C. Bernard Slum, Jr., P.E. policies within the DSP and the State of New Jersey, in his letter to you dated June 22, 1978. several of the policies which are being promoted by the Coastal Zone Management Program are conflicting. 10. Section 8.13 (Design) is one which should be re- For example, the continued stress o lnnfill by considered. The word "shall" in the first sentence CAFRA may be inconsistent with other environmental should be modified to reflect the term encouraged. policies being promoted, including the proposed runoff In many cases, the materials, color, texture and policy. Intensification of development in the coastal geometry of buildings, etc. in the coastal zone zone, particularly in Ocean and enolmouth Counties may is pretty dismal. Many new developments which are be self-defeating. In areas of the coast which are sharp departures from what currently exists have developed to a great extent, infill basically requires provided the only aesthetic buildings in many of the building on marginal property. This is particularly coastal areas. Many of the summer rental units Isuch as true in portions of Ocean and ilonmouth Counties. those near Island Beach State Park? are certainly not While infill may be desirable philosophically, I worthy of emulation. believe that the emphasis on the entire process of development by CAFRI and the coastal zone manage- 11. Section 8.15 B(uffers for Industrial Developments) ment program should be on the compatibility of develop- should be thoroughly reconsidered. This type of ment with the environment. This may result in infill detailed requirement is the prerogative of munici- but it may also result in extension of development palties in accordance with State statutes pertain- (which is ignored apparently in this document in lng to Municipal Land Use Law. At any rate, the contrast to earlier coastal zone policy statements) requirements are unrealistic in terms of the wording. or in new developments in somewhat isolated areas. The term "native forest vegetation" may make no The process of infill is also a very costly process. sense whatsoever in terms of a new industrial develop- Encouraging the development of low and moderate ment. If a buffer requirement is going to be income housing may best be achieved by extension or establishedt I would submit that it be encouraged in ac- encouraging selected new development areas. Infill cordance with municipal zoning and subdivision regula- properties are very expensive. Largescale development tions. Native vegetation in the coastal area is in undeveloped areas produces much less cost on an not generally good buffer material and secondly in individual unit basis than most infill areas, even very difficult to obtain on the open market. It relatively large infill areas. Extenisive develop- is a stringent requirement which reflects a lack ment of infill areas may also result in a) degradation of understanding of land development and local of air quality, b) degradation of water quality, and c} elimination of areas for ground water recharge. It should be stressed that the infill policy may not be as desirable in terms of overall environmental quality mIIII ..� - m m mI - Sheet 6 Sheet 7 File No. TPA-G-78 July 3, 1978 tile No. TPA-G-70 July 3. 1978 Let David N. Kinsey, Chief Leg David N. Kinsey, Chief Res State of New Jersey Coastal Management Program Ret State of New Jersey Coastal Management Program Bay & Ocean Shore Segment - Draft E.I.S. - Hay 1978 Day & Ocean Shore Segment - Draft - E.I.S. - May 1978 as would appear on the surface. Areas which have I do commend you and your staff on the effort which was experienced the "lnfill process" in its ultimate form, undertaken in developing a broad based Coastal Zone Management i.e. urban areas, are not always desirable as quality Program. I hope that my comments will be of value in improving living environments. the Coastal Zone Management Program in the future. There are types of urban development which should Very truly yours, be discouraged. These may include linear development in areas other than certain naturally restricted TOWNPLAN ASSOCIATES areas, remote development areas in some cases, or A extension in other cases. Again the lack of mapping makes it difficult to be specific. THOMAS A. TIHOMAS, P.P-t A.I.P. As has been stated several times at previous meetings with PRESAD.NT the CAFRA and Coastal Zone Management staff, the importance of TATevs developing guidelines and policies is to provide a framework Enclosure as Noted within which all parties concerned can review proposed development. In terms of the Coastal Zone Management Program (as enunciated cut Michael Gross, Esq. in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, some of the proposed policies appear to be too specific in terms of site plan review procedures and requirements. In many cases these specific requirements have not been well thought out and their impact therefore is of limited value in terms of promoting a desired goal. On the other hand, the very broad policies included in the document are often difficult to relate in terms of an overall development plan within a community. A general theme in the document is one of requiring applicants (including municipal and county governments) to evaluate many complex and difficult questions which realistically can only be addressed on an areawide or regional level. Reguiring an applicant to address regional problems, some of which have not yet been addressed in any reasonable form by federal, state or regional agencies, is not realistic nor is it productive. I believe that the unreasonable burden of some of the requirements may result in the encouragement of development in areas outside of CAFRAES, many of which are much more sensitive than those within the coastal region itself and which, in any event, could produce more adverse impacts within the coastal area than if the develop- ments had originally been located within the coastal zone itself. This overview of development is one which must be considered seriously by the State of New Jersey and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration in its review of the proposed Bay & Ocean Shore segment draft Environmental Impact Statement. b) Uses in all other zones - 20 fet, unless a greater width is specified for the use in this Chapter. 2. If a home professional office, home occupation or an accessory use to a single family detached or two family detached dwelling requires ten (10) or more off-street parking spaces, the Planning Board shall consider the need for a buffer area and may require that buffer areas of twenty 120) feet in width be provided along side and rear property lines adjacent to such accessory use and/or off- street parking. 3. If a proposed single family detached or two family detached subdivision abuts a major collector or minor or principal arterial highway or an area zoned for or occupied by other uses, the Planning Poard shall consider the need for buffer areas and may requiret a) That a buffer strip not exceeding fifty (50) feet in width be provided and maintained in Its natural state and/or suitably planted with screening and landscaping, or , Sl ECTION 101-8.4 BUFFER IAEAS# SCREBEIINGi, LANDSCAPING b) That the adjacent lots front on an Interior street and have a depth of at least two hundred {200) AND SHADE TREES sfeet with suitable screening and landscaping planted A. Buffer Areas. All uses, other than single family detached at the rear, or and two family detached dwellings and their accessory uses (except as otherwise provided in this Chapter), shall pro- c) That other suitable means of separation be vide buffer areas along all side and rear property lines provided. which abut areas zoned residentially (including single hfamily detached, two mily or mur n -ifal mily detached 4. Buffer areas shall be maintained and kept free of all family detached, two family or multi-family detached dwellings) and along front property lines on local, locall erass. collector, minor collector and major collector streets which abut areas zoned for such residential uses. of vehicles shall be permitted within the buffer area, 1. The width of the buffer area shall be determined except that, where permitted by the Planning Board, the i. The width of the buffer aasha edeteminbuffer area may be broken for vehicular or pedestrian in accordance with the followingli access and appropriate directional and safety signs pro- a) Uses in the Rural Highway Business, Regional vided. Commercial, 0-10 Office, 0-15 Office, Industrial, B. Screening. Within buffer areas required by Section 101-8.4, Light Industrial, R-BOO, Rural, R-400, R-400C and above, there shall be provided screening In accordance R-200 Zones - 50 feet. with the following regulationst -174- -175- 1. The location of screening within buffer areas wider Those portions of the buffer are? not included within the than twenty (20) feet shall be arranged in order to provide screening strip shall either contain existing vegetation maximum protection to adjacent properties and to avoid approved by the Environmental Commission and/or be planted damage to or interference within desirable existing plant with trees and shrubs in accordance with a landscaping material and, shall be subject to approval by the Planning plan approved by the Dover Township Environmental Commission. Board. Possible arrangements include, but are not limited to, those shown in F~igures LA, LB and IC. 2. Except as otherwise provided herein, the screening area shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet in width and shall be planted with evergreen trees approved by the Dover Township Environmental Commission (a list of sug- P ROPE TY Otl 110IE Li mi gested trees and species may be obtained from the Environ- o ~iNE~~~~~ mental Commission). Trees shall be planted in two staggered $easr~~f t",|" 4)f J At i Adrows eight (8) feet apart and shal! be between six (6) and "Pi_ t Xf 44t *E As eight (8) feet in height and shall conform to the current American Standard for Nursery Stock sponsored by the ~~~~AREA % I ,o/oara American Association of Hurserymen, Inc. l.ithin each row, the trees shall be planted on six (6) foot centers (see 14TA b y _ _ETTION Figure 2A below). FIGURE 2A Figure IA PARALLEL SCREENING STANDARD SCREENlING RQPfRTY Oft VONE LINEI AREA I %%5 lter t Q a/ 20' 8 Figure IR SERPENTINE SCREENING PPOI- 1PENTV Ulf 1. Double staggered rows of approved evergreen trees. "_ UFpop OR #L. __ AREA V .I 3. In cases where it is determined to be desirable by '. >/ S / , >~~ I;"_~~ ~ _.'.,0��A~ .D_-(L.-~. . \ the Planning Board, evergreen trees planted with a I C / ~' ~t / { .4 XX: .t ... 0 minimum height of four 14) feet may be substituted for S\(t ,,,'/ y._/ '~.. AL~ ^the six (6) to eight (9) foot trees required under /' . Section 101-8.4, A provided that the developer shall install a solid six (6) foot high stockade fence along Figure IC the outside of the required screening strips prior to BROKEN SCREENING commencing the construction of improvements on the site. -177- -176- The stockade fence shall be maintained In good condition by the developer until such time as the evergreen trees have grown to a minimnuma height of ten IlOlfeet at which at which the screening strip is to be planted is greater time, the developer may remove the Stockade fence. than the average ground elevation at the nearest required rear, side or front setback line on the abutting residen- 4. Where existing specimen trees, as defined in Chapter tially zoned property, the Planning noard may permit 142 of the Code of the Township of Dover, exists within a the height of trees planted in the required mcreening screening area, they should be retained and supplemented strips to be decreased by an amount equal to one-half with shade tolerant evergreen trees to provide the the differencd in elevation, except that in no case, equivalent of the required screening as determined by shall the required height be reduced to less than four the Dover Township Environmental Commission. (4) feet. 5. Where all proposed bulldings, parking areas and other 7. All trees in a screening area shall be watered weekly improvements are located one hundred 1100) feet or more through the first growing season. The developer shall from a property line abutting a residential zone, the construct a six inch (61 deep earth saucer around each Planning Board may permit a screening area ten (10) feet tree to hold water and fill with woodchips or other in width planted with a single row of evergreen trees In suitable mulch. Trees shall be nursery grown, balled a location approved by the Dover Township Planning Board and bagged, sheared and shaped, of the regqured height planted on five i5) foot centers with a minimum height of and planted according to accepted horticultural standards. six (6) to eight (8) feet of a type and species to be sub- stituted for the screening area required in Figure 2A 8. At the following locations within required screening (see Figure 20 below),. areas, evergreen shrubs with a maximum mature height of thirty (30) inches or less, approved by the Dover FIGURE 28 Township Environmental CommissJ.on as to type, location and spacing, shall be provided in lien of the evergreen MODIFIED SCREENIfiG trees specified above:! a} Nithin sight triangle easements. b) Within twenty-five (25) feet of Intersections where sight triangle easements arr not provided. c) Within twenty-five (25) fcet of access drives. 9. Waiver: The Planning Board, after favorable recom- mendation by the Planning Board Engineer, Conservation Single row of approved evergreen trees. officer and Environmental Commission and after examination and review, may waive, fully or partially, provisions of 6. The required height for a screening area shall be this section in heavily wooded areas. n' areas unsuitable measured in relationship to the elevation of the land for plantings or because of other excoptional conditions, at the nearest required rear, side or front yard se- andor my reqire supplementary plantings. back line of the abutting residentially zoned properties. Where the average ground elevation of the location at which C. Landscaping. the screening strip is to be planted is less than the average ground elevation at the nearest req'iired rear, 1. Topsoil Preservation: 1o topsoi3 shall be removed side or front setback line on the abutting residentially from the site or used as spoil, except as may be provided goned property, the Planning Board may require the height for in a Topsoil Removal Permit issured in accordance with of trees planted in the required screening strip be the ordinances of Dover Township regulating mining opera- increased by an amount equal to the difference in eleva- tions, or excess topsoil remainina after ail improvements tion. Where the average ground elevation of the location have been installed in accordance mitli an aerroved Eite -178- -170- mh b in n - - - - -- lan or subdivision map after topsoil has been redistributed n accordance with this paragraph. All topsoil moved scheme, provide cleared, graded and drained pathways during the course of construction shall be redistributed approximately four (4) feet wide through all public or on all regraded surfaces so as to provide an even cover quasi-public open space in heavily wooded areas. Such and shall be stabilized by seeding or planting. All re- pathways should be sited to conform to the existing graded areas and all lawn areas shall be covered by a four natural conditions and should remain unobstructed. They (4) inch minimum thickness of topsoil. If sufficient top- are not intended to provide improved walkways, but only soil is not available on the site, topsoil meeting the to provide easy access through open space areas. requirements of the Standard Specifications shall be pro- vided to result in a four 14) inch minimum thickness. 7. Additional trees In single family and two family subdivisions: Besides the screening and shade tree 2. Tree Removals All tree removal shall be in accordance requirements, additional trees shall be planted with the requirements of Chapter 142 {Trees) of the Code of throughout the subdivision in accordance with a the Township of Dover. planting plan approved by the Planning Board at the time of final approval, The number of trees planted 3. Protection of Treess [to material or temporary soil shall be not less than ten (10) per acre, calculated on deposits shall be placed within six (6) feet of any trees the basis of the entire subdivision tract. The variety of or shrubs designated to be retained on the preliminary plantings may vary from those listed under shade tree and/or final plat. where grading may be required, requirements and may include flowering types and/or trees not shown for removal shall be walled in and evergreens, not exceeding thirty percent (30t) of the extension tiled to the outer crown of the tree. total plantings. 4. Removal of Debris: All tree stumps and other tree e. Additional landscaping for non-residential uses: parts or other debris shall be removed from the site and ln conjunction with all uses other than single and two disposed of in accordance with law. Ho tree stumps, family homes, all areas of the site not occupied by portions of a tree trunk or limbs shall be buried buildings, pavement, sidewalks, required screening, re- anywhere in the development. All dead or dying trees, quired parking area landscaping, required safety islands, standing or fallen, shall be removed from the site. If or other required Improvements, shall be landscaped by trees and limbs are reduced to chips they may, subject the planting of grass or other ground cover acceptable to the approval of the Township Engineer, be used as to the Planning Board and a minimum of two 12) shrubs mulch in landscaped areas. and one (1) tree for eacF two hundred fifty (250) square feet of open space. 5. Slope Plantings: Landscaping of the area of all cuts or fills and terraces shall be sufficient to prevent erosion, 9. Trees shall be planted with a minimum diameter of two shall be approved by the Planning Board and shall be {2) inches breast high. in accordance with applicable portions of Chapter 125A (Soil Erosion) of the Code of the Township of Dover. All 10. Waiver: The Planning Board, after favorable roadway slopes steeper than one (11 foot vertically to three recommendation by the Planning Board Engineer, Conserva- (3) feet horizontally shall be planted with suitable cover tion Officer, and Environmental Commission and after plants combined with grasses and/or sodding. Grasses examination and review, may waive, fully or partially, or sodding alone shall not be acceptable. provisions of this section in heavily wooded areas, in areas unsuitable for plantings or because of other exceptional 6. Selective Thinning: Throughout the development conditions, and/or may require supplementary plantings. except in areas specifically designated to remain in their natural state, in landscaped or buffer areas, on building 11. Specifications: All planting, clearing, selective lots and in open space areas for public or quasi-public use, thinning, topsoiling, seeding and other landscaping the developer shall selectively thin to remove all dead or work shall conform to the applicable requirements of dying vegetation, either standing or fallen, and shall remove, the Standard Specifications. including grubbing out stumps, all undesirable trees and other growth. The developer shall, in accordance with 12. Landscaping Plant The placement of landscaping shall overall site development and his proposed landscaping be in accordance with a landscaping plan submitted with the Il) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~final plat. 252o- -181- 252 13. Relocated Plantings' Existing plants nay be salvnmed and/or relocated from clEaring areas within the development Shade Tree ComnIsSiOD, such per0on or persons may and/or relocated r t cleari' are and utilized to meet the planting raq'1irementa~ of SaeTe omsin.sc e~no esn a andSec utiolizen 101-8.4 C, and , provided that do so, provided that they conform to the provisions of ~~~~~~Section C,1~ 7 and B. provided thatthis Chapter, and further provided that permission of al Each three (31 items of salvaged and/or relocated the said Dover Townshilp Shade Tree Cotmission is plant material shall be considered equivalent to two obtained. (2! items of new plant material, and (21 Items of new plant material, and 3. All shade trees to be hereafter planted In accordance b) All such salvaged and/or relocated plant material with this Chapter shall be nursery grown, or of sub- b sh all b e of a type, s and/t qualty acceptable to stantlally uniform size and shape and shall have straight the Conservation Officer and the Township Engineer, trunks. Ornamental trees need not have straight trunks, and but must conform in all other respectS with the provisions for trees and tree plantings outlined in this Chapter. C! all such salvaged and/or relocated plant material to this Chapter shall be shall be dug, transported and replanted at a season of l trees planted puin a dormsuant to this Chaptater shall be and materials conforming to the requirements of the St~ndaraSpecifictions an subjectto the aproval5S Subsequent or replacement plants rhall conform to standardSpecifictlotis ad subjec to the pprovalthe type of existing tree in a given airea, providled that if Standard so~eClifcattons and subject to the approval b")Polc hti of the Conservation Officer and the Township Engineer. ane type of edii isng tree in Amust benB done only with any deviatoni anticipated, it must he d0one only with d) The developer has received the approval o the the permission of the Dover Twnship Shad- Tree Commission. Cnd) The developfficer has received the Township prEangineer of the In a newly planted area, only one (1) type of tree may be Conservation Officer and the Township EnginBee of the used on a given street, unless owhirwir e specified by items to he relocated and the schedule and methods of " e oventr ,u ls ' .ro eb relocation prior to any work of salvaging and/or the Dover Township Shade Tree Commision. relocation itaing place. 6. A hole in which a tree is to be planted shall be Shade TreesV~~~~~~~~~~~~~. in ach case one-third (1/3) larger in width and in depth D. Shade Trees. than the existing root ball of tile Particulor tree to be 1. In each subdivision of land, the developer shall plant planted. The hole for a tree to be planted Ahnll contain within the shade tree and utility easements or between the proper amounts of topsoil and peat moss, but no chemical sidewalk and rightofay line where such easements ar ew e fertilizer shall be added until the tree hins been planted aidewalk and right-of-ray line where such easements are o n 1 er not provided, proper shade and/or decorative trees at a maximum distance of fifty (50- feet between trees. The n areas djcent to rvrs, bays and lagons ple- minimum distance between such trees planted shall be . In areas adjacent to rivers, boys and lagoonS, plant- forty (40) feet. planting sites shall be indicated on iogse shall be one (1) of t he following kind of treeS. Tihe the final plat. Such plantings shall not be required maximum size and characteristics of which followse within sight easements as required elsewhere herein. a) oney locust dlts trincntos ine s) 2. All trees planted In accordance with the provisions S::ty ts01 to seventy (70) feet high, fragrant white :. ,l[ tree, plane . n dl- rdn ?itl IZe :rvsin " ' wetrs ,ate in spy[.,r grows wel in poor soil, of this Chapter shall be laced in a proper manner and flowers, late in spring, grows wel in poor soil, in a good grade of topsoil and within the area of the resists salt spray, tree well at the point where the tree is planted. In the ,ey 70 event that any individual person or group of individual b} Oriental plane (Platanus orientali.i) , s .enty 70), persons desire to plant a tree or trees In a tree to ehy 0) feet tall, rap-row.n hade tre, well or *ithin the jurisdiction of the Dover Township pyranlshped top. C) Ileeping willow MSali bebylonic), forty (40) to fifty {50) feet high, with ]-Ing prnduloa branches, -102- grows rapidly, especially when crsie to water. -193- 253 d) Canoe birch (Betula papyrifera), fifty (50 to sixty (60) feet tall, stately with gray-white bark, g) White birch, european (Vetula alba pendula), fast growing. forty (40) to fifty (50) feet high, lacy leaves, paper white bark, tall column. e) European white birch (Betula alba pendula), forty (40) to fifty (50) feet high, graceful lacy leaves 9. On waterfront property and property in the vicinity of and drooping branches. large bodies of water, not covered above, plantings shall be one (1) of the following kinds of trees, the maximum f) Japanese cherry (Prunus quanzan), thirty (30) to size and characteristics of which follows: forty (40) feet high, large, double, deep pink pendulous flowers clustering among the leaves in May, a) Bolleana poplar (Populus boleana), seventy-five vase form. (751 to ninety (90) feet tall, growing stately and salt resistant. g) Hawthorn (Crataegus), twelve (121 to fifteen (15) feet high, produces a mass of scarlet double flowers in b) Carolina poplar (Populus eugenie), seventy-five June, colorful red fruit in winter. (753 to ninety (90} feet tall, exceedingly rapid growing shade tree, thrives in dry conditions. 8. In the upland, which Is away from rivers, bays and lagoons, and not adjacent to large bodies of water, plantings c) Oriental plane (Platanus orientalis), seventy-five shall be one of the following kinds of trees, the maximum (75} to ninety (90) feet tall, rapid growing shade size and characteristics of which follows: tree of pyramid habit with large leaves. a) Pin oak (Quercus palustris), seventy-five (75) to d) African tamarix (Tamarix africana), twelve (12) ninety (90) feet high, shiny foliage, long-lived, to fifteen (151 feet tall, drooping panicles of at- turns scarlet in the fall, broad pyramid shape. tractive pink flowers in spring and feathery gray foliage. b) tHorway maple (Acer platanoides), sixty (60} to e) Smoke tree (Rhus cotinus), twelve (12} to fifteen seventy (70) feet high, leaves turn yellow in fall, (15) feet tall, carries a great mass of filmy purple globe shaped top. flowers in July. c) Honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos inermisl, f) Almey crab (Malus almey), twelve (12) to fifteen sixty (60) to seventy (70) feet high, fragrant white (15) feet tall, fiery crimson flowers, very hardy, flowers, grows well in gravel or sandy soil, broad maroon colored fruit of spreading habit. spreading top. g) flops crab (Malus hops), twelve (12} to fifteen d) Crabapple (Halus), twelve (12) to fifteen (15) feet (15) feet tall, rosy red flowers, red fruit, attractive high, pink or red flowers, broad umbrella top, usually purple foliage, upright vase shaped growth. as wide as high, a good park tree. h) Bechtal crab (Malus bechtal), twelve (12) to e) Mountain ash (Sorbus aucuparia european), eighteen (18) feet tall, with large double fragrant twenty-five (25) to thirty (301 feet high, great pink flowers which resemble small roses in early Mlay: clusters of orange scarlet berries, shapea upright upright growth. oval. 10. On outer beaches, both oceanfront and bay front, f) Dogwood (Cornus florida, white, and florida Japanese pine (Pinus thunbergii), thirty (30) to forty rubra, p:nk), twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) feet (40) feet tall. high, pink or white flowers in early spring, red berries and rich red foliage in fall. 11. All shade trees shall be planted in accordance with the landscaping requirements of the Standard Specifications. -184- -185- 254 WILCOX-OnAVATT Et IIACUNUA, limi. -, dtel .lacin I, (ln". Pag 2 CIVIL F~tINEEh1S. LAND SURVEYORIS ornd PROFESSIONAL PLANNEAS floute 9 o"'i Murry clown Loen. Post Ollice nov, 756 Forked River. Me* MMe Wh131 extremely danfgerous to -utilizP thfe dunt-s for anvy purpose t'~~~9l 0936126 ~~~~~but as a prot~ection element. The countruction activity Pdncpvh ~~~~~~necessitates, by Its very nature., Joss of vegetation and W~~IerE.Wlk~~~.LS. erosion of rand( which Is vital to flthe preservation of the, C . Vanvant. L.S. &P.P. dune environment. U.~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~sociatfOJues 16.47 more practical solution would be toe construct the walk- B At uP llno el~id~.LS ways alonf, the back slope of the dunes with suifficieni; freight to enjoy the natural beauty of the ocean. I'Lli~firtJIMMY 1012. "Unrestricted ptiblic access to bearlhes Is entcouraged" State of Now Jersey Forked River (Page 71, paragraph 6.5.1.1t) white the poptilation oudeiti- Coastal Management Program ably must use the beach environmenut unimpeded, they mus4t Bay and oCean Shore Segment do so via controlled access points which are designed anrd created that, storm and wave action will pot crcate undute office of Coastal Zone M~anagement problems behind. Tile enclosed documentation amlply tillui- National oceanic and Atmospheric Admln. trates the rationale of restricted access 3300shinten Dave Stret 2.W5 3. "The classtfication of municipalities... .for ither Purposes Washington, B. C. 20235 ~~~~~~~~~~~~of the location policies Is based inI part on... the State ATTENTION: Ms. Kathryn Cousins Dov~ie: Guide Plan... .' (Page 97, pariagraph 6.(v.T1._T The two d.uT TI~e sinficnly (See sttachedi miaps) Bear Ms. Cousins, and are justified by: "tIn preparing the Coastal Proropm, D.S.P. adopted the guide Plan' s distinction between "growth" I respectfully request an extension of time be granted from and "limilted growth" areas, but chose different criteria the June 19th deadline In order that the following comments can for defining each category." (Page 172) be synthesized with others from venious Design professionals to be submitted under a Ad floe task force of the New Jersey Share 4. "All hIghI rise housing developments..nre, encouraged to Builders Association. In the advent that an extension cannot be locate in areas of existing highl density, high rise. and/or granted, I request that the Environmental Impact Statement be intense settlemfents."1 (Page 131,, paragraph 7.2.11) It Is denied for inconsistency with New Jersey Programs, a net environ- recognized that this form of housing Is out of context with mental gain will not be derived and the inability of the State of established rural communities, however, conicentrating, i~t New Jersey Department of' Environmental Protection to adequately yields tho same secondary Impacts as recereation: "impacts address the Primary and Tertiary impacts Of their actions upon the of water runoff from roads and parking lots,---ir qulalitty coastal Zone of Now Jersey. degradation and local costs for wastewater treatinvi-t facli- iis."(Page 211) My remarks are more specifically predicated upon the following!Frhrtesxsadrst eapidaeabtay~n 1. The stated Policy, "Development on Dunes is prohibited, In some respects insufficient to attain tim, groal: with the exception of the construction of limited Pedestrian "in. high rise structures within the view or coasital waters walkways supported In piles above the dune surface." (ae5,paragraph 6.t..2.2)-is sot In tile best interest must be separated from Coastal waters by at least one( of vgetio orsrcurscete eid.Wt h public road or an equivalent park distanuie"l (paragraph experience encountered through the past Winter, It Is 7.2.1.a nmn ae h eurmn foreuvln park distance is simply not enouigh. Tile normal. width) of a Deal, Office: 4lhI St. II If o lufrevnd.os Da'..iI 01k S. 400. Sh5Sip otto.N'n Jersey 011005. - goe 4!14 4005. ICOX GIAVATT & ItACUNDA. In. WILCOX-GRAVATT & IIACUNDA. Inc. eC(X' nAVATT 3 IIACUNOA, 141C. Page 4 New Jersey Right of Way is 50' and to require this as of their actions on the people of New Jersey, to date this document a seperator from tile Ocean allows no margin of safety has not been formulated yet the action of the Department of Environ- from storms. I would prefer at least 200' be the re- mental Protection is to press ever onward. Tile old adage: What's quirement. good for the goose is good for the gander prevails; "The proba-le seconearry-ipacts of proposed developnent will be considered part "c. the proposed structure must not block the view of an application for a development." (Page 159, Paragraph .11,.3.) of dunes...that are currently enjoyed from existing residential structures, roads or pathways." (paragraph I find in conclusion two cases for alarm: 7.2.8.c) It is impractical to require this standard from a developer when he can erect a single family home 1. If National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration without C.A.F.R.A. approval. approves the document as written, thile faults con- tained within will never be corrected, "The adopted 5. "Expanded or extended amusement piers,...are discouraged" regulations must be in place prior to federal approval (Page 1)7, paragraph 7.3.11) A grant for the extension of of the Day and Ocean Shore Segment, expected by late an Amusement Pier along with construction permits was Just Septecmber 978, In order to insure the enforceability given in the Borough of Seaside Heights, New Jersey. 6. "The storm water pipes do not discharge water into surface 2. The changing mechanism is extremely difficult to realize; or ground water without passing the effluent through treat- "The Coastal Program can be amended through administrative oeaction of the overnor. Major revisions would require ment facilities, d. The applicant demonstrates that the action o, the Governor. Major revisions would reqire effluent... meets all applicable water quality standards, Coastal AACAMPublic comment Strategy). ..." (Page 153, paragraph 8.6.2.c and d) while it is acknowledged that storm water runoff does more environmental harm that good, the imposition of having to construct I again request that the extension of time be granted in order extensive treatment facilities in urban areas is unreasonable. that the Department of Environmental Protection can review the Rather, the paragraphs should be restated in order to Draft Environmental Impact Statement revising where necessary and acknowledge contributions of other point sources adjacent to inputs of a planning nature be provided. the site specific and that a fair share allocation of cost tbe simplemented. and that a fair share allocation of cost In one last aspect, the document is, in my opinion, illegal and improper under New Jersey State law "...It shall be unlawful...to I do not believe that the total impact upon the populace has been practice...professional planning in this state,...unless such adequately determined: "Short term costs to developers, such as land person is duly licensed under the provisions of this Act." (NJSA 1,5l prices, may increase." (Page 203) "Requirements to minimize environ- 14A-l) "The term "Practice of Professional Planning"...shall mean mental disruption during construction...may increase the short term the administration, advising, consultation or performance of pro- costs of housing and increase infrastructure investments." (Page 204) fessional work... intended primarily to glide governmental policy for "The short term costs to developers or units of government should be the assurance of the orderly and coordinated development of municipal, offset by the long term gains" (Page 207) "The costs and tax loss county, regional, and metropolitan land areas, and the State or resulting from non-development of an area will be shared by the portions thereof" (NJSA 4514A-2.C). developer and the local municipality in the short-term" (Page 209) "...there will probably be a number of adverse impacts to both the natural and socio-economic environments which cannot be avoided" Ve truly y (Page 221) The State D.E.P. was asked in 1977 to assess the impact ,, Iua rge A. aanSant censed Professional Planner N.J. License Nlo. 1.858 CAV/lp cc: Mr. Michael J. Gross, Esquire Mr. David Kinsey Lacey Township Chamber of Commerce 256 PflEF~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~aCEtdure miu be controlled nlant~ our b'nrtvlj Cront comrnunItlIqu because of tile amiount el' peopvi noid privnt" K-aliril f o res reunpredictable and nre. capable of ,iroprety whielt mtit be protected, thoreforf, nilthouTlt inflicting untold havoc within short time spann. In the coldnarutline and devenomn oftai~ Itind !iornrdh titfitr'nc period between February 2, 1978 and February 8, 1978 abil I Ilinei mont ; e curtainuulyedepni mtie lorllo. lot fortc Severe Wfinter coastal 9now storm occurred beginning during theP1 MIlety n couil being rof ote popurlatirltfor the evenine hours of February 5 land continuing Into teuteyadwl enro h ouain February 7th. Thin unow storm produced roque waves which destroyed valuable and Irreplaceable beach front end dunne. The damage Intimates previouely recorded are no longer valid end ore replaced within this report by an updated engineer- Ing catetine prepared by Hr. Paul J1. "notnd", T.E. Vr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r _______________A.pi' n 4 _V, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .*~~~~ & .~~~~.-. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O oeimpra c e t og, tr ieSIM.lrV.Iort - ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ic 11"v- w h o e t c u y ter oesi no Enforced ~ -tei Buldn Du <~) lin ant back reuOfet valabe iprecreationah, opnrsp c hc I the buunrr imr ettrr to judiciously w h i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~Poch has een theon i"fcu clemen In forp theisr hm denpoyrth. mi~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~onimzlg pivaenpropaderenty ofAge h preervtantiocVcn ndIte bchniqe, becaus ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a vilbe ofl h currouhoeec ae ndtt condmers icl delcndwthrin tte;nIDr to no lontrer feasihie or valid without support from various disaster control tea~ms and agancien involved. m m - - - m m - - m - - - - -ca I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%i V ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ Inthe Vie1w taken Febay to, 1978, the fare slope ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~of the dune has been destroyed expsr thin Ilouse rjrn1- ~~~~ ~~~~~~ -. ~~~~~~~~~~fictintly to the oceni and Indeed, as the photogrflphs $. ~~~~~~~ ~~~t?~~~~~J~~~~ ~taien on the grouna Illustrate, the ocean has forped under - ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~the house through, the ebb and flow Of the tide exposing, __ - ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~<' s~~~~~pproJxiflftely 50t Of the total rtructure. OverhancngIc Steps 2 February B, 1978 19 2 258~~~~-- I A.~ I I,.~~~~~~~~~~~~4 Pt r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 xi FebrualryB,1T Figure 17 JEW JERSEY JAY AND OCEAN/ FiORE SEGMENT-2 " .j7 iEGIONAL -..I,/' 3ROWTH . - r- POTENTIAL - ij-. ~ ~ ~ ~ f~LL~ v./ y~~~~~~~~~w ,.wsbbw /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~w~-aI .. . fal .4 - CAUO~~~~~~INN #,ew ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ B O N A Y "111"l cit y R. TBARRERSANS 4 -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l oft- xi Nis "'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lnim o r -omm mmsEMT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~kinLANDxl a June 16. 97 L... -autogrde j~~~~~~~~~t ~cAt ln ReoinTH AEOrE I.. Ijersey . mnarH * *S..iqhH.NJOUII Reginal Manager, North AtlntiC Region NEW JERSEYTESTIMONE CONCCRASTAL office of Coastal ZoeMngeletTHiTToF EnESE OSA National oceanic and Atmospheric AdminiStrtinMNF4T ORADYN)OEA 3300 Whitehavet' Streety tI.W. SIE EMN Washington, D- C- 20235 n ear Mo. Cou91itint we are pleased to enclose tile Marine Trades AssocidtiOnl * .r~itni of New Jer-sey' a written testimlouly critiquing the Draft Environmfenltal Impact Stat~temet for 21e Jes ' Coastal A,;,p~i go rtclipottc oor nutyadw are gratified to be actively Involved in its planning. Further research on our Part slay result In additional comment concerning chapter Three being provided to tite flow Jersey off[ice of Coastal Zone Management'prior to i~~..w~e"' their July 5 deadline. Should this be the case, we (:et? will provide you with an Information copy. sincerely, .I,,ols.1. 4 .1.. M~~~~~~~~~ichael L. lRedpath fairly, 5 ~ ~ ~~ ~Executive Director (.l' , Eno. V.dccI Richard Gardner AII~IJ~ Dasila O'llearn Donald Graham I;~'PI~l ohn Weingart Alan Davidson 4Harold Rickborn Mercedes Johnson IA June 16, 1978 The Program is entirely too negative. More attention muist be given to attracting and encouraging tile uses desirable for the coastal zone. As stated in the Marine Trades Association's T1'S9TIMONY CONCERNIN( TiAD E STATE OF NEW JERSEY COASTAL O response to the Coastal Management Strategy for New Jersey, "New MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, DAY AND OCEAN S1Ol0E SEGMENT Jersey has tradiFa bewn Y ND OCEN lhrough regulation. This is evident in the policies. Prohibiting and encouraging alone will not provide for the coastal zone The Marine Trades Association of New Jersey, representing the envisioned by New Jersey's coastal zone planners. Encouragement state's recreational boating industry, is pleased to be a part of must become a more positive approach. The state must actively the ongoilng coastal planning process. We welcome the opportunity assist in the development and maintenance of those private to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, recognizing Facilities that compliment the state's goals for tile coastal zone through improved public access without serious environmental the Department of Environmental Protection is making an effort to e association recognizes the Office of Coastal consider coastal user input, as evidenced by thle changes made in degradation." Te association recognizes the Ofice of Coastal der~ coastal user putasevideincedby tile h ange sm adei Zone Management cannot serve as an industrial development agency, the coastal management program since the close of the comment but OCZM's regulatory philosophy must be structured so as to be period on the Coastal Management Strategy. more inviting rather than discouraging to acceptable growth. We The Draft EIS is of utmost importance to our industry, as it is are pleased to see the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is to all coastal users, from both a restraining and a nurturing more positive than the strategy, but it still is not positive standpoint. The program obviously puts restraints on the growth, enough. and even maintenance of recreational boating in New Jersey and its supporting industry. Properly applied, the program can also It is, unfortunately, obvious that the program was conceived by nurture recreational boating by providing for the most effective administrators who are not sufficiently in touch with the situation as it exists in the real-world environmiient. From a textbook use of coastal land and by ensuring the continuance of an en- standpoint, ie Program s workable. From a r eal-world sad- vironment compatible with clean, family recreation such as boating. point, there are sufficies workable. From a real-world stad- point, there are sufficient shortcomings to make it unworkable. necause of thle importance of tile Draft Environmental Impact Incorrect definitions, that of "navigation channel" for example, Statement to thile coastal zone, we must object to the short period ani unrealistic water depths in various policies, cause the available for study and comment. A document that has taken so Program to loose credibility as well as to make it unworkable. long to prepare and is of such far-reaching impact, deserves a Tie association's written testimony will elaborate oi these shortcomings. longer period for study and the preparation of incisive comment. For this reason, the Marine Trades Association's testimony has been prepared in two parts, a general verbal comment presented in Further evidence of the lack of real-world knowledge is tle public testimolly; and this written testimony, which includes a failure to treat certain elements of the environment as transient, revised version of our verbal testimony and an in-depth analysis changeable entities and a down-playing of economic impacts. ro each segment of tle rstatement that deals with or affecEs Elements of the environment such as shellfish beds, grasses and of each segment of the statement that deals with or affects sand are capable of change and movement aid tile policies must sand are capable of change and movement asd the policies must recreational boating. recognize this. It must also be recognized that the economic We, ill the association, see ourselves as realistic environmentalists, impacts of the Program are much more probable and much longer- favoring environmental protection but also recognizing the need term than predicted. to balance that protection with economic realities. It is with that philosophy that we have reviewed the Draft Environmental There are numerous inconsistencies and a widespread need for tmhact pililoSt atement. we have reviewed the Draft Environmental clear definitions. The inconsistencies exist both between in- dividual policies and in basic philosophy. Is thile Program to be On the whole, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is a well specific, as the intent appears to be, or general as the frequent thought-out document that reflects very well on the ability and lack of definitions or details would indicate? professionalism'of the staff that prepared it. Our major criticisms lie with the negative approach to management, a lack of working 13 addition to thie specific suggestions to be offered in written knowledge of the uses regulated, and inconsistencies and lack of testimony, the Marine Trades Association has several general positive suggestions for revising tile Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the proposed coastal zone management program. Assistance in considering potential sites must be programmed. One of the restraints to desirable development in the coastal zone is tile gamble involved in purchasing property or planning projects, not knowing whether necessary permits would be attainable. Some pre-purchase or pre-planning guidance is desirable including, perhaps, a general mapping of the coastal zone showing what uses would probably be acceptable in each area as well as what uses would probably not be acceptable. 262. .......... Plage 3 Piatol 4 Creater partlcipation by people with direct working-knowledge In regulated uses must be Included in drafting and applying policies and regulations. This can be accomplished through membership on A study aimed at Increasing the compatability of boats al the Coastal Area Review Board or through the use of consultants their suplort f acilities with the envirotnment should be from regulated industries In all decisions affecting those industries. undertaken. The state's dredging needs nm'st be identified The Program cannot work if it is unable to recognize the day to along with the agency or boly responsible for the dredging. day problems and realities of regulated uses. Proposals for accomplishing that dredjinlg must be drafted. Department of Environmental Protection permit procedures must be As indicated in the arine Trades Assoclatio's responsenn to simplified. We agree with tile need to protect the environment, the Coastal %one Management Strategy, "A concerted effort but the process employed to do that is actually scaring away must be made to locate and develop spoils areas plhysically perfectly acceptable, perhaps beneficial, projects because of the and economically accessable to both the public and private economic and psychological strain caused by the permit process. sector. Goals for site development based on dredging needs Unless some overwhelming financial gain is evident, it just isn't within specific geographic areas must be set. investigation worth pursuing a D~EP permit. The kinds of businesses encouraged of alternative dredging methods and dredge spoils disposal by the Coastal Zone Management program are essentially small, and use most also be actively pursued. whether within dvo te low-economic yield businesses. But the permit process is geared government or reasarch Institutes. Winllolt the devwlopllli to being tackled by large, highi-yield businesses capable of of spoi areas, flow Jersey's dredging weeal wilt remain employing a battery of lawyers and consultants. unfiled and the state's waterways will cotllllC (Icterlorato. The CAnIA, Wetlands and Riparian permits must be consolidated. Illfortunately, some people claiming to be cnvirolmentallsts Once consolidated, they must be streamlined, without weakening give little regard to the serious economic impact of their their effectiveness. In order to gain a fresh perspective, an actions. Well-founded environmental considerations are an outside consultant should be brought in to guide the consolidation important part of the permit process and must he encouraged. and streamlining. Working from within the department, It can However, a stop must be put to the attacks on projects never happen effectively because all proposals would be based on launched by people using environmental considerations as an existing procedures. This must be accomplished with outside excuse for opposing projects they just plain dlollt like. It Ihe~lp. would seem that for all the trouble and expense an applicant must go to, it would be only right that opponents to the A further simplified, easier to obtain permit process must be application be required to substantiate their claims. A considered for small new projects or maintenance of approved requirement that opponents be required to file an environmenltal existing projects. The restraint on these projects, which cause impact statement supporting their contentions would assist the least new disruption to the environment, are disproportionately both permit reviewers and applicants in considering objections. higher than for larger projects. The permitting-cost to project- By incorporating the suggestions included in our testimony cost ratio is even further out of line than with larger projects. we beieve a workable coasta on e management program can be The result is either near-total discouragement of these small created. We look forward to living and w orking In be projects, or an incentive to do the work without permits. Look catal zone logra t o living and working at the state of disrepair in many New Jersey marine facilities. a n The unwieldy expensive permit process actually encourages this lack of maintenance. It is imperative that the Office of Coastal Zone Management develop a better understanding of the interrelations between tihe environment and the economy of the coastal zone. If the statement about supporting and promoting access to beaches and waterfront areas means using funds to build facilities and support programs like the Island leachi shuttle, we are adamantly opposed. Coastal zone management funds must not be used for projects. The need for research into all aspects of the coastal zone is so great, that spending coastal zone funds for projects rather than research is unconscionable. Tile proposed study of recreational boating in New Jersey must be pursued. Tile nature of the sport, nature of the industry, users, demand, carrying capacity, restraints and prospects and recom- mendations for the future must be identified. MARINE TRADES ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY C) SPECIFIC COAMLENTS CONCERNING TME STPTE OF NEW JERSEY D.3 IState Alternatives) - While the enactment of coastal COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM zone management should not have to wait for our slow-moving BRAY AND OCEAN SHORE SEGMENT legislative processes to recodity the Wetlands Act, CAFRA and Riparian Laws, it is imperative that this recodificatioln be undertaken as soon as possible in order to provide a more workable, efficient regulatory system. Page ii "A most important element is absent from the list of what federal funds will allow New Jersey to do. This is most Page 6 likely due to the apparent basic flaw in the philosophy of the New Jersey coastal zone management program which results urpose - While the intent of the Department of Environmental in an essentially negative approach to coastal zone management." Prtition (OeP in preparing the program is "to protect the tem "a" on the 11st should be an isdentification of probable state's coastal resources while accomodating future needed permissible uses in tZe various segments of the coastal development", thie Marine Trades Association doubts that "accomodating future needed development" can be accomplished The mention of mapping economic features In 'b' suggests under the proposed program. Future needed development of a that consideration will be given economic concer ns, b ut nature desirable for the coastal zone (i.e., recreational that consideration will be given economic conieron. but facilities) are to a great extent of low financial yield. nowhere is there any elaboration of this consideration. The The cost of going through the process of obtaining all the relationship between economic and environmental issues in permits necessary for a project requiring most of the existing permits is such that the very projects desirable for the coastal zone are discouraged from siting there. In a program representing concern for the entire coastal zone, in which there are many communities that will benefit ,) from coordination with OCZM, it is inappropriate to single out Atlantic City as in item "g". This creates the impression Page 7 Atlantic City will receive special consideration. which c ertainly mu st not be the case. The MTANJ is especially in accordance wit!h the statements certainly must not be the case. concerning water quality in paragraph three. Further definition of "supporting and promoting access" in item "h" should be provided. This should not entail a commitment of funds and there must be no diminishing or private property rights. Page 31 6.2.1.2 Shellfish Beds Policy - For the purpose of maintenance dredging, consi eat-on must be given to two special situations. The first would be where a shellfish bed has expanded into an existing dredged area. Tile other is whiere a channel or 3. Summary o Environmental Impact and Adverse Envronmental a had been dredged a ear or partially into a condemned agrees wi- restriction s ora prsq tions n some land and shellfish bed but but the condemnation has been lifted at agrees with restriction ses in some areas, lanced dy the encouragement oand the time a permit for maintenance dredging is sought. water uses in some areas, balanced by the encouragement of Throughout the Program, recognition must be given the changing, developmeot lin others. The statement concerning economic transient nature of many of the factors entering into decisions on permits. impacts, however, is understated, inaccurate and contradictory. Al, irreversible commitment must result in long-term impacts. A more accurate statement would be '... there will be some adverse, short and long-term adverse economic Impacts on some coastal users, and the Program will entail the irreversible commitment of coastal resources." 264 . _ . A _,.. .-- .......... - V'aqie 0 Page 7 Specifically excluded from tile original definitionl are areas suIch as Silver Day in Toms River and the Metedeconlk River in nrick The association also questions why shellfish transplants Town. These are used as examples because they do not meet the canoto be considered in areas needing maintenance dredging, definition and yet are no less importanlt or less heavily used canno shellfish mo rtality can b e minimiz tenance dred? than areas meeting the definition. The Mletedeconk River is unmarked for much of its length and a number of the markers lit Page 35 use mark danger areas rather than a specific channel. T'i, rivet supports lagoon communities and at least seven marinas an d one 6.2.5.2 Submerged Vegetation Policy - Just as with shellfish yacht club. beds, sumberged vegetationis not necessarily a stationary resource. while destruction of submerged vegetation must be Silver Day has no navigational markers except those marking discour aged, a more flexible policy must be employed where access to the large lagoon communities fronting the bay. Yet vegetation has grown into an existing project in need of Silver Day's primary Importance to recreational hatihi as an mailtenance or where tile only restraint to approval of a new access (chaninel) to the Ilarnegat Day. project Is a proposed minimal disturbance of a bed of vegetation. Maintenance dredging of commonly used areas of waterway, such as Silver nay and the Metedeconk River muost also be encouraged. The adverse affect of shoaling in such a body of water is no lens titan it would be lit a channel meeting the original defitltioit. Page 36 6.2.6.1 Navigation Channels Definition - This definition is 6.2.6.2 Navigation Channels Policyt The Marine Trades Assoaitloit Incorrect in that it does not encompass the majority of the agrees with the majority of this policy. Itowever, the prohlibition navigation channels in New Jersey. Many channels are marked on subaqueous disposal of dredge spoil must be modified. The by tile state and are not identified on NOAA charts. Due to practicality and value of the creation of dredge spoll isialdS iln lack of maintenance of waterways, many channels in the state certain areas Is just coming to lgosst Abii total pribition on are less than five feet in depth at mean low water. Finally, subaqueous disposal precludes te possibility f this innovaiLlve there ares thanns that are not marked at all due to tthe technique ever being considered as a possible solution to flew presence of sufficient water dep th for navigation from Jersey's serious dredge spoils disposal problem. Th'e policy is shore to shoren also in conflict with tile water acceptability table which shows disposal in deep and shallow ocean as well as shallow open bay as The MTANJ suggests tile following definitloni "Areas providing conditionally acceptable. the most direct practical route between existing dockage or launching facilities (including but not limited to marinas, service docks, launching ramps, fish processing plants and Pages 44, 45 landings and residential areas with either communal or individual dockage) and larger bodies of water, or interconnecting 6.3.7 Water Acceptability Tablet This policy falls to deal with bodies of water, or shown on NoUM National Ocean Survey real world snitations. F rom a th eoretical, zero-basr perspective Charts 12314, 12312, 12311, 12304, 12310, 12323, 12337. and the policy generally makes sense. From a real-world perspective, 12343 as State or Coast Guard mard channels." the policy can't work. In essence, thile maslntelialice dredging policy would result in the eventual abandonomeat of many channels in New Jersey and tile dooming of many waterfront home owners to own lovely docks with no water access. Most waterways in flew Jersey are In abonminable conditlolt. (Ithainels that should be eiglht feet or more in dcIpthi ar, IiI some places shoaled to only incites. Going back to the example of Silver bay, which in many places is less than six feet In depth, should a serious shoal develop, its removal would apparently be prohibited. Another example: Goose Creek, itt Toms River, siupplorts two marinas and hundreds of lagoon front homes. Should tile creek �/J develop a serious shoal, its removal would be prohibited. Acceptability of maintenance dredging for all areas must be changed Page 53 to conditional. The additional permit considerations such as spoils disposal, presence of shellfish beds, etc., are sufficient to pre- ( ' The use of cost-benefit studies, weighing both economic and clude harmful dredging projects while still allowing for continued environmental values, is a good approach to many permit considerations. access to existing developed areas. The virtual prohibition of new dredging should be reconsidered. While the Marine Trades Association does not propose widespread Page 90 new dredging projects, the flexibility to allow projects that satisfy all other criteria should be maintained. Changing all 6.6.7.2.1 (g) (Marinas only) - First, a definition of "marina" prohibited categories of new dredging to discouraged would allow must be established. Is a private home with dockage for several this flexibility. The other siting criteria would provide boats and a davit-type lift to be considered a marina? Is a sufficiently for the protection of the environment. commercial fishing facility servicing a number of large vessels to be considered a marina? A number of policies in the program Spoil disposal should also be rethought. A virtual across-the- affect marinas; the marina community is a major part of the board prohibition does not allow for the consideration of possible state's tourism economy; yet there is no definition of what a disposal alternatives such as the creation of spoils islands. marina is. This should be clearly defined in order to prevent confusion of uses and a resultant confusion of policies. Tile point in time to which the water depth refers must be definied. Is it depth at application, or project depth, or depth in 1800 or The Marine Trades Association suggests the following definition when? Depth at application is not acceptable because a transient of marina: "A waterfront facility, predominantly used for the shoal could preclude approval of an otherwise acceptable project. dockage, (wet or dry-stack) and/or moorage of recreational A definition of how the water depth is determined is also necessary. boatsl for which dockage or moorage a fee is charged." Is the depth a minimum, a maximum or an average of the depth through- out the body of water or is it a minimum, a maximum or an average of Consideration must also be given to defining "water harbor of the depth in tile projected area? adequate depth". If this means the site must include an existing or planned basin of adequate depth to accomodate tile boats pro- jected to be served by the facility, it makes sense. If it means the site must abutt a basin or channel with sufficient depth to Page 47 accomodate anticipated clientel, it makes sense. Further definition is needed. 6.3.0.5 Dredging - Maintenance: The association agrees with this policy. However, the policy appears to contradict the Water Finally, the need to properly define navigation channel is Acceptability Table. In addition, the adverse economic impacts stressed once again. of not performing proposed dredging should be weighed against possible negative environmental impacts when considering applications. 6.6.7.2.3 (d) (Marinas only) - The preceding comments concerning "marinas only" high potential criteria apply. 6.3.8.7 Dredged Spoil Disposal: This policy does not sufficiently deal with the disposal of dredged spoils. If maintenance dredging and some new dredging is to be allowed, then further consideration must be given to acceptable spoils disposal methods. Pages 136, 137 7.3.6 New Marinas Page 49 (a) Ifow will the "demonstrated regional demand" be determined? Since this is to be part of regulatory function, the means of 6.3.8.15 Overhead Transmission Liness Consideration must be given delineating regions and the method for establishing demonstrated to mast Ieights in order to eliminate all possibility of contact demand within the region must be described. Consideration must between masts and transmission lines. also be given to the fact that in some areas demand would be far greater if additional facilities existed. . Page 11 I'aql 12 Asn an additlonal criteria, public (fedoral, slale, rounity anlt Furtlher, how will thile potential for the upgrading or expansion municipal) development of marinas must be disconrc;ned. They have of existing marinas be determined. It can not be done strictly all unfair conpeittive advantage over private eivterl ise anid oe on a physical potential basis. Economic restraints, including land that would otherwise be available for privately finianced permitting costs, must be considered. Most marinas have the room businesses that provide tax revenues. Development of privately to expand or the potential for upgrading, but few have the owned marinas must be fully pursued before public marinas are financial resources to pay for upgrading or expanding, and in considered. Additlonally, proposed publicly owned marinas must most instances the return on Investment would be Inadequate to be required to file economic impact statements, giving particular justify the upgrading or expansion even if the money were available. attention to their effects on privately owned marinas in the area. (b) Dry storage areas and public launching facilities must be defined. These terms can mean any number of things and as part of a regulatory function must be more clearly defined. Pages 141-144 Shoiuld the terms mean a dry-stack,in-and-out system and a public larinching ramp, the Marine Trades Association of New Jersey is The association specifically supports sections 7.4.4, 7.4.5. opposed. Dry-stack operations and launching ramps are to be 7.4.7 and 7.4.9 as particularly protective of resources ihport.il encouraged, but they are not feasible for all sites. Dry-stack to recreational boating. systems have particular problems such as a need for considerable vertical relief and sufficient turning room for equipment In order to be feasible. Page 147 Launching ramps are effective means of serving transient small- boat owners but they also produce land use problems that make 7.4.15 Conservation and Alternative Technologies - Thlis policy Is them unsuitable for some sites. A ramp-launched boat requires commendable. The marine industry contItncs to study and develop at least twice the land space, in-season, of a stack-stored or energy conservation methods for both boats and tacilitics. Vn- docked boat because of the presence of the trailer in addition couragement of similar efforts will benefit the entire citizrnry. to the owners car. If the term public means "free", the Marine Trades Association is ' vehemently opposed. No businessman should be forced to give away Pages 149, 150 services in return for being allowed to do business. Even government-owned launching ramps charge fees. 7.8.3 Shore Protection Use Policies - Adverse economic inmpacts an well as potential secondary impaci asnd an assignment of respon- The Marine Trades Association suggests the following definitionst sibility for correcting any impact not foreseen within the permit must be included in shore protection project permit considerations. Dry storage areas - Land space for the purpose of storing boats In past shore protection projects, too little cnridesatno has when they are removed from the water. This may be either for been given to the economic impact of' nearby properties and the seasonal storage or for holding between uses (dry-sailing, dry- identification of impacts as not gone deeply enough. in ai on stacking, etc.). A major portion of seasonal storage area may when these projects have resulted in n1ntlLeiIaticl negative he the same area used for parking during the boating season. impacts, little has been done to correct the sittation. Public launching facilities - Any facilities, available for use by the general public on a fee or no-fee basis, used for launching and retrieving recreational boats. Facility operators retain the Page 151 righit to restrict usage of the launching facility when parking, docking or launching capacities are exceeded. 0.2.1 Marine Fish and Fisheries Policu - This ls'a sensible approach to ba nticing economic and environmental needs. "Min imal Finally, a policy must be established to cover instances where a feasible interference" serves both needs. This policy, however, required service is prohibited by municipal or county regulations. does not appear to be in accordance witht other policies wlthin the program such as 6.2.1.2 which prohibit outright some uses. Ic} The Marine Trades Association supports the requirement for "adequate pump out stations for wastewater disposal" at all new marinas. 4~~~~~~~~~~L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Page 159 Page 101 Page 1S9 Recreation - Recognition of the importance of recreation on the 8.14.1 feconcar Icts Poli - This policy must be expanded to jhoast has been too long in coming. The Marine Trades Association include secondary environmental and economic impacts beyond those coast hsbeen too long in coming. The Marine Trades ssociatio- envisioned by the policy. An example would be a beach nourishment of New Jersey applauds this recognition and calls upon the ad- project in a high erosion area. A primary impact might be increased ministratio to show its support of this philosophy by rtrnin shoaling in an adjacent navigational channel. A secondary economic a greater share of coastal recreation generated state revenues imp act would be the restriction of boat traffic to a n earby for coastal programs such as waterway maintenance and shore impact would be the restriction of boat traffic to a nearby. marina. Responsibility for reversing impacts, both environmental protection. and economic, not covered by the permit must be assigned within the permit. More specifically, the responsibility must revert to the permittee and ultimately to the authority that issued the permit. Page 183 Wetlands - While the protection of wetlands is in the national interest, the treatment of wetlands owners is not consistent with lPage 163 basic national philosophy. This nation came about through a tax revolt, to a great extent, and inequitable taxation flies in tilhe 8.19.1 Traffic Policy - This policy should be modified slightly face of the principals upon which the country is based. The to r cognize that marine traffic congestion may come about when a courts have ruled that Wetlands Act regulations do not represent navigation channel, otherwise capable of handling large volumes a taking of property byby the state. That may be true, but wet- of traffic, is restricted due to shoaling. The traffic volume lands are essentially useless for development and to tax them on and congestion should be projected on the basis of the ability of the b asis of being rea is totally developa ble according ax rate the waterways to carry traffic when they are properly maintained. for the area is totally unfair. An example would be Wills Hole Thorofare. At this time, the waterway is congested due to shoaling caused by erosion of an adjacent island. Assuming a site were available on Channel Drive Page 203 in Point Pleasant Beach, it would most likely be able to meet all other requirements of the program, but would be effected by the 0 A. Impacts of New Development and l.and Values - Projections of congestion caused by the shoaling. Failure of a property owner tile economic impact of land-use restrictions are consistently t on caused by the shoain. Failure of a property or ailure by the state to down-played. in order for the program to have credibility, it to properly maintain theis propwat erways should not adv, or failure by the sate must be honest. Owners of regulated land may not just be unable proptherlywise acceptabln te waterways should not adversely affect to "realize the level of financial gain they had anticipated." More likely, they will loose money because of overtaxation and the fact that tile price for which the land was purchased was based on it being fully usable and now its use is extremely Page 166 restricted. The restrictions may be necessary, but so is honesty in identifying their probable economic impacts. The need to simplify the permit process to the greatest extent possible without weakening environmental protection programs cannot be stated frequently enough. The businesses coastal zone management encourages in tile coastal zone are businesses of low Page 210 economic yield operated by small, average businessmen. Tite economic yield operated by small, average businessmen. The (2) Resort/Recreatiofi - The encouragement of maintenance is economic and psychological strain of dealing with the permit i2) Resort/Recreatiao - Th e encouragement of maintenance is process is such that these businesses are discouraged from locating imperative. But, as part of a regulatory program, will this in the coastal zone, leaving a vacuum which ultimately can only encouragement be p assive, applying olyy funtio actual permit ap- be filled by less desirable businesses. plicationst or will the program truly function as a positive management tool for the coast and actively seek maintenance of the state's navigation channels? Tie latter should be tile case. Page 172 Once again, the effect on private property owners is understated. The program must be hontest In identifying plob;bile economic The Marine Trades Association would like to see greater participation impacts on private property owners. by tile Departments of Labor and Industry and the Public Advocate. -J While tile association fully supports the necessity of maintaining a clean, productive environment, we also recognize the need to balance environmental concerns with economic and property rights considerations. 268 NEW JERSEY STATE o.Die lrn-- , CHAMBER OF COMMERCE S ommTpCe stMEET 0j N~EWARK. N.J. 4? 102 Deve1Opmenft comm~ittee, we feel strongly that nq ew .rmc-y should bare one state- level prop'ram with resipect to land usang, not six or seven. ruch a prograni should be no constituted that It 'Will accommodate the full neope of the public's interests In land time planning, not the much inure limited, srecial concerns July , rethat are represented, for example, to the Wetlands or CAPIIA Inv". We point out to you that, in the easie ot th-i draft F13 on the flay Hlonorable Daniel O'llern mand ocean shore ilerment. the dociument's oPening chapter, which diccuseee the Commissioner ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~pronrari's purposes, et*., tota~ll ignores ooe of the banic enninten of the 11ew Jersey Department or CAPFtA 1.w, inamely. "tire legitimste econoisic aspirationn of than inhabitantst of Environmental recreation ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~the coastal area` which the Legislature stated It "wishes to encourage'. P. 0. DM 13 90 ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~we do not feet that the Depertment of PnromtlrrotectinIn i, Trenton, new Jorerse 01625 den to the orientation and training or Its people, the proper an,?uty to be leading Dear Co~~~~~~~~mniseionerr ~~~~~~~~~land use control In New Jersey,. While environmentia protection in a icsitininte pear Commisolonarr ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~public concern in Connection with land use planning, It In by Ito menno the only, We mrs takng this mens of respnding to yur Coastalconsideration. The Gaovrnor recognizes that Nowv Jersey's economic environment waaeen a'oremtkDng thisOmeans hore regseondgto dorf department's Catlneede improvement and we are convinced that economic concerns must be given Mtanaement.p orm a n cansaeR~n rf Environmental. Impact' more emphasis within narrowly conceived programs such as CAPFtA. The po~thearingcommentperiod or this ogmuentis openthroughWe are especially concerned over what has been announced n4 the Th hearnd women peramnin copy for this douenttes tope theDretroyough Ofc next stage" of the Coastal M~anagement progren development, ntimely, extension ofConstnl Zone PNnnegement, David B. Kinsey. with the request that he submit It wf aters aroeiios tof coursatvner the aelawarf thier andfder . onta Zonver- inrthong as yart of the hearing record. Our letter, however, to directed to you. because wtr ra forsaeudrteagso h eee osa oefaee Mr Chambe's primay concerngoes beynd ties dcument Iself. mant Act. Thin proposed program would be aiume primarily at henylly urbainized areas where the application of the stated purposes of Coastol. tianagement In We are disturbed ever the direction which land Unme planning as a whole N ~ ew Jersey would serve little purpose. to tatking in state government. Within your department alone citizens must contend Rev Jerecy'ls economy remains to relatively frail health, well below ithth adteo the Wetad a.tuFod1.c ateCatlAe the national average In many accepted economic indices. Imposing an environ- ID Fcility Rleview Act, green Aaree program and the pending extension of CAMIA-type mentally-oriented program or land use controls upon some of' otir moot vital Areas afl4 usea i"aiols"In .m.r, controls anderdutr the anedera that stalton baaeent. Acflut to jun man situations, a citizen 'lust Comply vith the mandates of more than non of thoeeofomecanidutysandathte, tbatdfiultoutf. programs. At the same time, the Department or' Coimmunifty Affairs to developing: We would welcome an opportunity to Hit down with yoxx personally to the Otate !Development guide Pleng the IDepartmeont of Transportation has Its discuss this matter further In Company with the chairman and member" of our Transportation eastier plang the Department of energy to developing Its energy Chamber'~ Fa cnomico Devalojement Comm~ittee. In fc, we will 8ladlY Make the Hester Plan which baa land use control aspects& the Department of Agriculture oser aanmntfrsuhRetigITetnto'eelonade has programs involving farmland preservation and development rights transfer, cnvceeryarnieents tor yuch pereignTrnona scbehedldoadte, W) and all or thsee programs are in addition to municipal and county lend use planecnein oyu esonlmh l. If This In not to imply that the 11tate Chamber to opposed to the objectivess or even inoe ey the methods of same at these programs. Mu vs must emphasize that there to little or no Coordination among their respc~tive provisions and requirements. And this presents citizens with confusing, csetly and time-consonting problema when proposing ainy kind of development. W ii i. C We think It to time for etate government to take an In-depth look ast this multiplicity of programs %in the light at Its overafl Impact upon Uia View Jersey's etionomy -- including the adminilstrative and enforcement expenses . ,**. :.. which taxpayere must "uport. California'* Proposition 13 and simillar moves eiDvd1.Kne *~elsewhere clearly signal rising public discontent over governmental costs which cIl avi". Johns3 e r n .have escalated In good measure due to the proliferation or regulatory bureaucracies. lionrt . John ak Jqon As Mr. Kinsey learned at his moot recent sessiton with our Economic - m - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~269 -mm- - - -- -- 2 m m ; ~~~~~ ;8~~~~~~~jA5,~~~~~~~~~~~ .~water supply, ns mell as other coastal resources. For inlstance, ,.J. should know 1,;,ra,~~~~~~ ffS E r~~~~~what lmpact can be expected on air quality 5, tO, 15 years hence, from Atlanntic Si 15,':a NEW JERSEY CIIAPlER City's renewal and proJetoed growth and traffic. , ual ,! ; " )160 N1..,, Strec,. ril,,,oe.. 085 40 L..~r; Nu #o609 e 924-34l 1 Va believe it Is crucial to the entire enterprise of protecting N.J.'s coastal resources that the DP �required to assess cumulative impacts and to develop a plan, Statement presented on the Nen Jarsey Coastal liannaement Program, Bay & Ocean Shore Segment & Draft EIS - June 15, 1978 mechanism, or legislative measure to remedy the problem. Hly name is Dlane Graven and I am Conservation Chairman for the Sierra Club's Another major continuing worry is the Inadequacy of IDEP/OCZM's res ources to admln- leuw Jersey Chapter. later and enforce the coastal protection program. For Instance, we ulul3stand thdf the OCZ:'s permit section has only 3 people and needs 8 - 10. Further, delays We commend the DEP's Office of Coastal Zone lanagement for the Bay & Ocean Shore in filling authorized p ositionscaused by Civil Serviceil a regretable, long-term Segment (BOSS) document. We believe it will help protect New Jersey's coast from problem, but now, added to that, t v;s o i uire revile of applicants large, poorly sited and planned development, hile alloutwing certain developm ents eeandl this Is reported to be causing additional delay in hiring needed personnel. in appropriate locations. The Coastal Location Acceptability Method process The OCZM must be staffed fully, If the Legislature uants permits revielred properly seems clear and reasonable. The use and resource policies, also, for the most part, within 90 days, it had best see to it that adequate staff is on hnnd, seem clear and forceful. We support the promulgation of Chapter 3 as rules and refgulation3. Enacting a governmental progran which the public Is lead to expect will be effective, but which actually falls nlato confusion, indecision, poor decisions, and conflict We wish to express the following concerns, reservations, suggested actions and due to inadequate resources - both money and staff - is a disservice and reinforces specific changes. specific changes. the publics tendency to disrespect government. Therefore, we urge that both the The decision not to conduct a proper inventory wan a mistake. It -ay^remedied federal OCZM and the N.J. Legislature make certain that DEP/OCZM has the resources ultilately piece-meal through information provided by applications and ElS's, but It needs to administer and enforce this program. meanwhile the DEP will continue to react to applications rather than for everyone, Ue are glad that the BOSS policy on pipelines specifically prohlbits oil pipelines DEP and potential applicants, to knou specifically where developments can and from the Central Pine Barrens, Ye feel both oil and gas pipelines should be pro- cannot be located. cannot ibited, however, our main concern on this policy Is the proposed power of the le think it is important that the public not be lulled into assuming that Chapter Dept. of Energy to override DEP's policies and decisions. We urge the Byrne Admin- 3's promulgation will actually protect the coast. It won't. The cumulative ,stratlon to enunciate a policy to protect ab solutely thelne JBarrens from any impacts of the many likely developments not covered by CAFRA/BOSS will be disas- energy facility, except perhaps a gas pipeline If there is no possible alternate trous to the 11.J. coast. The best planning and most stringent enforcement of rules route. and regulations will be of little use If, for instance, numerous housing develop- We have previously offered some specific wording changes In some policies. I pil ments of 21 units or less, which are not now covered by CAFIIA, are constructed. send them in later for the record, Also, Individual houses on dunes, small commercial establishments, expansions of small motels by a few units, and the like, can eventually destroy the coast. Thank you. Therefore, as one possible way to Improve the situation, we urge the Legislature to reduce the threshold number for housing unitse, which Is now 25 units or more. The DEP should.be required to determine what the reduced threshold number should be in order to gain control over sequential development. We are also concerned about the cumulative impacts of major facilities now covered by CAFnA/POSS. As yet the REP is not required to forecast or evaluate tho cumula- "...IO XPrtORE. INIOY AND PRFsr RvF IIIE NlON'S E URftiSt. WA 1FR5. FI 11 A lI %FRS, IV Wll 1 NI IN ." %6iorra,~~~~~~~~~~~~I' -2-t ua Nassau 51fect, rgincelon, U1.085,10~~~~oasta 6.17vln1 lineI ecouanged tacua~d o reoe qacilujand e- r rri oi at Supemna psaemn EW beRL CIncluded to the re Tient 6157 :entra ie Brf.hlo prefer C0oNsatal Sann. hibtsfrocten Mrs. a84 ~~meiP. 166001. - line 3. change "discouraged' to j~h11,A es rohuibit d Spl ptolena ofateiehittol resinclded i the record bntele esy p.D0-iieiIa -lie Gatr eavil" nerttaoi del5 sJ-, P. 137 7-3-6-0 - add, and~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t p iftil2 wstewatior 7.4.7m2 (c).m or~_MP-- both.- Coas rjtall:nagt prgaBy&OenSoeSgmn /57 ile rmthe eirall PIe Barn 515 edel -- or efe (P. 4.-747)-lease ttac tor "Staegment' preserte atp blic hea Cnriuifs_) P. 60 - 6.41.9. line 3, hae"disctagdto prhb~4 th labtpove.i p. 7Ilk.533,nx to lafte line, delete thtels &"remai ain nsentence adInsaee o1.rvtoICus is consisatent with all applcable federal 1 tt ss ue 1~is - 7.5.10 - line i, delete ..proper"I line 2. after"~Inntallatiofl * delete U, and"i after "operation"'. Insert and ~maintikinsnce - 7.5.11 - reword to read. Wlsessidr tCreatnenit-R-Y-r-m5 eha h "o,olwater are qancoutane4s erovidsel tat efflent a-d reT3F'. teh-il4 conistnt ith all appiea),Ie federal ad ste law. Stal ards. rule LrfA -761(a), after "of" Insert loom-=termT -7.6.2, line 3 "are acceptable' In unclear. If there Is a law that applies. cite It. If "acceptable" reclamation Plans are defined or Jercrll..M somewhere, reference where found. If I*2P/O(.,zil is to determnihe what an acceptable xecia,nation plan consists of, OCZi-l rhould develop specif ic criteria p. 1419 - 7.6.3. line 41, after 'not" delete " Cause . ... dagradatIOn" and Inisert P. 152 - l. i., e1 5, "distu~rbanhces' to uncluar despite Gion-ary definitiOnl If draw'iown Is witat It meant, than chang-3 "diasturbance0 to dAwdown P. 159 - .111.1 - chaninS the First sentence to rcads -Infornat-lno. ie poel secondarv lamrots -f a p--esa developmert must ime includioA~ edI T Pfrd ~ (.r Ieosehrit.~d Inall r~plcatlorr.. p. 161 - 8.16.i - delete entire papagrapil and start over. I crummoat Solid W s-s -_ al kharulled 4,d~ _i~P f or wL i'"tr1 solr c m~~~~~~~s -~ _2 _. - - -__-_R Page 2 Sierra Club-Uest Jersey Group Testimonyl Bay and Ocean Schore Segment July 6, 1976 number I seems to be saying tile local minicipalities will make the real s;1 t~yWEST JERSEY G0O0UP .; Al1t7,?' 1 ~ '�decisions. Haybe we are overreacting, and we suspect you will polint to i XoIxrtOREt tWOY AND PREtSEVE IMtS N0fltIs . the language used In the EIS and Insist It means DEP will make the Impor- FORESIrS, WAtrERS. WItDtUlE AND WILDERNESS..." ,- tant decisions, but It doesn't say It clearly enough for us. The funda- TESTIHoNlY RELATIhiG TO TIlE BAY AiIO OCEAII SIlORE SEGlENT OF 1I1E COASTAL ON Y RELATI mental policy stance must be that DEP, because of Its concern for the This testimony Is from the West Jersey group of the N.J. Chapter protection and conservation of the ecosystem, and Its ability to objective- of the Sierra Club. We represent Sierra Club members In tile southern ly strive for that concern without the need to foster development to half of the State and, specifically, of more Importance In this case, raise taxes, must make the decisions and the role of the local government those members In the CAFRA area from Atlantic City to Cape Hay and up should be to provide Input. And It must be realized that this Is not the estuary to the Delaware Hemorlal Bridge. We thank you for the simply a question of semantics. If this Is not the basic policy stance, opportunity to present this testimony. DEP Is reduced to deciding when to desagree with the municipality; when Our priorities for the coastal area are the same as yours: to pro- to take exception. That makes It an entirely different ball gamel tect and conserve tile coastal ecosystem. To us, thiA Is the overriding A second major concern Is that the EIS claims that the State Is goal which gives rise to the objectives tn policies two and three and Interested In regional decislons; that they will "...consider only will result In the protection of the health, safety and welfare of coastal resource and coastal land and water use decisions of greater than people who reside, work, and visit In the coastal zone. local significance..." and yet provides no criteria for making regional We think the document shows great strengths, particularly In the decisions. The criteria enunciated here have to do with making local decision making method which provides standards by which each application cedislons: whether such and such a use of such and such a resource Is for development can be evaluated. acceptable In a specific location. Plow, then, Is the DEP to decide We also feel there are a number of weaknesses, however, which, If whether a particular development will violate regional stasndards? not corrected, can override all the good Intentions and objectivity of In the long run, this Is going to lead to significant problems the method. To begin with, there Is the continued obeisance to "home because the Individual towns will be able to "nickle and dime" the rule." Ilome Rule has always been a thorn In the side of conservationists region to death. If development takes place In the non-prohlbited (and reformers In general) who look to the state to see things more clearly, areas in each town and gradually fills up all the non-prohibited In a larger context. As Is mentioned In the EIS, "....some municipalities areas, the entire coast will look like the barrier Islands. (In their quest for ratable producing property) make Individual develop- In general, we like the policies outlined In sections 6, 7, and l ment decisions with little regard for regional Impacts..." Yet, principle -11'111U _ __ _ - -m Page 4 Sierra Club-West Jersey Group Page 3 Testimony: Day and Ocean Shore Segment Sierra Club-West Jersey Group July 6, 1978 Testimony: Bay and Ocean Shore Segment July 6, 1978 place for putting spoils Is specified beforehanid. of Chapter three; there Is very little to disagree with. It's the spaces 6.4.1.2 "Development that contributes to further erosion of high between the policies that concern us. It's the fact that a person can risk erosion areas Is discouraged." Why not simply prohibitedl build houses anywhere he wishes on wetlands that ire owns as long as he 6.5.1.4 "Development...ls prohibited on beaches, unless..." We doesn't build more than 241. New or expanded public facility development see no reason for the "unless" unless the structure Is coastline dependent. Is conditionally acceptable providing that they meet a demonstrated need. 7.2.2 We, too, would encourage clustering provided the site does But building roads and sewers always seem to meet a demonstrated need, not have septic tanks and the developer makes the usable colamon space and they alnays seem to lead to more people which leads to more develop- available to the public. ment which leads to a greater load on a sensitive environmental area finally, you should be searching for a method which allows citizen and there seems to be no stopping It. When It comes to runoff (Section participation but does not require th citizen to read, understand, and 8.6), nobody exceeds the standards but we keep having more floods and balance, such a large amount of material. We're going to have to live local governments seem to feel that It's the problem of the guy downstream. with these regulations for a long time and It would be a shame to over- When It comes to groundwater (Section 8.5), the water supply people look some Important features simply because there was too much to deal with. seem to allow excessive withdrawal rates to everybody, will you tell Also along tihe line of public participation, we would recollumend a thelm they can'tl In section 8.7, you require meeting the standards of different method than you have been using heretofore. We think you should the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act, but in many places the Soil have regular open meetings Inviting environmentalists, county planners, District people can't cope with what they have to do now. So we like Industry, and legislators In order to share Ideas without the constraints your policies, but we're concerned. of a public hearing or the necessity of responding to a draft final plan. We conelend the Departmlent for publishing the Public Comments and Workshops could be arranged as the plan Is being developed. DEP Responses. It Is evidence that the Staff noted the conmments anid acted on them. We would like to state that we would like to reinforce the comments of Diane Graves for the N.J. Chapter of the Sierra Club especially as It refers to the lack of conducting a proper Inventory. Allow us to finish with a few specific Items. 6.2.6.2 "lHalntenance dredging Is encouraged." Only If a suitable m _ _ _ m _m m 27.M_ _ Mr. Robert Knecht June 19, 1978 1 1l~gAIIIIUIt ;A9 .%SII.M SiguiVucr: ( w1xrV N ~Page 2 ,4Izr~l? V. ,VVtCIt JR o ~ 2g M'9-qTh,,,,,r4,,t D~~~rt fl~~~~vfrte/-w- J ~~~~~~~WIIMT'OtW4 U,.L^ARV.V tg1107 ................... Columbia believes that the New Jersey Program is ............... ..........deficient and therefore does not meet the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) for the following reasons: June 19, 1978 1. The New Jersey Department of Energy master energy plan is not contained in the New Jersey Program. Under the Mr. Robert Knecht program, it is necessary for energy facilities to demonstrate Assistant Administrator for consistency with the master plan. Absent an examination of the Coastal Zone M-anagement contents of the master energy plan, it is impossible to conduct U.S. Department of Commerce a meaningful review of the State's program for energy facility National Oceanic and Atmospheric siting. Administration 3300 Whitehaven Street, N 2. The New Jersey Program lacks criteria for evatua- 3300 Whitehaven Street, N Washington, DC 20235 ting the consistency of a federally related project with the state Program. Absent such criteria, the consistency statement Dear Mr. Knecht: made by individuals pursuant to �6 of the CZMA [(16 USCA � 1456 (c)(3) (Supp. 1978)1 in their application for authorization from Re: State of New Jersey - Coastal Management a federal agency, would have no basis in that such criteria is Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment-- missing from the New Jersey Program. May 1978 - Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3. The Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) lacks the authority to implement the Program as contained in the Columbia Gas System Service Corporation herewith files DEIS. While it is questionable that the planning function assumed a response on behalf of Columbia Gas System (Columbia) to the by NJDEP is authorized under Coastal Area Facility Review Act, above-captioned document issued April 28, 1978 by the Department there is no doubt that this agency does not have the authority April ~~~~~~~~~~to override local objection to any of its policy, plans or guide- of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. to override local objection to any of Its policy, plans or gide- lines. This remains a fundamental weakness of the Program. (See Columbia is one of the largest natural gas systems in EPA comment J245 in DEIS.) The need for state legislation to the United States and is composed of The Columbia Gas System, prevent local community opposition from frustrating state action Inc_, a registered public utility holding company, a service through local land use planning is essential to a viable Program. company and seventeen operating subsidiaries. The operating sub- sidiaries are primarily engaged in the production, purchase, In addition to the above comments, the plan fails to storage, transmission and distribution of.natural gas at whole- consider the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. This Is reflected sale and retail. Columbia supplies directly through its retail In the Program's policy of clustering energy facilities. Such a operations, or indirectly, through other utilities, the gas policywould use up the increments of given pollutants (particu- requirements of about 4,200,000 customers in an area having a lates, hydrocarbons, etc.) and virtually preclude construction population of approximately 18,000,000. Columbia's service area of any major industrial facility. includes large parts of the states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, New York, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and the District of Furthermore, it should also be noted that submission Columbia. Columbia serves at retail 1,850,000 customers residing and approval of a partial Program as contemplated by the State in communities with a total population of 7,400,000. of New Jersey does not trigger the federal consistency provisions of Section 6 of the CZMA 1(16 USCA � 1453 (c)(3)J. This pro- vision only applies to final approval of a cmplete CZMP, not final approval of a segmented plan. 274 - Hr. Robert Knecht June 19, 1978 II I I Page 3 Suggested Revisions to Columbia trusts that the National Oceanic and Sggate ot New Jersey Atmospheric Administration will give serious consideration Coastal Management Program Bay and Ocean Shore Segment You rs very truly. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Hay 1978 #1 Page 34 6.2.3.2 - continued at top of page Delete last sentence referencing pipelines or at a minimum delete words "or natural gas" in third to last line. Should for some uncontemplated reason a natural gas RWWJr: che pipeline leak, it will not impact prime fishing areas in tidal water areas and water's edge areas. Pipeline con- struction will not significantly altet bathymetric features of ocean bottom nor impact fisherman's ability to utilize or fish in pipeline corridors. #2 Page 35 6.2.5.2 - last paragraph on page In line 5, delete word "dredging" and insert word "trenching." Further, at end of paragraph, delete the phrase "and replanted with pre-development revegetation." Should this deletion be unacceptable, then it is reconmmended that the following phrase be added to existing paragraph: "if after a period of three growing seasons subilerged aqllatic vegetation does not naturally reinvade the trench aria." _~ _m _m _m _m _m _m __275_ M --2- -3- #3 Page 38 6.2.8.3 6.3.6.21 Backfilling Recommend placing period after the word "value" at Backfillng Is the act of removing trench end of second line and deleting rest of the sentence. Initially, spoil from its temporary spoil storage the Marine Sanctuaries Act allows development to take place but site(s) by a bucket-type piece of trenching only under controlled circumstances and situations. The Act equipment and replacing it in the trench to does not prohibit OCS oil and gas development in or through cover the pipeline. The original marine marine sanctuaries. The statement as written implies that such bottom contour is reestablished as close as activities "could" impact such areas. feasible to the original bottom contour. 6.3.6.22 Jetting #4 Page 43 - add new definitions Jetting, an alternative for trenching, is 6.3.6.19 Trenching the process of liquefying and lightening the Trenching is the not of removing marine marine bottom sediments so that the weighted bottom sediments in a bucket for the pipeline will sink into the now less dense or purpose of installing a lineal facility lightened sediments. Jetting is accomplished where the removal of such sediments is by blowing high pressure air and high pressure accomplished by use of a backhoe, clam, vwater into the marine sediments below the dragline, shovel or similar method. pipeline with a specially designed jet sled 6.3.6.20 Temporary Trench Spoil Storage pulled along the pipeline such that only the Temporary trench spoil (excavated marine sediments beneath the pipeline are lightened bottom sediments) storage is the act of and liquefied. placing trench spoil alongside the exca- vated trench in a lineal pile or at #5 Page 45 - Figure 5 Line 16 should be all "C's" or "conditionally acceptable." for temporary storage while the pipeline is For the "open bay" segment, the water acceptability factor for installed in the trench. pipeline routes are shown as being discouraged for both the "deep" _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [ 276- / ~ � I ~ . ~ I I ml -4- and "medium" water depths and "prohibited" for the "shallow" bodies provided that the depth of the water depth. As such, the prohibition of pipeline routes trench is (a) sufficiently deep to avoid across the "shallow" segment of the "open bay" basin type will pipeline puncturing or snagging by sea arbitrarily prohibit pipeline routes from the "medium" and "deep" clam dredges, (b) sufficiently deep areas of "open bays" where they are only "discouraged." Inasmuch to avoid pipeline uncovering by erosion as pipeline routes are lineal facilities as are cable routes, of water body currents, and (c) in com- the acceptability factors for pipelines should therefore be pliance with tile Corps of Engineers permit equivalent to the cable route acceptability factors. where the pipeline crosses navigation Further in this regard, neither pipeline routes nor channels. cable routes should be prohibited from crossing "lakes and ponds." 6.3.8.19 Temporary Trench Spoil Storage There is no justification for such a restrictive position. The Temporary trench spoil storage is conditionally acceptability factor should be "C" or "conditionally acceptable." acceptable provided that (a) all applicable Pipelines have for over one hundred years been laid across rivers, water quality standards are met and (b) the streams and creeks. If construction is properly carried out, no bottom contours are reestablished following long-term impacts will result. trench spoil removal to as near as practicable #6 PaRe 49 6.3.8.16 to the original bottom contours. It is suggested that this paragraph be revised to be 6.3.8.20 Backfilling consistent with paragraph 6.3.8.14 - Cable Routes. Backfilling the trench following pipeline installation is acceptable provided that the #7 Page 49 - add new definitions backfilling operation reestablishes the 6.3.8.18 Trenching bottom contours over the trench to as near as Trenching for pipeline facilities is practicable to the original bottom contours. conditionally acceptable in all water 6.3.8.21 Jetting Jetting pipelines intd the bottomi sediments is a conditionally accepLable burial method * _ m _m _ _ _ _ _ _277 _ . - - -6- bcprovided (a) trenching and bkfillilg" is pipeline alignment in accord with the route impractical and (b) the depth of burial meets determined by the Commssion in te ert determined by the Con.lsaiah in the certificate. all applicable Corps of Engineers andlore, it is reconmended that a new paragraph (e) be added Department of Transportation, Office of to 6.10 as follows: Pipeline Safety Operations Regulations regarding (e) for natural gas pipeline facil ities subject to depth of burial. the Natural Gas Act, the final pipeline align- 8 Pagje 94 6.6.7.5 ment recommended by the appropriate state In the last line of this definition, the term "moderate" authorities as a result of the review process set is used. Is this term supposed to be "moderate" or "medium"? forth in the 7ew Jersey Coastal Management Program , should be consistent with the pipeline alignment as determined by the FERC. Further, the alignment The statement contained in 6.10 does not recognize in accordance with the landowner's wishes. four important conditioU5 which are unique to natural gas trans- in accordance with the landowner's wishes. mission facilities subject to the Natural Gas Act: notwithstanding the above, the term "rights-of-way" * The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has the in item (d) should be deleted and replaced by the term "trans- final authority for determination of pipeline routes. statements in porlation corridors" to be consistent with other statements In � The physical pipeline location on the ground is the Plan. determined by the landowner. * The FERC certificate provides some latitude to the #l0 Page 142 .4.7e) pipeline company to move the pipeline alignment to The second sentence should be revised to read "To accommodate landowners' wishes and deviate around preserve the recreational and tourism character of the coastal an unforeseen or uncontemplated obstacle. areas, new major pumping stations and other ancilliary facilities e The FERC certificate gives the natural gas pipeline to the offshore oil and gas pipelines shall be prohibited from company the authority to do the final engineering and locations in the bay and ocean shore segment, except for major gas processing plants and compressor stations (see Section 7.4.9)." - m m - m - inmmi~~~~~~~~~~~n-ninmi -9- The addition of compressor stations is logical because they are similar to gas processing plants in regard to land area require- common courtesy that the second right-of-way or easement mets and can be designed to be unobtrusive. purchaser contact the holder of the first right-of-way or easement meats and can be designed to be unobtrusive. to determine appropriate technical arrangements. In all cases, Nil Page 144 7.4.10 the landowner's desires and wishes control the location of It is suggested that the words "natural gas" be deleted facilities on his property. In other words, it is possible that from the title, from line one and the words "and gas" be deleted rty owner would grant a right-of-way or easesent for a a property owner would grant a right-of-way or easement for a from line two. Natural gas is not stored in tanks similar to pipeline through the center of his property since it will be crude oil. The deletion of these suggested words will make the buried and not present any surface obstruction to farming or statement correct. other possible land use while the landowner may require the #12 Page 180 Paragraph "Pipelines" owner of a pole line or other surface use facility to construct I believe it was DEP's intent that the term "rights- them along fence lines or property lines to prevent intermittent of-way" included in line six of this paragraph was meant to be obstructions through the center of his property. It is for this reason that the term "corridor" is the proper term. "transportation corridors." The use of the term "pipeline corridor" is properly used in line eight of this paragraph. 013 Pane 187- Second full paragraph on page In this regard, it is important to remember that a * Since specific natural gas pipeline alignments are grant of a right-of-way or an easement by a property owner is an not known and will not be known at the time IEP is considering instrument which permits the survey, construction, operation, a consistency determination, it is suggested that the following maintenance and sometimes removal of a pipeline or other type of sentence be added to this paragraph following the second sentence: facility across a specific tract of land. The right-of-way holder "The submission of a written notice to landowners is not obtains no interest in the land other than that which is generally required for natural gas pipeline facilities subIjet to Like specified above. A second person proposing to install another Natural Cas Act." facility. be it a pipeline, electric power transmission line, telephone cable. etc. must also decal with the landowrner I:o brtllain 6/30/78 tihe second right-of-.;ay ot ca:l;telnt across th:at property. It is m m mm _ _ _ _ _ m m279m _ - ' OEBIEVOISE & LIBERMAN ,00sOOKDHAe" U Us," tNO BEFORE TIlE w^I.tll.Oo.H. c. ao000 JOSEPH *SOBBS H c t DtvsNu _CoO). 0-IK.Dos OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT IA p t ASOCTUrs ' A I, V.ASM'HSHo, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION dOllO r PSOCToK 14A W *. 00 HOOKII nLI s5I J COn IIIIL J..DAHIoLIor "Y' JOYCS" * 500515. JO -. DOWeL r.(RO, *UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE JiCHC L (CHYOnI0 m CtOUS*EL ~~~~~~00((110CM~~~~~~~ K1)~~~ MIn re June 21, 1970 State of New Jersey June 21, 1978 Coastal Management Program Bay and Ocean Shore Segment Mr. David N. Kinsey Chief, Office of Coastal Zone Comments of Management New Jersey Department of Environmental protection PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY Trenton, New Jersey 08625 JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY Dear Mr. Kinsey: AND We represent Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Jersey Central Power and Light Company, and New Jersey Natural Gas Company with respect to the Secretary of Com- merce's consideration of New Jersey's Coastal Management Program -- nay and Ocean Shore Segment submitted for approval under the Coastal Zone Management Act. On June 19, 1978, we submitted the enclosed comments to the National ocean- ographic and Atmospheric Administration. I thought you OF COUNSEL% might be interested in receiving a copy. Frederick M. Broadfoot David E. Lindgren Very truly yours, Vice President - Law Donald B. Myers Very ruly yours, XPublic Service Electric and J. Daniel Berry Gas Company Debevolse 6 Lberman 80 Park Place Debevoise & ibulian 806 15th Street, N.W. Richard Cohen Washington, D.C. 20005 Jersey Central Power and Light Company Attorneys for Public Servlc Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Rd. Electric and Gas Company, Morristown, New Jersey 07960 Jersey Central Power and Light Company, and New Gerald W. Conway Jersey Natural Gas Compar Conway, Reisemen, Michaels, Wahl, Bumgardner & Hurley 50 Park Place Newark, New Jersey 07102 i80 �. BIhCKGOUND OF COMRENTING COMPANIES IHTRODUCTION Public Service Electric and Gas Company supplies electric- pursuant to the provisions of 15 C.F.R. 5932.72(b), public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G), Jersey Central Power ty and gas to areas of New Jersey In which over three-fourths of the state's population reside and which include New Jersey's and Light Company (JCPELI. and Hew Jersey Natural Gas Company six largest cities. PSE&G serves the greater portion of this submit the following comments on the document entitled New s largest cites. PSEG serves the geater portion of this area with both electricity and gas, but small parts are served Jersey Coastal Management Program, say and Ocean Shore Segment ar ea with both electricity and gas, but small parts are served and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter referred with gas only and other parts with electricity only. in addition, to as rogram or Segmentl. That document combines a draft through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, PSE&G also owns an to as Sproaram" or SegmentS}. That document combines a draft of the New Jersey Coastal Hanagement Program -- Bay and Ocean interest in 16 federal oil and gas leases off the Atlantic Shore Segment, which will be subject to additional revisions Coast (E nergy Development Coporat ion) and I s seeking following a comment period ending in early July 1978, and a enter the business of Importing, stoling and processing draft environmental Impact statement prepared pursuant to theEascogas LNG, Inc., Energy Tei vic es C o Energy Pipeline Corp.). The Hew Jersey Coastal Management Pro- provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. The following gram -- Say and Ocean Shore Segment will affect PSE&G and Its comments are directed primarily to the draft New Jersey Coastal Managemet subsidiaries directly inasmuch as many of their facilities both Management Program -- Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and to NOAA' authority to approve that program under the Coastal Zone Management zone. Act rather than to Lhe adequacy of the draft environmental impact Jersey Central Power and bight Company is a subsidiary of General Publc Utilities Corporation, which Is also the owner of Pennsylvania Electric Company and Metropolitan Edison Company, both of Pennsylvania, and GPU Service Corporation, a subsidiary which provides supporting services to the operating companies in the GPU system. JCP&L provides electric energy In a service territory comprising approximately 43% of the area of New Jersey with an estimated population of 2,000,000 people. -r -l mr -r -r -s .. 281rl - 3 - Among JCP&L's generating facilities are the Oyster Creek SUMHARY OF COMMENTS Station (a nuclear plant{ and the Sayreville and Werner Sta- The Day and Ocean Shore Segment of New Jersey's Coastal tions (conventional coal-fired steam plants). JCP&L also owns Management Program, if adopted by New Jersey and approved by the Forked River Station, a nuclear plant now under construction. These generating stations are located within the Hew Jersey These geznerating stations ate located within the New Jersey attons on future construction, in the Segment area, of certain coastal zone. JCP&L intends to construct a coal-ftired gener- spec ed energy-related facites nuclear and coal-red specified energy-related facilities, nuclear and coal-fired ating facility in New Jersey for service in 1989, if New Jersey generating plants, liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities and, air pollution control regulations are relaxed to the point that to a somewhat lesser degree, interstate natural gas pipelines. makes this possible. That station probably would be located in New Jersey proposes to adopt these discriminatory limitations, the Segment area. Accordingly, JCP&L will be directly however, for reasons that are unrelated to the central focus affected by the proposed New Jersey Coastal Program Management of the Coastal Zone Management Act -- protection of the unique -- Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. characteristics of the coastal zone in a manner which gives New Jersey Natural Gas Company purchases interstate nat- *full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and ural gas and is engaged In the distribution of that gas through- esthetic values as ell as to needs for economic developen...." out a service territory which includes portions of the' area (CZMA S303(c)l 16 U.S.C. 51452(c)). covered by the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment of the New Jersey For example, among the reasons for the restrictions on Coastal Management Program. Accordingly, it will be directly Coastal Management Program. Accordingly, it will be directly nuclear power plants are "strong public concern regarding human health and safety..., public security and civil liberties," as well as "questions about the wisdom of nuclear energy" (S7.4.13, Rationale). LNG facilities are "discouraged" (i.e., virtually prohibited) because new Jersey perceives "risks to safety and health and the environment (which may not necessarily be restritc- ted to one state)...." (57.4.14, Rationale) lemphasis added). It is apparent that the discriminatory restrictions are the result of New Jersey's general oppostlon to these sources 282 - - - - -- 5 --6 of energy rather than any concern Over whatever unique effects national policies applicable to energy because of ill-defined of energy rather than any Concern over whatever unique effects such facilities might have on the coastal zone. Indeed, the Segment would encourage renewable sources of energy Ifs Third -- and perhaps most importantly -- New Jersey would attempt to directly regulate health, safety and siting aspects these plants do not unreasonably affect scenic or recreational values and meet existing state of nuclea r power plant s well as siting and federal environmental requirements. of interstate natural gas pipelinesa, even though it is without In contrast, new energy facilities in the coastal zone that use authority to do sol federal legislation comprehensively covers non-renewable resources are subject to an additional standard, these subjects and preempts state jurisdiction. New Jersey even if they meet the environmental criteria applicable to may not intrude, as t pu rports to do, to do, thie exclusive renewable energy sourcesl they will be approved only if they are province of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal "necessary to meet the state's energy needs..." (57.4.15) (emph- En ergy Regulatory Commission. asis added). For these reasons and those set out in more detail below, Thie vice of ithe Segments proposals for nuclear and LNG PSE&G, JCPFL and New Jersey Natural Gas Co. submit that the facilities and interstate pipelines is essentially three-fold. Bay and Ocean Shore Segment does not meet the requirements of the Coastal hone ranagement oct. Despite a clear mandate to consider the full range of national the Coastal Z one Management Act. Accordingly, the Secretary interests in energy development and facility siting (see 15 may not approve it unless it is substantially revised to elim- C.F.R. S923.52), the Segment reflects a consideration Of only inate the deficiencies we have enumerated. one policy -- that of the president's National Energy Plan. The Segment virtually Ignores the national policies embodied in acts such as the Atomic Energy Act and the Natural Gas Act. Second, the Segment does not balance the national interest in energy production and distribution against possibly competing "Federal, State and local concerns Involving adverse economic, social or environmental impacts" (15 C.F.R. 5923.52(al). Instead, the Segment simply rejects -- and thus thwarts -- the 83 _ .. . 7- - DETAILED COMMENTS plants, and liqulElfied natural gas (LNG) facilities) are Ihat type of facility in which there may be a national interest I. TIlE NEW JERSEY PROGRAM FAILS TO GIVE ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION 1/ TO "NATIONAL INTERESTS" AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 306(c)(e) OF In planning or siting. Accordingly, the regulations as well TIHE CZMA as common sense mandate that the strong and identified national Section 306(c)(8) provides thatt interest in electrical power generation facilities, LNG facil- ities, and natural gas pipelines must be given adequate con- Prior to granting approval of a management program submitted by a coastal state, the Secretary shall sideration by the Program or it will not satisfy the require- find that: ...the management program provides for adequate consideration of the national interest ment of Section 306(c). involved in the siting of facilities necessary to meet requirements which are other than local in The national policy in these regards is not contained in nature. any one source. A number of statutes and Presidential documents In order to satisfy this requirement, the regulations require must be resorted to in any consideration of national policy .hat the program must: respecting energy development and distribution. One of these (1) describe which national interests in the planning for (and the only one considered in detail by New Jersey) is the and siting of facilities were considered during the 2/ program development and the sources relied upon for President's major statement on energy policy of April 29, 1977. such considerationt There, national policy was overviewed as follows: (2) indicate how and where the consideration of these national interests is reflected In the substance of the management program including, where appropriate the diagnosis of the U.S. energy crisis is quite identification of when and where national interest in simple: the demand for energy is increasing, while identified facilities may compete or confict with supplies of oil and natural gas are diminishing. other national interests In coastal resource conser- Unless the United States makes tilRely adjustment. vatlon (and if so, how that conflict is to be weighed before the world's oil becomes very scarce and and resolved)/ and very expensive in the 1900s, the nation's economic security and the American way of life will be (31 describe a process for continued consideration of greatly in danger. (The National Energy Plan, at. identified national inlterests during program imple- vii.) mentation. {15 C.F.R. 5923.52(b)). 1/ 15 C.F.R Part 923 (Table i). Moreover, electrical A. The "National Interest" in Energy Facility Siting. generation power plants, petroleum refineries and associated facilities, gasification plants, facil it ies used for the trans- In describing those facilities which are of "national portation of LtG, oil and gas facilities including pipeline and transmission facilities, are included as energy facilities interest," the regulations specifically provide that energy which may significantly affect the coastal zone for purposes of the energy facility planning process which must: be incoroorated production and transmission facilil:ties (Lnqluding oil and gas into any management programs approved after October 1, 1970. rigs, st-olage, distribution and transmission facilities, power 2/ The statement of policy incorporated the document. "The National Energy Plan" prepared by the Executive Office of the President (Energy Policy and Planning). 284 . - - - -9 -: - Accordingly, the National Energy Plan contained 'three over- o:del ly and economic development of domest ic mineral resources, reseseves, and reclaialO ion of metals and riding energy objectives": minerials to help assure satisfact ion of Industrial, secuitry and environmental needs... (30 U.S.C. S21a). (1) "As an immediate objective that will become even more important in the future, to reduce dependence Congress also has recognized an "urgent need for fulthel explor- on foreign oil and vulnerability to supply dis- ruptions; atlont and development of the oil and gas deposiEs of...the (2) in the medium term to keep U.S. imports sufficiently outer Continental shelf..." (43 U.S.C. 51337(a)). Finally, low to weather the period when world oil production approaches its capacity limitationst and Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act In part to provide a (3) In the long term to have renewable and essential program to encourage widespread participation in the development inexhaustible resources of energy for sustained econ- inexhausti ble r eso urces of energy foc sustained econ- and utilization of atomic energy for peaceful purposes..." (42 omic growth." 1/ U.S.C. 52013(d)). There are other expressions of existing national policy In essence, the 'national interests" to be considered in regarding the development and use of energy resources which energy facility stiing decisions are thre-fold. should have been considered by New Jersey, but were not. For oil and natural gas exploration and development are lo be example, In the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. S717 et se.), encouraged and continued. Second, that Sthe National Energy Congress declared that: Policy Is to reduce United States dependence on oil and, the business of transporting and selling natural In turn, its reliance upon oil for the purpose of electric gas for ultmate distribution to the public is gas for ultimate distribution to the public is generation. bnd third; nuclear power specifically Is to be affected with a public interest, and that Federal legislation in matters relating to the transpor- encouraged. With that background, it can be determined that Lation of natural gas and the sale thereof in interstate and foreign commerce is necessary in the "national interest" in planning and sit.ing electric qgenr- the public interest (15 U.S.C. 5711(a)). ation facilities is to provide for nuclear and coal-fired And, in the mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, (30 U.S-C. S generation where feasible, and that natural gas exploration 21 a et seg), Congress declared that: and development should be supported. it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government in the national interest to foster and encourage 1/ "The strategy of the plan beyond 1905 is twofold... private enterprise in (I) the development of econ- (2) tie plan seeks to promote the economic and envilonmentally omically sound and stable domestic mining minerals, sound use of various forms of coal, supplemented by nuclear metal and mineral reclamation Industries/ (2) the power, for the high temperature needs of power plants and indus- tryu (National Energy Plan at 101). 1/ National Energy Plan at ix. 85 _ _ __ Given this context, It is clear that the Program fails (3) that the NJDEP is assured the location of the facility will not result in nearby population density Increases to give adequate consideration to these national interests in over the operating lifetime of the facility which might make suitable protective actions in the case both electric generation facility siting decisions and LNG facill- of serious accident impossible, and an acceptable approved energy evacuation plan Is ftledl and ty and natural gas pipeline siting criteria, as required by Sec- (4) the Department of Environmental Protection and the tion 306(c)(8). With respect to electric generation facility siting, Department of Energy are satisfied that no other feasible and economical energy alternatives exist the Program discourages and inhibits the generation of elec- for the timely and efficient production of needed electrical power (Program, S7.4.131 at 145). tricity by nuclear or coal-fired generating stations. indeed, the Program is in direct contravention of the National Energy Policy The effect of these siting criteria is that no nuclear and the Atomic Energy Act by not only precluding the construction generating stations may be built in the coastal zone unless of nuclear and coal-firedgenerating stations, but, in addition, the NJDEP and NJDOE "receive clear proof" that the facility is by promoting the construction of oil and natural gas-fired gen- vitally important to the well-being of New Jersey residents erating stations. As to LNG facilities and natural gas pipelines, and that there are no other feasible and economical energy the Program effectively prohibits their construction and develop- alternatives for the production of needed electric power. There- ment in direct contravention of established national policy. fore, nuclear generation must not only be more cost-efficient than other methods of generation before receiving approval, but B. The Program fails to Give Adequate Consideration to the Ifational Policy Regarding Nuclear Generating Facilities there can exist no other feasible alternative method of electric by Imposing Unreasonably Stringent Siting Standards. generation available before construction is authorized under the With respect to nuclear generation, the Program establishes Program. As oil and natural gas-fired generation stations con- four criteria which must be met before nuclear-generating eta- stitute "feasible and economic energy alternatives" to nuclear tions may be constructed in the coastal zone. These criteria generating stations, nuclear stations are therefore barred are as follows: from construction in the coastal zone if the criteria established (i) that the NJDBP and the NJDOE are assured that the in the Program are enforced. operation and disposal of spent fuel poses no unacceptable safety or environmental hazards to The national interest relevant to these criteria, however, New Jersey residents! is an express policy to discourage the use of oil for the gener- (2) that the two agencies receive clear proof through the Department of Energy's master plan that nuclear at'ion of electric power and to rely instead upon nuclear and facilities are needed and are vitally important to the public health, welfare, and economic well-being coal-fired generation. Thus, flew Jersey's criteria -- which of New Jersey residents (emphasis added)! m m m m m m_ m m 86 m _ m m m _ m _ - - 14 - prefer oil-fired generation over nuclear generation -- Significant progress would be made to prepare the country for the period of oil stringency unquestionably conflict with the clearly defined national bthe ound t he mid- s..P. The reductions in indus- trial and utlit use ofoT an-aiatural gas, Interest. While the health and safety considerations cited and the ieu5e no al g as, and the inrease-in theigst o 'coa Loet-he would represent a very important shift--rr- in the Program may constitute relevant factors to be weighed scarce to abundant resources emprtant s addedf scarce tO abundant resources e is added) with regard to siting of energy facilities of national Interest National Energy plan at 95). in the coastal zone, these factors have been thoroughly consid- With respect to coal-fired generating stations, the Pro- ered in the development of the national policy promoting nuclear gram directs that the construction of plants will be 'directed generation. Moreover, these health and safety concerns are toward relatively built-up areas, consistent with applicable the essence of the regulatory review by the Nuclear Regulatory air and water quality standards." This polcy will signif- Commission and are addressed thoroughly and completely prior icantly hamper -- and indeed may effectively bar -- future to receiving authorization for the construction and operation coal-fired generation In the coastal zone. As the 1977 Amend- of a nuclear generating facility.- ments to the Clean Air Act provided for the prevention of As the Program directs the implementation of a policy significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality, there will be, which directly contravenes the national energy policy based in most Industrialized areas, only a limited number of Incre- upon concerns previously considered in the establishment of meats of additional air emission available before development national policy, the Program has failed to satisfy the require- is stopped. Since new coal-fired generation will require such ment of Section 306(c)(8). increments, a policy which directs that these plants be built C. The Programs Fails to Adequately Consider the National in 'relatively built-up' areas severely restricts the construc- Interest by Severely Restricting the Construction of tion of coal-fired electric generation facilities and indeed Coal-Fi-ed --letrlcGeneratlon Facilities. 2/ may bar their construction. The national energy policy regarding the use of coal for In effect, then, the Program expresses a preference for electric generation was set out in the National Energy Plan: oil and natural gas-fired generation due to their lower air 1/ See National Energy Plan at xx-xxi, 69-73. 1/ Program 57.4.12 at 145. 2/ 10 C.F.R. Parts 50, 51 and 100. 2/ Indeed, the NJUEP admitted that the effect of the Pro- 3/ The Program states its concerns as followst "The prom- gram's policies directs major energy facilities (such aae of nuclear power has raised strong public concern as refineries and power plants) out of the costal zone regarding human health and safety, effects on plants, (Coastal Management Strategy: Public Comments and DEP wildlife and water, and public security and civil liber- Responses, Hay 1978, comment 64). ties" (Program S7.4.13 at 146). _ _ _ _7m - _ . _ -_ _ _ _ _ pollution emission levels which, in turn, demand fewer air emis- LNG unlessi sion increments. This preference is the antithesis of the (1) rigorous and consistent criteria stttngs are devel- oped; National Energy Plan's explicit preference for coal-fired (2) the risks inherent in tankering LNG onshore have generation Over oil and natural-gas fired generation; thus, the been sufficiently analyzed and minimtzedl and Program fails to satisfy the requirement of Section 306(c)(8). (3) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission responds affirmatively to the May 1976 petition by New Jersey for the issuance of siting criteria that adequately D. The Program Fals to Provide Adequate Consideration to consider the safety hazards associated with this tie-National Interest'in Oil and NaEural Gas Explor- energy technology. (Program S7.4.14 at 146) atlon, Development and Transmission By establishing a policy which discourages the construction As discussed in Section IA, Congress has declared a national of LNG terminals until several acts occur (which may or may interest in the orderly exploration, development, and trans- happen), the Program in effect precludes the construction of any mission of domestic oil and natural gas and importation of LNG, LNG facility in New Jersey; It thereby hinders the ability of and, has directed the federal government to take steps necessary the U.S. to deal with natural gas shortages, and to the extent to ensure that result. However, the Program fails to recognize oil and natural gas are Interchangeable fuels, hinders a and adequately consider this national interest and has proposed reduced dependence on foreign oil In direct contravention of policies which would run directly counter to existing national the National Energy Plan. policy. The Program's policies with respect to LNG facilities, The only conclusion which can be reached from the nnum- oil refineries, storage facilities and pipeline siting collec- erable restraints that New Jersey is proposing to impose on tively discourage (1) development of the outer continental the exploration, development or transmission of natural gas shelf ("OCS") resources and other energy sources designed to or oil in the coastal zone is that New Jersey is seeking to reduce this country's reliance upon foreign sources of oil, and thwart development of vital energy resources. Given the direct (2) efforts to alleviate recurring shortages of natural gas conflict between this apparent goal and the National Energy (see, e.g., Pres. Proc. Nos. 4485 and 4495, 42 Fed. al. 5789, ~Policy, It is clear that New Jersey has not adequately consid- 18053, re natural gas emergency of 1976-77). 18053, r natural gas cered the national interest in energy development in its coastal With specific reference to LNG facilities, the Program I1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/ ~zone Program. discourages the construction of a terminal for transferring as meaning that a proposed development "will be denied unless 1/ "Discouraged' is defined by Section 4.2 of the Program certain specified findings can be made or conditions can be met." Ifootnote continued on next pagel m 88II -17 - -1- II. NEW JERSEY'S AUTHORITY TO REGULATE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Consequently, the Act embodied a policy SITING AND SAFETY, LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS SITING AND SAFETY AND GAS PIPELINE SITING HAS BEEN PRE-EMPTED BY A PERVASIVE SCHEME Or FEDERAL LEGISLATION, to encourage and assist the States to exercise effectivelytheir responsibilities in the coastal zone through the -deveopme anind--implementation A. NOAA Nay not Approve Any Program that Purports to of management programs (CZMA 5303, ]6 U.S. 51452) Regulate Activities that are Within the Exclusive (emphass added). Province of the Federal Government. To make clear that States were to utilize existing powers and For over a century and a half, it has been recognized, were not to enter fields which Congress had occupied, Section under the rubric of federal pre-emption, that States may 307(e) provided thats not regulate activities where federal legislation Is suffi- clently pervasive as to occupy the field and leave no room Nothing in this title shall be construed... (2) as superseding, modifying, or repealing existing for state regulation the same subject (Gibbons v. Ogden, laws applicable to the various Federal agencies... (16 U.S.C. S1456(e)). 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1(1824)). See Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., -- U.S. --, 46 U.S.L.W. 4200 (March 6, 1978}1 Campbell v. lussey, Thus, subjects that had been pre-empted prior to the enact- 368 U.S. 297 (1961); Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 ment of the Act remained pre-empted subsequent to the Act. U.S. 218 (19471. As to these subjects, the States have no authority and are The doctrine of federal preemption, of course, rests on powerless to act. Moreover, NOAA is prohibited from approving both the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause of the Consti- any Coastal Management Program that purports to regulate a pre- tution. Nothing In the Coastal Zone Management Act changed empted field. Section 307(c), 16 U.S.C. S1455(c) requires that this fundamental rule; nor did the Act grant States any power before a State's management program may be approved, the over a subject matter as to which, previously, they had been Secretary must first find thats precluded from regulating by virtue of the federal pre-emption (7) The state has the authorities necessary doctr ine. This conclusiou follows inevitably from specific to Implement the program... provisions of the Act as well as its legislative history. This finding cannot be made with respect to any management Congress recognized thats program purporting to regulate a pre-empted subject matter; the States do have the resources, administrative the states have no authority whatever over these subjects. machinery, enforcement powers, and constitautlonal authorlity on which to build a sound coastal zone As noted below, the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment attempts management program. iS. Rep. No. 92-753, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. 5 11912).) to regulate the safety and siting of nuclear power plants and I~~~8 as.l UNIG facilities# it also attempts 1.0 regulate sit'ing of Inter state)ral ie gas prcsigpands o~ state naural ga pipelies. PerasivO fderal leislatio, naturl gas ad other hazardous substance St trage facilt]1If's however, covers all ths ils hrb xldn euain(S7.4.I0) and tanke rmnl(5.1).Tthexh.the by New Jersey. inasmuch as New Jersey lacks authority over provisions purport lta regulat~e natural gas fac1iltes that. thpse subject~s. the Sectionl 301(e)(7) finding cannot be made affect interst-at-v commerce, they are impermissable. intrusions and the Segment cannot b e approved. ~~~~Into an area where a pervasive scheme of federal legisla' Ion exists. D. A Pervasive Scheme of Federal Legislat~ionl applies Wti ~eps oth tf one fteFdrlEeg to LtIG Facilities and Interstate, Gas pipelines, Wt i h atmnh tf one fte Fdrleeg Thereby Precluding Regulation by the States Regulatory Commission addressed L~he malter of federal vre- The Bay and Ocean Shale segment's provisions with respect emption In the nat-ural gas field (with particular reference to LNGfaciliies gaphicaly Ilustrat new jtsoyl al-Aept to LNG facilities) and the consequent invalidity of California to enter a field exclusively occupied by federal legislation. l g s a i n Vto~n org ltet esrn fLGfclte section 7.4.14 (P. 1461 would prohibit any LUG facility in in that Sl~ate. This analysts Is contiainpd In a Miemoranldtum theat area unless FERC responds In a certain way to a petition filed with t1he F.E.R.C. commission In Docket "us. CP75-140 Now Jerey hasFiled bfore te commssion. ection1.4.14and CP15-03-2. Rathler than repeat. the det~ailed legal argumen' NewvJerse chas ie eoeth omSin .cin741 made in that hiemorandum, we have appended a copy of it. 1.0 theso Comments and adopi: the arguments made t~heteiln. The locatiOn of terminals for transferring Liquefied Natural gas (LHG) t dis couraged... untLIl... .(C) the Federal Energy Regulatory c h a n ca hr emn.Ifigso h Commission responds affirmaLIvtiX to the May Cluiv Towe Bay and Oucleanhre Segmetlnnesony Clmision 1976 petition by He' Sytthe issuance E x l s v towro eglthe Nuclear Regulatiny FComitiss n of sitting criteria t~hat. aequately consider t oR g l e ueaGnean aciis tesafet~y hazards assocate-0~ IT ts energy eas tepoiefnulrpwrhsriedtog technology (emphasis added). I/ Bcue'h rms fncerpwrhsrie trn Thus, the Segment. seeks t~o control both safety aspects of LHG p u l c cne tgtig hmneaha dslvypfc r.o facilities as well as their siting. additionally, the segment. plants, wildlife and water, and public security and civil itber- ties" J57.14.13. Rationale, p. 1461, the Segment. proposes #.o seeks l.a control siting of interstate jas well as Intra- - - ----------- virtually bat nuclear generating facitltes from t-he area. I/ ..DiScouliaged, to defined by Section 4.2 as meaning that a1 proposed developmetit "will be denied unless certain specified findings can be made or conditions can be met.." - 22- - 21 - to occur when the federal regulatory scheme set out in legis- The Program establishes four criLteria which must be lation totally occupies the regulatory field, leaving no room met before nuclear-generating stations may be constructed. for the state to regulate that activity even though its regulation These criteria are as follows (S7.4.13I p. ]45): 1/ may not conflict with the federal scheme. Federal pre-emption (a) the NJDoP and the NJDOs (must bel assured that the storage and disposal of spent fuel poses no unaccep- In the area of nuclear generating stations was definitely recoq- table safety or environmental hazards to New Jersey residents naized in Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota, 447 F.2d 1143 (b) the two agencies ImusLt receive clear proof Ihrough (8th Clr. 1971), aff'd mem., 405 U.S. 1035 (1972). There the tle Department of Energy's masker plan that nuclear facillt.ies are needed and are vitally Important to Court statedz the public health, welfare, and-ecOnomic well-being of New Jersey residents lemphasis added)s ...(Tlhe Act, as amended, and Its legislative (c) the NJDEP (must be} assured Chat the location of history, when viewed together, provide the strong- the facility will not result in nearby population est manifestation of Congressional intent to density Increases over the operating lifetime of the pre-empt the field of regulation over the con- facility which might make suitable protective actions struction and operation of nuclear reactors... in the case of serious accident impossible, and an (supra., at 1152). acceptable approved energy evacuation plan (must be{ filed; and Accordingly, the Court rejected Minnesota's claim that it had (d) the DEP and the Department of Energy [must bel satis- fied that no other feasible and economic energy authority to regulate nuclear generating facilities. In the alternatives exist for the timely and efficient pro- duction of needed electrical power. Court's view, such These criteria would become enforceable regulations promulgated a dual system of licensing and regulation with control exerted by both the states and the federal and enforced by a state and would touch on an area which is government.. ould creaboth the sta tes and the federal accomplishment and execution of the full purposes pervasively regulated by t.he Federal government through the and objectives of Congress" (447 f.2d at 1154). Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Thus, the slate regulations are When the provisions of the New Jersey Program are measured preempted. Federal preemption srems from the Supremacy and Commerce against applicable judicial decision, it is clear that they Clauses of the Const.l ultlonn.The Supreme Court has found It are preempted and are unenforceable. 1/ Campbell v. Hussey, 368 U.S. 297, 300-301 (19671. 1/ Article IV, Clause 2. The clause provides that "the constI/tulon, and Laws of the United Saldes .... shall be Supreme 2/ New Jersey courts also have recognized federal preemp- tion Tn the nuclear area. See Deprtment of Environmental Pro- Law of the Land...anything in the Constitution or Laws of any teo n the nuclear aea. See Department of Environmental Po- State to the Contrary notwithstanding." tectlon v. Jersey Central Power'& Light Co., 19 N.J. 102 {1u97)r Van Dissel v. Jersey Central Power 6 [Ti[ti Co., 152 N.J. Super. 391; PIRG v. PSE&G, 152 N.J. Super. 191. _ _ m m _ m 291 - 24 - - 23 - The second and fourth criteria similarly are pre-empted. With respect! t.o the first criterion -- thatT the storage They would apply a more stringent standard to nuclear plants and disposal of spent. fuel pose 'no unacceptable safety or with respect to "need for power" than is applied to conventional environmental hazards" to state residents -- New Jersey Is plants, and otherwise discriminate against nuclear facilities. engaging In the very dual regulation over the health and safety While we recognize that States may require nondiscriminatory aspects of nuclear generation specifically precluded by Northerminations por to approving generating States./ New Jersey's lack of authority in this area is con- facltes, discriminatory need for power criter such as facilities, discriminatory need for power criteria, such as firmed by the legislative history of the 1959 Amendments C0o that contained in the Program, run afoul of the Atomic Energy the Atomic Energy Act.. The Joint Congressional Committee on Act and are preempted. Act and are pre-empted. Atomic Energy stated Ihalt It is not intended to leave any room for the 1/ See Maun v. United States, 347 F.2d 970 (19651. exercise of dual or current jurisdiction by states to control radiation hazards by regulation by- product., source, or special nuclear material. 2/ The third criterion -- dealing with population density and evacuation plans -- equally deals with an issue which is at the heart of federal regulation of the nuclear generation field: health and safety issues stemming from the construction and opelation of a nuclear station. Accordingly, New Jersey is without author ity to enforce either the first or third crilterion. I/ In Northern States, the Court addressed just this prob- lem It. concTeathia f-w-ere the states allowed to impose stricter standards on the level of radioactive waste releases discharged from nuclear power plants, they might conceivably be so over- protective in the area of health and safety as to unreasonably stultify the industrial development: and use of atomic energy for the production of electric power" (477 F.2d at 1143, 1]54). 2/ U.S. Code, Congressional and Administrative News, (1959), vol. 7, p. 2879. 3/ Cf., Porter Ctr. Ch. of Izzak WalLon League v. AEC, 515 F.2d 5T3 (t-h Clr. I975), cert. denUed U.S. I I ~ ~ ~ 292 - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ �92 -25- -26- Ill. NEW JERSEY DOES NOT POSSESS ADEQUATE LEGISLATIVE The first. slatute cited by the Program is N.J.S.A. 40: AUThORITY TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM 55-50 regarding the authority of the Boaid of Public Ut lities A. The Program Fails to Satisfy the Local Regulation Override to overrule local zoning restrictions blocking the construc- Requirement. Lion or operation of public utility facilities. however, ihls ]/ Section 306(e)12) provides thats section was recently repealed and replaced by N.J.S.A. 40: 55D-19. That new section autholizes ithe Board of Public Utillty Prior to granting approval, the Secretary shall find that the program provides:... 2) for a method Commissioners to override local ordinances blocking the consltruc- of assuring that local land and water use regula- tions within the coastal zone do not unreasonably tlon or operation of public utility facilities If it finds it restrict or exclude uses of regional benefit. 'necessary for service, convenience or welfale of the public." The applicable regulation provides thatt While this legislative authority may allow Ihe Stale to assure that local ordinances could be overridden with respect to public illn order to meet the requirements of the Section, States must identify those techniques, Including utility facilities, this authority certainly would not. saltsfy authorities, that will be used to assure that unreasonable restrictions or exclusion by local tihe requirement with respect to non-ut:lity facililies. More- land and water use regulations shall not be sustained. 1/ over, as the enabling legislation allowing the Board of Public Utility Commissioners to override local ordinances or requla- The Program attempts, unsuccessfully, to satisfy this Lions stems from the "necessity of service, convenience, or requirement by stating; welfare of the public," it is highly questionable whetlher Itis local governments are prevented from unreason- legislative mandate could be used for comprellensive regulation ably excluding these uses lof regional benefitl by one or more of four fators. The most sig- of the coastal zone. Accordingly, N.J.S.A. 40:55-50 alone nificant is the state's power to overrule a local decision denying approval to any public cannot satisfy Ihe requirement lhat Ihe Program contain aulh- utility (Program, Chapter 5; at 192). ority to override local ordinances or regulations. iowever, an analysis of the 'four factors" cited In the Program The Program secondly cites slatules empowering Ihe Stale demonstrates that the State does not possess the "override to exercise the powet of eminent domain with respect to factl- authority" required by the Section 306(el(2) and thus fails to satisfy the prerequisites for approval of the management plan. y L. 1975, c. 291, 580 oeffective August 1, 1976). 1/ 15 C.F.R. 5923.43(a). m m - _ m m m m 293m.. m . - - - - 26a - 1/ to a state power designed for comprehensive coastal zone ities "necessary for stale or national defense," state high- 2/ 3 4/ management. ways, airports and parks and open space. However, the The fourth factor cited in the Program is state authority Pi. ogiam makes no attempt to describe how these powers will 1/ to block development which could occur with municipal approval. be used to override local ordinances or regulations, and it is This authority is Inapposite as the requirement imposed by self-evident that these statutes do not empower the Stal.e to Section 306(e)(2) s19 that the State be able to override implement the comprehensive land use policies described in local restrictions on regional uses. the Program. In sum, the Program cites numerous 'authorities' embodied As a third factor providing the State with override autl:hor- in existing state legislation to support its contention that ity, the Plogram cites certain decisions from state courts 5/ the override requirement set out in Section 306(e)(2) has concerning fEar housing opportunities. The Program contends been met. However, these authorities were not enacted for the that these cases provide the requisite override authority because purpose of providing for comprehensive land-use management they recognize that a developer has standing, when denied a local construction tor development permit, to appeal that denial of the coastal zone and consequently do not provide the override on the grounds that the municipality denying the permit has not authority, individually or collectively, required by applicable provided fot its fair share of low cost housing. Conceding that regulations. Indeed, this fact Is admitted by the Program's these cases recognize the right to contest and possibly override author, the NJDP, in response to comments on the draft local regulations regarding development of housing when and if program. Consequently, the Program is deficient in this regard the municipality has failed to provide adequately for low-cost and cannot be approved by the Secretary. housing, these decisions certainly do not constitute or contribute B. New Jersey's "Networking" Approach Falls to Satisfy Section 306(c)(7). 1/ N.J.S.A. 201-3.1. Section 306(c)(7) provides that: 2/ N.J.S.A. 27:7-44.6. 3/ N.J.S.A. 20:1-3.1. Prior to granting approval of a management program ~- 'submitted by a coastal state, the Secretary shall 4/ N.J.S.A. 13:8A-24. find that:... (7) Ithe state has the authorities necessary to Implement the program... 5/ aouthein Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Latel[, 67 pe.JrFa Inc. anv. caT-yF)n owansSii, Superifor Ct. OJanu1-ry- 1/ Program at 193. 2/ In response to a comment by the New Jersey Petroleum 294 _ - - - 29- In an attempt to satisfy this requirement, the Program defeats the ability of the state tp implement the Program in employs what is described in the regulations as a 'networking' the manner required by Section 306(c)(8) andithus precludes approach. However, as discussed below, this "networking" the Secretary from approving the Program until comprehensive 1/ approach falls to accomplish these requirements, and consequently legislation has been enacted. falls to satisfy the requirement set out in the regulations that '"[In applying existing authorities, the State must deter- 1/ It should be noted that there Is some question as to whether the State can exercise authority under the riprarlan mine that they can be used to implement the full range necessary statutes to implement land-use policies In non-riprartan I/ areas other than those explicitly sanctioned under the Water- for coastal management purposes." front Development portions of the statutes. (See N.J.S.A. S12s5-3 - S12:5-8). The regulatory authority underlying the Program is based upon three groups of existing State statutes: (1) the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) (N.J.S.A. 13: 19-1 et seo.)i (2) the Wetlands (H.J.S.A. 12,5-i et seq.); and (3) the riprarlan statutes (N.J.S.A. 12:5-1 et seq). While these statutes form a sound foundation for the implementation of the policies set out in the Program, they do not authorize the state to implement comprehensively all of the policies as required by the CZMA. Specifically, the legislation does not authorize the State to exercise authority over new housing developments which contain less than 25 units or the expansion of existing development by 2 less than 25 units. The existence of this 'regulatory gap' Council that 'the lack of state override of municipal decisions is a weakness of the program, the DEP stated "it'is not true that the state cannot override municipal decisions except for public utilities (comments, supra, no. 350). 1/ 15 C.F.R. 5923.42(d)(3). 2/ N.J.S.A. 13z19-l(c)(5). - - - - 2iiU m - - -L 0'3 -3'- - 31 - IV. TlHE FEDERALCONSISTENCY REQUIREMENT SHOULD APPLY ONLY TO THOSE As a consequence, New Jersey is powerless 1.0 apply this require- AREAS WIIICII ARE DEFINED AS "COASTAL AREAS" UNDER TIE CZMA. meat to the entire "coastal zone" defined in the Piogram and Section 306(c)(3) requires that: -must restrict. it to the zone defined in the -CZMA. As the Program falls to delineate the limit of the CZMA's "coastal zone". (and After final approval by the Secretary of a state's management program, any applicant for a required thus the area to which the federal consistency requirement Federal license or permit to conduct an activity affecting land or water uses in the coastal zone applies) it must do so in order to satisfy the requirement set of the state shall provide in the application to the licensing or permitting agency a certification that out in the applicable regplatlon prior to receiving approval the proposed activity comples with the state's approved program and that such activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program. With respect to the implementation of this requirement, the issue is whether the CZMA's definition of "coastal zone"- is to be applied in determining whether an action will significantly affect the coastal zone, or whether the state's definition of the "coastal zone" will apply. The regulations resolve that issue by applying the C2MA's definition of "coastal zone' and restrict the requirement that applicants for federal licenses or permits certify their compliance with the management program to only those activities "significantly affecting the ICZHAI coastal zone."- 1/ The CZMA defines "coastal zone" as "coastal waters (including the lands therein and thereunder) and the adjacent shorelands (including the waters therein and thereunder), strongly in- fluenced by each other ahd In proximity to the several coastsal states, and includes transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, and beaches.---The zone extends inland from the shore lands, the uses of which have a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters". 116 USC S 1453(a)l. 2/ Under the CAFRA (the statute which primarily implements the Program, the "coastal zone" is considerably greater in size that the area described in 16 USC S1453(a). (See map on p. 14 of the program). 3/ 15 CFR 5930.10. 4/ 15 CFR S 930.52. 296 - - - - -32- V. TIHE PSOGRAM FAILS TO ADMINISTER LAND AND WATER USE REGULA- increments, the Program fails to give any guidance concerning TIONS AND CONTROL DEVELOPMENT TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS AMONG which uses will have priority in obtaining the remaining Incre- COMPETING USES. ments and whether these increments will be allocated on Section 306(d)11) provides thats a first-come first-served basis or reserved for later develop- ment. Accordingly, the Program must be amended to remedy Prior to granting approval of the management program, the Secretary shall find that the State... these deficiencies before it may be approved by the Secretary. Ishall have the authority ....lJ) to administer land and water use regulations, control develop- ment in order to ensure compliance with the man- agement program, and to resolve conflicts among competing uses (emphasis added). The Program fails to resolve conflicts among the various uses, potential and existing, in the coastal zone and, indeed inevitably directs that conflicts will occur between those uses. The best example of this result is the Program's policies regarding energy facility siting. With respect to the construction of non-nuclear electric generation stations, the Program directs their construction 'toward relatively built-up areas, consistent 1/ with applicable air and water quality standards'- areas where air emission increments are restricted or unavailable. Because a coalfired station (as well as other types of fossil fuel stations) would requirethe availability of air emission increments, the Program is, in effect, directing increased competition between electric generation facilities and other uses in the 'relatively built-up areas' for remaining emission increments. Clearly, this is just the result the requirement of Section 306(d)(1} was inten- ded to avoid. Moreover, even assuming that the Program should direct this increased competition for remaining air pollution I/ Program S7.4.12 at 145. - 35 - -34 . VI. SEGMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM IS INAPPROPRIATE serious questions can be raised as to whether the timetable established by the NJDEP has sufficient substance to satisfy SECTION 306(h) provides thatt ~~SECTION 306(h) provides thatt~ ~the requirement set out in 15 C.F.R. 923.61(a)(2). At the discretion of the state and with the approval of the Secretary, a management program may be developed and adopted in segments.. Provided, That Respectully submitted, the state adequately provides for the ultimate coordination of the various segments of the manage- ment program into a single unified program and that Public Service Electric and Gas Co. Jersey Central Power and Light Co. the unified program will be completed as soon as is Jersey Central Power and ight Co. reasonably practicable. New Jerse ral Gas Co. The applicable regulations require that if a state proposes by_ to develop the management plan in segments as in the instant case it must demonstrate, inter alia, thats "A timetable and David . Lindgre David E. Lindgren budget have been established for the timely completion of the Donald B. Myers 1/ J. Daniel Berry remaining segments." While the Program sets late 1978 as a Their Attorneys target date for the adoption and implementation of the Program's remaining segments, there is no reference or discussion of the o ounsel: Of Counsel: establishment of a budget to effect the completion of the Pro- 2/ Frederick M. BroadEoot gram. This failure to provide Eor a budget to assure the Richard Cohen Gerald W. Conway completion and implementation of the remaining segments is in clear contravention of the applicable regulations. The Program, therefore, cannot be approved until adequate provisions have been made for the budget. It should also be noted that there is no state legislation, existing or proposed, which will empower the State to implement the remaining segments of the Program. In light of this fact, 1/ 15 C.F.R. S923.61(a)(2). 2/ Program at 198-199. *- - 298 - - _ Im~~~~~~~~9 DEB3EVOISE & LIBERMAN OO 1OR" u00o ULo BEFORE TIle NEW JERSEY S g t 1 **l-MT. COG* O DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION j/,r1. LIDIltMR). WAS.I HTO.I' D C. aOOO HI1AH C Mil-OVSVY __ intoEsic# 0 IILt0*HO5I[ (ur ool l rom 03 a { soso JM..RO.. . .U.. .PAULO M0W*.4 J.OSPI1 INOI01. JR 000AL1#. .*...I.. Wl0,AH J. lA0Da, JR O00A � 0A000DAy ile., J COHI(ILtL DI0 M r LIoa ... Docket No. DEP-013-78-U4 J *IlAL * COAIRflY, l O0*10. 0 14[A1 VHO5g 0O[01VOI5 NICHOLt-S 0 0R4OLD8 0 ou0 IL COMMENTS OF PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, July 5, 1970 JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY AND NEW JERSEY NATURAL GAS COMPANY ON PROPOSED David N. Kinsey, Chief Office of Coastal Zone Managelment REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT PROPOSED BAY AND OCEAN Division of Marine Services Department of Environmental protection SNORE SEGMENT OF NEW JERSEYS COASTAL Trenton, New Jersey 08625 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Dear Mr. Kinsey: I am enclosing the comments of Public Service Electric and Gas Co., Jersey Central Power 6 Light Co. and New Jersey Natural Gas Co. on the regulations proposed by New Jersey to implement the proposed Bay and Ocean Shore Segmsent of the State's Coastal Manage- OF COUNSEL 2ment program. nFrederick M. Broadfoot David E. Lindgren SitY, / Vice President - Law J. Michael McGarry, III Public Service Electric and Donald B. Myers 80 PGas Compance Debevoise & Liberman -vr dE. Lin aen Newark, New Jersey 07101 700 Shoreham Building 806 15th Street, N.W. DEI..,:jcw BRichard S. Cohen Washington, D.C. 20005 Jersey Central Power and Light Enclosure Company Attorneys for Public Service Company, Hadison Avenue at Punch Bowl Rd. Electric and Gas Company, Morristown, New Jersey 07960 Jersey Central Power & Light Company, and New Gerald W. Conway Jersey Natural Gas Company Conway, Relsemen, Mlchaels, Wahl, Bumgardner & Iurley 50 Park Place Newark, New Jersey 07102 _ _. _ _ _- m _ __29!_ _! . _ - - _- -~ 294 -2- INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND OF COMMENTING COMPANIES Public Service Electric and Gas Company supplies elec- On May 4, 1978, the New Jersey Department of Environmental tricity and gas to areas of New Jersey in which over three- Protection gave notice of, and invited comments on, proposed tricity and gas to areas of New Jersey n which over three- fourths of the state's population reside and which include regulations in connection with the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment fourths f the state's population reside and which Include New Jersey's six largest cities. PSE&G serves the greater of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program (!0 N.J. Register portion of this area with both electricity and gas, but 184). Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G), Jersey portion of this area with both electricity and gas, but small parts are served with gas only and other parts with Central Power & Light Company (JCP&L) and New Jersey Natural electricity only. In addition, through its wholly-owned Gas Company submit the following comments on those proposed subsidiaries, PSE&G also owns an interest in 16 federal regulations. oil and gas leases off the Atlantic Coast (Energy Develop- These proposals were also contained in Chapter Three of ment Corporation) and is seeking to enter the business of the document entitled "New Jersey Coastal Management Program, importing, storing and processing LNG (Eascogas LNG, Inc., Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and Draft Environmental Impact Energy Terminal Services Corp. and Energy Pipeline Corp.). Statement," which combined a draft of the Bay and Ocean Shore The New Jersey Coastal Management Program -- Bay and Ucean Segment, and a draft environmental impact statement prepared Shore Segment will affect PSE&G and its subsidiaries di- pursuant to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy rectly inasmuch as many of their facilities both are located Act. Previously, PSE&G, JCP&L and New Jersey Natural Gas and will be constructed in the New Jersey coastal zone. submitted comments to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Jersey Central Power and Light Company is a subsid- Administration on that document. lary of General Public Utilities Corporation, which also The following comments are directed to the proposed New owns Pennsylvania Electric Company and Metropolitan Edison Jersey regulations and set out the changes PSE&G, JCP&L and Company, both of Pennsylvania~ and GPU Service Corporation, New Jersey Natural Gas believe are necessary. For convenience, Company, both of Pennsylvania, and GPU Service Corporation, a subsidiary which provides supporting services to the the proposed regulations and the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment are operating companies in the GPU system. JCP&L provides referred to herein as the Segment" or the proposed regulations. electric energy in a service territory comprising approx- imately 43% of the area of New Jersey with an estimated population of 2,000,000 people. Among JCP&L's generating _ m -3d - - - - - Immomm.mmm mm -3 - -4- facilities are the Oyster Creek Station (a nuclear plant) SUMMARY OF COMMENTS and the Sayreville and Werner Stations (conventional coal- fired steam plants). JCP&L also owns the Forked River The regulations pertaining to the Bay and Ocean Shore Station, a nuclear plant now under construction. These Segment of New Jersey's Coastal Hanagement Program, if adopted generating stations are located within the New Jersey by New Jersey, would impose extraordinarily stringent limit- coastal zone. JCP&L intends to construct a coal-fired ationa on future construction, in the Segment area, of certain generating facility In New Jersey for service in 1989, if specified energy-related facilities, Including nuclear and New Jersey air pollution control regulations are relaxed coal-fired generating plants, liquefied natural gas (LGI to the point that makes this possible. That station facilities and, to a somewhat lesser degree, interstate probably would be located in the Segment area. Accord- natural gas pipelines. The effect of these limitations would ingly, JCP&L will be directly affected by the proposed be compounded, by virtue of the federal consistency requirements New Jersey Coastal Program Management -- Bay and Ocean of the Coastal Zone Management Act, if the Segment were Shore Segment. then approved by the Secretary of Commerce. New Jersey Natural Gas Company purchases Interstate After a careful analysis of the Segment, PSE&G, JCP&L natural gas and is engaged in the distribution of that gas and New Jersey Natural Gas reluctantly have concluded that throughout a service territory which Includes portions of New Jersey proposes to adopt these discriminatory limitations the area covered by the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment of the for reasons that are unrelated to the central focus of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program. Accordingly, It Coastal Zone Management Act -- protection of the unique will be directly affected by that Segment. characteristics of the coastal zone in a manner which gives will be directly affected by that Segment. 'full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values as well as to needs for economic develop- ment . . . ." (CZHA S3031c)I 16 U.S.C. 51452(c)) (emphasis added). For example, among the reasons for the restric- tions on nuclear power plants are strong public concern regarding human health and safety . . ., public security and civil liberties,' as well as "questions about the wisdom of nuclear energy" (57.4.13, Rationale). LNG facilities are "discouraged" (i.e., virtually prohibited) because New Jersey authority to do so; federal legislation comprehensively covers perceives "risks to safety and health and the environment these subjects and preempts state jurisdiction. New Jersey (which may not necessarily be restricted to one state) .may not intrude, as It purports to do, Into the exclusive ($7.4.14, Rationale) (emphasis added). province of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal It seems apparent that the discriminatory restrictions Energy Regulatory Regulatory Commission. are the result of New Jersey's general opposition to these Second, despite a clear mandate to consider the full sources of energy rather than any concern over whatever unique range of national Interests In energy development and facility effects such-facilities might have on the coastal zone. siting (see 15 C.F.R. 5923.52), the Segment reflects a consid- Indeed, the Segment would encourage renewable sources of energy eration of only one policy -- that of the President's National if: Energy Plan -- and then the Segment considers only selected portions of that Plan. The Segment virtually Ignores the these plants do not unreasonably affect scenic or recreational values and meet national policies embodied in acts such as the Atomic Energy existing state and federal environmental requirements. Act, the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act and the Natural Gas Act. In contrast, new energy facilities in the coastal zone that Third, the Segment does not balance the national interest use non-renewable resources, even if they meet all the in energy production and distribution against possibly competing environmental criteria applicable to renewable energy sources, F 'Federal, State and local concerns involving adverse economic, are subject to an additional standards they will be approved social or environmental Impacts" (15 C.F.R. S923.52(a)). Instead, only If they are "necessary to meet the state's energy needs. * the Segment simply rejects -- and thus thwarts -- the national (57.4.15) (emphasis added). policies applicable to energy because of ilI-d~fined "concerns" The vice of the proposed regulations with respect to over certain energy sources. nuclear and coal-fired plants, LNG facilities and interstate For these reasons and those set out in more detail below, pipelines Is essentially three-fold. PSE&G, JCP&L and New Jersey Natural Gas submit that the pro- First -- and perhaps most Importantly -- New Jersey d regulations do not meet the requirements of the Coastal would attempt to directly regulate health and safety (directly Zone Management Act. Accordingly, we believe -- and urge In and indirectly under the guise of siting regulation) aspects the strongest possible terms -- that they must be revised of nuclear power plants and LNG facilities (as well as siting of interstate natural gas pipelines), even though it is without W1 02 m - - substantially to eliminate the deficiencies we have enum- DETAILED COMMENTS erated before they are adopted by New Jersey. I. NEW JERSEY'S AUTHORITY TO REGULATE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITING AND SAFETY HAS BEEN PRE-EMPTED BY A PERVASIVE SCHEME OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. A. New Jersey Hay not Adopt Regulations that Purport to Regulate Activities that are Within the Ex- clusive Province of the Federal Government. For over a century and a half, it has been recognized, under the rubric of federal preemption, that States may not regulate activites where federal legislation is sufficiently pervasive as to occupy the field and leave no room for state regulation of the same subject {Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1{1824}). See Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., -- U.S. --, 46 U.S.L.W. 4200 (March 6, 1978)i Campbell v. Ilussey, 368 U.S. 297 (1969)! Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. 331 U.S. 218 {1947). The doctrine of federal preemption, of course, rests on both the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Nothing in the Coastal Zone Management Act changed this fundamental rulej nor did the Act grant States any power over a subject matter as to which, previously, they had been precluded from regulating by virtue of the federal preemption doctrine. This conclusion follows inevitably from specific provisions of the Act as well as its legislative history. Congress recognized that: 'the States do have the resources, administrative machinery, enforcement powers, and constitutional authority on which to build a sound costal zone management program." (S. Rep. No. 92-753, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. 5 (1972)) - 10- preempted subject matter; New Jersey has no authority what- Consequently, the Act embodied a policy ever over these subjects. to encourage and assist the States to exercise to efectiv e and assist the Statlesmin to exercise As noted below, the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment attempts effectively their re sibllikies in the coastal o f management programs (CZMA S303, 16 U.S. 514521 to regulate the safety and siting of nuclear power plants of management programs (CZMA S303, 16 U.S. S1452) (emphasis added). and LNG facilitiesl it also attempts to regulate siting of To make clear that States were to utilize existing powers and Interstate natural gas pipelines. Pervasive federal legis- were not to enter fields which Congress had occupied, Section however, covers all these fields, thereby excluding regulation by New Jersey. Inasmuch as New Jersey lacks 307(e) provided thatt authority over these subjects, the Section 307(e)(7) finding "Nothing in this title shall be construed ... (2) cannot be made and the Segment, as presently framed, cannot as superseding, modifying, or repealing existing laws applicable to the various Federal agencies...." be approved by WOAA. (16 U.S.5s. S1456(e)). B. A pervasive Scheme of Federal Legislation Applies Finally, as we note more fully infra, NOAA may not approve to LNG Facilities and Interstate asion Applies any State program that conflicts with "any applicable statute". Thereby Precluding Regulation by the States Thus, subjects that had been preempted prior to the en- The Bay and Ocean Shore Segment's provisions with respect actment of the Act remained preempted subsequent to the Act. to LNG facilities graphically illustrate New Jersey's attempt As to these subjects, New Jersey has no authority and is to enter a field exclusively occupied by federal legislation. powerless to act. Moreover, NOAA would be prohibited from Section 7.4.14 (p. 146) would prohibit any LNG facility in approving the segment so long as it purports to regulate a that area unless FERC responds in a certain way to a petition preempted field. Section 307(c), 16 U.S.C. S1455(c) requires New Jersey has filed before the Commission. Section 7.4.14 that, before a State's management program may be approved, provides that: the Secretary must first find that: The location of terminals for transferring Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is discouraged... until...(c) the the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission responds "(7) the state has the program ....' saaffirmativel2 to the May 1976 petition by New Jersey to impelement the program ........... .or the issuance of siting criteria that adequately consider the safety hazards associated wl-iTs energy technology (emphasis added). 1/ This finding cannot be made with respect to the Segment as it presently stands, inasmuch as it purports to regulate i/ "Discouraged" is defined by Section 4.2 as meaning that a proposed development "will be denied unless certain specified findingsocan be made or conditions can be met." _ ___ _ 304_ _ _ _ - 11 - - 12 - Thus, the Segment seeks to control both safety aspects of plants, wildlife and water, and public security and civil LNG facilities as well as their siting. Additionally, the liberties' (S7.14.13, Rationale, p. 146), the Segment proposes Segment seeks to control siting of interstate (as well as to virtually bar nuclear generating facilities from the area. intrastate) gas lines 157.4.7), gas processing plants The Segment lists the following four criteria which ($7.4.9), natural gas and other hazardous substance storage must be met before nuclear-generating stations may be con- facilities (57.4.10) and tanker terminals {S7.4.11{. To structed In the coastal zones the extent these provisions purport to regulate natural gas facilities that affect interstate commerce, they are imper- (1) that the NJDEP and the NJDOE are assured that the operation and disposal of spent missable intrusions into an area where a pervasive scheme fuel poses no unacceptable safety or environmental hazards to New Jersey resl- of federal legislation exists. dents{ Within the past month, Staff Counsel of the Federal (2) that the two agencies receive clear proof through the Department of Energy's master Energy Regulatory Commission addressed the matter of federal plan that nuclear facilities are needed are are vitally important to the public preemption in the natural gas field (with particular refer- health, welf are, and economic well-being of New Jersey residents (emphasis added), ence to LNG facilities) and the consequent invalidity of California legislation purporting to regulate the siting of (3) that the NJDEP is assured the location of the facility will not result in nearby LNG facilities in that State. This analysis is contained in population density increases over the operating lifetime of the facility which a Memorandum filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Cammis- might make suitable protective actions in the case of serious accident Impossible, slon in Docket Nos. CP75-140 and CP-75-83-2. Rather than and an acceptable approved energy evac- uation plan is fileds and repeat the detailed legal argument made in that Memorandum, (4) the Department of Environmental Protection we have appended a copy of it to these Comments and adopt and the Department of Energy are satisfied that no other feasible and economic energy the arguments made therein. alternatives exist for the timely and effic- ient production of needed electrical power (S7.4.137 at 145). C. The Bay and Ocean Shore Segment Infringes on the Exclusive Power of the Nuclear Regulatory Com- mission to Regulate Nuclear Generating Facilities The phaseology of the criteria, together with the Rationale underlying them, make abundantly clear that the concern to Because "the promise of nuclear power has raised strong which they are addressed is a concern over the perceived which they are addressed Is a concern over the perceived public concern regarding human health and safety, effects on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __305 -1~~~~~~~~~~ 1~~~~3 - ~~- 14 - possibility of radiological emissions. These criteria, "a dual system of licensing and regulation with control exerted by both the states and the federal which would become enforceable regulations promulgated and government...would create 'an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes enforced by New Jersey, would touch on an area which is and objectives of Congress." 447 F.2d at 11541. pervasively regulated by the federal government through the New Jersey courts equally recognize federal preepmtion Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Thus, these portions of the in the nuclear area. Segment are preempted. Federal preemption stems from the Supremacy and Commerce "A state may not interfere, directly or indirectly, with a preempted matter, even though the state's Clauses of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has found it proscription may not have been directed at the particular activity involved.... It has been to occur when the federal regulatory scheme set out in legis- held that in regulating the operation of a nuclear power plant, the federal government has, under lation totally occupies the regulatory field, leaving no the Atomic Energy Act, exclusively preempted that aspect which involves protection against radia- room for the state to regulate the activity even though its tion hazards." New Jersey Dept. of Envir. Pro- tection v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co., regulation may not conflict with the federal scheme. Campbell Wf.T 102, 351 A.2d 337, 343 (1976). v. Hussey, 368 U.S. 297, 300-01 (1967). Federal preemption Group . New Jersey Dept. of Envir. Pro- Public Int. Res. Group v. New Jersey Dept. of Envir; PrO- In the area of nuclear generating stations was definitely tectIon, 152 N.J. Super 191, 377 h.2d 915 (App. Div. 1977) recognized in Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota, 447 F.2d is even more explicit. There the court rejected a challenge 1143 (1th Clr. 1971), aff'd mem. 405 U.S. 1035 (1972). to a finding by DEP under CAFRA that PSE&G's proposed method There, the court stated: for disposing of radioactive waste from its Hope Creek '...(Tlhe Act, as amended, and its legislative station was adequate. The court based its holding on federal history, when viewed together, provide the strongest manifestation of Congressional intent preemption: to preempt the field of regulation over the construction and operation of nuclear reac- tors... " (supra., at 1152). "In view of the comprehensive nature of the federal legislation and regulations, the State Commissioner has no power under CAFRA to make Accordingly, the court denied Minnesota's claim that It an independent judgment as to the ability of the planned facility to protect against radia- had authority to regulate nuclear generating facilities. tion hazards either from the operation of the plant or from the handling of radioactive waste In the court's view, such material created by the nuclear process. The Commissioner does have the statutory obligation to satisfy himself that the applicant has con- formed to the standards established by NRC. However, if such standards are met, he has no _ _m -_ _m _m_--30 - - 6 - 15 - 'It is not intended to leave any room for the authority to impose either lower or higher exercise of dual or for current jurisdiction by safety standards to regulate radiation hazards.'er e l cuntjdition by (152 N.J. Super. at ___ , 377 A.2d at 928). states to control radiation hazards by regu- safety standards to r___l3a7e7 A 2d at 928l. tlation by-product, source, or special nuclear material." I/ Similarly, Van Dissel v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co., 152 N.J. Super. 391, 377 A.2d 1244 (L.Div. 19771 held that The third criterion -- dealing with population density state regulation of a nuclear plant's once-through cooling and evacuation plans -- equally deals with an issue which is at the heart of federal regulation of the nuclear genera- system was also preempted by federal regulation. When the provisions of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment tion field: health and safety Issues stemming from the construction and operation of a nuclear station.- are measured against applicable judicial decision, it is constructon and operaton of a nuclear staton. clear that they are preempted and beyond the province of New The second and fourth criteria would apply a more stringent standard to nuclear plants with respect to "need Jersey. for power" than is applied to conventional plants, and they With respect to the first criterion -- that the storage and disposal of spent fuel pose 'no unacceptable safety or otherwise discriminate against nuclear facilities. While environmental hazards" to state residents -- New Jersey is New Jersey may require non-discriminatory need for power engaging In the very dual regulation over the health and determinations prior to approving generating facilities, safety aspects of nuclear generating specifically precluded discriminatory need for power criteria, such as that con- I/ rained in the Segment, run afoul of the Atomic Energy Act by Northern States and PIRG v. H.J.D.E.P. New Jersey's lacked in the Segment, run afoul of the tomic nergy ct of authority in this area is confirmed by the legislative and are preempted. history of the 1959 Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act. The Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy stated (1959, vo. Code, Congressional and Administrative p. 2879. that: 2/ Cf. porter Cty. Ch. of Izzak Walton League v. AEC, 515 F.2d -T3 (7th Cir. 19753, cert. deniea _- U.S. 3/ Cf. Maun v. United States, 347 F.2d 970 (9th Cir. 1/ In Northern States, the Court addressed just this problem 1965). Tt concluded that Aweire the states allowed to impose stricter standards on the level of radioactive waste re- leases dischared from nuclear power plants, they might conceivably be so overprotective In the area of health and safety as to unreasonably stultify the industrial development and use of atomic energy for the production of electric power". (447 F.2d at 1143, 1154). mllll g~ -3L'll m�I -_ m m- - 17 - - lB - II. TIlE BAY AND OCEAN SHORE SEGMENT DOES NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER TIlE "NATIONAL INTEREST IN ENERGY FACILITY approve the State program until it is SITING AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 306(c)(8) OF TIE amended to recognize those Federal COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT rights, powers, and interests." H.R. Rep. No. 92-1049, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 171-18 (1972) (emphasis added}. A. The Meaning of "Consideration of the National Interest" To underscore the importance it attached to coastal energy Section 306(cl(8) of the Coastal Zone Management Act facilities, Congress amended CZMA in 1976 to specifically (CZNA) provides that: ~~~~~~(CZMAJ provides that: ~~include one national interest as being among those that - Prior to granting approval of a management States must consider -- the national interest in "energy program submitted by a coastal state, the Secretary shall find thatt . . . (B) the facilities". 5306(c)(8), 16 U.S.C. 51455(c)(8). This term management program provides for adequate consideration of the national interest in- specifically includes electric generating plants, LNG Eacil- volved in planning for, and in the siting of, facilities (including energy facilities Ities, oil and gas Eacilities, pipelines and transmission in, or which significantly affect, such state's coastal zone) which are necessary facilities. 5304(5, 16 U.S.C. 51453(5). While CZMA re- to meet requirements which are other than local in nature. quires that the Segment adequately consider (i.e., accom- modate) all relevant national interests, NOAA's regulations It is clear that Section 308(c)(8} requires far more than contain more detailed provisions with which the Segment also passing references to the national interest in energy pro- must comply. duction. Indeed, CZMA provides that the Segment must They require that the program accommodate, and may not impede, the various national interests. (i) describe which national interests As the liouse Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee noted in the planning for and siting of facilties were considered during when it reported out the original Coastal Zone Management Act: the program development and the sources relied upon for such con- sideration; "[TIhe State must take into account and must accommodate its program to the spe- (2 Indicate how and where the consid- cific requirements of various Federal eration of these national Interests irefaloocthede naiona ithereustaneo laws which are applicable to its coastal Is reflected In the substance of zone . . . . To the extent that a State the management program including, wher mapaeetpropriate idntfcludiong program does not recognize these overall where appropriate, denticaton national interests, as well as the see- of when and where national interest cific national Interesta n te gener1ation in identified facilities may compete a-al-[trIlton oFi elecitric energy . . . . or conflict with other national in- or is construed asEcoiullcin ith any terests in coastal resource conserva- applicable statute, the Secretary may not tion (and if so, how that conflict is to be weighed and resolved); and (3) describe a process for continued con- sideration of identified national interests during program implementa- tion. (15 C.F.R. S923.52(b)). _ _ - _ _ _ _mm _ _am _ _m m mm _- 3 308 . ......... m - 19- 20 - In describing hose acilities which are of 'national nter- and very expensive in the 1900s, the tIn describing those faclities which are of natioal n's economic security and the American wayof life will be greatly est," the regulations specifically provide that power plants, Aericanger. (The Ntional EnegryPlanl in danger. (The National Energy atin,1 LNG facilities and distribution and transmission facilities at vil.) are among those in which there may be a national interest Accordingly, the National Energy Plan stated two of its "over- in planning or siting. Thus CMA, Its legislative history riding energy objectives- as follows: and the regulations -- as well as common sense -- all mandate 11 'As an mmediate objective oe that will become even more important that the strong and identified national Interest in electrl- in the future, to reduce depen- dence on foreign oil and vulner- cal power generation facillties, LNG facilities and natural ability to supply disruptions gas pipelines must be given adequate consideration and accom- (2) In the mediufmicently loterm to keep U.S. imports sufficiently low to oil production approaches its modated by the Segment or it will not satisfy the requirement w r tion approaches Its mof Section 3061( t c)t. ocapacity limitatlonsl 1/ of Section 306(c). D. The National Interests That iMust ,e Accommodated Although the Segment referred to these objectives, it did not mention any specific policies proposed by the Plan to achieve The national policy In these regards is contained in these objectives. Among them were policies favoring increased a number of sources, including "Federal laws and legisla reliance on coal and nuclear power- tion landl . . Policy statements from the President, as ..During the remainder of this century. for example the National Energy Plan . . ." 15 C.F.R. 'During tie remainwill have to rely 5923.52(g). The only one of these considered in any detail the conventional source now at hand: the conventional sources now at hend: by New Jersey is the President's National Energy Plan. oil, natural pas, coal, nuclear, and hydroe---tr c powe. Federa-l policy There, national policy was overviewed as follows shoul, stimulatemtedby nuclear power and renewable resources . the diagnosis of the U.S. energy crisis (NEP at 63). Is quite simple: the demand for energy is increasing, while supplies of oil and Thus. natural gas are diminishing. Unless the United States makes timely adjustment be- "The strategy of the Plan beyond 1985 fore the world's oil becomes very scarce seeks two old . . .mote. Second, th e Plan seeks to promote the economical, envir- onmentally sound use of various forms 1/ 15 C.F.R. Part 923 (Table 1). Moreover, these same facilities are included as energy facilities which may signif- icantly affect the coastal zone for purposes of the energy facility planning process which must be incorporated into any management programs approved after October 1, 1978. 15 C.F.R. 1/ National EneSY Plan at ix. S923.14(d). __30 _ -21 -22 - 22 - of coal, supplemented by nuclear power, for the high temperature needs of power 41 the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, (30 U.S.C. plants and industry." 1/ INEP at 1011 see also pp. xix, 70). 21a), where Congress declared that: With respect to LNG, the Plan stated "It can, however, be it is the continuing policy of the an important supply option through the mid-1980's and be- Federal Government in the national interest to foster and encourage yond, until additional gas supplies may become available. private enterprise in (1i) the devel- opment of economically sound and (NEP at 57). Finally, the Plan places a significant empha- stable domestic mining minerals, metal and mineral reclamation indus- sis on development of new natural gas sources. (NEP at 58). tries/ (2) the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral re- There are other definitive expressions of national sources, reserves, and reclamation of metals and minerals to help interest which New Jersey must consider and accommodate, They assure satisfaction of industrial, security and environmental needs . . . include 1) the Atomic Energy Act, passed in part to provide -a (30 U.S.C. 521a). program to encourage widespread participation in the and 5) Congressional recognition of an "urgent need for development and utilization of atomic energy for peaceful further exploration and development of the oil and gas purposes . . . (42 U.S.C. 52013(d)g 21 the Energy Supply deposits of . . . the outer Continental shelf . ." and Environmental Coordination Act (ESECA), which provides (43 U.S.C. S1337{a)). for mandatory conversion of certain electric generating ( t 'a) In essence, the "national interests" to be considered plants and industrial facilities to coal in order 'to provide in energy facility siting decisions are three-fold. First, for a means to assist in meeting the essential needs of the our domestic resources are to be developed and supplemented United States for fuel . . . ." 15 U.S.C. S791! 3) the by other sources, such as LNG. Second, the National Energy Natural Gas Act, in which Congress declared: Policy is to reduce United States dependence on oil and, in the business of transporting and selling turn, its reliance upon oil for the purpose of electric natural gas for ultimate distribution to the public is affected with a public generation. And third, nuclear and coal-fired generation interest, and that Federal legislation in matters relating to the transportation specifically are to be encouraged. With that background, of natural gas and the sale thereof in interstate and foreign commerce is neces- it is apparent that the "national interest" depends on sary in the public interest {15 U.S.C. S717(a)). nuclear and coal-fired feneration where feasible. ______~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We believe the Segment clearly does not adequately 1/ The first element dealt with low temperature energy. consider these national interests in energy facility siting decisions, as it must under Section 306(c)(8). mmmm _ m mm _ _ _ _ _ _ mmmm- __ 3 310 ,., - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~23 - ~~~~~- 24 - effectively would be barred from the coastal zone if the The Segment does not even mention the Atomic Energy Act, criteria established In the Program are adopted. ESECA, the Natural Gas Act or the portions of the National The relevant national interest Is exactly the opposite Energy Plan that specifically deal with coal and nuclear of these criteria, however, The nation has an express generation, LNG and natural gas. Moreover, the Segment policy of discouraging the use of oil for the generation does not identify, as required by 15 C.F.R. S923.52(b), of electric power and encouraging instead nuclear generation. "when or where national interest in identified facilities Thus, the Segment -- which prefers oil-fired generation over may compete or conflict with other national Interests In nuclear generation -- unquestionably conflicts with the clearly coastal resource conservation"g nor does the Segment state defined national interest. While the health and safety consid- "how that conflict is to be weighed and resolved". erations cited in the Segment may constitute relevant factors to C. The Program Does Not Accommodate National Polcy be weighed with regard to siting of energy facilities of national Regardiing Nuclear Generating facilities interest In the coastal zone, these factors have been thoroughly With respect to nuclear generation, the Program estab- considered In the development of the national policy promoting lishes four criteria (quoted supra) which must be met before nuclear generation. Moreover, these health and safety con- nuclear-generating stations may be constructed in the coastal cerns are the essence of the regulatory review by the Nuclear zone. These siting criteria would bar nuclear generating Regulatory Commission and are addressed thoroughly and completely stations from the coastal zone unless the NJDEP and NJDOE prior to authorization for the construction and operation of a 2/ "receive clear proof" that the facility is vitally important nuclear generating facility. to the well-being of New Jersey residents and there are no As the Segment directs the implementation of a policy which other feasible and economical energy alternatives for the directly contravenes the national energy policy based upon con- production of needed electric power. In other words, cerns previously considered in the establishment of national nuclear generation not only must be more cost-efficient policy, It does not satisfy the requirement of Section 306(c)(8). than other methods of generation{ there also can exist no other feasible alternative to nuclear generation before 1/ See National Energy Plan at xx-xxl, 69-73. the Segment would permit construction of a nuclear facility. 2/ 10 C.F.R. Parts 50, 51 and 100. As oil and natural gas-fired generation stations constitute 3/ The Segment states its concerns as follows: "The promise of nuclear power has raised strong public concern regarding human "feasible and economic energy alternatives", nuclear stations health and safety, effects on plants, wildlife and water, and public security and civil liberties' IProgram S7.4.13 at 146). �- -1111 m m ,. - - - - - D. The Segment Does Not Accommodate the National Interest in the Construction of Coal-Fired Elec- fired electric generation facilities and indeed may bar tric Generation Facilities. their construction. The national energy policy regarding the use of coal for In effect, then, the Segment again expresses a prefer- electric generation was set out in the National Energy Plan: ence for oil and natural gas-fired generation. This prefer- ence is the antithesis of ESECA's and the National Energy Significant progress would be made to prepare ithe cuntry f or the period of oil stron ency Plan's explicit preferences for coal-fired generation the country for the period of oil stringency beyond the mid-1980s....The reductions in indus- trial and utility use of oil and natural gas, over oil and natural-gas fired generation; thus, again the and the increase in the use of coal together would represent a very important shift from Segment does not satisfy the requirement of Section scarce to abundant resources (NEP at 95) (empha- 306(c)(8). sis added). With respect to coal-fired generating stations, the E. The Segment Does Not Accommodate the National Interest in Natural Gas Availability. Segment directs that the construction of plants will be "directed toward relativelybuilt-up areas, consistent with As discussed previously, there is a national interest 1/ applicable air and water quality standards." This policy in the availability of sufficient supplies of natural gas, will significantly hamper -- and indeed effectively may including imported LNG. However, the Segment does not bar -- future coal-fired generation in the coastal zone. consider or accommodate this national interest; instead As the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act provided for it proposes policies which run directly counter to existing the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) of air national policy. The Segment's policies with respect to LNG facilities, all refineries, storage facilities and quality, there will be, in most industrialized areas, only LNG facilities, oil refineries, storage facilities and a limited number of increments of additional air emission pipeline siting collectively discourage (1) development available before development is stopped. Since new coal- of the outer continental shelf resources and other fired generation will require such increments, a policy energy sources designed to reduce this country's reliance which directs that these plants be built in "relatively upon foreign sources of oil, and (2) efforts to alle- built-up" areas severely restricts the construction of coal- viate recurring shortages of natural gas (see, e.g., Pres. Proc. Nos. 4485 and 4495, 42 Fed. neg. 6789, 10853, 1/ Program �1.4.12 at 145. re natural gas emergency of 1976-77). 1/ Proram �.4.1Z t 143 - 27 - With specific reference to LNG facilities, the Segment energy resources. Given the direct conflict between 1/ discourages Ythe construction of a terminal for trains- this result and the National Energy Policy, it is clear ferring LNG unless: that New Jersey has not adequately considered or accommodated the national interest in energy develop- (1) rigorous and consistent siting cri- teria are developed; 12) the risks inherent in tankering LNG onshore have been sufficiently analyzed and minimized, and (3) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission responds affirmatively to the May 1976 petition by New Jersey for the issuance of siting criteria that adequately consider the safety hazards associated with this energy technology. (Program 57.4.14 at 146). By establishing a policy which prohibits the construction of LMG terminals until several acts occur (which may never happen), the Segment in effect precludes the construction of any LNG facility in New Jerseys it thereby hinders the ability of the U. S. to deal with natural gas shortages, and to the extent oil and natural gas are interchangeable fuels, hinders a reduced dependence on foreign oil in direct contravention of the National Energy Plan. Thus, we believe that the innumerable restraints that New Jersey is proposing to impose on the exploration, development or transmission of natural gas (including LNG) in the coastal zone effectively thwart development of vital 1/ "Discouraged" is defined by Section 4.2 of the Program as meaning that a proposed development 'will be denied unless certain specified findings can be made or conditions can be met." - 29- -30 - lil. NEW JERSEY DOES NOT POSSESS ADEQUATE LEGISLATIVE The first statute cited is N.J.S.A. 40-55-50 regarding AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT THE SEGMENT the authority of the Board of Public Utilities to overrule A. The Segment Does Not Satisfy the Local Regu- local zoning restrictions blocking the construction or lation Override Requirement. operation of public utility facilities. However, this 1/ Section 3061e)(2) provides thatt section was recently repealed and replaced by N.J.S.A. 40: 55D-19. The new section authorizes the Board of Pub- "Prior to granting approval, the Secretary shall find that the program provides:...(2) for a lic Utility Commissioners to override local ordinances method of assuring that local land and water use regulations within the coastal zone do not blocking the construction or operation of public utility unreasonably restrict or exclude use of regional benefit." facilities If it finds such "necessary for service, conven- ience or welfare of the public". While this legislative The applicable regulation provides that (15 C.F.R. 5923.43(a))s authority may allow New Jersey to assure that local ordin- "[Iln order to meet the requirements of the ances could be overridden with respect to public utility Section, States must identify those techniques, including authorities, that will be used to facilities, this authority certainly would not satisfy the assure that unreasonable restrictions oi ex- clusion by local land and water use regulations requirement with respect to non-utility facilities. More- shall not be sustained.' over, as the enabling legislation allowing the Board of Public The Segment attempts, unsuccessfully, in our view, to Utility Commissioners to override local ordinances or regu- satisfy this requirement by stating, lations stems from the "necessity of service, convenience, Or welfare of the public." While this legislative authority "local governments are prevented from unreason- ably excluding these uses (of regional benefiti may allow New Jersey to assure that local ordinances could by one or more of four factors. The most sig- nificant is the state's power to overrule a be overridden with respect to public utility facilities, this local decision denying approval to any public utility." (segment, Ch. 5 at 1921. authority certainly would not satisfy the requirement with respect to non-utility facilities. Moreover, as the enabling However, an analysis of the four factors cited demonstrates legislation allowing the Board of Public Utility Commissioners that New Jersey does not possess the "override authority" to override local ordinances or regulations stems from the required by Section 306(e)(2) and thus fails to satisfy the prerequisites for approval of the management plan. 1/ By L. 1975, C. 291, 580 (effective August 1, 1976}. S m m m m _ _ m m m m m _ m _ 31 ...... ... - 32 - 31 authority because they recognize that a developer has stand- "necessity of service, convenience, or welfare of the pub- illl lng when denied a local construction or development permit, llc," it is highly questionable whether this legislative to appeal that denial on the grounds that the municipality mandate could be used for comprehensive regulation of denying the permit has not provided for Its fair share of low the coastal zone. Accordingly, N.J.S.A. 40: 55-50 alone cost housing. Conceding that these cases recognize such a cannot satisfy the requirement that the Segment contain right, they certainly do not constitute or contribute to a authority to override local ordinances or regulations. comprehensive coastal zone management power. The Segment secondly cites statutes empowering New The fourth factor cited in the Segment Is state author- Jersey to exercise the power of eminent domain with respect 1/ Ity to block development which could occur with municipal to facilities "necessary for state or national defense,'- 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ approval. This authority is inapposite, as Section state highways, airports and parks and open space. 306(33(2! requires that the State be able to override local However, the Segment makes no attempt to describe how these restrictions on regional uses. powers will be used to override local ordinances or regula- In sum, the Segment cites numerous "authorities" embodied tions, and It Is self-evident that these statutes do not em- in existing state legislation to support its contention that power New Jersey to implement the comprehensive land use the override requirement set out in Section 306(3)(2) has policies described in the Segment. been met. However, these authorities were not enacted for As a third factor providing New Jersey with override the purpose of providing for comprehensive land-use manage- authority, the Segment cites certain decisions from state 5/ ment of the coastal zonel they do not provide the override courts concerning fair housing opportunities. The Segment authority, individually or collectively, required by appli- contends that these cases provide the requisite override cable regulations. Indeed, this fact is admitted by DEP 2/ in response to comments on the draft program.- Consequently, 1/ N.J.S.A. 20;1-3.1. the Segment is deficient in this regard. 2/ N.J.S.A. 2717-44.6. 1/ Program at 193. 3/ N.J.S.A. 20:1-3.1. 2/ In response to a comment by the New Jersey Petroleum 4/ N.J.S.A. 13:8A-24. Council that "the lack of state override of municloal decisions is a weakness of the program, the DEP 5/ Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. stated "It is true that the state cannot override iurel. 6- N.J. 151 11975)1 Round Valley Inc. v. municipal decisions except for public utilities" Clinton Township, Superior Ct. (January 1978}. (comments, supra. no. 350). - - - - - - - ~~~31, - -34 - - 33 - B. New Jersey'S "Networcing" Approach Falls to 25 unitS. The existence of this "regulatory gap" defeats Satisfy Section 306(c)(?1. ~Satisfy Section 306()171~ the ability of the state to implement the segment in the Section 306cl)(7) provides thatt manner required by Section 306(c)(8) and thus would preclude NOAA from approving the Program until comprehensive legis- "Prior to granting approval of a management pro- 2/on has been enacted gram submitted by a coastal state, the Secretary lation has been enacted. shall find that,...17) Itlhe state has the author- ities necessary to Implement the program...." 1/ N.J.S.A. 13lS9-L(c)(�5. In an attempt to satisfy this requirement, the Segment 2/ It should be noted that there is some question as employs a "networking" approach. However, as discussed be- to whe ther the statte an exercimplemen land-use porl low, this "networking" approach does not meet the requirement icies in non-siprarian areas other tha n theo se explicitly sanctioned under the Waterfront Develop- of the regulations that "'iln applying existing authorities, ment portions of the statutes. (See N.J.S.A. the State must determine that they can be used to implement the full range necessary for coastal management purposes". The regulatory authority underlying the Segment is based upon three groups of existing State statutes: (1) the Coastal Area Facility Act (CAFRA) (N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 et seq.)l 12) the Wetlands Act (N.J.S.A. 12s5-1 et seq.): and (3) the Ri- prarian Statutes (N.J.S.A. 12:5-1 et seq.). While these statutes form a sound foundation for the implementation of some of the policies set out in the Segment, they do not authorize the state to implement comprehensively all of the policies as required by the CZMA. Specifically, the legis- lation does not authorize New Jersey to exercise authority over new housing developments which contain less than 25 units or the expansion of existing development by less than 1/ 15 C.F.R. 5923.42(d)(31. 316 --- -36 IV. THE FEDERAL CONSISTENCY REQUIREMENT SHOULD APPLY requirement to only those activities "significantly affect- ONLY TO TIIOSE AREAS WHICH ARE DEFINED AS "COASTAL oatal AREAS" UNDER THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT. As a consequence, New Jersey may not apply the federal Section 306(c)(3) requires that: ~Section 30fi(c)(3) requires thats consistency requirement to the entire CAFRA "coastal zone'i After final approval by the Secretary of a state's New Jersey must restrict it to the zone defined In the CZMA. management program, any applicant for a required Federal license or permit to conduct an activity We believe the Segment must be modified to reflect the affecting land or water uses in the coastal zone of the state shall provide in the appication to appropriate "coastal zone' for federal consistency purposes. the licensing or permitting agency a certification that the proposed activity complied with the state's approved program and that such activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program. I/ 1S CFR S930.52. With respect to the implementation of this requirement, the issue is whether the CZMA's definition of 'coastal zone"- is to be applied in determining whether the state's definl- tion of the "coastal zone' will apply. The regulations resolve that Issue by applying the CZMA'S definition of 3/ .coastal zone' and restricting the federal consistency !/ The CZMA defines 'coastal zone" as *coastal waters (including the lands therein and thereunder) and the adjacent shorelands (including the waters therein and thereunder), strongly influenced by each other and In proximity to the several coastal states, and includes transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wet- lands, and beaches.---The zone extends inland from the shore lands, the uses of which have a direct and signi- ficant impact on the coastal waters". (16 USC S1453(a)l. 2/ Under the CAFRA (the statute which primarily implements the segment, the "coastal zone' Is considerably greater in size than the area described in 16 USC S1453(a). (See map on p. 14 of the segment). 15 CFR S930.10. ---~~~~~~~~~~~ -1 ---3-.-- -- - 38 - 37 assuming that the Segment should direct this increased com- V. THE SEGMENT PAILS TO ADMINISTER LAND AND WATER USE REGULATIONS AND CONTROL DEVELOPMENT TO RESOLVE CON- petition for remaining air pollution increments, the Seg- FL1CTS AMO NG COMPETING USES. PLICTS AMONG COMPETING USES. ment does not give any guidance concerning which uses will Section 306(d)l1) provides thatt have priority in obtaining the remaining increments or whether these increments will be allocated on a first-come, "Prior to granting approval of the management program, the Secretary shall find that the first-served basis or reserved for later development. State ...shall have the authorityl...l() to administer land and water use regulations, Accordingly, the Segment should be amended to remedy these control development in order to ensure com- pliance with the management program, and to deficiencies before it is adopted finally by New Jersey. resolve conflicts among competing uses. (emphasis added). The Segment does not resolve conflicts among the various uses, potential and existing, in the coastal zone. Indeed, It inevitably directs that conflicts will occur between those uses. The best example Is the segment's policies regarding energy facility siting. With respect to the construction of non-nuclear electric generation stations, the Segment directs their construction "toward relatively built-up areas, con- 1/ sistent with applicable air and water quality standards" areas where air emission Increments are restricted or un- available. Because a coal-fired station [as well as other types of fossil fuel stations) would require the availability of air emission increments, the Segment is, in effect, direct- ing increased competition between electric generation faci- lities and other uses In the "relatively built-up areas" for remaining emission increments. Clearly, this is just the result Section 306(d){1) intended to avoid. Moreover, even 1/ program 57.4.t2 at 145. 318 39~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- 39 -40- VI. SEGMENTATION OF TIHE PROGRAM IS INAPPROPRIATE to implement the remaining segments of the Program. In light of this fact, serious questions can be raised as to Section 306(h) provides that: whether the timetable established by the NJOEP has sufficient 'At the discretion of the state and with the substance to satisfy the requirement set out in 15 C.F.R. approval of the Secretary, a management program may be developed and adopted in segments... 923.61(a)(2). Provided, That the state adequately provides for the ultimate coordination of the various segments of the management program into a single Respectfully submitted, unified program and that the unified program will be completed as soon as is reasonably practicable. Public Service Electric and Gas Co. Jersey Central Power & Light Co. The applicable regulations require that if a state New Je tural Gas Co proposes to develop a management plan In segments, as New Jersey does, It must demonstrate, Inter alla, that: 'A by, - -tt timetable and budget have been established for the timely #1/ completion of the remaining segments." While the Seg- David E. Llndgren J. Hlchael HcGarry, III ment sets late 1970 as a target date for the adoption and Donald D. Myers implementation of the remaning segments of New Jersey's Debevoise & Liberman Management Program, there is no reference or discussion 700 Shoreham Building 806 15th Street, U.N. of the establishment of a budget to effect the completion Washington, D.C. 20005 2/ of the Program. 2This failure to provide for a budget Their Attorneys to assure the completion and implementation of the remain- ing segments is In clear contravention of the applicable regulations. It should also be noted that there is no state legis- lation, existing or proposed, which will empower the State 1/ 15 C.F.R. S923.61(a)(2). 2/ Segment at 198-199. lion. Stewart G. Pollock -2- July 5, 1978 RIKEn, DANZIG, SCIIERER ODECEVOISE & IIYIr1n) ATTORNEYS AT LAW and is now at the stage of wanting to obtain implementation and c.^ompt.|4sb- s uB--nDtSTmRET urt;'~ru ncmP" .administration funds. The federal agency charged with responsi- ievt.l.1arlr o,,.. nIEWAnK, NEW JERSEY 07102 .c . .... bility for approving state programs and carrying out the purposes IC...."Usn t.-Vo.. , , o*205 0,2-t700,-. of CZIIA is the Office of Coastal Zone Management ("OCZM") in .ltrl^ow~no;.c II�~I-'�tTU UJu5. _. tSUSCWLO�-. the National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdminiStration ("NOAA") L**WJnCir S. L.IWilt so MADISONAngNU J. smlurJ. within the United States Department of Commerce. Before NOAA can Ivln r ...no BJo*x004O approve any state's coastal management program, CZF1A requires that IL1.. N- P.gORnISTO..HH.tW J�.RSEY Co 070 , ft5uO .. pi..tOrn A 2U. r20.| ite loo .... tt* the Secretary of Commerce find that the state agency chosen to 2011 S.aln-Cocl .--'~"'"'"o promulgate and implement the program has sufficient local author- a* .... ....... ... I . . . . . . .daLo.n ity to do so. (16 U. S. C. A. Section 1455(c)(7) and Section t .OUkw t. CenQLLTrOH, JR. 1455(d)). Further, the federal program provides for one or a ol"Hn*..coy ^ AI.'I*L�*It tYt.owt combination of three specified techniques for control of land and .rinto*.0..,.c.flu "O.,OP. s.,L. water uses within the state's coastal zone. One of these, which New Jersey has chosen, Is direct state land and water use planning July 5, 1978 and regulation. (16 U. S. C. A. Section 1455(e)). In addition, the Governor of the state'requesting approval of its management program must have first reviewed and approved that program. (16 u. S. C. A. Section 1455(c)(4)). Ilon. Stewart G. Pollock Counsel to the Governor In September, 1977, DEP issued a report to the Governor CounStato the Govouse and Legislature pursuant to the requirements of the New Jersey Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Coastal Area Facilities Review Act ("CAFRA") entitled "A Coastal Management Strategy for New Jersey.' There is enclosed, as Re: flew Jersey Coastal Management Program - Document 1, a copy of the face page, transmittal letter and Jersey Central Power & Light Company summary section of that document. At page iii, it is stated that this document is intended to both satisfy the requirements of Dear Stus CAFRA and to "also be applicable to the part of lew Jersey to be considered the 'coastal zone' under the Federal Coastal Zone I have made an appointment for us to meet with Shepard Management Act." It is then stated that the Coastal Management Dartnoff and John Graham to discuss Jersey Central's concerns Strategy is intended as the draft of the coastal program to be about the New Jersey Coastal Management Program which has been submitted for federal approval for the CAF1A area of tled Jersey. submitted for approval by the Department of Environmental As to that part of the federal zone that is not Included within Protection ("DEP") to the Federal Government and which has also the geographical boundaries of CAFRA, it is Intended that a been promulgated as proposed New Jersey regulations. As you subsequent document would be prepared. As will be discussed requested, there follows a summary of the somewhat complicated further below, DEP has taken the position that, notwithstanding statutory and procedural background within which the Coastal the fact that the coastal zone area defined in the federal CZItA Management Program operates together with a statement of Jersey exceeds the geographical limitations of that described by CAFRA, Central's concerns. Enclosed are copies of the pertinent mater- the "network" of state statutes consisting of CAFRA, the Wetlands fals. Act and the Riparian Regulation Statutes would, read together, provide sufficient legislative authority for DEP to satisfy 16 I. StatutorV and Procedural Background USCA Section 1455(c)(7) and to plan and administer a coastal management program in Nflew Jersey, at least with respect to the The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as geographic area defined in CAFRA. amended, ("CZMA'" provides that states which have an approved coastal management program are eligible for matching funds for the Opportunity for comment upon the Coastal Hanagement purpose of implementing and administering the program. Funds are Strategy was provided. This opportunity included public hearings, also available for planning so as to develop the coastal management an opportunity to submit comments, and informal meetings with program to be approved by the Federal Government. We understand interested groups. A meeting with the energy utilities of the that Ilew Jersey has already received several such planning grants state was included. Jersey Central submitted comments, copies of 320 lion. Stewart G. Pollock -3- July 5, 1970 lion. Stewart G. Pollock -4- July 5, 1978 which are attached as Documents 2 and 3. In these documents, Gas. lie "strongly urged" the Governor to withhold approval of the Jersey Central referred to the law governing federal preemption of Coastal Management Program (Document 4) stating that it "contains state regulation of health and safety aspects of nuclear gener- many negative provisions that apply to nuclear and .tlG plants ating stations. Additionally, the Company addressed the fact that which would effectively exclude the sitiing of these facilities in the requirement of locating fossil-fueled generating units in the coastal zone." lie also commented upon the brief time that was relatively "built-up" areas would be very difficult or impossible made available for review and comment upon these critical documents. to implement in the face of requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act and Hew Jersey air quality standards. (See page 3 of Document Jersey Central, together with Public Service and flew 3). Jersey Natural Gas, has filed comments with NOAA and with DEP concerning these policies and proposed regulations. There After this opportunity for comment, DEP issued its Is enclosed as Document 6 a copy of our joint comments submitted responses to the public comments which had been received. With to NOAR in this regard. A copy of our joint comments being respect to Jersey Central's comments regarding the preemption of submitted to DEP, which substantially parallel the federal comments, regulation of nuclear generating stations by the Federal Govern- will be supplied to you when it has been finalized. I will return ment, DEP said: to the substance of these comments subsequently in this letter. "The Federal Government has not specifically Tile procedure which NOAA must now follow is to consider addressed the needs, opportunities, prefer- the comments received In response to the draft environmental ences, and conflicts of the people of New impact statement and to then issue a final environmental impact Jersey." statement. That document is then circulated among federal agencies for a 30-day period. At the expiration of this time, hOAA The Coastal Management Strategy document then, with may approve or disapprove New Jersey's Coastal Managcement Program. certain revisions, evolved into the 'State of New Jersey Coastal The CZdMA requires that certain findings be made by tihe Secretary Management Program, Bay and Ocean Shore Segment.' A copy of this of Commerce before a state's program can be approved. One such is attached as Document 4. This was, as required by federal law, required finding is that the state have a valid state regulatory approved by Governor Byrne and was then filed with IIOAA. It was scheme in place prior to federal approval. The proposed New reissued by that agency as a draft environmental impact statement Jersey regulations which are incorporated in Chapter 3 of New to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Jersey's program must, therefore, first be adopted by DIP before Act. As noted in the NtEPA summary in the documentj thLls was part HOAh can approve New Jersey's program. Thus, federal approval of tile review and approval process of the New Jersey Coastal depends upon adoption of the regulations by tile State. Management Program under CZliA, and an immediate effect of approval would be the qualification of New Jersey for the federal matching ie understand New Jersey is interested in federal funds funds for use in administering the coastal program. At the same for both planning and Implementation purposes. There probably time, Chapter 3 of that document, pages 19 through 163, was will be pressure, therefore, to secure NOAA approval of the Coastal promulgated as "Proposed Rules on Coastal Hesource and Development Ilanagement Program on or before September 30, 1978, the end of Policies.' (10 N.J.R. 184 I(lay 4, 1978}}). According to the the federal fiscal year, although we do not know this is necessar- Notice of Rulemaking, these proposed regulations "define the ily essential since funds may also be available in the next budget substantive policies' of DEP "regarding the use and development of period. NOAA must issue Its final environmental statement suffi- coastal resources, to be used by the Division of Rlarine Services.... ciently .in advance to allow for the 30 day comment period required in reviewing permit applications" under CAFRA, the Wetlands Act, by NEPA and for time to review the comments received before a and the Waterfront Development Permit Program. It is noted that decision Is made to approve or disapprove the program. Accordingly, these are the same policies, expressd as regulations, which have DEP will have to adopt its proposed rules by the end of July or been submitted for federal approval under CZIlA. The time for the beginning of August to give NOAA sufficient time to act prior comment upon these proposed rules expired on July 5, 1978. to the close of the fiscal year, if this Indeed is essential. Jersey Central and the State's other energy utilities It is our understanding that a meeting was held by NOAh are very seriously concerned about the policies expressed in these on June 12, as part of the IIEPA review, which was attended by documents. There is enclosed as Document 5 a letter to the Governor representatlves of New Jersey DEe and various federal agencies from Hr. I. 'I. Smith, tile Chairman of public Service Electric and Including tile United States Department of EnIery and the Nuclear Riegulatory Cormmissionl ("tliC"). At that meeting, we arc told, at -1 m1111311 mI - m lion. Stewart G. Pollock 5-July 5, 1978 lion. Stewart G. Pollock -6- July 5, 1978 least one federal agency, nRC, expressed the view that some policies in thile New Jersey Plan were inconsistent with national (a.) the Department of Environmental Protection and interests and pre-empted by federal law. be do not know what thile New Jersey Department of Energy are assured position, if any, other agencies (such as USDOE, EPA, and FERC} that storage and disposal of the spent fuel may take or have taken. We are taking steps to obtain any poses no unacceptable safety or environmental information available to us as to the input from other federal hazards to New Jess ey residents, agencies to NOAA with respect to the New Jersey Plan and will share that with you when it becomes available. (b.) the two agencies receive clear proof through the Department of Energy's Master Plan that II. Jersey Central's Concerns with the New Jersey Coastal Plan. nuclear facilities are needed and vitally important to the public health, welfare, and The comments which we have submitted to the state and economic well-being of New Jersey residents, federal agencies set forth, in some detail, the bases for our concerns with respect to the impact of the New Jersey Coastal Plan (c.) the Department of Environmental Protection is upon the ability of Jersey Central to provide sufficient electric assured that the location of the facility will energy to satisfy the needs of the people of this state. The not result in nearby population density in- portions of the Plan relating to energy facilities are found at creases over the operating lifetime of the pages 137 to 147. Sections 7.4.1, 12, 13 and 15 are of the most facility which might make suitable protective direct concern to Jersey Central. As here pertinent, there are actions in the case of serious accident impossi- three grounds for finding these provisions of the flew Jersey ble, and that an acceptable, approval emergency program to be in violation of federal law. These are set forth evacuation plan is filed, and as Roman numerals I, II, and III at pages 7 through 29 in the comments submitted to NOAA. (Document 6). (d.) the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Energy are satisfied that no First, in our view, the New Jersey program fails to other feasible and economical energy alternative give adequate consideration to "national interests" as required exists for the timely and efficient production by CZMiA (See pages 7 through 16 of Jersey Ccntral's comments to of needed electrical power." NOAA). The statute requires that the Secretary of Commerce must find, prior to granting approval of a management program submitted The effect of these siting criteria is that no nuclear generating by a coastal state, that the program provides for adequate consid- stations may be built in the Coastal Zone unless DEP and DOE eration of the national interests involved in siting facilities "receive clear proof" that the facility is vitally important to necessary to meet requirements which are other than local in the well-being of tew Jersey residents and that there are no other nature. Electric generation and transmission facilities clearly feasible and economical energy alternatives for the production of fit that category. Among these is the fact that nuclear power is needed electric power. Therefore, nuclear generation must not specifically to be encouraged and that the United States should only be more cost-efficient than other methods of generation reduce its dependence on oil, including the use of oil for electric before receiving approval, but there can exist no other feasible generation. The New Jersey program would do exactly the opposite. alternative method of electric generation before construction is It clearly discourages and inhibits the generation of electricity authorized under the program. Conceivably, such other alterna- by nuclear or coal-fired generating stations. Indeed, as will be tives could include the construction of generating capacity in detailed later, the program is in direct contravention of the another state, e.g., Pennsylvania, where we now find a tax imposed National Energy Policy and the Atomic Energy Act, not only by upon the generation capacity owned by New Jersey utilities, precluding the construction of nuclear and coal-tired generat- presumably to compensate for the environmental burden carried by ing stations, but, in addition, by promoting the construction of that state. Oil and natural gas-fired generations are feasible oil and natural gas-fired generating stations. Additionally, the and economical energy alternatives to nuclear generating stations{ program fails to give adequate consideration to national policy but the national interest is clearly not served by forcing tilhe regarding nuclear generating stations by imposing unreasonably utilities to these forms of generation. The program, therefore, stringent siting standards. These are found in the program requires the implementation of a policy which directly contravenes at Section 7.4.13 (page 145)i which states: the national energy policy. "Uo future nuclear electric generating Further, the program fails to consider adequately the stations will be approved in the coastal national interest by severely restricting the construction of zone unless: coal-fired electric generating facilities. The National Energy -322- - - - - - - - - nIon. Stewart G. Pollock -7- July 5, 1978 lion. Stewart G. Pollock -8- July 5, 1978 Plan clearly anticipates an increase in the use of coal. Tystem of licensing and regulation plan would, however, direct the construction of plants 'toward with control exerted by both the states and the relatively built-up areas, consistent with applicable air and water quality standards." (Section 7.4.12). This policy will to the accomplishment and execution of the full significantly hamper and, indeed, may effectively bar future purposes and objectives of Conress.' 44 . coal-fired generating stations in the Coastal Zone. The 1977 aetive of Congre11544 amendments to the Clean Air Act seek to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. There will, therefore, In most hew Jersey decisions, previously cited, lave equally industrial areas, he only a limited number of increments of recognized federal pree ion In tte nuclear area additional air emissions available before development is stopped. Since new coal-fired generation will require such increments, a state may not interfere, diretly or in- policy which directs that these plants be built in "relatively directly ith a preepted matter, even though built-up" areas severely restricts construction of coal-fired the state's proscription may not have been electric generation facilities and indeed may effectively bar directed at the particular activity involved their utilization. ..lt has been held that In regulating the operation of a nuclear power plant, the federal The second basis for finding this plan to be illegal is overnment has, under tpe Atomic Energy Act, that New Jersey's authority to regulate nuclear power plant siting exclusively preempted th and safety, liqulfied natural gas siting and safety, anvd gast radiation hazards." pipeline siting has been preempted by a pervasive scheme of State v. Jersey Central Power & L h., federal legislation. (See pages 11 through 24 of Jersey Central's comments to HOPAA.) With respect to nuclear generating facilities, s5a. tlhe hNe Jersey program infringes on the exclusive power of the Public nterest Pesea u v. State, su, is even more Nuclear Regulatory Commission to regulate these activities, 'the explicit. ethCourt eechalene to a finding by Plan proposes a virtual bar to additional nuclear generating exp t. ee th e CSE6G'sopropoaed method ar di ng of facilities In the coastal area. Tihe four criteria which must DVP under CAFRA that PSE&G's proposed method fOr disposing of facilities in the coastal area. The four criteria which must radioactive waste from its liope Creek station was adequate. The be met before a nuclear generating station can be constructel radioactive waste fo its Hope Creek station was adequate. The have been set forth previously. Thes ca be cousl ructed Court based its holding on federal preemption: touch on areas which are pervasively and exclusively regulated by the Federal Government. Federal preemption in the area of nuclear fII view of the comprehensive nature of the gen Xatng stations has been dolil reonzd e otenfederal legislation and regulations, the State agenerating encoyns of the thee niew Jrseylzd aut Norlties. Commissioner hdas no power under CAFRIA to maike States Power Co. vs. Minnesota, 441 Fed. 2d 1143 (oth CirE 1971)Comi}sera ndes trbAhe ity Mk an Independent judgement as to tile ability of T'id~i.405 Ue . 5-. 1035 (19721. State vs. Jersey Central Power & his ~bt 7C~_, 69 ". J. 102 (19761i V~a cat the planned facility to protect against radia- /,IW _ _ -G 69 tr. J. 102 (19.76)1 a Corent tion hazards either from thie operation of the Power - Light Co., 152 I. J. Super. 3913l ublic Interest Researchl stato, 152 N. J. Super. 191. For y preemplant or from the handling of radioactive waste are os.152.. Super.oat 1the9e 1 Now. Jers aough coolnvegisys material created by the nuclear process. The are enclosing copies of the three New Jersey torties. Commissioner does have the atatutory obligation to satisfy himself that the applicant has In the northern States power case, ti Ie Court stated: Court'sh-D t),ern States PFlowe citee, tl~e Court statedconformed to the standards established by psitC. Ilomiever, if such standards are net, he has no (Thile Act, as amended, and its legislative11etIsuhtadrsreetfihsn authority to impose either lower or higher strongest manifestation of Congressional Intent safety standards to regulate radiation hazards. to preempt the field of regulation ofver Similarly, Van Dissel v. Jcrsey Central Power &.qht the construction and operation of nuclear Co., supra, held that state regula-tion of a nuclear plant's once- reactors...." (au~ra., at 11523. T ~hrough cooling system was also preempted by federal regulation. Accordingly, the Court rejected Hinnesota's claim that it had When the provisions of the Day and Ocean Shore Segmen authority t' regulate nuclear generating facilities. In the are measured against applicable judicial decisions, it is clear that they are preempted and beyond thie province of lnew Jersey. - inin~~~~~~~~32 'bl,--- lion. Stewart C. Pollock -9- July 5, 1978 lon. Stewart G. Pollock -10- July 5, 1978 11ith respect to the first criterion -- that the storage and disposal of spent fuel pose "no unacceptable safety or envir- requirement, the New Jersey program employs what it describes as a onmental hazards" to state residents -- New Jersey is engaging in "networking" approach. It attempts to take three major New Jersey the very dual regulation over the health and safety aspect of areas of statutory law, CAFRA, wetlands and the riparian regulation nuclear generating specifically precluded by the Northern States statutes, and use these as the basis for satisfying the Federal Power case. As to the third criterion, dealing with population Act. They do not, however, authorize New Jersey to implement density and evacuation plans, this, again, deals with an issue comprehensively all of the policies required Iby thy CZNA. which is at the very heart at federal regulation of nuclear generation, i.e., health and safety issues stemming from the III. Conclusion. construction and operation of a nuclear station. The second and fourth criteria are similarly preempted. They would apply more The effect of all of these provisions in the New Jersey stringent standards to nuclear plants with respect to "need for program is to make it virtually impossible for an electric utility power" than is applied to conventional plants and would otherwise in this State to site any major generating facility within the discriminate against nuclear facilities. While we recognize that Coastal Zone. The provisions relating to nuclear generating the states may require non-discriminatory need-for-power determina- facilities are obviously designed to give DVP a basis for refusing tions prior to approving generating facilities, a discriminatory to approve the construction of any additional nuclear facilities. need-for-power criterion, such as that contained in the program, The burden upon nuclear construction reflected in the document is would run afoul of the Atomic Energy Act. obvious. The burden upon coal construction is more subtle but is no less pervasive. Representatives of DEP have stated flatly that In connection with the preemption problem, enclosed is the only location an additional coal-fired generating station a copy of an opinion of the Attorney General of the State of might be constructed in this state would be in the rural areas of California dated April 25, 1978 (Cocument 71. The State of southern New Jersey. It is only in this way, they say, that the California enacted a siting law which is quite similar to the requirements of federal and state air quality laws could be met. provisions of the New Jersey program as regards the location of Because of the need for water to cool the facility, it would nuclear generating facilities in that state. The Attorney General probably be necessary that it be built within the Coastal Zone. was asked to express his opinion as to the validity of that law in The program, however, would only allow construction of such a the light of the Atomic Energy Act and decisions such as Northern facility within the urban areas of the Coastal Zone. It is States Power. ie concluded that the California law was invalid. perfectly clear that regulations as to sulphur in coal found in state and federal law could not be met in any of these areas. Finally, the third ground for finding the New Jersey Thu's, the effect of the program, taken with the air quality laws, Program to violate Federal law is that New Jersey does not posses- is to make the construction of a coal-fired station in New Jersey adequate state legislative authority to implement the program. impossible. In total, then, with this program it will be virtu- See pages 25 through 29 of the comments to IIOAA. CZIA requires ally impossible for New Jersey's utilities to supply the electric that the state program must provide for a method of assuring that energy needs which are so essential to the social and economic local land and water use regulations within the Coastal Zone do life of this state. not unreasonably restrict or exclude uses of regional benefit. it is only with respect to public utilities that the State has We are looking forward to meeting withi you to discuss adequate power to overrule a local decision denying approval for further these problems and to attempt to find a satisfactory the construction of a facility. Here, however, that power does basis for resolution of them. We recognize the desirability of not rest in the Department of Environmental Protection but, in having the New Jersey Coastal Zone Management Plan approved by the fact, is found in the Board of Public Utilities. See NJSA 40:55D-19. Federal Government, but Jersey Central cannot, consistent with its While the program cites numerous "authorities" embodied in existing obligation to this state and to its citizens, allow the plan to State legislation to support its contention that the local override stand in its current form without having pursued all available requirement of CZ4MA has been met, these authorities were not legal remedies. enacted for the purpose of providing for a comprehensive land-use management of the Coastal Zone, and consequently, do not provide Verx truly yours, the prerequisite state override authority, either individually or collectively. Further, New Jersey's "networking" approach fails to satisfy 'he requirement of CZIA that the state has the authority necessary to implement the program. In an attempt to satisfy this tWillian F. Hlyland cc lion. John M. Degnan Attorney General 324 _ _ .... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p . . J E S S E S. MO E ' E * S O N. I N C . JESSE S. MORlE I SON. INC. rl,[ntluERS OF INjIUSjNIjAL SANDS Mnrle. Sall. Eruil, A,~olroi & 6oo.�~a SIa, visioflS. MauricetQ~fl. Njw JidrAcV 0S32S 609-765-1300 June 15, 1978 U.S. Department of Comnerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Coastal Zone ianagement Comments by Gary Carpenter on behaLf of 3300 johiitehaven SD5yet, 2yre 1jashington, D.C_ 20735 Jesse S. Morie & Son, Inc. Pennsylvania Class Sand Corporation Attn: Ur. Richard Cardner tand Research Whitchead Brothers CoMlany Director of Program DeVopment and Reeac hrtn; Nr� flfchsrd Cardner U~~uelapmnr nnd Reaeersh George F. pettinos, inc. Unimin Corporation Dear Hir. Gardner: Kninim Proration Please accept the enclosed coimments on behalf of pertaining to Coastal Ennagement Progract Say and the mentioned mining companieS. Should you require Shore Segment. Draft environmental impact Statemnt clnrification or further explanations of any of tile dated Hay 1978. issues, please do not hesitate to call. Thanking you in advance for your consideration given these matters. Very truly yours, 'E S& MORI& INC. ary iof Government al Affaire GJC/JmIg Enclosure JIO~sE S OJIIIIi P. suN. INC~ �PmINgnflI~�obMIMJ -bu - -M11i - - r$NV,32" m- I JES S. MORIE & ISNC P.C.02 EssE S. MOROI! G SoN, I1C. is a large employer in New Jersey. It is estilated that These comments were prepared following the public over 25,000 people are employed in the stnte's glass meeting that was field June 13, 1978 in Bridgeton, N.J. industry. In Cumberland County alone it is estimated that and are intended to reinforce and elaborate our position. over eighteen percent (187.) of the work force is directly In addition, we are requesting that an extention of time enployed by the glass manufacturing industry. In order that be granted to receive additional comments on the draft. this important industry remain viable, it is necessary that adequate reserves of glass sand are available to supply the The DaEft Environmentnal Impact Document does not needs of the industry. satisfactorily address itself, on page 143 Section 7.6.2, to the importance and necessity of the mineral extractions In view of the facts, that the present language was industry. I not acceptable and tile relatively short colment period, we respectfully request immediate consideration be given to While it is recognized that operations for the all comments raised in this paper and that the comment extraction and processing of mineral resources must comply period be extended to July 31, 1978. with applicable Federal and State Environmental laws. It should be noted that Mineral resource development is a valid and important land use to Southern N.J. It should be recognized that mineral resources occur only in certain limited areas and quantities. Therefore, it is absolutely essential in planning to make adequate provisions so as to allow for the recovery of such limited valuable mineral resources. In order to promote the mining industry to the greatest extent possible, the mining of New Jerseys mineral resources should be included in a positive light in all Coastal Management strategies. Secondly the document has not adequately taken into consideration the adverse social and economic impact that would result to the state should the industry be forced to leave behind the valuable mineral resources located within the CAFRA boundries. The coastal zone of New Jersey, though not heavily mineralized, contains some important mineral resources which are essential in enriching the local economy while contributing to employment and industrial activity over a vast part of our State. As New Jersey is dependent on other areas for certain essential minerals, other regions of the nation look to New Jersey for some key items. The glass industry 326 , I ,tiSS. MOR'll S tOh0 INC.. JESSE 9. MOHItE C SON. INC. 1lil h11CEt11lm OF INIIUSlfmlA SCAIIN Muric. Gull. erildlield. Anlcl' & GnIwI-'oi SGlico Divisinls. Mlll:cetnwl. New .I!'sy ln132,11 10- 7815 -130 Testimony given before Hr. Richard Gardner, Director June 27, 1978 of Program Development and Research in the federal Office of Coastal Zone hanaglemenlt and lr. David Kinsey, Chief of the New Jersey Office of Coastal Zone Hanagement, at the New Jersey Coastal Hanagement Program Bay and Ocean State of New Jersey Shore Segment Public Hearing on June 13, 1978, Bridgeton, N.J. Department of Envirolnental Protection Division of Marine Services ly name is Gary Carpenter, I am commenting on behalf of: Ofice of Coastal Zne Management P.O. Box 1889 Jesse S. Horie & Sonl, Inc. Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corporation hitellhend Brothers Company Attn: Mr. David N. Kinsey, Chief George F. Pettinos, Inc. Dear Mr. Kinsey: Unimin Corporation Please accept the enclosed recomeended language changes All of wlhich are Ilndustrial snnd producers eithelr withl which pertain to the milling segment of the docullent. I urge this operations or holdings within tguage be Incorporated in place of tilhe present language In order that our industry may remain viable. operations or holdincs within the FRA boundries.oll i MLy concern is for tihe following: After you have had time to review our proposed changes, we 1) Tie document takes a very negative approach to would very mucl, appreciate an opportullity to sit down at your 1) Th~e document taktes a very negative approachl to convenlence to discuss any reconrmendations whticl you may have. any industry which is so basic to our economy and existence - Glass, Iron & Steel, Water & Sewer filtration. 1Thank you for the time and consideratioll which you have given this matter and also for taking the time to come and meet 2) Hias consideration been given to all economic with the various members of our Industry on Monday. impact that this would have on the mining and associated Industries. very truly yours. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~industries. ~~JESSE S. IIRIE & S0ri, IIIC. 3) T'le OCZII has been very uncooperative in meeting with our industry to work out agreeable development policies. Thank you for your time and consideration with tiis Gary J. Carpenter important anlt ter. Enc. JIB6SF S. MIlIEl 6M. INC. � ANOilllBlI Ml-AAi - _ _ _ _ _ _ 27. _ - _ - _ _ _ page 148 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 7.6.2 Mining is an acceptable land use provided that It is conducted with an approved reclamation plan. Mining is prohibited In Lower Hater's Edge Areas but is otherwise exempt from the Location Policies (Section 6.0). Rationale Comments prepared and submitted by the following: Mining contributes many millions of dol.lars to the state's Jesse S. Maorie & Son, Inc. economy and through the careful planning of mining operations, Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corp. aesthetic and environmental values can be protected. It is Whitehead Brothers Company further recognized that mineral resource development is a George F. Pettinos. Inc. valid and important land use to Hew Jersey and that mineral Unimln Corporation resources occur only In certain limited areas. Mineral extraction pertaining to the Coastal Management Program Day certainly should not represent a terminal use of the land. T1here- and Shore Segment. Draft Environmental Impact fore, it is Important In the planning process to make adequate Statement date May 1978. provisions so as to reasonably allow for the recovery of such valuable mineral resources. Land properly restructured and revegetated following mineral extraction can serve many useful purposes. in such Instances these properties can be converted to attractive lakes, home sites, recreation centers and other useful purposes. 328 h'ula)l S., Vie:L E~'~li. itll ajidlP Culnleillly 8(1 l'i lk 'tafl Newark. N~.J01101 201/470 fAifl~ .'James rA. Shhissias GC,,,v!ll Uil:(~ fnliaie~lll~,i ii I Al(lairs June 15, 1978 Mr. David N. Kinsey, Chief Office of coasal Zo)ne 11UiiIe"VltSTE1ETOJASA.SSSS State of New Jersey DfiepaInn of viasaloniirflal erotcntio STATEMENT Or JAMES A. SIIISSIAS Departivellt Of Trenton, NEw Jers lmfey 08~GENERALa MANAGER - ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS Trrenton. Nn Jcrsey 08625 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY Dciar Mr. Kinsey; P-E&G CMtiTFlhtS CH 1E. STISEIO, NEW JERSEY CASI'AL iwN41U'rfa-w P11301W4 DAY AND OCEAN SHORE sax(U-4T (MAY 1970E, 1Nti U. S. DEPT. Or OfltEJO tK)AA' OCZ" STATE OF NEW JERSEY COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DI'AI'f mVIImLu-IrIAl, IMPACT STlylT"J4WF' DAY AND OCEAN SlI(RE SEGMENT (MAY 1978) Attacheid is a copy of our detailed a-mrante on tile New Jersey Coastal Marrageiilt Progralil and Draft Environnintal lupact Statowent. In addition. I have attached liy oral statcl"Ont presented at the Trenton IO n U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NOAA, OCZM Juneo 15, 1978. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT You will note our strong suggestion that the Governor not approve this proJranm in its present form. specifically in regard to the nuclear pewer and W.lG sections. Sincerely yours. / ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~JUNE is, 1970 Encl. .-/ ���'/ TRENTON( NEW JERSEY CC: Dept. of Enlrgy "oard of Pulaic Utility Conufissioners Cornuissioner - N. J. Dept. of Enviroeimntal Protection Director, Division of Marine Services - N. J. Dept. of Enviroimeiltal Protection Calcuissioiier - N. J. Dept. of Labor and Industry Ciuidssioner - N. J. Dept. of Ceeiiunity Affairs Tile Eneigy People 147()m STATEMENT OF JAMES A. SHISSIAS GENERAL MANAGER - ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY STATE OF NEW JERSEY COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM National Coastal Zone BAY AND OCEAN SHORE SEGMENT (MAY 1978) Con sistency with Intent of Congress and N ationalCoastalZone U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NOAA, OCZM Ma DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TRENTON, NEW JERSEY In spite of all that has previously been submitted by our Company and others on this Program, it still contains many negative provisions Good morning. I am James A. Shisslas - General Manager-Environmental Affairsof c Serving E ri and Gams Comany. Thisias General CanairoI~mpanya which tend to specifically discourage nuclear power and LNG facilities. Affais of ublicServie Eletricand Gs Comany. he CopanyThus, in our opinion, the Coastal Management Program is still in welcomes the opportunity to present this statement on the recently TuI u pnoteCatlMngmn rga ssili relcomeasthe "Copaortunitt esenta s Mantement ProgrNow JerseyInaitin conflict with both the spirit and intent of Congress when it formulated released "Coastal Management Program" for Maw Jersey. In additionanpsedteoaaloeMngmntAtf192ndhe97 to my general statement, we have submitted detailed specific comments and ped the a state that "t is a tional for your review. ~~~~~~~~~~~~Amendments. Specifically, the Act stated that, "there is a national for your review. interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection and Public Comment Procedure development of the coastal zone.' Before I begin to discuss the contents of the Coastal Management Program, I would like to express the Company's concern with the TeCatlMngmn rga rfre osntpoieaeut Progrm, I ould ike t exprss te Comany'sconcen wit thedevelopment prospects, in particular with respect to energy facilities. brief time allowed for review by the State of the comments submitted d evfin t distsbin thar thespect o engy forltie at each phase of tile public comment procedure over the last several Wenfind disturbinthat the coas oone in the months. He believe that, for a subject of this importance, In enef c1aus.ado h osa oein-tentoa interest have been de-emphasized. We believe the New Jersey Coastal sufficient time has been provided for proper consideration of all suffiienttime as ben prvide for rope consderaion o allManagement Program does not adequately provide for the national and relevant factors and of the comments submitted from the public sector. M a nag ement rogarding elyctric for the natility regional interests regarding electric power and LNG energy facility It was disappointing, procedurally, that earlier source documents siting in New Jersey, and in fact discriminates, discourages, and for the "Coastal Management Strategy" (September 1977) were not effectively excludes those vital energy facilities from tile coastal circulated for comment until after the "Strategy" itself was zone. formulated and published, Procedurally, the time span given industry Furthermore, when Congress amended the Act In 1976, It stressed thle to respond to these weighty documents was insufficient. In fact; "national objective of attaining a greater degree of energy self- In several instances, the abbreviated time schedule allowed to in seeral nstanes, he abreviaed tie sceduleallowd tosufficiency.. .resulting from new or expanded energy activity in or incorporate public comments before a new version or draft was issued precluded the consideration by the Department of Environmental Protection of comments submitted on earlier versions. 1. Act 1 302(a) nminmm mimm ---mm-m-m me mm mmm m m m m m m m m m -3- -4- affecting the coastal zone."2 In this regard, nuclear generation of:its Coastal Program, tends to exclude these facilities from the facilities qualify as being in the national interest by providing coastal zone from a practical standpoint. large scale regional electric power needs to the State as well as We do not believe the Office of Coastal Zone Management implementing to numerous federal military installations. As defined on Page 178 regulations and therefore the New Jersey Program conform to the goals of the Coastal Management Program, another overriding objective in of the national Coastal Zone Management Act or to the intent of the national interest is to "reduce dependence on foreign imported Congress in applying the "federal consistency provision" to other oil and vulnerability to supply interruptions." Each nuclear plant than new facilities. The present permit renewal process for existing facilities effectively brings all previously existing facilities in Nuclear plants currently operating in New Jersey actually saved the coastal zone, which require periodic permit renewal, under the over 790,000,000 gallons of oil in 1977, and an equivalent amount New Jersey Program. This could cause considerable cost to existing in 1976. These combined quantities nearly equal the total amount facilities which may have heretofore been "grandfathered" from of heavy residual oil used in the entire State of New Jersey in compliance with earlier laws written to specifically avoid this 1975. economic hardship. Nuclear electric facilities also qualify as uses of "Regional Benefit" Keeping Energy Options Open under the New Jersey Coastal Management Program, as do liquefied In view of the State's substantial future energy needs, it is natural gas facilities. As defined on Page 192 of the State energy essential that all viableloptions be kept open. We simply cannot Program: afford to peremptorily eliminate any valid options. Furthermore, "uses of regional benefit include energy facilities using to assure rational decisionmaking, each option must in turn be oil, gas, electric, and renewable sources of energy, etc." considered on the true economic and environmental merits. According to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (subsection 306(e)(2) In meeting future energy requirements, it is important to recognize quoted on Page 192 of the State Program), the State must provide that the Company has no commitment nor bias for any technology. We "a method of assuring that local land and water use regulations within are committed to serving our customers' needs at the most reasonable the coastal zone do not unreasonably restrict or exclude land and water costs and with a proper concern for the environment. Our current sturies uses of regional benefit." Yet the State itself, through the provisions 2. Act $302 (i) - - - -I -l - iIIII -6- --5-- impact. The Department of Environmental Protection position to show nuclear to be clearly more economic and more environmentally deny approval until the FPC, now the Federal Energy Regulatory acceptable than fossil fueled stations. Still, prudence suggests commission, responds to the motion of New Jersey to establish that the fossil fuel option remain open. This Program, however, a general-siting criteria, is impractical for two reasons. makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to maintain this option. It directs future expansion of fossil fuel stations into built-up First, the FPC has stated on the record that it will consider areas. As an individual strategy this might appear acceptable. siting for LNG facilities only on a case-by-case basis. Secondly, the petition filed by New Jersey two years ago for the issuance However, the restrictions of the Coastal Management Program when combined with provisions under the Clean Air Act regarding non- of siting criteria will probably never be answered because it was attainment areas, emissions trade-off policy, and procedurally deficient and impermissible. The Company believes attainment areas, emissions trade-fpoiy and prevention of_____________________ significant deterioration could make the siting of fossil fuel plants that any attempt by New Jersey and/or other states, either singly virtually impossible anywhere in New Jersey. or together, to regulate siting or set standards for the safety of LNG facilities would be pre-empted and is an unconstitutional We are disturbed that each of the many environmental protection interference with interstate co~mmerce. regulations, when analyzed individually, may be determined to be logical and worthy of support, but when viewed collectively, may Leal _ ssu_ e result in excessive restrictions. It is likely that this Program There are a number of legal issues which appear to have been could eliminate both the nuclear and fossil options leaving only virtually ignored by the State office of Coastal Zone Management the exotic energy types available. These exotic source, which are in putting together this Coastal Program. These deal with the encouraged in the report are neither technically nor economically question of the federal govenment having pre-emptive regulations justified. concerning the handling of radioactive waste, safety precautions from radiation, and the siting of LNG facilities; the consistency Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Moving on to another energy technology, it appears that the Coastal of the Ne J emey Prog ral thestions national Coastal Zone Management Act; procedural questions; Management Program still maintains the mistaken assumption that LNG I I inadequate statutory authority; as well as other issues. These is of such a hazardous nature that it is unacceptable. I would aeseiial ealdi h LglCmet"scino h like to remind you that such projects are operating safely both in this country and throughout the world with minimal environmental 332 7 - material we have submitted. They must be addressed by the approved In its present form by the Governor of New Jersey. if New Jersey Coastal Management Program before submission of its this program Is submitted by the Governor to NOAA for federal plan for approval. approval with its present provisions on nuclear power and LNG, we strongly urge that it be denied approval. it should be emphasized that siting flexibility is needed and must be provided in tile final Program. If the State is to continue to prosper, additional sites for energy facilities will be needed. We feel that if the siting of energy facilities is reviewed in a positive light, it would be possible to set aside small portions of the coastal area specifically for vital energy uses. This affirmative site specification by the Department of Environmental Protection could go far toward removing the uncertainty of energy facility siting in the coastal zone. In the course of reviewing the Coastal Management Program for New Jersey, we are concerned with the procedural shortcomings of the review process, the lack of adequate consideration of the national interest in energy siting, the discouragement and effective exclusion of nuclear power and LNG facilities, the impractical policy regarding fossil fueled electric plants, the application of the "federal consistency" provision to previously existing facilities, the legal and federal pre-emptive Issues, and the failure to specify or earmark future sites in the coastal zone for vitally needed energy facilities. Ile hope that the public hearing and review process will serve to resolve these problems. Consequently, we urge that the State Program not be PSE&G DETAILED Tm S FOR STATE OF N. J. OWASTAL WMNAGD2qTr PPGROM - BAY AND OCEAN S}DRs SE(IMENIT (MAY 1978), AND U.S. DEPAfmI4E11T OF ~f4l, NOAA, cCZM * DRAFT ENVI}S.JNI1NTAL OMPAC'r STAT ZMF 2. Page 217 - If the national interest in the siting of JUANT 01VIsOUTIAL IMPAC T STATEM~ facilities in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment were not adequately considered, the Assistant Administrator could delay or deny approval of the Program Segment. In addition to these detailed comments, an oral statement was delivered by Mr. J. A. Shissias, General Manager Environmental Affairs, at the We do not believe the N. J. CUP provides "adequate consideration public hearing in Trenton, N. J. on June 15, 1978. of the national interest involved in the siting of "electric energy facilities and LNG facilities "necessary to meet requirements These detailed comments are composed of three parts as follows: which are other than local in nature" as required on Page 217, para. 3 of the N. J. CMP. I Generic Comments II Legal Comments The N. J. Plan actively discourages and effectively excludes nuclear III Specific Text Related Comments and LNG facilities from the coastal zone per the following references. I Generic Comments Page 212, first para. - "No further nuclear facilities We are concerned that the NJ CMP may not be consistent with the intent will be approved until DEP and DOE have had time to of Congress and the purposes of the national Coastal Zone Management investigate the feasibility of alternative energy production Act. While the proscribing of electric energy and LNG facilities from methods." This is already a requirement of every federal the coastal zone is not intended by the Act, this can be the result license for a nuclear plant and the State redundancy can of the implementation of the N. J. CMP with its present provisions. lead to indefinite delay of vitally needed facilities of As an example, Part IV, Page 215-219 describes reasons why the Assistant regional as well as national benefit and interest. It is Administrator of OCZM can deny or delay Program approval which include not within DEP's function, expertise or statutory authority the following: to determine "alternate energy production methods." 1. Page 216 - "The Assistant Administrator could delay or Page 145, sect. 7.4.13 - "No future nuclear electric generating deny approval of the New Jersey Day and Ocean Shore stations will be approved in the coastal zone unless." This Segment if the segment does not adequately achieve the quote is then followed by a series of provisions which are goals of the Coastal Zone Management Act as expressed again duplicative and redundant to the federal licensing by Congress in Section 303 of the Act." process and include federally preemptive items more specifically delineated below. Strict enforcment of these provisions will We do not believe the OCZM implementing regulations and therefore effectively exclude nuclear electric generating stations from the N. J. CNP conform to the objectives and policies of the the coastal zone and deny access to the large amounts of cooling National Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) or the intent of Congress water necessary for their operation. Our suggestion for in applying the "federal consistency provision" to other than new totally rewriting the nuclear energy section is detailed later. facilities. The present permit renewal process for existing facilities in effect brings all previously existing facilities in the coastal Nuclear generation facilities qualify as being in the national interest zone which require periodic permit renewal under the N. J. Program. by providing large scale regional electric power needs to the State as This could cause considerable economic hardship to existing facilities well as to the numerous federal military installations. As defined on which may have heretofore been "grandfathered" from compliance with Page 178 of the plan, another overriding objective in the national earlier laws to specifically avoid this economic hardship. To this interest is to "reduce dependence of foreign imported oil and extent, we feel the Plan does not comply with the federal Act provision vulnerability to supply interruptions." Each nuclear plant can save for "wise use of the coastal zone," and "giving full consideration to approximately 12,000,000 barrels of foreign oil a year. Nuclear needs for economic development," as stated on page 216 of the N.J. CMP. plants currently operating in New Jersey actually saved over 790,000,000 gallons of oil in 1977, and an equivalent amount in 1976. These Unless the N. a. CMP provides for "grandfathering" of previously combined quantities nearly equal the total amount of heavy residual existing facilities in the coastal zone, we believe that it should be oil used in the entire State of New Jersey in 1975. denied approval by the Governor of N. J. and by the Assistant Administrator of OCZM as inconsistent with the intent of Congress and the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and the 1976 Amendments. 334 PSE&G DEMILW CaIfI- 19 FOP SATE OF N. J. COASTIL wMANVEZ1T PROGRAM - nAY AND OCAi SlORE SEXMFZ (MAY 1978) AND U.S. DEPAMME OF Cr1ECE, NnA, cCZ4 DRAFF I5VIRtfb2ErAL DEACT sLAMINT LUe 15, 1978, TRE , N. J. 11. Legal Comments Nuclear facilities also qualify as uses of "Regional Benefit." The In our opinion, the N. J. C4P should not be approved for federal Coastal Zone Management Act, as quoted on Page 192 of the N. J CMP, requires that State provide a "method of assuring that Nloca l and and water use regulations within the coastal zone do various legal reasons, primary of which is the State's violation of local land and water use regulaton ....i thtoss oed not unreasonably restrict or exclude land and water uses of regional benefit." In the next line, the N. J. CMP defines electric the Doctrine of Federal Pre-emption in the areas of nuclear power and gas energy facilities as "uses of regional benefit." Yet the State itself, through the provisions of its plan, exETudes these generation and liquefied natural gas facilities. It has been well facilities from the coastal zone from a practical standpoint. The N. J. CMP discourages liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities established by the United States Supreme Court and by the New Jersey in the coastal zone. As stated in the National Energy Plan quote on page 181 of the N. J. CMP, LNG "can be an important supply option Supreme Court that the Doctrine of Federal Pre-emption applies to through the mid 1980's and beyond until additional gas supplies may become available," and "the previous Energy Resources Council questions concerning radiological health and safety. The lead case guidelines are being replaced with a more flexible policy that sets up no upper limit on LNG imports." on this issue is Northern States Power Company vs. Minnesota, 405 U.S. Nevertheless, the N. J. CMP again on Page 146 states "the location of LNG terminals is discouraged in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment 1035 (1972), in which the Supreme Court held that the Nuclear Regulatory until---." On Page 181 it states "No LNG terminal shall be approved in the coastal zone ntil---" In both cases what follows next in Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over all matters relating to the N. J. CMP is a series of restrictive and federally preempted conditions on LNG which could effectively preclude its utilization radiological health and safety in connection with the construction in the coastal zone. (see detailed comments below). For the above reasons, we believe the N. J. CMP does not adequately and operation of nuclear generating facilities licensed by the United provide for the national and regional interests in electric power and LNG energy facility siting in the State of N. J. and in fact States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In addition, the New Jersey discriminates, discourages and effectively excludes those vital energy facilities from the coastal zone. Consequently, we urge Supreme Court held in State vs. Jersey Central Power & Light Company, that the State Program not be approved in its present form by the Governor, and that should NOAA receive this Program for 69 N.J. 102 (1976), that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approval with its present provisions on nuclear and LNG, that approval be denied by the Assistant Administrator of OCzM, NOAA. exclusive and pre-emptory jurisdiction over the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection on matters dealing with radiological health and safety. With reference to the Coastal Area Facilities Review Act, the courts in the State of New Jersey have held that Section 11 of the Act, requiring the DEP to certify the safety of the proposed method for radioactive wastes disposal, is in violation of the Doctrine ~~~~~~-3-~~~ ~ ~of Federal Pre-emption and that the DEP has no power under CAFRA to -4- judge the ability of the facility to protect against the hazards .Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation v. Nackensack Meadowlands of radioactivity as long as NRC standards are met. Public Interest Development Commission, 464 F.2d 1358 (3rd Cir. 1972), cert. den. Research Group vs. State, 152 N.J. Super. 191 (App.Div. 1977), cert. 409 U.S. 118 (1973); Tenneco Inc. v. Public Service Commission of den., 75 N.J. 538 (1978). The provisions contained in Section 7.4.13 West Virginia, 489 F.2d 334 (4th Cir., 1973), cert. den. 417 U.S. of the New Jersey Plan are clearly in violation of the Doctrine and 946 (1974); United Gas Pipeline Co. v. Terrebonne Parish, 319 F. Supp. of the above-cited case law to the extent that the provisos contained 1138 (E.D. La., 1970), aff'd. 445 F.2d 301 (5th dr. 1971). therein seek to usurp the regulatory authority of the NRC. In In addition to the above comments concerning the Doctrine connection with the review conducted by the NRC prior to the licensing of Federal Pre-emption, it further appears that the New Jersey Plan of nuclear facilities, issues of storage and disposal of spent fuel, ought not to be adopted for its failure to abide by the policies, the need for power, population density and alternate sources of power objectives and intent of the Coastal Zone Management Act of New are all resolved by the NRC. Jersey. The Plan clearly fails to take into account a realistic W1ith reference to issues concerning the need and siting analysis of the national interest in energy facility siting. Rather of liquefied natural gas facilities, our Company has been involved than provide for and encourage the siting of energy facilities In in the licensing of such facilities on Staten Island. In connection the coastal zone as called for in the Act, the New Jersey Plan with these facilities, litigation has been commenced in the U.S. actually seeks to exclude nuclear and LNG facilities from the coastal District Court for the Eastern District of New York seeking to have zone. It is noteworthy that the Coastal Management Strategy, Public declared unconstitutional a New York Act which endeavors to give the Comments and DEP Responses, distributed on June 8, 1978, admits State regulatory powers over issues of need and siting of LNG facilities. "major energy facilities are directed out of CAFRA" (Response to The plaintiff in this action, Energy Terminal Services Corporation, Comment No. 64). it is also noteworthy that whereas the Act requires is arguing that the regulation of siting LNG facilities is pre-empted that a State Plan must provide a "method of assuring that local land by the federal government. It is out opinion that this case will and water use regulations within the coastal zone do not unreasonably result in a finding that the states have been pre-empted. In support restrict or exclude land and water uses of regional benefit," the of this argument, we note the following cases: -6 - -5- 336 . flew Jersey Plan endeavors to exclude energy facilities which, as that given to them by the Legislature. lThe adoption of the Plan is discussed above, are clearly for the regional benefit. beyond the scope of their respective authorities and thus, ultra The New Jersey Plan is likewise legally deficient for its vires. Prior to the passage of the necessary legislation, the State, failure to provide for the protection of facilities already existing through the uEP or DOE, does not have the authority to overrule local in the coastal zone prior to the adoption of the Plan in conjunction determinations on projects of regional and national interest. with the federal consistency clause. In this connection it would appear that the State's adoption of the Plan and its approval by NOAA would be arbitrary and capricious and a denial of equal protection under the law. It would also appear that the State's hasty development of the Plan and its failure to consider and incorporate into the Plan meaningful comments from the public and from companies, such as Public Service, are in violation of the procedural requirements of both NOAA and the National Environmental Policy Act. Furthermore, the Plan is prima facie in violation of these regulations for its failure to be a complete document as evidenced by Section 6.6.7.5, Energy Facility Criteria. This Section states only, "this Section is reserved pending completion of joint coastal energy facility siting studies by DEP and DOE. In the interim, the development potential of energy facilities is assumed to be moderate." Finally, as of this time the State of New Jersey lacks the statutory authority to resolve conflicts between state and local governments as sought by the New Jersey Plan. The DEP and DOE have no authority other than PSE&G DETAILE) C34ENTI'S FOR STATE OF N. J. CGoASIAL NAGEU4T PROGRAM - BAY AND OCEAN SNORE SEGMENT (MAY 1978), AND U. S. DEPARTMFNT OF (0t4iEWE NOAA, GC724 DRAFT EWVIRONMEItL IMPACT sTATM�FNT JUNE 15, 1979, TFMIU4, N- J. 7.4.1, page 137 - General Energy Facility Siting Policy The Coastal Management Strategy reads: "Energy facilities will be approved only after review by iii specific Text Related Comments - DEP and the New Jersey Department of Energy (P.L. 1977, C. 146, N.J.S.A. 52:27-1 et seq.) to insure the protection of both the built and natural environment of the coast and Part I - Introduction, pg. 1 of public health, safety and welfare, to the maximum extent Coastal Management Plan (CMP) reads: feasible. The overlapping responsibilities of the The Coastal Management Plan (CMI') Department of Environmental Protection and the Department "1. Protect the coastal ecosystem of Energy require early consultation between these two agencies to promote efficiency and the orderly siting in 2. C oncentrate rather than disperse the pattern of the coastal zone of clearly needed energy facilities. coastal residential, commercial, industrial, and (See the draft Memorandum of Understanding between DEP soastalresidentiadeelcopmeniand encoustriag te and DOE, in Appendix J). Energy facilities must demonstrate preservatiorient development spandencourae theconsistency with the master plan to be prepared by the preservation of open space Department of Energy for the production, distribution, consumption and conservation of energy. Prior to completion each coEmpalloycametion torbe decision-ming which ws of the Energy Master Plan, need will be defined by DEP and each coastal location to be evaluated in terms DOE in part on the basis of information submitted by of both the advantages and disadvantages it offersdelorsfpooednrgfaite. for development ~~~~~~~~~~~~developers of proposed energy facilities. for development promote thehealthsafetyand welfare of people Where the Department of Energy and the Department of 4. rromote the health, safety andl oe Environmental Protection do not agree on a specific who reside, work and visit in the coastal zone." energy facility application (for example, on a specific proposed site for one type of energy facility), the The four basic policies of the Strategy presented are clearly intended disputed decision shall, in accord with state law, be for the protection of the coastal zone of New Jersey. However, the submitted to the State's Energy Facility Review Board for beneficial use and developmental aspects leave much to be desired. final administrative action. The Strategy is still, in our opinion, in conflict with both the spirit and intent of Congress when it formulated and passed the Coastal Zone This policy calls for a review of proposed energy facilities by both Management Act of 1972. Specifically, the Act stated that, "there is the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Department of a national interest in the effective management, be.neficial use, Energy (DOE) which would result in areas of overlapping responsibility protection and development of the coastal zone. * which could easily lead to additional significant delays in development of needed energy facilities. The lack of adequate energy is probably We recommend that the first policy be reworded to read: the worst possible concern we all face. This could result in the loss of thousands of jobs for New Jersey residents and serious economic "Protect the coastal ecosystem while permitting its repercussions. We are also concerned that the creation of responsibilities beneficial use and development." which to some extent are duplicative of certain federal agencies. For example, the "public health and safety" of proposed nuclear power plants The second coastal policy calls for concentration of industrial is reviewed extensively by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission while the development. Nuclear generating stations cannot be located in "public health and safety" of LNG terminals is reviewed in similar depth concentrated development areas. They must be remote and have access by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It does not seem reasonable, to large water supplies. practical or economic for a state agency(s) to create another layer to simply duplicate an existing federal review process. We therefore suggest that a phrase be added to the existing paragraph indicating: "State reviews should not duplicate and extend existing fact finding studies and should be limited to those areas * Act $302 (a) not already covered in detail by the Federal regulatory -9- process." 10 - 338.... Pq. 145, Sec. 7.4.13 - Nuclear Electric Ceneratin Stations (Cnlt'd.) This section places severe obstacles in the path of nuclear energy, and includes stipulations covering areas that have already received extensive safety and environmental evaluations. It is duplicative, unduly restrictive, ig.. 145, Sect. 7.4.12 - Base Load Electric Generating Stations - Fossil and in many cases contains requirements concerning matters which have been pre-empted by federal agencies. In fact, we are of the opinion that this The CMP reads: entire attempt to regulate nuclear on the part of the State DEP may be preempted by NRC. "New or expanded non-nuclear fossil fueled plants will be directed toward relatively built-up areas, consistent We suggest that section 7.4.13 be deleted in its entirety and replaced with applicable air and water quality standards." by the following underlined sections: We find these words, at best, to be confusing and possibly directed "Nuclear electric generating stations will onlybe to disallowing fossil fueled stations in the coastal area. Since the aproved in the coastal zone if the ap2tipresents provisions of the Clean Air Act may prevent the siting of coal plants _fsficient evidence to the Department of Environmental in built up areas, this CMP policy may be tantamount to ruling out the Protection to demonstrate: fossil option. Public Service has no commitment or bias for any methodology or technology regarding the selection of future energy "(a) that the disposal of the spent fuel will comply sources. While our current studies show nuclear to be more economic with ea l safety and environmental o r othe and environmentally acceptable than fossil plants at present, NuclearRegulatory Commission ostr ter requisntrem future circumstances might dictate the desirability of allowing the- re fossil fuel option to remain open. This fossil option, however, would evidence that such requirements are reasonable be difficult to accomodate considering the policy to restrict fossil plants to built-up areas, with the potential of air quality. compliance P. 5. Comment: problems. The disposal of spent fuel from nuclear plants poses no unacceptable For example, under the Clean Air Act and its Amendments of 1977, safety or environmental hazards to New Jersey residents. Furthermore, the topic of spent fuel is unrelated to the scope of the report. the relatively built-up areas to which fossil plants are directed spent fuel is strictly unrelated to the scope of the report. undoubtedly will be declared "non-attainment" air quality areas Spent fuel disposition is strictly regulated by the NRC in facilities undfor certain powill be utants. Under this classification majoai r new sources which are separately licensed from generating stations. No depository for certain pollutants. Under this classification major new sources of air emissions can only be constructed under a trade-off emission is planned nor expected to be built in New Jersey. ERDA is looking for policy which requires that emissions from a new source must be more acceptable sites in 45 of the 48 mainland states not including Nem than balanced by a reduction in emissions from existing sources. Jersey. Again, a state review is unnessarily duplicative. Furthermore, Combining the non-attainment policy and the prevention of significant the court has ruled that the federal government has preemption in this deterioration policy with the Coastal Management Plan would appear area. to severely limit, if not prohibit, construction of new major fossil sources statewide. Public Interest Research Group v, State 152 NJ Super 191 Cirt. denied 1977. The Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) N.J.S.A. We suggest that Paragraph 7.4.12 be reworded as follows: 13:19-11, requires the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP} to certifiy that the proposed method for radioactive waste "New or expanded fossil fuel electric generating stations disposal will be safe and conforms to AEC standards before powered by coal and oil may be sited in areas where a issuing a nuclear plant construction permit. However, the Court balancing of costs and environmental factors indicate ruled that the federal government has preempted all regulation acceptability." involving safety precautions from radiation, and that DEP has no power under CAFRA to judge the ability of a facility to protect Pg. 145, Sect. 7.4.13 - Nuclear Electric Generating Stations against the hazards of radioactivity as long as NRC standards are met. This entire section is written in a biased manner, implying that nuclear plants are unsafe. President Carter has indicated that nuclear power plants must play a key role in solving the nation's energy crisis. The excellent safety record of nuclear power stations is a documented "(b) that the facilities are included in the Department fact. As facilities of national as well as regional benefit, their use of Enery aster Plan or the are important to the public and licensing should be expedited and encouraged rather health, welfare, and economic wal oiiJe- sey than discouraged. residents." - 11 - - 12 - - - m m m m m m m - ' m m m m m m m - -~~r P. S.'Comment: P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. S. Comment: The Company believes that the DEP does not have the authority and P. 'S. comment: ~~~~~~~~~~~~Jurisidiction to consider feasibility and--economics. The New Jersey It was shown during the winter of 1976-77 that lack of sufficient energy Legislature to manded thatibility all he tew jursey (gas) can have a significant adverse impact on the welfare and economic and mandated that t is soll have that jurisditio well-eingof Nw Jesey esidnts.The ame hinghold tru forand mandated that it is solely within that Department's responsibility. well-being of New Jersey residents. The same thing holds true for T ut h eilto raigteDE .J aso 97 electrical energy. If this state can't provide an adequate growth climate in all energy areas, it will stagnate and continue to lose Chapter 146, Section 2 reads: industry to the ultimate detriment of all who live here. Nuclear energy provides the safest and least expensive means to meet the secure, stable, and adequate supply of energy at State's needs now and in the immediate future. reasonable prices is vital to the State's economy and to the public health, safety, and welfare; that this (c) This paragraph regarding "population density' should t h ulchatsftadwlae htti bedeleted entiry fora threg i fpopulowion reansity. should State is threatened by the prospect of both near-and be deleted entirely for the following reasons. long-term energy shortages; that the existing dispersion of responsibilities with respect to energy and energy related matters among various State departments, Expected population increases over the operational lifetime of a nuclear divisions, agencies, and commissions inhibits comprehen- Expected ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sive and effective planning for our future energy needs;... facility are required to be factored into the safety analysis prepared by an applicant and submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Furthermore, DEP is already involved in land use controls surrounding g nuclear stations to insure that population projections are not sig- an agency with comprehensive powers can collect, collate, nificantly exceeded during the facility lifetime. NRC also requires and analyze the information necessary to determine the emergency evacuation plans for every nuclear facility. Since DEP amount of energy that is or may be available.... through this program, the CAFRA permit process, and other land use permits has control of land development in coastal areas, this ... contribute to the proper siting of energy facilities criteria is superfluous and should be deleted. necessary to serve the public interest; coordinate New Jersey's energy policies and actions with Federal In addition, since the population density is a safety criteria designed energy policies.... to protect the public against radiation dangers, it is preempted by the NRC. REF: Public Interest Research Group v. State :152 MJ Super 191 Cirt. denied (1977) regarding The Coastal Area Facility Review Act 'The Legislature, therefore, declares it to be in the (CAFRA) N.J.S.A. 13:19-11. The Court ruled that the Federal Government best Interest of the citizens of this State to establish has preempted--all regulation involving safety precautions from radiation, a principal department in the Executive Branch of State and that DEP has no power under CAPRA to judge the ability of a facility Government to coordinate authority, regulation and to protect against the hazards of radioactivity as long as NRC standards planning by the State in energy related matters." are met. And Section 3 reads: "'Department' means the Department of Energy established "(d) that the proposed nuclear facility has been proven to by this act," the Department of: Energy as the most effective alternative from a cost/benefit standpoint." The Company believes, therefore, that DEP is acting outside of its authority in stating stipulations or criteria concerning "feasible and economical energy alternative" to nuclear stations. 14 - - 13 - 340 Page 146, under "Rationale", last para. mid 1980's and beyond until additional gas supplies may become available," and "the previous Energy Resources Council guidelines are being replaced The Atlantic Generating Station application was docketed for licensing with a more flexible policy that sets up no upper limit on LNG imports." review with the federal government for OPS on June 15, 1973 (Docket No. STN-50-437). The PSE&G application was docketed (No. sTN Nevertheless, the N.J. CMP again on page 146 states "the location of 50-477 and 478) on March 1, 1974. Consequently, the statement that the LNG terminals is discouraged in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment until---." AGS application was filed since 1975 appears to be in error. On page 181 it states "No LNG terminal shall be approved in the coastal zone until---." In both cases what follows next in the N. J. CMP is a series of restrictive and federally preempted conditions on LNG which Page 180 and 181 - Nuclear could effectively preclude its utilization in the coastal zone. The same nuclear stipulations commented on above appear again verbatim It is impractical for the NJDEP to take the position that no LNG terminals on page 180 and 181 of the N.J. CM4P and should also be accordingly shall be approved until the FPC (now FERC) responds to the motion of modified in the identical way suggested for pages 145 and 146 above. New Jersey to establish such siting criteria. First of all the FPC has stated an the record in LNG proceedings repeatedly that it will consider siting for LNG facilities only on a case-by-case basis. Sect. 7.4.14 - Liquified Natural Gas (LG) Pg. 146 Secondly, the petition filed by New Jersey two years ago for the issuance of siting criteria will probably never be answered because it was The CM4P reads: procedurally deficient and impermissible. The location of terminals for transferring Liquified Natural The siting, safety, and operation of LNG facilities to be used in Gas (LNG) is discouraged in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment interstate commerce are under the express authority of the Federal until: (a) rigorous and consistent siting criteria are Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Federal Department of established, (b) the risks inherent in tankering LNG along Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety Operations. Both have New Jersey's rivers and waters and transferring LNG onshore pre-emptive authority over all other agencies, including federal have been sufficiently analyzed and minimized, and (ca the and state: FERC with respect to site selection for proposed facilities Federal Energy Regulatory Commission respds affirmatively under the Natural Gas Act and the Office of Pipeline Safety operations to the May 1916 petition by New Jersey for the issuance of with respect to safety of LNG facilities and pipeline facilities under to the May 1976 petition by New Jersey for the issuance of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968. Any attempt by New siting criteria that adequately consider the safety hazards Jerse y and/or other states, eithe 1968. Any attempt by N associaed withthis eergy tehnolog. Even f suchJersey and/or other states, either singly or together to regulate assciatedr weesi th this energy technology. Even if such siting or set standards for the safety of LNG facilities, would be criteria were established, LNG terminals are nevertheless an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce.* an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce.* acceptable only at sites remote from population centers. In summary, for New Jersey to recommend that siting be treated on ~~~~~~~~~~~~~Rationale ~a regional basis is unrealistic in view of the abovementioned pre-emptive facilities have been proposed in recent years or authority and can only result in delays and the loss to New Jersey of this LUG facilities have been proposed in recent years for nnoltn ul Deptford and Logan Townships in Gloucester County, and on nonpolluting fuel. Staten Island, New York from where the LNG would be pipelined Sect. 7.4.14, Page 146 to New Jersey. Because tankering, transfer and storage of LNG pose significant risks to safety and health and the The LNG facility referred to on Staten Island is not a "proposed" facility environment (which may not necessarily be restricted to one as listed but rather is an actually existing facility on which approximately state), New Jersey recommends that the siting of LNG $10 million in funds have been expnded. facilities be treated on an interstate regional basis. Page 181 - LNG P. S. Comment: The same LNG stipulations commented on above appear again verbatim on page It appears that the CMP maintains the basic assumption that LNG 181 of the N. J. CMP and should also be accordingly modified in the projects are of such a hazardous nature that they are unacceptable. identical way suggested for page 146. As we've repeatedly pointed out, LNG projects exist throughout the world operating safely and with minimal environmental Impact. A *Transcontinental CGas Pipcline Corporation v. 1ackensack idowlands De!ot general siting criteria should not be established for LNG facilities. cbmitssion, 464 F.2d 1358 (3rd Cir. 1912), cert. den. 409 U.S. 18 (1973)3 Tenneco Inc. v. Public Service CcFa;ision of west V-irjniaa, 489 F.2d 334 (4th Cir., The N. J. CMP discourages liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities in the 1973), cart. den. 417 .S. 946 (1974) UnSiteGas P9ie Co. v. Terrehonne Parish, coastal zone. As stated in the National Energy Plan quote on page 181 319 F. Supp. 1138 (E.D. la., 1970), aff'd. 445 F.2d 301 Sth1971 of the N. J. CMP, LNG "can be an important supply option through the -15- -16 - * _ _ _ _ - - - m - - - - - - - - Dept. of EnerqY - Paqe 170: " | 6 The Coastal Management Program reads: For the coastal zone, this means that the Department must Unimin Corporation Millville. Now Jersey have an opportunity to comment on any energy facility permit Greenwich Ollice Park 4 Gore, Virginia application pending before DEP, If it disagrees with the Greenwich, Conn. 06830 decision, the Department of Energy may request that the 203-661-0011 Ottawa Mieso Governor establish an Energy Facility Review Board composed of the Director of DOE's Division of Energy Planning and Conservation, the Commissioner of DEP and a third member June 30, 1978 appointed by the Governor. The Review Board will make the final decision on the energy facility permit application. A draft memorandum of understanding between DEP and DOE which will establish the procedures necessary to insure coordination and consistency is included in this document Mr. David fUnsey State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection P. S. Comments: Office Coastat Zone Management P. O. Box 1889 The makeup of this board is not broad enough to provide diverse Trenton, NJ 08625 and complete input. The entire burden to arbitrate any differences between the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department Dear Mr. Kinsey: of Energy would fall on one individual appointed by the Governor. We suggest that consideration be given to provide a larger representa- Tank you very muc for te opportunity a tion for handling areas of disagreement, including input from the Thank you very much for the opportunity afforded by you and Mr. WiM.Wener tion for handling areas of disagreement, including input from the Department of Labor and Industry and the Department of Community on Monday. June 26, 1978, to present our comments on the Draft Affairs. This would be in keeping with the precedent set in establish- Environmental Impact Statement recently issued concerning the Coastal ing the Coastal Area Review Board (Chapter 185 P.L. 1973 Section 13). Management Program Bay & Shore Segment. I felt the meeting was We suggest that the second half of the above statement be reworded worthwhile and informative and trust you felt the same. to read as follows: Through this letter I wish to once again state the position of UNIMIN "...and if it disagrees with the decision, it may CORPORATION regarding Section 7. 6. Z on Page 148 of the Environmental request that the Governor establish an Energy Facility Impact Statement. The statement as written presents a negative picture Review Board composed of a respresentative of the Department of Energy, the Department of Environmental of mining operations in the area and fails to recognize certain basic facts Protection, the Department of Labor and Industry, the relating to mining in general. Department of Community Affairs, plus a fifth member appointed by the Governor." As was presented at the meeting on Monday. a mining location is not selected on the basis of geography, but rather on geology. The location is where it is because that is where "Mother Nature" decided to place the material. Section 7. 6. 2 fails to recognize this fact since it attempts to "draw a line" within which mining cannot take place without recognizing the fact that it cannot take place outside of the line because this mineral deposit is not therel FHigh purity silica sands are not a common geological phenomenon. Therefore, one must mine wherever the deposit is. - 17 - 342 ' PROPOSED 7.6.2 Mining is an acceptable land use provided that it Is conducted with an approved reclamation plan. Mining Is Mr. David Kinsey JuneMr. vid Kiney78 prohibited In lower water's edge areas but Is otherwise June 30, 1978 Page 2 exempt from the Location Policies (Section 6. 0). Therefore, I personally urge that you consider revising the statements Ratonale presented in Sections 7. 6. Z, Page 148 to provide for well managed regulated mining in these coastal areas. Responsible reclamation programs are a much better alternative than elimination of mining from the southern New Jersey region. economy and through the careful planning of mining operations, Also, if your department should desire more information on reclasmation aesthetic and environmental values can be protected. It Is plans and processes, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience, and I will arrange for my technical people to meet with further recognized that mineral resource development Is a you. valid and important land use to New Jersey and that mincral Sincerely, resources occur only In certain limited areas. Mineral extraction U 7GO $R7 certainly should not represent a terminal use of the land. There- fore, It Is Important In the planning process to make adequate Kenneth A. Drunk Vice President Technology provisions so as to reasonably allow for the recovery of such KIAB:LJ valuable mineral resources. Land properly restructured and revegetated following mineral extraction can serve many useful purposes. In such Instances these properties can be converted to attractive lakes, home sites, recreation centers and other useful purposes. ---------------- -- 2111 Rliver Avenue -----pae 2 2111 River Avenue Ice and storm damage are yearly occurmances and when permits must be applied Camden, New Jersey 08105 for year after year at rates set for developers who can write it off as a June 15, 1978 business expense, the logic of your rules and regulations becomes questionable. Private home owners do not have acceMs to lawyers or surveyors or engineers Office of Coastal Zone Management as large companies do. These services are costly. Your rules and regulations Department of Environmental Protection will not accept less than certified forms and sketches and notarized legal P. O. Box 1889 documents. All this BEFORE we can even begin to apply for a grant, lease Trenton, New Jersey 18625 or license. We are hard working, average citizens trying to maintain and keep what Gentlemen: we own or thought we owned. We are lawabiding taxpayers willing to do what After all the effort put out on our part to meet the requirements of the is required of us and therefore trying to reason with you to include some New Jersey D. E. P., and', after reviewing New Jersey Coastal HManagement simple, easy to follow regulations for our benefit. Program, Bay & Ocean Sihore segment and appreciating the effort put out by It is already evident that big business has had an influence on your your department to present a workable program, and after attending the public program. One has only to read ' "If your construction project exceeds hearing held June 13, 1978 in Bridgeton, we feel we must express our views 5500,000 the State of New Jersey has a unique service for you" '. for the record also. Wouldn't it be equally justifiable to be able to read "If your construction We have tried various ways and means to try to impress upon the project is less than 55000, the State of New Jersey has a unique service for D. E. P. the necessity of simplifying application of the rules and regulations you. Call our small claims department located in your area, manned by people for obtaining a riparian grant, lease, or license and a construction permit familiar with your type of construction with minimal cost to you "'1 needed for minor repair and maintainence of the various docks, piers, walk- We feel these are the thoughts of hundreds of property owners all along ways, catwalks, etc. of private citizens and home owners along the Delaware the Delaware Bay. We are tangled in bureaucratic regulations and red tape. Bay. Our e peate ef forts and home nersons le e We need someone to look at our side from our side, before hard and fast Bay. rules are set. Our repeated efforts have only led to the involvement of persons less rules are set. informed than we are, who refer us back to the D. E. P. The riparian law of Perhaps thin letter will set some gears in motion. Thank you for taking New Jersey is tough. There is no getting away from it. However, its implement- time to read it. ation, to a private individual, with no desire to make any kind of profit or Sincerely yours, to engage in any form of business is ridiculous. It is our understanding that the intent of the C.Z.H. act was not to propose hardship on the private individual but to prevent wanton damage to our ary A. Dowhy coastal zone by commercial or industrial developments. After reviewing the John Dowhy management program, Bay and Ocean shore segment, we can only conclude that Members Bay Point Rod & Gun Club Assoc. you are concerned only with the large developers and commercial enterprises. 28 Paris Road, Day Point, N.J. (summer residence) The private home and property owner are not even mentioned, therefore not considered. Everything in geared to the concern of big business--large developments, acres of land, not the small 50 x 150 ft. lot owner who happens to be on the waterfront. lie is the individual who must constantly fight whims of nature to keep and maintain that small piece of property. 344 . 2 2 NAME PAOS STATE OF NEW JERSEY 3 James A. Shissias 15 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 4 Mercedes Johnson 26 DIVISION OF MARINE SERVICES OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE 5 D. Oliver Pappa 11 MANAGEMENT 6 Diane Graves 41 ------------------- - ~7 George Clark '7 IN T/IE MATTER OF NEW JERSEY : COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - Ruth Fsher BAY AND OCEAN SEGMENT - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 9 Anne Penna 62 STATEMENT. ---------------------10 Michael Havrisko 66 II Frances Belnecke 72 State Museum John Fitch Plaza 12 Robert Bowen Trenton, New Jersey June 15, 1978 13 Thursday, 10 a.m. 14 15 B E F O R E: 16 DAVID N. KINSEY, CHIEF, OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT. 17 RICHARD OARDNER, 18 OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. 19 20 21 BY: ANNA MARIE SANFORD, CERTIFIED SHIORTHAND 22 REPORTER. 23 SILVER & RENZI REPORTING SERVICE 24 CERTIFIED SHOR7TAND REORTRS$ 824 WEST STATE STREET TRENTON. NEW JERSEY 08os01 1609 9089.-919 m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - 3 I MR. GARDNER: Good morning, i have a brief slide presentation prepared 2 ladies and gentlemen. I would like to 2 by the New Jersey Department of Environ- 3 welcome you to this joint federal and 3mental Protection. 4 state public hearing which has been called 4(Whereupon the lide 5 for the dual purpose of receiving presentation was shown.) 6 testimony on the Draft Environmental 6 MR. GARDNER: With that 7 Impact Statement and the proposed 7Introduction I would like to describe a 8 adoption of Chapter 3 on Coastal Resource 8 little bit about the purpose of this 9 and Development Policies as an administra- 9hearing on the federal prospective. This 10 tive rule for the State of New Jersey - 10 hearing is being held partially as a part l! Coastal Management Program for the Bay 1I of procedures of the National Environmental 12 and Ocean Shore Segment. 12 Policy Act of 1969, as indicated in the 13 My name is Richard Gardner and 13 slide presentation, which calls for the 14 I represent the Office of Coastal Zone 14 preparation of draft and final environmental 15 Management, an arm of the National 15 impact statements concerning proposed major 16 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 16 federal actions which may significantly 17 in the United States Department of 17 affect the human environment. 18 Commerce. On my left is David Kinsey of 18 As part of the process of 19 the Office of Coastal Zone Management for 19 considering environmental effects, one or 20 the New Jersey Department of Environmental 20 more public hearings may be called in 21 Protection. 21 order to receive public testimony and 22 As a prelude to the more formal 22 this is one of three such public hearings 23 part of this hearing and in order to 23 on this Draft Environmental Impact State- 24 introduce the objectives and content of 24 ment for the New Jersey Coastal Management 25 the New Jersey Program, we will first 25 Program for the Bay and Ocean Shore -_1346 Segment. I segment includes approximately 80 per cent Segment. 2 The major federal being 2 of the state's coastal area, it does not The major federal action being 3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3 include areas along the Delaware and ~3 considered here is federal approval of the include areas along the Delaware and 4 ~Coastal Program for the Bay and Ocean 4 Hudson Rivers and other waterways which 4 ~~Coastal Program for the Bay and Ocean 5 5 must be included in a complete state Shore Segment for the State of New Jersey 6 6 coastal management program. by the Assistant Administrator for Coastal 7 7 Section 306(h) or the Coastal ~7 Zone Management on behalf of the United 8 8 Zone Management Act specifically permits States Secretary of Commerce under the 9 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9 federal approval of a program for a ~9 terms of Section 306(h) of the Coastal federal approval of a program for a 1� ~Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. 10 segment of the state's coastal area with ~~~i~~~~~t Thefeera aproalof he11 the proviso that programs for all segments The federal approval of the 12 New Jersey Program would allow substantial 12 be coordinated and integrated into a 13 13 single unified program as soon as is federal program administration grants to 14 14 reasonably practical. ~14 be awarded to the state and, in addition, 14 reasonably practical. 15 would require that federal actions be 15 The Federal Office of Coastal 16 consistent with the terms of the state's 16 Zone Management has printed the Draft 17 program. 17 Environmental Impact Statement which 18 An pointed out in the slide 18 contains in it the Mew Jersey Coastal 19 presentation, the program being presented 19 Program for this segment. The document 20 here for federal approval covers only a 20 contains, in addition to a description of 21 portion of the state's shoreliie along 21 the state's program and an analysis of 22 Delaware Bay, roughly south of the Delaware 22 the practical impacts of the New Jersey 23 Memorial Bridge, along the Atlantic Shore 23 Program, a listing of the alternatives 24 from Cape May to Sandy Hook and along the 24 to the proposed action and Identification 25 south shore of Raritan Day. While this 25 of unavoidable environmental effects, - _ -_ _- -_ _7 -_ m................ 347 ! a discussion of long-range versus short- I outside the auditorium or can be obtained 2 term effects and a listing of irreversible 2 from the Federal Office of Coastal Zone 3 or irretrievable commitment of resources 3 Management in Washington or from the New 4 resulting from program approval. In 4 Jersey Department of Environmental 5 addition, it includes a number of 5Protection here in Trenton. 6 appendices containing detailed information 6 Newspaper advertisements 7 and legal documents referred to in the 7 announcing the availability of documents 8 program. 8 and the date and location of these public 9 Before this Draft Environmental 9 hearings were placed in the Atlantic City 10 Impact Statement was Issued, the Federal 10 Press, the Trenton Times, the Trentonlan, II Office of Zone Management prepared a 11 the Newark Star Ledger, the Vineland 12 preliminary determination that this 12 Times Journal and the Toms River Dally 13 segment of the New Jersey Program could 13 Observer during the last week in May. 14 be approved. A period of public review of 14 A notice of this public hearing was also 15 the document began on Nay 5th, 1978 when 15 printed In the Federal Register on May 16 a notice of public availability was 16 16th, 1978. 17 published in the Federal Register. The 17 The period for receiving public Is document was distributed to federal, state, 18 comments on this document closes on June 19 county and municipal governments and to 19 19th, 1970. That's next Monday. All 20 national special interests groups during 20 comments received at this hearing and all 21 t emnhoMwritten comments received by June 19th 22 In addition, copies were sent 22 will be considered fully in a final 23 to all New Jersey despositories and 23 determination on federal approval of the 24 libraries in this segment of New Jersey. 24 New Jersey Coastal Management Program for 25 Additional copies are available on the desk 25 the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. 9 10 I Written comments can be sent to I Implementation of these programs, likewise, 2 Katherine Ooubins, Offioe of Coastal Zone 2 is the responsibility of state and often 3 Management, 3300 Whitehaven Street, Northwest, 3 local government. 4 Washington, D. C. 20235, and I'll have that 4 The federal government offers 5 address available for anybody who wants it 5 two principal incentives for states to 6 after the hearing. 6 participate in coastal management. First, 7 It's perhaps appropriate to say 7 it makes funds available both to develop 8 a word here about the role of the federal 8 programs which meet certain minimum 9 government and that of the state government 9criteria established In federal law and 10 in coastal management. 10 upon federal approval, to carry those 11 The basic purpose of the Coastal ! programs out. 12 Zone Management Act in to encourage and 1 2 Second, it requires that the 13 assist coastal states to develop and carry 13 actions of federal agencies must be 14 out coherent programs for the protection 14 carried out in a manner that is consistent 15 and wise management of the lands and waters 15 with the terms of a coastal state-approved 16 of the state's coastal areas. States often 16 program. 17 acting in concert with local units of 17 Federal approval is considered 18 government are the primary focus of this 18 on the basis of completion of a number of 19 effort. 19 criteria contained in the Coastal Zone 20 Not only is' it the state's 20 Management Act which address primarily 21 prerogative to participate in the program 21 the process by which the state's program 22 or not as it wishes, because this is a 22 was developed, but also address national 23 voluntary program, but state coastal 23 Interests, concerns and assurances that 24 management programs are built upon legal 24 sufficient state legal authority exite 25 authorities contained in state legislation. 25 to carry out the program. 12 Briefly stated, it is the intent I The comment period on Chapter 3 2 of the Coastal Zone Management Act that a 2 as part of the state's rule-making process unified set of enforceable policies be closes July 5th. However, at the same time, applied to the use of vital coastal resources the State Department of Environmental and that those policies apply to local, Protection respondly would appreeciate 6 state and private and federal actions. 6 comments on the entire document, but it is In order to explain the State of important to note that the deadline for 8 New Jersey's portion of this hearing, at 8 comments on the Draft Environmental Impact this time, I would like to turn the meeting 9 Statement is next Monday, June 19th. 10 over to David Kinsey who holds principal 10 While this is a formal public !i responsibility for the development and I! hearing and we are transcribing comments 12 administration of the coastal program. 12 with a Court Stenographer, this is but one 13 MR. KINSEYt On behalf of the 13 of the various formats that we have used in 14 Commissioner, let me welcome you to this 14 the course of the coastal planning process 15 third in a series of three formal hearings 15 and will continue to use a wide range of 16 on the New Jersey Coastal Program for the 16 formats. Various meetings and workshops 17 Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. 17 have taken place to Cate and will continue 18 I would like to first stress that 18 to take place. My staff is available to 19 Chapter 3 of the state program, the Coastal 19 arrange appropriate workshops with interest 20 Resource and Development Policies have 20 groups, user groups and individuals and to 21 been proposed for adoption as a formal 21 answer questions that may arise in the 22 administrative rule under New Jersey's 22 course of your review of this document. 23 Administrative Procedures Act. So notice 23 This morning, I will attempt. to 24 of consideration of adoption appeared in 24 answer some of the comments that may be 25 the New Jersey Register in May, 1978. 25 addressed here, but a more thorough set - mem. 13 11 I of responses will be made in the course or I questions following the presentation of 2 preparing the Final Environmental Impact 2 his or her statement. 3 Statement Jointly by HOAA and the State of 3 As indicated, a verbatim trans- 4 New Jersey. 4 cript of this hearing is being made. If 5 I would also like to acknowledge 5 you do have a prepared statement, I would 6 there is a fair number of colleagues from 6 appreciate a copy for our records. 7 other agencies, for example, representatives 7 Speakers are asked to come to 8 from the Department of Energy, the Department 8 the podlum on the stage here and speak 9 of Labor and Industry, the Department of 9 clearly so that everyone can hear. I 10 Community Affairs and the Health Department. 10 think the public address system is pretty 11 With that, I will return it to 11 good here. I have also been requested to 12 you, Mr. Gardner. 12 ask that there be no smoking at this meetinm. 13 MR. OARDNER: Thank you, Mr. 13 It to important to note that 14 Kinsey. 14 this hearing is for the purpose of 15 Just a couple of ground rules 15 receiving your comments In general. There 16 that we will use for the carrying out of 16 will be no rebuttal comments on behalf or 17 this hearing. I think everybody has been 17 either the Coastal Zone Management, the 18 asked to sign in and sign an attendance 18 federal office or the state office, although 19 card and indicate if they would like to 19 we may want to make some clarifying remarks 20 make a statement. I believe I have most 20 if that ois appropriate. 21 of them up here. 21 Are there any questions regarding 22 The speakers are to be heard on 22 the procedures that we are going to use 23 a first-come basis. Statements should 23 this morning? If not, I think we will 24 be limited to 10 minutes and the federal 24 proceed directly into the receipt of 25 and state staff here may wish to ask any 25 testimony. m _ _ -_ _- _- _ _- -_ _ _-_ I Our first speaker who has 1 submitted at each phase of the public 2 indicated interest in making a presentation 2 comment procedure over the last several 3 is James A. Shisslas of PSE&O. That is 3 months. We believe that, for n subject 4 Public Service Electric and Gas Company. 4 of this importance, insufficient time has 5 Mr. Shissias? 5 been provided for proper consideration of 6 MR. 811ISSIAS: Do you have copies 6 all relevant factors and of the comments 7 of mine? 7 submitted from the public sector. 8 MR. GARDNER: I have a copy of 8 It was disappointing, procedurally, 9 your testimony. 9 that earlier source documents for the 10 MR. SHISSIAS: Good morning. I 10 "Coastal Management Strategy" which wan 11 am James A. Shisslas, General Manager of II first released in September of 19.77 were 12 Environmental Affairs of Public Service 12 not circulated for comment until after 13 Electric and Gas Company. The company 13 the "Strategy" itself was formulated and 14 welcomes the opportunity to present this 14 published. Procedurally, the time span 15 statement on the recently released 15 given industry to respond to these many 16 "Coastal Management Program" for New Jersey. 16 documents was Insufficient. 17 In addition to my general statement, we 17 In fact, in several instances, 18 have submitted detailed specific comments 18 the abbreviated time schedule allowed to 19 for your review. These comments are 19 incorporate public comments before a new 20 attached to the oral statement. 20 version or draft was issued precluded the 21 Before I begin to discuss the 21 consideration by the Department of 22 contents of the Coastal Management Program, 22 Environmental Protection of comments 23 I would like to express the Company's 23 submitted on earlier versions. 24 concern with the brief time allowed for 24 In spite of all that previously 25 review by the state of the comments 25 has been submitted by our Company and 352 ~I others on this Program, it still contains I adequately provide for the national and 2 many negative provisions which tend to 2 regional interests regarding electric 3 specifically discourage nuclear power and 3 power and LGN energy facility siting in 4 LNO facilities. 4 New Jersey, and in fact discriminates, 5 Thus, in our opinion, the 5 discourages, and effectively excludes 6 Coastal Management Program is still in 6 those vital energy facilities from the 7 conflict with both the spirit and intent 7coastal zone. 8 of Congress when it formulated and passed 8 Furthermore, when Congress 9 the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 9amended the Act In 1976, It stressed the 10 and the 1976 Amendments. 10 "national obJective of attaining a greater It Specifically, the Act stated 11 degree of energy self-sufficiency... 12 that, "there is a national interest in the 12 resulting from new or expanded energy 13 effective management, beneficial use, 13 activity in or affecting the coastal 14 protection and development of the coastal 14 zone." 15 zone." I 15 In this regard, nuclenr 16 The Coastal Management Program 16 generation facilities qualify an being 17 proffered does not provide adequate 17 in the national interest by providing 18 development prospects, in particular with 18 large scale regional electric power needn 19 respect to energy facilities. We find it 19 to the state as well an to numerous 20 disturbing that the objectives of Congress 20 federal military installations. 21 for the beneficial use and development of 21 As defined on page 178 of tlhe 22 the coastal zone in the national interest 22 Coastal Management Program, another 23 have been de-emphasized. 23 overriding objective in the national 24 We believe that the New Jersey 24 interest is to "reduce dependents on 25 Coastal Management Program does not 25 foreign imported oil and vulnerabllity 19 ! to supply interruptions." I unreasonably restrict or exclude land and 2 Each nuclear plant can save 2 water uses of regional benefit." 3 approximately 12 million barrels of foreign 3 Yet, the state Itself, through 4 oil a year. Nuclear plants currently 4 the provisions of Its Coastal Program, 5 operating in New Jersey actually saved 5 tends to exclude these facilities from the 6 over 790 million gallons of oil In 1977, 6 coastal zone from a practical standpoint. 7 and an equivalent amount in 1976. These 7 We do not believe the Office of 8 combined quantities nearly equal the total 8 Coastal Zone Management Implementing 9 amount of heavy residual oil used in the 9 regulations and therefore the Now Jersey 10 entire State of New Jersey in 1975. 10 Program conform to the goals of the 11 Nuclear electric facilities also ! 1 national Coastal Zone Management Act or 12 qualify as uses of "Regional Benefit" under 12 to the Intent of Congress In applying 13 the New Jersey Coastal Management Program, 13 the "federal consistency provision" to 14 as do liquified national gas facilities. 14 other than new facilities. 15 As defined on page 192 of the 15 The present permit renewal 16 State Program: "uses of regional benefit 16 process for existing facilities effectively 17 include energy facilities using oil, gas, 17 brings all previously existing facilities 18 electric, and renewable sources of energy, 18 In the coastal zone, which require 19 et cetera." 19 periodic permit renewal, under the New 20 According to the federal 20 Jersey Program. This could cause consider- 21 Coastal Zone Management Act, subsection 21 able cost to existing facilities which 22 306(e)(2) quoted on page 192 of the State 22may have heretofore been "grandfathered" 23 Program, the state must provide "a method 23 from compliance with earlier laws written 24 of assuring that local land and water use 24 to specifically avoid this economic 25 regulations within the coastal zone do not 25 hardship. ~~~~~~~~~~~~hardhp 21 22 1 In view of the state's substantial I built-up areas. As an individual strategy 2 future energy needs, it it essential that 2 this might appear acceptable. 3 all viable energy options be kept open. 3 Hlowever, the restrictions of 4 We simply cannot afford to peremptorily 4 the Coastal Management Program when 5 eliminate any valid options. 5 combined with the provisions under the 6 Furthermore, to assure rational 6 Clean Air Act regarding nonattainment 7 decislonmaking, each option must in turn 7 areas, emissions trade-off policy, and 8 be considered on the true economic and 8 prevention of significant deterioration ~9 environmental merits. could make the siting of fossil fuel 10 In meeting future energy 10 plants virtually impossible any where in 11 requirements, it is important to recognize I 1 New Jersey. 12 that the Company has no commitment nor 12 We are disturbed that each of 13 bias for any technology. We are committed 13 the many environmental protection 14 to serving our customerst needs at the 14 regulations, when analyzed individually, 15 most reasonable costs and with a proper 15 may be determined to be logical and worthy 16 concern for the environment. 16 of support, but when viewed collectively, 17 Our current studies show nuclear 17 may result in excessive restrictions. 18 to be clearly more economic and more IS It is likely that this program could 19 environmentally acceptable than fossil 19 eliminate both the nuclear and fossil 20 fueled stations. Still, prudence suggests 20 options leaving only the exotic energy 21 that the fossil fuel option remain open. 21 types available. These exotic sources, 22 This Program, however, makes it 22 which are encouraged in the report, are 23 very difficult, if not impossible, to 23 neither technically nor economically 24 maintain this option. It directs future 24 Justified. 25 expansion of fossil fuel stations into 25 Moving on to another energy ~~~~~~~~- - m - m- - m-m-m-m 2 ~i 23 I ~~attempt by New Jersey and/or other states, I technology, it appears that the Coastal I attempt by New Jersey and/or other states 2 Management Program still maintains the 2 either singularly or together, to regulate 3 mistaken assumption that LNO is of such a 3 siting or set standards for the safety of 4 hazardous nature that it is unacceptable. 4 LNO facilities would be preempted and is 5 wiiaan unconstitutional interference with I would like to remind you that such 6 projects are operating safely both in this 6 interstate commerce. 7 There are a number of legal 7 country and throughout the world with 7 There are a number of legal 8 little or minimal environmental Impact. 8 issues which appear to have been virtually The Department of Environmental 9 ignored by the State Office of Coastal 9 ~~~~The Department of Environmental 10 Protection's position to deny approval 10 Zone Management in putting together this 11 until the FPC, now the Federal Energy 11 Coastal Program. 12 Regulatory Commission, responds to the i12 These deal with the question of 13 notion Of New Jersey to establish a ;13 the federal government having preemptive motion of New Jersey to establisha 14 ~regulations concerning the handling of 14 general siting criteria, is impractical 14 regulations concerning the handling O ~~~~~~15 for two reasons. ~15 radioactive waste, safety precautions from ~16 F ~irst, the FPO has stated on 16 radiation, and the siting of LNO facilities; 16 ~~~~First, the FPC has stated on 1 17 the record that it will consider siting 17 the consistency of the New Jersey Program wth he cnistencyoth e Jerse Progre andth 18 for LNG facilities only on a case-by-case 18 with the ntent of Congress and the 19 basis. 19 national Coastal Zone Management Act; 20 Secondly, the petition filed by 20 20 Secondly, the petition filed by 20 procedural questions; inadequate statutory 21 New Jersey two years ago for the issuance 21 authority; as well as other issues. These are specifically detailed 22 of siting criteria will probably never be 22 23 answered because it was procedurally 23 in the "Legal Comments" section of the material we have submitted. They must be 24 deficient and impermissible. 24 25 The Company believes that any 25 addressed by the New Jersey Coastal 356 25 26 !I Management Program before submission of its 1 electric plants, the application of the 2 plan for approval. 2 "federal consistency" provision to previous- 3 In summary, it should be emphasized 3 ly existing facilities, the legal and 4 that siting flexibility is needed and must 4 federal preemptive issues, and the failure 5 be provided in the final Program. If the 5 to specify or earmark future sites in the 6 state is to continue to prosper, additional 6 coastal zone for vitally needed energy 7 sites for energy facilities will be needed. 7 facilities. 8 We feel that if siting of energy 8 We hope that the public hearing 9 facilities is reviewed in a positive light, 9 and review process will serve to resolve O10 it would be possible to set aside small 10 these problems. Consequently, we urge II portions of the coastal area specifically II that the State Program not be approved in 12 for vital energy uses. This affirmative 12 its present form by the Governor or New 13 site specification by the Department of 13 Jersey. If this program is submitted by 14 Environmental Protection could go far toward 14 the Governor to NOAA for federal approval 15 removing the uncertainty of energy 15 with its present provisions on nuclear 16 facility siting in the coastal zone. 16 power and LNG0, we strongly urge that it 17 In the course of reviewing the 17 be denied approval. 18 Coastal Management Program for New Jersey, 18 Thank you. 19 we are concerned with the procedural 19 MR. OARDI{ER: Thank you, Mr. 20 shortcomings of the review process, the 20 Shissias. 21 lack of adequate consideration of the 21 Our next speaker is Mercedes 22 national interest in energy siting, the 22 Johnson, representing Marine Trades 23 discouragement and effective exclusion 23 Association of New Jersey. 24 of nuclear power and LNO facilities, the 24 Miss Johnson. 25 impractical policy regarding fossil fueled 25 MISS JOIINSON: Mr. Gardner, Mr. 26 27 1 Kinsey, ladies and gentlemen, the Marine I of an environment compatible with clean# 2 Trades Association of New Jersey, represent- 2 family recreation such an boating. ing the staters recreational boating 3 Because of the Importance of the 4 Industry, Is pleased to be a part of the 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement to the ongoing planning process. We welcome the coastal zone, we must object to the short 6 opportunity to comment on the Draft 6 period available for study and comment. 7 Environmental Statement, recognizing the 7 A document that has taken so long to prepare 8 Department of Environmental Protection is 8 and to of such far-reaching Impact, 9 making an effort to consider coastal user deserves a longer period for study and the 10 input, as evidenced by the changes made In 10 preparation of incisive comment. the coastal management program since the For this reason, the Marine 12 close of the comment period on the Coastal 12 Trades Association's testimony is being 13 Management Strategy. 13 prepared in two parts, this general verbal 14 The Draft EIS Is of utmost 14 testimony and a written testimony, to be 15 importance to our Industry, as It to to 15 submitted later, which includes a revised 16 all coastal users, from both a restraining 16 version of our verbal testimony and an 17and a nurturing standpoint. The program 17 in-depth analysis of each segment of the 18 obviously puts restraints on the growth, I s statement that deals with or affects 19 and even maintenance of recreational 19 recreational boating. 20 boating in New Jersey and its supporting 20 We, in the association, see 21 industry. 21 ourselves as realistic environmentalists, 22 Properly applied, the program 22 favoring environmental protection but 23 can also nurture recreational boating by 23 also recognizing the need to balance that 24 providing for the most effective use of 24 protection with economic realities. it 25 coastal land and by ensuring the continuance 25 to with that philosophy that we have 2 a ~~~~~~~~29 ~~~~~30 reviewed the Draft Environmental I approach. The state must actively assist reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact ~~~~2 Statement. ~~~~~~~2 in the development and maintenance of those Statement. ~~3 On the whole, the Draft ~~~3 private facilities that compliment the On the whole, the Draft ~4Environmental Impact Statement Is a well 4 state goals for the coastal zone through gnvironmental Impact Statement is a well 5 5 Improved public access without serious thought-out document that reflects very 6 6 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~environmental degradation." ~6 well on the ability and professionalism 6 environmental degradation. 7 ~~~~The association recognizes the ~7 of the staff that prepared it. Our major The association recognizes the ~8 criticisms Il withthe negtiveapprach8 Office of Coastal Zone Management can not criticisms lie with the negative approach 9 ~to management, a lack of working knowledge 9 serve as an industrial development agency, to management, a lack Or working knowledge lo ~but OCZH's regulatory philosophy must be 10 of the uses regulated, and inconsistencies but OCZM's regulatory philosophy must e andIlack of claIty~~ It s e ar s.structured so as to be more inviting and lack of clarity in some areas. 12 1 rather than discouraging to acceptable ~~12 ~The Program is entirely too negative. More attention must be given to 13 growth. We are pleased to see the Draft negative. More attention must be given toi 1 14 Environmental Impact Statement is more 14 ~ attracting and encouraging the uses i da fa15 positive than the strategy, but it still 15 desirable for the coastal zone. 16 ~is not positive enough. 16 As stated in the Marine Trades 16 s not positive enough. 17 Assoelation's response to the Coastal 17 It to, unfortunately, obvious 18 Management Strategy for New Jersey, "New that the program was conceived by 19 ~administrators who are not sufficiently in 19 Jersey has traditionally been oriented 19 administrators who are not sufficiently in 20 towards solving problems through regulation. 20 touch with the situation as it exists in 2� This is evident in the policies. Prohlbi- 21 This to vident In te-policleo.Prohibi- 21the real-world environment. From a textbook 22 ting and encouraging alone will not 22 standpoint, the Program is workable. From 23 provide for the coastal zone envisioned by 23 a real-world standpoint, there are sufficient shortcomings to make it unwork- 24 New Jersey's coastal zone planners. 24 ufficient shortcomings to make t unwork- 25 Encouragement must become a more positive 25 able. Incorrect definitions, that of - - - - - - - - - m - -~~~2 31 32 i "navigation channel" for example, and I would indicate? 2 unrealistic water depths in various 2 In addition to the specific 3 policies, cause the Program to lose 3 suggestions to be offered in written 4 credibility as well as to make It unwork- 4 testimony, the Marine Trades Association 5 able. The association's written testimony 5 has several general positive suggestions 6 will elaborate on these shortcomings. 6 for revising the Draft Environmental 7 Further evidence of the lack of 7 Impact Statement and the proposed Coastal 8 real-world knowledge is the failure to 8 Zone Management Program. 9 treat certain elements of the environment 9 Assistance in considering 10 as transient, changeable entities and a 10 potential sites must be programmed. One !! down-playing of economic impacts. Elements of the restraints to desirable development 12 of the environment such as shellfish beds, 12 in the coastal zone is the gamble involved 13o 1h3 eniromnt purchas selingbes 13 grasses and sand are capable of change and 13 in purchasing property or planning projects, 14 movement and the policies must recognize 14 not knowing whether necessary permits 15 this. It must also be recognized that the i 15 would be attainable. Some prepurchase or 16 economic impacts of the Program are much 16 preplanning guidance is desirable including, 17 more probable and much longer-term than 17 perhaps, a general mapping of the coastal Is predicted. 18 zone showing what uses would probably be 19 There are numerous inconsistencies 19 acceptable in each area as well as what 20 and a widespread need for clear definitions. 20 uses would probably not be acceptable. 21 The inconsistencies exist both between 21 Greater participation by people Individual policies and in basic philosophy. 22with direct workingknowledge In 23 Is the Program to be specific, as the 23 regulated uses must be included in drafting 24 intent appears to be, or general as the 24 and applying policies and regulations. 25 frequent lack of definitions or details 25 This can be accomplished through membership 360 33 31, ! on the Coastal Area Rleview Board or through I be consolidated. Once consolidated, they 2 the use of consultants from regulated 2 must be streamlined, without weakening 3 industries in all decisions affecting those 3 their effectiveness. In order to gain a 4 industries. The Program can not work if it 4 fresh perspective, an outside consultant 5 is unable to recognize the day-to-day 5 should be brought in to guide the consoli- 6 g problems and realities or regulated uses. 6 dation and streamlining. Working from 7 Department of Environmental 7 within the department, it can never happen 8 Protection permit procedures must be 8 effectively because all proposals would be 9 simplified. We agree with the need to 9 based on existing procedures. This must 10 protect the environment, but the process 10 be accomplished with outside help. !! employed to do that is actually scaring . A further simplified, easier to 12 away perfectly acceptable, perhaps 12 obtain permit process must be considered 13 beneficial, projects because or the 13 for small new projects or maintenance of 14 economic and psychological strain caused * 14 approved existing projects. The restraint 15 by the permit process. Unless some 15 on these projects, which cause the least 16 overwhelming financial gain is evident, 16 nw disruption to the environment, are 17 It just isn't worth pursuing a DEP permit. 17 disproportionately higher than for larger 18 The kinds of businesses 18 projects. The permitting-cost to project- 19 encouraged by the Coastal Zone Management 19 cost ratio is even furthler out of line 20 Program are essentially small, low-economic 20 than with larger projects. The result Is 21 yield businesses. But the permit process 21 either near-total discouragement of these 22 is geared to being tackled by large, high- 22 small projects, or an Incentive to do the 23 yield businesses capable of employing a 23 work without permits. Look at the state 24 battery of lawyers and consultants. The 24 of disrepair In many New Jersey marine 25 CAFRA, Wetlands and Riparian permits must 25 facilities. The unwieldy expensive permit -~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ aiiis mh unied -xpen- -e-per-it 36 ! process actually encourages this lack of I facilities with the environment should be 2 maintenance. 2 undertaken. The state's dredging needs 3 It is imperative that the Office 3 must be identified along with the agency 4 of Coastal Zone Management develop a 4 or body responsible for the dredging. 5 better understanding of the interrelations Proposals for accomplishing that dredging 6 between the environment and the economy of 6 must be drafted. 7 the coastal zone. If the statement about 7 As indicated in the Marine 8 supporting and promoting access to beaches 8 Trades Association's response to the 9 and waterfront areas means using funds 9 Coastal Zone Management Strategy, "A 10 to build facilities and support programs 10 concerted effort must be made to locate iI like the Island Beach shuttle, we are !l and develop spoils areas physically and 12 adamantly opposed. Coastal Zope Management 12 economically accessible to both the public 13 funds must not be used for projects. The 13 and private sector. Goals for site 14 need for research into all aspects of the 14 development based on dredging needs within 15 coastal zone is so great, that spending 15 specific geographic areas must be set. 16 coastal zone funds for projects rather 16 Investigation of alternative dredging 17 than research is unconscionable. 17 methods and dredge spoils disposal and use 18 The proposed study of recreational Is must also be actively pursued, whether 19 boating in New Jersey must be pursued. The 19 within state government or research 20 nature of the sport, nature of the industry, 20 institutes. Without the development of 21 users, demand, carrying capacity, restraints 21 spoils areas, New Jersey's dredging needs 22 and prospects and recommendations for the 22 will remain unfilled and the state's 23 future must be identified. 23 waterways will continue to deteriorate." 24 A study aimed at increasing the 24 Unfortunately, some people 25 capability of boats and their support 25 claiming to be environmentalists give 362 37 38 little regard to the serious economicI program is directed towards creating and little regard to the serious economlo impact of their actions, Well-founded 2 maintaining. environmental considerations are an 3 Thank you. 4 4 MR. EINSEY- I think r might important part of the permit process and MR. KINEY I think might 5 5 address some of the points presented in must be encouraged. However, a stop 6 must be put to the attacks on projects 6 your testimony. 7 7 In terms of the beach shuttle, launched by people using environmental 8 8 I thinlc lite important for all of us to considerations as an excuse for opposing 8 I think ts mportant for all of us to 9 they9 consider that the 1977 beach shuttle was proJects they Just plain don't like. 10 It would seem that for all the 10 a special research program sponsored by It would seem that for all thei 1I If the Department of Environmental Protection trouble and expense an applicant must go 12 12 with financial support fromnt the federal to, it would be only right that opponents 13 13 Coastal Zone Management. A small, actually to the application be required to 14 14 $20,000,grant was obtained through the substantiate their claims. A requirement 15 i 15 good office of Dick gardner of NOAA and that opponents be required to file an 16 16 It laid the way to demonstrating a environmental impact statement supporting 17 their contentions would assist both permit 17 different way of providing access to that their contentions would assist both permit 18 IR splendid barrier island. is8 reviewers and applicants in considering splendid barrier sland. 19 objections. 19 In fact, this summer, the same obJections. 20 By ncorporating the suggestions 20 project will be repeated, but uslng state By incorporating the suggestions 21 included In this testimony and In the 21 funds. The Department of Energy Is in~~~~~~~~~~~~2cou e n tris tetimng funds and the N w J re 22 association's written testimony, we believe 22 contrbutng funds and the ew Jerey 23 ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~23 !Ilghway Authority. I believe we have made ~23 a workable coastal zone management program 23 Highway Authority. I believe we have made 24 can be created. We look forward to living 24 the cape that this 13 a different approach 25 and working in the coastal zone which the 25 to providing public access. m - - - - - - ~~~~~m Mm-m---m- .=- 39 'lo I We agree with your recommendation I waterways. So it's a continuing difficulty. 2 for environmental sensitivity mapping and 2 And I look forward to the continuing 3 such a project is one reason that the state 3 support of the Marine Trades Association 4 seeks federal approval of the Program, 4 in our work in this area. 5 because with federal approval will come r- 5 Thank you. 6 additional funds that can be used to 6 MR. GARDNER: Our next speaker 7 carry out some of the long endeavored 7 is 0. Oliver Papps, Associate Director of 8 projects, including the recreational 8 the New Jersey Petroleum Council in 9 boating study. 9 Trenton. 10 Permit simplification and 10 Mr. Papps. 11 consolidation is also one of the long- l MR. PAPPS: good morning. My 12 standing goals of the Division of Marine 12 name is Oliver Papps and I'm Associate 13 Services. The one reason for proposing 13 Director of the New Jersey Petroleum 14 and adopting Coastal Resource and 14 Council, a Division of the American 15 Development policies is to have a visible 15 Petroleum Institute. We are a trade 16 substantial framework in place indicating 16 association representing the major oil 17 the basis for decisions, so that the 17 companies doing business in the state. 18 procedural work of simplifying and Is This morning we will not be 19 consolidating the permit procedures can 19 presenting a formal statement on the 20 then take place. 20 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, but 21 Dredging to a long-standing 21 would like to announce at this time we 22 issue of major concern. One of the 22 will be submitting a detailed analysis 23 difficulties for the division has simply 23 of the DEIS before the official closing 24 been the inadequate level of state 24 of the record. 25 appropriations to dredge the state-maintained 25 Thank you very much. 364 4l /12 I MR. OARDNER: Thank you, Mr. Papps. I paper inventory was a mistake. It may be 2 We look forward to your comments. 2 remedied ultimately piecemeal through 3 Our next speaker is Diane 3 information provided by applications and 4 Graves, representing the New Jersey Chapter 4 EIS's, but meanwhile the DEP will continue 5 of the Sierra Club. 5 to react to applications rather than for 6 MS. GRAVES: My name is Diane 6 everyone, DEP and potential applicants, 7 Graves and I am Conservation Chairman for 7 to know specifically where developments 8 the Sierra Club's New Jersey Chapter. 8 can and can not be located. 9 We commend the DEP's Office of 9 We think it is important that 10 Coastal Zone Management for the Bay and 10 the public not be lulled into assuming 11 Ocean Shore Segment document. We believe I1 that Chapter 3's promulgation will 12 it will help protect New Jersey's coast 12 actually protect the coast. It won't. 13 from large, poorly sited and planned 13 The cumulative impacts of the many 14 development while allowing certain 14 likely developments not covered by 15 developments in appropriate locations. 15 CAFRA/BOSS will be disasterous to the 16 The Coastal Location Acceptability 16 New Jersey coast. 17 Method process seems clear and reasonable. 17 The best planning and most 18 The use and resource policies, also, for 18 stringent enforcement of rules and 19 the most part, seem clear and forceful. 19 regulations will be of little use if, for 20 We support the promulgation of Chapter 20 instance, numerous housing developments 21 3 as rules and regulations. 21 of 24 units or less, which are not now 22 We wish to express the following 22 covered by CAFnA, are constructed. Alno, 23 concerns, reservations, suggested actions 23 individual houses on dunes, small 24 and specific changes. 24 commercial establishments, expansions of 25 The decision not to conduct a 25 small motels by a few units and the llke, 43 3 I can eventually destroy the coast. I DEP be required to assess cumulative 2 Therefore, as one possible way 2 impacts and to develop a plan, mechanism, ~3 to improve the situation, we urge the 3 or legislative measure to remedy the 4 Legislature to reduce the threshhold 4 problem. ~5 number for housing units, which is now 5 Another major continuing worry 6 25 units or more. The DEP should be 6 is the inadequacy of the Office of Coastal 7 required to determine what the reduced 7 Zone Management's resources to administer 8 threshhold number should be in order to 8 and enforce the coastal protection program. 9Y gain control over sequential development. 9 For instance, we understand that the 10 We are also concerned about the 10 OCZMB's permit section has only 3 people II cumulative impacts of major facillties and needs 8 to 10. 12 now covered by CAFRA/BOSS. As yet the 12 Further, the delays caused by ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~13 1 13 DEP is not required to forecast or 13 Civil Service in filling authorized 14 evaluate the cumulative impacts of planned 14 positions is a regrettable, long-term 15 and likely major facilities on air and 15 prbblem, but now, added to that, the 16 water quality, water supply, as well as 16 Governors office requires review of 17 other coastal resources. 17 applicants and this is reported to be 18 For instance, New Jersey should 18 causing additional delay in hiring needed 19 know what impact can be expected on air 19 personnel. The OCZM must be staffed 20 quality 5, 10, 15 years hence, from 20 fully. If the Legislature wants permits 21 Atlantic City's renewal and projected 21 reviewed properly within 90 days, it 22 growth and traffic. 22 best see to it that adequate staff is on 23 We believe it is crucial to the 23 hand. 24 entire enterprise of protecting New 24 Enacting a governmental program 25 Jersey's coastal resources that the 25 which the public is led to expect will be 366 46 effective, but which actually falls into specific wording changes in some policies ~2 confusion, indecision, poor decisions, and 2 and I will send them in later for the ~3 conflict due to inadequate resources, both 3 record. money and staff, is a disservice and MR. GARDNER: Thank you very $ 5 mcMs rvn reinforces the public's tendency to much, Mrs. Graves. 6 6 MR. KINSEY: Thank you. Let ~6 disrespect government. Therefore, we 6 MR. KINSEY: Thank you. Let ~7 urge that both the federal OCZM and the 7 me report some good news in terms of the 8 8 trlg ThaculnmeOfpoesol ~8 New Jersey Legislature make certain that staffing. The actual number of professional DEP's Office of Coastal Zone Management staff is four, but we are expecting another 1 has the resources it needs to administer 10 two within the next two or three weeks, so II that 18 one plus. 1l and enforce this program. 11 that is one plus, 12 12 A n , a sjsveybif, We are glad that the BOSS policy 12 And, also, Just very briefly, 13 on pipelines specifically prohibits oil 13 the suggestion that the Coastal Program is 14 pipelines from the Central Pine Barrens.14 a reactive document or reactive policy 15 We feel both oil and gas pipelines should 15 rather than more prescriptive -- perhaps 16 be prohibited; however, our main concern 16 the best form of comment is to state the 17 on this policy in the proposed power of 17 comment that the representative of the Is8 the Department of Energy to override 18 New Jersey Builders Association made at 19 DEP's policies and decisions. 19 the hearing last night. I don't believe 20 We urge the Byrne administration 20 he or the representative of that 21 to enunciate a policy to. protect absolutely 21 organization is here today, but one of 22 the Central Pine Barrens from any energy 22 their comments was that the Coastal 23 facility, except perhaps a gas pipeline 23 Location Acceptability method Is indeed 24 if there is no possible alternate route. 24 a plan, a vigorous plan that spells out 25 We have previously offered some 25 the acceptable incentives of the development. 47 I I believe their comment is one I MS3. FISHER: Thank you very much. 2 that this was too inflexible, a statement 2 My name is Ruth Fisher. I represent the 3 of the future division in the State of 3 Citizens Association for Protection of the 4 New Jersey. But, more importantly, the 4 Environment. ~5 environmental sensitivity mapping that we 5 Earlier you said that many of 6 hope to do and the other efforts underway 6 your colleagues from the state government 7 in conjunction with the Department of 7 were here today. May I be permitted to 8 Energy and continuing work with the 8 ask for a show of hands on how many are 9 Department of Community Affairs will lead, 9 state employees? 10 I believe, to an increasingly specific 10 MR. GARDNER: I'm sorry, ma'tam, I1 Coastal Management document and program 11 but we are here to receive your testimony. 12 and the various documents, maps of various 12 MS. FISHER: Very well. I was 13 scales that will spell out that division. 13 Just curious as to the audience I was 14 MR. GARDNER: Thank you, Mr. 14 addressing. 15 Kinsey. 15 We, too, would object to the 16 Our next speaker is George 16 amount of time allotted and if industry 17 Clark. 17 has little time to prepare statements, we 18 MR. CLARK: I will waive it. 18 certainly have less. We are totally 19 MR. GARDNER: You prefer not to 19 unfunded, except for donations. 20 be heard? 20 We are concerned that this 21 MR. CLARK: Prefer not. 21 appears to be a dramatic way to preserve 22 MR. GARDNER: The next speaker is 22 the cost. Yet, experience has shown us 23 Ruth Fisher, representing the Citizens 23 that these are Just words. 24 Association for Protection of the 24 I would like to quote from the 25 Environment. 25 very beginning of the document, on the first . 368 49 50 I page, and I think it Is wise to keep this I know how well you can nee this. 2 in mind throughout and throughout the 2 On this island, thin in what 3 decision-making process: "whether there 3 to left of it. This is a major drain 4 will be a net environmental gain as a 4 that tis badly eroded. 5 result of Program approval and implemen- 5 The proposal calls for 6 tatlon." 6 development into all of this area some 7 It is sad to say that our 7 time in the future, but for the immediate 8 experience has shown that we do not feel 8 lot sale adjacent to thin exiating lot 9 that many of these decisions to date have 9 sale, of course, the municipality claims to shown an interest in net environmental 10 that they want the revenue and they even II gain. One of the permits that we have II hope to dredge from the back basin here 12 appealed -- and I don't know how many 12 to spoil upon this last area. 13 permits have been appealed, but we have 13 And it is surprising to ius to 14 been involved In appeals of three decisions. 14 rind comments, such as on page 51 of 15 The first one I would like to 15 this document, and thin Is under "High 16 talk about is Stone Harbor. It's in the 16 Risk Erosion Areas" under 6.4.1.2 "Policy," ~17 southern part of this state and is at the 17 -- "In principal development in areas 18 very end of the Marmora Beach Island. 18 that will be eroded in the mid-term 19 A permit has been issued. We have 19 future beyond 50 years is discouraged." 20 appealed it. There have been endless 20 It seems inconceivable that 21 hearings and permit discussions. 21 any consideration of this permit should be 22 I brought with me pictures of 22 given if you are following this kind of a 23 the area. This is the end of the Barrier 23 policy. 24 Beach. This is housing as it comes down 24 Again, I think the photograph 25 the island from the north, and I don't 25 and the general -- If you have walked the 51 5 2 I area, especially in a storm, you know how I intervene on the Salem I & II, again, in 2 vulnerable It is. 2 vain. But we might have been spared a lot 3 This is a -- sketches of some 3 of grief. The state might have been forced 4 of the changes made in the coast range in 4 to make some decisions on what to do with 5 the area disputed by the department and 5nuclear waste. We might not have had a 6 you can see that, in as late as 1952, 6huge nuclear complex there if the CAFRA 7 there was hardly any area left there for 7section had denied the permits in the ~8 development. It is increased now, but it 8 first place. 9 is subject to storm continually. 9 Comments by a previous speaker 1O Again, we don't believe that I0 l~O~~ Agai~n, we don't believe that 10say that this document discourages nuclear II these policies are being followed in tile I I power and LNO activities. Ile also stated 12 action which the department is making. 12 that all energy options must be kept open 13 One of the other permits that 13 We have repeatedly said that 14 we appealed in vain was for Hope Creek 14 you can't go in many directions at one 15 I & II. They might be better called 15 time. You can't go after nuclear power 16 Salem III & IV, because they are adjacent 16 and solar power at the same time. We Just 17 to existing plains. 17 can't buy it all. 18 We appealed on two grounds. 18 Therefore, our direction, as 19 One, there was no state policy on energy 19 far as this particular permit has proceeded, 20 at the time. Two, that no one knew what 20 was to attempt to block it at all costs, 21 to do with the waste then. They still 21 to continue to make it economically 22 don't know what to do with the radioactive 22 unviable. 23 waste there now. 23 But in this document, I don't 24 And we have been involved in the 24 understand why a PSE&O representative 25 hearings before the NRC attempted to 25 would say that the nuclear power is 370 53 511 I discouraged. They have gotten all the I of thile ite that was being considered were 2 permits that they ever wanted from the 2 and may lead to development of the barren 3 state. 3 rural area. 4 1 will quote from page 94, 4 With regard to secondary Impacts, 5 "Energy Facility Criteria." "This section 5 I will quote from page 159, "Policy." 6 is reserved pending completion of Joint 6 This is under 8.14, "Secondary Impacts." 7 coastal energy facility siting studies 7 "The probable secondary impacts of 8 by DEP and DOE. In the interim, the 8 proposed development will be considered 9 development potential of energy facilities 9 part of an application for a development. I0 is assumed to be moderate." 10 The probable secondary impacts as well as 11 I would presume from that that II the proposed development itself must 12 the policy is go ahead, in fact, on all 12 conform with the Resource and Development 13 energy sitings, especially on dangerous 13 Coastal Policies." 14 nuclear power plants. The policy seems 14 Again, it is not clear how any 15 to be if you don't know what to do with 15 decilsion-making process is going to insisut 16 waste, for instance, proceed anyhow. 16 that the secondary impacts from sewage 17 I don't want to use too much 17 placement are going to be considered at 18 time. 18 all. 19 With regard to our most recent 19 The next one is Tranquillity 20 appeal, the Cape May Region sewage 20 Park. This is a big development proposed, 21 treatment plant, we appealed for many 21 I believe, 170 units adjacent to the ~22 reasons; primarily,because one of the 22 Cape May Canal. 22 22 23 Commissioners was one of the owners of 23 The permit was Initially turned 24 one of the major sites. That was not 24 down. The department then issued without 25 being considered. The secondary impacts 25 public hearing a reversal and gave a - - - - - - - -- -m -w-W- 55 56 permit. We feel that, because this was I lead to enormous strain on the existing 2 done in such a deceitful manners that a 2 sewage treatment plant. 3 new hearing must be held on this particular 3 We would urge the department, 4 tract and our own county planning board is 4 as Miss Graves has already noted, to take 5 also urging the department to do this. 5 note of how this nit-picking and evasiveness 6 This kind of manipulation, regardless of 6 may destroy the coast just as readily as 7 how many wonderful words are written, can 7 big development. 8 not be permitted. 8 But we would also ask you at 9 The next area I wish to address 9 this hearing: How are you going to !0 is Diamond Beach. And I brought a 10 contend with things like this? fliw are 11 newspaper with me. This is not an area 11 you going to solve this problem, obvious 12 that we have personally researched, but 12 deceit at best? And it's a solution that 13 Diamond Beach is in the south end of our 13 we all need to have an answer to. I'm 14 county, just before you reach the Cape 14 sorry I can't be as kind as Miss Graven. 15 May Canal. 15 In short, this whole book 16 This is a motel unit. They 16 contains many wonderful pretty generaliza- 17 did not receive a CAFRA permit, so what 17 tions about the coastal area, but it's Is they simply did is break it into two, have 18 almost like a naive school boy, once he 19 two motels, the same design and everything, 19 receives a cum laude, It Is put aside for 20 side by side. And they got essentially 20 reality. The reality Is the big boys with 21 what they wanted without the CAFRA process. 21 the fancy briefcases are going to take 22 This kind -- there are comments 22 over. 23 that it may be turned over to the Attorney 23 It Is time to stop'this balancing 24 general, et cetera. The developer is 24 act which we have heard about so often. 25 Gem Corporation. And, of course, it will 25 The balance was tipped long ago the wrong �s 372 ~I way, not in the favor of the department or I department has developed a number of 2 ~ofr the environment. Stop giving out 2 policies that have been refined or expanded ~3 permits that have been comprised in back 3 and are placed in this framework. ~4 rooms. Get tough and be a department of 4 For example, one of the depart- ~5 environmental protection or don't get 5 ment's strong positions in Lower Cape Lay 6 paid. 6 County has been to protect cerealn very ~~~7 ~ Thank you. 7 important sensitive areas whlere there are 8 MR. GARDNER: Thank you very 8 associations of dunes and beach and ~9 much, Miss Fisher. 9 wetlands. And I think it was the 11/h{pbe Seneh-rord 10 MR. KINSEY: Miss Fisher, I t o Creek area where the DEP denied a CAFRA 1I wanted to explain one point about the 11 permit for a camp ground because the camp 12 various individual matters that you have 12 ground was in the middle of that area. 13 talked about in relationship to this 13 The same types of policies that 14 document. 14 were first articulated in those individual 15 This document was released, I 15 decisions have found their way by a public 16 guess, late April of this year as proposed 16 process into this document. 17 rules in Chapter 3 of how DUEP should make 17. The purpose of this meeting and 18 its decisions under the criteria of the 18 various sets of meetings that have been 19 Wetlands and CAFRA permit programs. 19 taking place is to gain the widespread 20 These policies simply did not 20 public opinion on this set of proposals so 21 exist in many of the cases and in many of 21 that we can used these policies for making 22 the specific matters that you addressed. 22 the decisions from here on in, as well as 23 But, also, through the course of the 23 our work with planning agencies at various 24 CAFRA and the Wetlands or Riparian permit 24 levels of government. 25 programs in the past several years, the 25 On some of the matters that were 59 I raised, they are still going through the I where you may think there may be a violation 2 process, particularly the one appeal, the 2 going on, so that it can be brought to our 3 Cape May sewage appeal, that is going 3 attention. And I look forward to your 4 through the standard administrative appeals 4 continuing working with us to draw those 5 process, which is the proper forum. 5 possible things to our attention long 6 On Stone Harbor, we held a public 6 before the construction really begins. 7 hearing in April and we are reviewing the 7 MS. FISHER: Are you saying 8 plans submitted by the municipality and 8 that under these guidelines, for instance, 9 looking forward to the submissions of 9 that you would deny, for instance, the 10 information by the municipality to carry 10 Hope Creek permits now and you still have I! on forward. II a chance to deny Stone Harbor and 12 And I, too, read the Atlantic 12 Tranquillity Park and Cape May Region? 13 City Press and I am aware of the alleged 13 MR. KINSEY: What I'm saying is 14 or possible violations of CAFRA that are 14 each new permit application that is 15 brought to our attention through the press. 15 submitted will be reviewed under the 16 You have asked a question: How 16 adopted rules as they are adopted, as well 17 is the Department of Environmental 17 as go through this rule-making process. 18 Protection to keep track of what goes on? 18 The timetable is by September to 19 And one of the best answers is an active 19 have revised the proposed policies. It's 20 and concerned citizenry, with groups such 20 not guidelines. The policy statements are 21 as yours, as well as the Coast Watch Group 21 proposed as administrative rules, which 22 and the American Littoral Society has been 22 will have the force of law once adopted, 23 helping to draw this to our attention and 23 and each new application that is submitted 24 please draw it to the attention of the 24 will be reviewed using those standards of 25 field inspectors of the department areas 25 law. 374 61 62 I MS. FISHER: Can you show me in I representing the American Littoral Society. 2 this document now any place where the 2 MS. PENNA: Good morning. My 3 Hope Creek permits under the policy -- any 3 name Is Anne Penna and I represent the 4 policy that you can rind in here that 4 American Littoral Society. We are n ~5 might possibly have been denied by the 5 conservation organization that has some 6 department? 6 1,500 members in the State of New Jersey. 7 MR. KINSEY: Mrs. Fisher, I think 7 We have been participating in 8 it is inappropriate to address hypotheticals the process O reviewing the coastal 9 ~at this tine. The New Jersey Supreme 9 management plans actively since 1969 IO Court has upheld the department's decision In during the implementation or drawing up if and that's the state of the regulatory I of the Wetlands Legislation. And I am process in that particular matter. 12 process In that particular matter.122happy to note that each document that 13 I will be glad to talk about the 13 comes out of the Office of Coastal Zone 14 future, perhaps after the meeting, about 14 Management in-the state has shown .15 prospective cases that might happen or 15 improvement and gotten more specific. 16 projects that you are aware of, and I 16 Thls document, too, is an 17 think that's the proper way of evaluating 17 improvement over the CAPFA strategy that I8 these problems. That is why there is an I was released in September of last year, 19 appendix of case studies. I think that 19 but it, too, we feel needs improvement 20 is the best way to explain the policies. 20 and strengthening. 21 MS. FISHIER: Thank you. I hope 21 In particular, we are Interested 22 that things get better. 22 in seeing an environmental Inventory as to 223 MR ADtThat hnk yoet betr. 223 23 MR. GARDNER: Thank you, Mrs. 23 required by NEPA and will be, I understand, 24 Fisher. 24 added by the NOAA office. 25 Our next speaker is Anne Penna, 25 But I think that some of the ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~u m thn tha om e o- t he -- 63 1 existing data which is cited in the I the Littoral Society and many environmental 2 appendices, which are required for 2 groups as well. 3 preapplication conferences and application 3 Once again, it seems that in 4 conferences, could have been -- the 4 failing to address this problem, it's a 5 information cited in those appendices 5 reaction, not a plan. Where, in the 6 could have been incorporated into a map of 6 document, it's stated that the Office of 7 existing data to give a more predictable 7 Coastal Zone Management is relying on the 8 means of anticipating where a particular 8 creativity of developers and individuals, 9 development can be cited. I think, also, 9 as well as relying on experience from the I0 the geographic areas of particular concern t0 opening of the permit office in '73 through -- one area was incorporated into the !i '77, that, again, is reactionary and not 12 current Coastal Zone Management Plan out 12 projecting. 13 of a suggested 176 nominations -- would 13 Cumulative impact or secondary 14 be helpful in the inventory mapping, as 14 impact, also, I feel should be addressed 15 well. 15 as upland impact on wetlands that 16 This would answer some of the 16 particularly have developments that fall 17 questions, I think, that was raised by the 17 below the CAFRA freehold. 18 energy company, the PSE&O representative, Is I would like to see some sort of 19 as far as where pipelines and nuclear 19 more defined state and municipal coordina- 20 power plants would be acceptable or would 20 tion. For example, the three options 21 be banned outright. 21 which are outlined in the introduction -- Again, cumulative impacts, which 22 it's stated that the state chooses option ~222 23 is something that has been brought up by 23 B, which is state administration of the 24 numerous speakers today and at the other 24 plan; wherein, in reality, it says that 25 hearings, is something that has bothered 25 there is a case-by-case review. 376 mm MMMMMMm m -mm m mm mO - -- -- - m --m - m - m _65 66 I We have seen the effects of I comments. 2 allowing the municipalities the sole right 2 MR. GARDNER: Our next speaker 3 to administer or to control growth in the 3 is Michael llavrisko, representing the 4 coastal zone, which is why the CAFRA Act 4 League for Conservation Legislation in 5 was passed in the first place. It's 5 Trenton. 6 almost impossible to resist developmental 6 Mr. Ilavrisko. 7 pressure on the local level. 7 MR. IIAVRISKO: Good morning, 8 We would like to see, also, some 8 thank you for giving me this opportunity 9 tightening of thile vague wording in the 9 to speak on the Coastal Management Program, 10 specificity. The greater the specificity, 10 Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. My name is ~11 the greater the predictability, which is 11 Michael Havrisko. I am the legislative 12 really the stated goal, the third basic 12 agent for the League for Conservation 13 policy regarding decisionmaking for the 13 Legislation. 14 coastal zone plain. I, I would like to commend the is We will be submitting more 15 DEP's Office of Coastal Zone Management 16 specific comments hopefully within the 16 for their conscientous work in putting 17 deadline and this will address some of the 17 together this document. I have a few 18 more -- some changes in wording, as you Is comments on how it may be improved. 19 have requested in the past, as well as 19 The lack of an inventory of 20 more specific policies. 20 coastal zone resources and of detailed 21 Thank you. 21 mapping causes some concern. One of the 22 MR. GARDNER: Thank you very 22 first steps in preparing a comprehensive 23: much, Ms. Penna. 23 management document would be to completely 24 MR. KINSEY: Thank you very 24 inventory the natural areas, fisheries, ~25 much. We look forward to the detailed 25 historic sites, industrial development, 377 _. m -- m--- ---$ ----~m m ml m-m I 67 I residential housing, Wildlife habitats. I new legislation being proposed which would 2 and other features of the coastal zone. 2 give the DOE the lead role n the siting 3 I do not believe this has been adequately 3of energy, it is imperative that specific 4 developed in this document. 4guidelines be developed. 5 The Department may now regulate F 5 Furthermore, Commissioner 6 construction of housing developments of 6 Jacobson's statement that pipelines may 7 25 or more units. Haphazard developments 7have to go through the Pine Barrens raises 8 along the coastal zone could have an 8 further concerns. The Pine Barrens must adverse effect. 9be protected from exploitation by the oil 10 At this time, there seems to be 10and gas industries. 1I a lack of coordination between local 1 The Coastal Plan asks that 12 zoning laws.and the Bay and Ocean Shore 12 12 ~conservation of energy be encouraged in IJ{ Segment. There should be careful monitoring 13 coastal development. The League feels 14 of development not covered by CAFRA. The t 14 I ~ ~ ~~this policy should be required. 15 cumulative impact of numerous housing 15 The Plan mentions policies 16 developments should be addressed in this 16 directed towards the preservation of open 17 document. 17 spaces. By naming hotels and restaurants 18 A policy statement in the document Is as desirable structures along the coastline, 19 discourages development which would damage 19 the above policy seems to be self-contradictory.: 20 or destroy the value of historic resources. 20 In closing, I hope that tile vast 21 Development which would allow demolition of 21 resources necessary to administer and 22 historic sites should be prohibited. 22 enforce the coastal program will be made 231 The CAPRA policies and guidelines 23 available. If properly administered, the 24 must be specifically outlined with respect 24 program should provide an equitable 25 to energy siting in the coastalzone. With 25 management program for the New Jersey 378 69 70 I Coastal Zone. I The current policy states that oil 2 Thank you. 2 pipelines are prohibited in the Central 3 MR. GARDNER: Thank you very 3 Pine Barrens BRegion and that gas pipelines 4 much, Mr. Havrisko. 4 in the related facilities are discouraged 5 MR. KINSEY: Thank you. Perhaps 5 from that Central Pine Barren Region. 6 I might clarify my understanding of state 6 This, in part, is a recognition 7 policy on oil and gas pipelines in the 7 that there are significant technical 8 FPine Barrens. 8differences between oil and gas and their 9 The first key statement is the effects on the 9 environment. In reference in the DEP's Coastal Management I1 So that there is a stringent II Program and I believe the reference in standard imposed by the proposed rule on 12 the Department of Energy's Master Plan Is 12 the location of gas pipelines, really, a 13 to the Central Pine Barren Region, a very 13 twofold standard. 14 specific, I believe, 760 square mile area, 14 First, the gas pipeline must meet 15 defined now under state regulations as 15 the nondegradation of water quality standards 16 a critical area for sewage purposes, as 16 and, second, there must be a stand that we 17 well as an area for which there is a 17 know no significant adverse long-term 18 special nondegradation service and ground Is8 implemental impacts associated with the 19 water service. 19 gas pipeline. 20) The Coastal Management Program 20 It in also important to boar in 21 for the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment does 21 mind there are today various gas pipelines 22 recommend a change from the Coastal 22 of various diameters, 12, l1 inches, 2:3 Management Strategy in the policy on oil 23 crisscrossing various parts of the state, 21 and gas pipelines with regard to the 24l including parts of the ntate that have 25 Pine Barrens. 25 pine barrens vegetation, hut outside of the m m - - - - - m - - v - 71 I Central Pine Barrens Region. I MR. KINSEY: Well, clearly, the 2 I think it is also important 2 program before us today is based on existing 3 that the various state agencies and 3 state laws, the four key laws, the Depart- 4 county planning agencies and environmental 4 ment of Energy Act, the CAFRA Statute, the 5 groups and industry continue to work 5 Wetlands Aft, the Riparian Statutes and 6 together, so we can learn more about the 6 decisionmaking. 7 on-shore and off-shore, both oil and gas 7 There is a draft understanding 8 pipelines, so that we can do the 8 of the two agencies that is intentionally 9 cooperative transportation planning that is 9 left in a draft stage for public comment IV necessary to bring on-shore and off-shore I! at this time, but it is no accident that If hydrocarbons in the most efficient and II the policies and procedures in the Coastal 12 safest way for our environment. 12 Management Program for the Bay and Ocean 13 MR. IIAVRISKO: I think I know 13 Shore Segment and the Department of Energy 14 the section you are speaking of and I , 14 Master Plan and its various elements are 15 understand those and how you address the 15 identical or compatible, because the two 16 problem. : 16 agencies are working together and plan to 17 My concern was with specifically 17 do so in the future. 18 the new legislation which will give the 18 MR. OARDNER: Thank you. 19 Department of Energy the right to override 19 Our next speaker is Frances 20 your decisions, which I feel at this 20 Belneeke, representing Natural Resources 21 point are the right decisions, but our 21 Defense Council from Washington, D. C. 22 concern is how your department -- how are 22 MS. BEINECKE: My name is Frances 2:1 they going to react if an override does 2:3 Beinecke and I'm with the Natural Resources 24 take place by the Department of Energy, 24 Defense Council. 25 which most likely will come in some time. 25 The Atlantic City Coast Project 380 ill 73 I of the Natural Resources Defense Council I The offshore oll and gas leasing program 2 has reviewed the Bay and Ocean Shore2 is an example of one major federal program 3 Beghast reiee the BandOean Shorseyosa 3 Segment of the New Jersey Coastal 3 which could have a determining effect on 4 Management Program and would like to 4 the extent of development and its location 5 { ' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5 In New Jerseyes coastal zone. ~5 comment on those key areas of particular 5 in New Jerseys coastal zone. 6 interest to NRDC. 6 It is this kind or activity which ~~~7 ~ NRDC is a national public 7 the federal coastal zone management 8 interest organization which specializes program was designed to address through a In natural resources and environmental 9 statewide planning and management program. in natural resources and environmental In problems. We have more than 2,000 or 10 The second largest contribution II 3,000 members in the State of New Jersey. * to New Jersey's economy is tourism and 12 In 1976, NRDC established an Atlantic .12 recreation, and the long term survival of 13 Coast Project to focus on protection of 13 that economy is dependent on the continued productive and ragile1 coastal resources. 4 health and vitality of the coastal resource. 14 productive and fragile coastal resources. 15 New Jersey became an early focus 15By participating in the federal coastay zoneimanagementnprogrameNew 16 of the Project with the scheduling of the oastal zone management program, New 17 first Atlantic offshore lease sale, number 17 Jersey has been provided with financial Is 40I, off is coastline. NRDC was a is assistance and certain guidelines with 19 plaintiff in the lawsuit over the 19 which to design a program geared to its 20 inadequacy of the environmental impact 20 unique problems. In return, it must 21 statement for Sale 40. 21 produce a program which meets the 22 ~requirements of' the federal ,Coastal 22 The Project's involvement with 22 requirements Of the federalCoa2tal 23 New Jersey's coastal program was a direct 2:1 Zone Management Act. 24 result of that litigation in which onshore 2 Over the past two years, tRODC 25 impacts of Oc8 activities were a major issue. 25 has worked with statewide environmontal -r has worked with statewid- environmental - ~m - m m - - - - - 75 I organizations and the Department of I these programs: the Coastal Location 2 Environmental Protection in an effort to 2 Acceptability Method. 3 have our concerns for New Jersey's coastal 3 We commend the Department for 4 resources considered throughout the planning 4 designing a methodology that so thoroughly 5 process. 5 considers the interrelationship of a 6 Today, we would like to comment 6 natural ecosystem in its permit review 7 briefly on those parts of the coastal 7 process. One of its most commendable 8 program which have improved significantly 8 features is its predictability for project 9 over the past six months, as well as 9 applicants, as well as for the interested to those which continue to need improvement 1O public. to qualify for federal approval under 1I Although there are certain 12 the Coastal Zone Management Act. 12 modifications in the specific policies 13 New Jersey has been involved in 13 that we would like to see, we can support i,4 the coastal planning process since the 14 the thorough approach which the DEP has state legislature passed the Wetlands Act 15 developed. 16 in 1970 and the Coastal Area Facilities 16 The second area where we see l? Review Act in 1973. Over the past three 17 substantial improvement from the initial {8 years, the Department of Environmental 18 coastal Strategy is in the energy policies. 19 Protection has designed a coastal program 19 We feel that this document represents a 20 that is based on those two statutes, as 20 significant effort to tighten up these 21 well as the state's older riparian 21 policies and make some clear distinctions 22 statutes. 22 between what is to be permitted within the 23 During this planning phase, the 23 boundaries of the Bay and Ocean Shore 24 DEPE has developed a very innovative review 24 Segment and what is not. 25 process for evaluating applications under 25 Although there are policy changes 382 1~~77 ~~~~~~~~~7 ~I we would like to see, we commend the DEP Icoastal program must be enforceable and coastal program must be enrorceable and 2 for the substantial improvements in this 2 legally binding, ew Jersey must obtain legally binding, New Jersey munt obtain 3 document. We believe the policies clearly 3 an Attorney eneral opnon on th bindng an Attorney Oeneral's opinion on the binding 4 reflect the intent of the legislature to 4 nature of the memorandum of understanding 5 protect the natural resources within the 5 between the Department of Environmental 6 coastal boundary. 6 ~~~~~~6 coa~stal boundary.,~ ~ 6Protection and the Department of Energy. 7 Recognizing that coastal 7 4. The program does not 8 management 1is a constantly evolving process, 8protect fragile ecosystems, adequately protest fragile ocosystemg, 9 and that the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment 9 partularly dunes and barrer slands, particularly dunes and barrier islands, IO is still in draft form, we would like to 10 from cumulative impacts of a number of 11 indicate those areas where we think small scale projects. 12 improvement is required before federal 12 5. The program not deqate c 5, ~~~~~~The program to not adequate 13 approval can be given to this plan. The 13 to meet the requrement or geogrpc J ~~~~to meet the requirement for geographic 14 general points we would like to address 14 areas o partular oncern. areas of particular concern. 15 are: 15 6. The program does not adequately ~~16 ~1. The program must meet the . ldefine a procedure for designation of arenas 17 requirements for segmented approval by 17 for preservation and restoration. Is showing significant progress towards a As New Jersey has chonen to 19 completed statewide program. 19 IY9 completed statewilde program. 19 submit a segmented program to the Office 20 2. An enforceability Is a 20 of Coastal Zone Management, it must 21 major requirement for an approvable 21 comply with the federal requirements for program, Charter 3 of the document must ' 22 program, Chapter 3 o the document mt 22 segmentation. These include an indication 23 be adopted as a rule before New Jersey 23 that the remainder of the program w1ilt be 24 can qualify for federal approval. 24 completed in a timely manner and that the 25 3. An all policies of the 25 boundary and national Interest component 80 79 I of the entire coastal program be included I Shore Segment. At a minimum, this should 2 in the first segment. In this document, 2 include actions undertaken pursuant to the 3 New Jersey has not demonstrated the timeliness 3 state water statutes which were passed 4 of boundary provisions satisfactorily. 4 last year. Other DEP actions should be 5 ,5 5One of the basic federal r evaluated for possible inclusion under 6 requirements for an approval program is 6 this regulation. 7 enforceability of a program's policies. 7 An additional requirement of 8 At this time, New Jersey's program is not 8 enforceability is a demonstration that a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~99 9) enforceable because the policies are not memorandum of understanding is legally I0 yet adopted as regulations governing the 10 binding. The Draft MOU between the II riparian, wetland and CAFRA review process. {! Department of Environmental Protection and 12 Although the document states that 12 the Department of Energy does not adequately 13 Chapter 3 will be adopted as a regulation 13 demonstrate enforceability. The DEP must 11 under the Administrative Procedures4At 14 obtain an Attorney General's opinion which 15 we would like to point out that this is 15 indicates that both the Department of 16 essential before the program can be 16 Energy and the Energy Facility Review 17 considered for approval. We understand 17 Board are bound by the energy policies and 18 that this can be done by the Commissioner 18 can be challenged if these policies are 19 as soon as the program is finalized and 19 not followed. 20 urge that it be done as expeditiously as 20 The second concern to NIDC is 21 possible. 21 whether this program is adequate to protect 22 Furthermore, we urge that the 22 critical natural resources within the 23 policies included in Chapter 3 be applied 23 coastal boundary. These resources are 24 to any DEP decisions which would affect 24 now protected only from major projects 25 coastal resources within the Bay and Ocean 25 which require a CAFRA permit, but not from 384 ~~~83L~~~~~~~~ ~82 ~1 small scale but cumulatively destructive I This component of New Jersey's coastal 2 residential and commercial development. 2 program is seriously inadequate. ~~~~3 We recommend that the DEP 3 A year ago, the DEP recognized ~4 evaluate mechanisms to enable cumulative 4 public concern for coastal resources by ~5 impact review of many small projects in requesting public nomination for geographic 6 critical resource areas, especially 6 areas of particular concern. The DEP ~7 barrier islands and dunes. received nearly 200 nominations. However, 8 These resources have been most only three areas are proposed for thin ~9 critically ignored throughout the evolution 9 status in the document and two of those, 10 of this program. They serve essential 10 wetlands and wet sand beanches. are If natural functions of flood protection, II already protected by state statutes. 12 buffers to productive wetlands, recreation, 12 OAPC status is an essential 13 13 13t and wildlife habitat. In addition, they 13 component of a coastal program because 14 are fragile and vulnerable to human 14 it is a protective, rather than reactive, 15 impacts from small scale development. 15 device. Once an area is designated as a 16 The program ignores both their 16 OAPC, a special management program must be 17 contribution to natural ecosystems, as well 17 designated which is geared towards the I8 as their fragility anid flood potential. I8 reasons for which an area was nominated. 19 New Jersey must include in its program a 19 NRDC is concerned that New 20 mechanism for protecting these valuable 20 Jersey has adopted an approach based on 21 resources. 21 two basic errors. The first was to seek 22 The Coastal Zone Management Act 22 and then ignore public comment;' the second, 23: provides a mechanism for attention to 23 to avoid using OAPC's as a mechanism to 24 special areas by designating them 24 protect critical resources. 25 geographic areas of particular concern. 25 Another requirement of the - - - - - - - --- - -M 83 84 I federal program is a procedure for Thank you. 2 designating and managing Areas of Preserva- 2 MR. GARDNER: Thank you, Miss ~3 tion and Restoration. The program gives 3 Beinecke. ~4 one page of this process with little 4 MR. KINSEY: Thank you. Let ~5 explanation, except to say it will be 5 me perhaps address briefly two points. 6 part of the Green Acres Program. There 6 With regard to the rules, the 7 ais no discussion of how the process 1 is formal notice of consideration or adoption 8 intended to work, who will be in charge 8 of the rules appeared in the New Jersey ~9 of it, or how we are to be assured that 9 Register, I believe, on May 41th, 1978 and 10 the program staff will be tied into and 10 in' the Commissioner's formal notice, l ~ act consistently with the program's 1 he indicated that after the close of those 12 policies. 12 hearings and the comment period, he could, 13 In oon0lusion, although there 13 under New Jersey Administrative Procedures 14 are a number of key areas where New 14 Act, then adopt the rules on his own 15 Jersey's coastal program requires 15 motion. 16 additions or modifications, which we 16 And it's the department's intent 17 will comment on in detailed written 17 to review the comments and prepare tile Is comments, this document shows substantial 18 appropriate revisions and have the rules 19 improvement over previous drafts and we 19 adopted in place prior to program approval 20 commend the DEP for its effort in these 20 under Section 306 of the Federal Coastal 21 areas, particularly the energy policies. 21 Zone Management Act. 22 We hope that the next draft will 22 In terms of the geographic areas 23: incorporate even more modifications and 2:1 of particular concern, this has been an 24 will address the concerns we have raised 24 area of, let's say, continuing discussion 25 today. 25 between your group and our office and I 386 858 1 know we wtill continue that discuss.ion. point is that there are certain areas, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~22 2 Many of the suggestions of areas particularly barrier islands and dunes, 3 or types of areas that were singled out by where you could use that status, in fact. 4 individuals and from New Jersey and other 4 I have a letter from you which 5 states and other organizations have been says that barrier islands were going to be 6 incorporated in various parts of the 6 GAPC's and they are not in this document 7 Coastal Management Program; particularly, 7 represented that way. And all I'm saying 8 ~in the classification of land and water is it's a mechanism that you can use to 9 types in the Coastal Location Acceptability 9 develop these special management program to to Methods.{ for critical resource areas which are 19 M~ethods. 11 In addition, two specific areas It only, in this document, protected from ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~12 1 12 are singled out for the designation of 12 maJor activities or activities which would 13 UAPC in fulfillment of the particular 13 come under wetlands or riparian permits 14 requirements of the federal Coastal Zone 14 and that leaves a big gap. And this is 15 Management Act, but I am not aware of any 15 a mechanism to take care of that gap that 16 particular prospective status that is 16 you haven't fully utilized. 17 association directly with that designation 17 MR. KINSEY: Okay. As always, 18 under the federal Coastal Zone Management Is this document is the latest document, the 19 Act. But my interpretation 1is a rather 19 latest millstone and I am quite confident 20 strong guideline or directive to the 20 there will continue to be documents for, 21 states to look at the geography of coastal 21 first, the other parts of the state's 22 areas and identify special areas and 22 coastal zone, but also increasing the 23 devise appropriate management mechanisms 23 specific policies and statements of views 24 for certain areas. 24 of people who are concerned, one of which 25 MS. BEINECKE: That's right. My 25 is clearly barrier islands. I MS. BEINECKE1 I would certainly I The first place to start in 2 like to see something more stronger on the 2 considering energy policy questions is to 3 protection of barrier islands, instead of 3 consider what are going to be tile energy 4 the one that presently exists. 4 requirements of the near-term and long-term 5 MR. KINSEY: One possible vehicle 5 future. 6 will be the state's work on the Shore 6 I would submit and the U. S. 7 Protection Master Plan to carry out the 7 Labor Party submits that the standard of 8 bond issue passed last year by the voters. 8 living presently enjoyed by skilled working 9 MS. BEINECKE: Okay. We will 9 families in the United States is a standard 10 see. 10 of living indispensable to a population If MR. OARDHER: Thank you. II prepared with the skills and intelligence 12 Our next speaker, and this is 12 to solve very difficult problems that the 13 the last speaker who has indicated interest 13 human race is going to face both in the 14 in making a presentation, is Robert Bowen, 14 near-term and long-term future. 15 representing the United States Labor Party 15 We would submit and I would 16 in Trenton. 16 submit that in order to maintain and 17 Mr. Bowen. 17 extend that standard of living to the world's 18 MR. BOWEN: Oood morning. The 18 population, enery production and energy 19 first thing I would like to say ois that my 19 consumption rates will increase on thr 20 comments will be directed to Section 7.4, 20 order of 15 to 20 per cent per year. 21 "Energy Use Policies." 21 I further submit that if various 22 I find the statement contradictory, 22 attempts by people in the Carter Adminaistra- 23 reflecting a very narrow prospective and 23 tion are successful for implementing an 2,1 also reflecting some basic ignorance of 24 aggressive export policy in the United 25 fundamental matters with respect to energy. 25 States as the basis for reversing the trade 388 89 90 ~I deficit, for a stabilizing international I surface, the energy flux density in 2 relationship, that the demands for energy 2 approximately 200 watts per square meter. 3 within the United States will exceed and 3 For solar energy in the form of blo-mass 4 will grow at the rate of 15 to 20 per cent 4 conversion, either through wood burning 5 per year. 5 and so forth, that figure is considerably 6 From that point, we think that 6 less. 7 the development of nuclear technologies, 7 For fossil fuels, a dissimilar 8 nuclear fission and nuclear fission 8 characteristic is roughly 10,000 kilowatts 9 technologies are absolutely indispensable 9 per square meter and for fission nuclear 10 to meet that growing demand for energy I0 technology, energy flux density is 11 consumption. approximately 20,000 kilowatts per square 12 There has been a lot of debate 12 meter and for fission technology, the 13 nationally and internationally on the 13 energy flux density will exceed 70,000 14 question of nuclear technologies and 14 kilowatts per square meter. 15 various proposals as alternatives to that, 15 Starting with that is the basic 16 lumped together under so-called sort 16 characteristic and you can go back to a 17 technologies and, specifically, solar 17 lot of documentation both from advocates 18 technology. 18 of solar energy and from advocates of 19 There l8 a primary characteristic 19 nuclear energy and develop the statistics 20 of any energy technology which ultimately 20 on your own. But what we have put together 21 determines both its economic impact and 21 is a comparison of those two from the ~22 its environmental impact, and that primary s2 tandpoint of cost, the availability of ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~22 2 23 charaeteristlc is energy density or energy 23 energy and the creation of Jobs. 24 flux density. 24 Firstly, from the standpoint of 25 For solar energy at the earth's 25 cost, solar energy is 8 timed an expensive m - - - - ~~~~~~~~~--- m -- --- - -mml M 91 I new Jobs. as fossil fuels, 20 times as expensive as 2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 The second broad area of impact fission and 80 times as expensive as 3 electrical power produced using fission 3 in energy technology is the environmental electrical power produced using fission 4 power. And I would Include under solar, 4 impact. The energy flux density of whatever poe.And I would include under Bolar, 5 5 technology is being used is to measure the so-called solar synthetic or hie-mass 6 6 efficiency of that technology to transform conversion technologies to produce liquid 7 7 energy in one form -- in the case of fuels, like methane gas, various things 8 8 nuclear energy, it's energy in the form of like that. 9 The second area of energy fission reaction -- into unable energy. availability In that for a five billion 10 for human consumption, mainly, electrical dollar ivsmnicovrnhmeII power, that in turn being converted into dollar investment in converting homes 12 presently using natural gas for heating 12 b eat, various things like that. 13 13 The very low energy flux density purposes, which is the proposal on the 14 table In California, that five billion 14 of solar technologies and other so-called 15 dollar investment would yield a negative 15 soft technologies from every standpoint In 16 energy growth rate of 6 per cent and 16 terms of the allocation of resources and 17 would create the loss of employment of so forth necessary to produce solar Is 4 1.2 million people. 18 collectors in sufficiently large quantities 19 A similar five billion dollar 19 to provide even a small percentage of the 210 Investment split between expanding 20 total electrical consumption requirements 21 productions of natural gas and expanding 21 for maintaining the present economy or 22 nuclear energy generating capabilities 22 the United States to totally absurd, 23 would yield an 18 per cent annual growth 23 especially from the standpoint of the goals 24 rate in energy produced and the net effect 24 that are stated In the document here today; 25 in terms of employment would be 7.2 million 25 namely. to Insure the protection of both 390 93 91' I the built and natural environment of the I with a vastly increased energy supply for 2 coast and of public health, safety and 2 both our own purposes and would also provide 3 welfare to the maximum extent feasible. 3 New Jersey with the capability or exporting, 4 Solar collectors have several 4 in fact, energy to other parts of the 5 hundred square miles, which would be the 5 country. 6 size of a collector that would be required 6 We see New Jersey as integral -- 7 to produce sufficient eleotrical generating 7 as an energy state. They are given a 8 capacity to fuel, say, New York City or, 8 relatively high percentage of labor force, 9 nsimilarly, for the State of New Jersey 9 the high percentage of research facilities 10 and would, in fact, ir sited in coastland I0 in the state, the major fission research 11 areas, as is encouraged in the present II at the University of Princeton, and so on, 12 document, wipe out those coastland areas. 12 that New Jersey is ideally situated in the 11 On the other hand, a similar 13 most highly ooncentrated industrial 14 commitment to hard technology energy 14 production center in the nation to be the S15 development, specifically to expanding 15 energy think tank and enery supplier for 16 nuclear power generating capabilities and, 16 that entire area. There in a third area 17 further, specifically to the offshore 17 which to not -- well, it's addressed, but 18 nuclear power plants proposed by PSE&0, 18 only coincidental in the report, and that 19 would not only not endanger the coastland 19 is the question of legality. 20 from an environmental standpoint, but, in 20 There is a recent Supreme Court 21 fact, would preserve a significant portlon 21 ruling in the case of a nuclear power 22 of that coastland by removing the necessity 22 plant built in Michigan which said that 23 or even possibility of solar energy 23 the federal courts and the lower courts 24 collectors being built in those areas and 24 did not have legislative authority above 25 would, at the same time, provide the state 25 that of the U. S. Congress. II would submit that Section 7.4.13, Conservation Alternative Technologies -- 2 paragraphs B and D are an.attempt, although 2 I won't bother to read the paragraph. It's 3 not by adjudication authority, but an pretty straightforward that the use of 4 attempt to usurp the authority Or the recoverable energy resources and so-called 5 U.S. Congress, an authority mandated to renewable energy resources, such as solar 5 ~~renewable energy resources, such as solar 6 the states for the regulation of nuclear 6 bio-mass conversion and so forth, are 7 power production and so on. I would further encouraged is simply directly In 8 submit that -- well, going back to my 8 contradiction to the established policy 9 original written statement, that the 9 commitment in the first section or this 10 rationale for that same section, 7.4.13; energy-related statement and just simply II it namely, the possibility of nuclear I contradicts the scientific evidence that 12 technology developments which would 12 is available rom any competent source. 12 ~is available from any competent source. 1:! provide greater numbers of Jobs and enable 13 Thank you. i 13 ~~~~~Thank you. 14 the production of energy at more of a 14 MR. GARDNER: Thank you very much, 15 community regional scale, has also raised Mr. Bowen. 15 Mr. Bowen. 16 further questions about the wisdom of 16 MR. KISEY: Thank you, Mr. 16 M~~~~R. KINSEY: Thank you, Mr. 17 nuclear energy. Bowen. 18 Both of those sentences are MR. GARDNER: That concludes the 19 just clearly out of line with the 19 list of people who have indicated interest 20} established scientific facts about nuclear 20 in making presentations at this hearing. 21 power and established scientific facts 21 I would like to give the members of the 22 ~~about the "alternative" ehao~ 22 about the "alternative" technology, 22 audience an opportunity to be heard if 23 specifically, solar and other so-called 21 they did not sign that list. 24 sort technologies. 24 I now open it up to anyone who ~~~25 ~ And then in Section 7.11.15, 25 may wish to make an additional statement. 392 ~~~~~~~~97 ~~~~g90 1 ~ If not, that appears to bring us to the Let me thank you agnin and I 2 conclusion of thin hearing. 2 look forward to seeing you at further 3 I would like to express the 3 meetings. ~4 thanks of the federal Office of Coastal (Whereupon the hearing was 5 Zone Management to you individually for 5 adjourned at 12215 p.m.) 6 coming and presenting a diverse array of 6 7 new points on the segment for the New 7 8 Jersey Coastal Management Program and 8 WUUIWUUVOWUU 9 express my own personal thanks to the 9 In State of New Jersey, collectively, for to II its hospitality in the last three days of 11 12 hearing and, particularly, David Kinney 12 13 and the Department of Environmental 13 14 Protection for the assistance they have 14 15 provided us in conducting these hearings. 15 16 MR. KINSEY: Thank you, Mr. 16 17 aardner. Let me close with one final 17 18 announcement. On the sign-up table, as 18 19 you entered the auditorium, there is a 19 20 questionnaire seeking your feedback on 20 21 this hearing and what you thought of it. 21 22 So I kindly invite you to fill out that 22 23 questionnaire and simply leave it on the 23 24 table out in front. If you didn't 24 25 pick up one, pick up one on your way out. 25 low - - m - - - - - - .., 99 2 3 C E RT IF I C ATE 4 5 I, ANNA MARIE SANFORD, a Certified 6 Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public of the 7 State of New Jersey, do hereby certify that 8 the foregoing is a true and accurate 9 transcript of my original stenographic notes 10 taken at the time and place hereinbefore set II forth. 12 13 14 .(1 ,, ANNA MARIE SANFORD/'CSR. 15 DATE: '. ) 17 , 18 20 21 22 2:3 24 25 394 INDEX SPEAKER PAGE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 3 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MICNAEL L. REDPATH, Marine Trades Association PROTECTION 4 of New Jersey. 15 OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT 5 ALVIN R. WAGNER, Secretary-Treasurer of Sunrise Beach, Inc. 25 PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OFt 6 NEW JERSEY COASTAL MANAGEMENT WINIFRED D. MEYER, American Association of PROGRAM - BAY AND OCEAN SHORE 1 7 University Women. 20 SEGMENT - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. 8 JOSEPH M. IIEENEY, President, Lacey Township ____________-------------_____--------Chamber of Commerce. 36 9 EDWARD FERRY, Environmental Planner, United States 10 Fish & Wildlife service. 40 Wednesday-June 14, 1978 7s30 P.M1 11 DAVID MORRIS, JR., Monmouth County Planning Board. 47 Ocean County Administration Building 12 ROBERT W. HUGULEY, Principal Environmental Freeholders Meeting Room Planner, Monmouth County Planning Board. 47 Hooper Avenue & Washington Street 13 Tome River, New Jersey DERRY W. BENNETT, Executive Director, 14 American Littoral Society. 50 n E F O R El 15 JOSEPH TODINO, Chairman, New Jersey Builders MR. RICHARD GARDNER, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM Association, CAFRA Committte. 59 DEVELOPMENT and RESEARCH, Federal Office 16 of Coastal Zone Managemento Of Coastal Zone Management. MICHAEL J. GROSS, New Jersey nui.lders 17 Association. 70 MR. DAVID KINSEY, CHIEF OF THE NEW JERSEY 18 ALAN AVERY, JR., Ocean County Planning Board OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT. Staff. 76 19 KATHARINE DUFFY KIEVITT, South ScIanide r3rl:, 20 New Jersey. 06 BYt CINDY CALtU, C.S.R. 21 MRS. LEO B. BICIIER, JR., Normandy peach, New Jersey. 89 22 STEVEN GABRIEL, Ocean City, tle'w Jcr'ry. 92 23 ALrCIA GrCEGG, Ocean City Publ1'l rclatlons SILVER & RENZI REPORTING SERVICE 24 Department. 95 CER77FIED SHORTHAND REVORITERS 824 WEST STATE STREET 25 TRENTON. NEW JERSEY 08618 -Og9 -S-- --19- m - - -I m - - - -I ' 3 MR. GARDNERt Good evening, ladies and I (At this time, the slide presentation 2 gentlemen. I would like to welcome you to this 2 prepared by the New Jersey Department of 3 joint Federal and State public bearing which Environmental Protection was presented.) has been called for the dual purpose of MR. GARDNERt I would like to thank 5 receiving public testimony on the draft envir- the New Jersey Department of Environmental 66 onmental impact statement and the proposed Protection for providing that introduction to 7 adoption of Chapter 3, Coastal Resource and the New Jersey program. 8 Development Policies, as an administrative rule 8 The Federal portion of this hearing for the State of New Jersey's Coastal Manage- is being held as a part of the provisions of ment Program for the bay and ocean shore 10 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 11 segment. as Indicated in the slide presentation, which 12 My name is Richard Gardner and I 12 calls for the preparation of draft and final 13 represent the office of Coastal Zone Management, 13 environmental impact statements concerning pro- 14 an arm of the National oceanic and Atmospheric 14 posed major Federal actions which may signifi- 15 Administration of the United States Department 15 cantly affect the human environment. As part 16 of Commerce. On my right is David Kinsey, 16 of the process of considering environmental 17 Chief of the Office of Coastal Zone Management 17 effects, one or more public hearings may be Is for the New Jersey Department of Environmental i s called in order to receive public testimony. 19 Protection. 19 This is one of three such public hearings on 20 As a prelude to the more formal part 20 the draft environmental impact statement for 21 of this hearing, and in addition to the intro- 21 the New Jersey Coastal Management Program for 22 duction of the objectives and content of the 22 the bay and ocean shore segment. The major 23 2 New Jersey program, we will first have a brief Federal action being considered here is 24 slide presentation prepared by the New Jersey 24 Federal approval of the Coastal Management 25 Department of Environmental Protection. 25 Program for the bay and ocean shore segment 396 ! 6 I for the State of New Jersey by the Assistant I Federal approval of a program for a segment of 2 Administrator for coastal Zone Management n 2 the State's coastal area, which it proidon no 3 behalf of the United States Secretary of 3 that programs for all segments can be coordinated 4 Commerce under the terms of Section 306 of the 4 and integrated into a single Unifier program 5 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. 5 as noon as in reasonably practicable. 6 Federal approval of the New Jersey 6 The Federal Office of Coastal Zone 7 program would allow substantial Federal program 7 Management has prepared the draft environmental 8 administration grants to be awarded to the 8 impact statement which I think a number of you State, and, in addition, would require that 9 have seen and which contains New Jerey'n Federal actions be consistent with the terms In Coastal Management Program for thin nogment. II of the State 'a program.11 The document contains a description of the 12 As pointed out in the slide presenta- 12 State's program, an analysis of the probable 13 tion, the program being presented here for 13 impacts of the New Jersey program, a listing 14 Federal approval covers only a portion of the 14 of the alternatives to the proposed action, an 15 State's shoreline along the Delaware Bay, roughly. 15 identification of unavoidable environmental 16 south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, along 16 effects, a discussion of the long-range versus 17 the Atlantic shore from Cape May to Sandy Hook, 17 short-term effects, and a listing of the 18 and along the south shore of the Raritan Bay. 18 irreversible or irretrievable commitment of 19 While this segment includes approximately 80 19 resources from program approval. In addition, 20 percent of the State's20 coastal area it includes a number of appendices containing 21 not include areas along the Delaware and Hudson 21 detailed information and legal documents 22 Rivers and their associated waterways which 22 referred to in the program. 23 must be included in a complete State coastal 23 Before thin draft environmental 24 management program. Section 306th) of the 24 impact statement was ,nnued, the Federal 25 Coastal Zone flanagenment Act specifically permits 25 Office of Coastal Zone Management mad" a m - - ~~~-- - - - - - - - - - I preliminary determination that this segment I receiving public comments on this document 2 of the New Jersey program could be approved. 2 closes on June 19, 1978, next month. All 3 A period of public review of the document began 3 comments received at this hearing and all 4 on May 5, 1978, when a notice of public 4 written comments received by June 19 will be availability was published in the Federal considered fully in the final determination on 6 Register. The document was distributed to 6 Federal approval of the Now Jerney Coastal 7 Federal, State, County, and Municipal Governments, 7 Management Program for the bay and ocean shore and to national special Interest groups during 8 segment. Written comments can be sent to the month of May. In addition, copies were sent 9 Kathryn Cousins, Office of Coastal Zone Manage- 10 to all New Jersey depository libraries in this 10 ment, 3300 Whitohaven Street, N.W., Washing- 11 segment of New Jersey. We have additional If ton, D.C. 20235. I will have that address 1 copies still available herb if you care to pick 12 available for anyone who wants it after the 13 them up, and other copies can be obtained from 13 hearing. 1H * the Office of Coastal Zone Management in Wash- 14 Now, a word about the role of the 15 ington or from the New Jersey Department of 15 Federal Government and the State Government 16 Environmental Protection in Trenton. Newspaper 16 in Coastal Management is probably appropriate., 17 advertisements announcing the availability of 17 The basic purpose of the Coastal Zone Management 18 the document and the date and location of these 18 Act is to encourage and assist coastal states 19 public hearings were placed in the Atlantic 19 to develop and carry out coherent programs for 20 City Press, the Trenton Times, the Trentoniann 20 the protection and wise management of the land 21 the Newark Star Ledger, the Vineland Times 21 and waters of the state's coastal areas. States 22 Journal, and the Tome River Daily otserver 22 often acting in concert with local units of 23 during the last week in May. A notice of this 23 government are the primary focus of this effort. 24 public hearing was also printed in the Federal 24 Not only is it the states prmgative to 25 Register on May 16, 1978. The period for 25 participate in the program or not, as it wishes, 398 I since this is a voluntary program, but state I to the use of vital coastal resources and that 2 coastal management programs are built upon 2 these policies apply to local, state, private, 3 legal authorities contained in state legisla- 3and Federal actions. 4 tion. Implementation of these programs, likewise, 4 before we go any further tonight, I 5 is the responsibility of state and, often, 5 would like to introduce two staff members from 6 6 local governments. the Federal Office of Coastal zone Ilanagement The Federal Government offers two who are here to assist you in any way that they principle incentives for states to participate can. First, we have Richard O'Connor, the in coastal management. First, it makes funds Deputy Regional Manager for the North Atlantic 10 available to develop programs which meet certain 10 Region who has worked directly with the State 11 minimum criteria established in Federal law, II in the development of its program, and, June 12 and, upon Federal approval, to carry them out. 12 Kratid, the Environmental Analyst from our Second, it requires that the actions of Feddral 13 office who assisted in the preparation and draft 14 agencies be consistent with the terms of a 14 of the environmental impact statement. 15 coastal state's approved program. Federal 15 In order to explain and discuss the 16 approval is awarded on the basis of completion 16 State of New Jersey's portion of this hearing, 17 of a number of criteria contained in the 17 at this time, I would like to turn the hearing is Coastal Zone Management Act which primarily 18 over to David Kinsey who holds the principle address the process by which the State's program 19 responsibility for the development and adminis- 20 was developed, but which also address national 20 tration of the New Jersey Coastal rlanagement 21 21 interest concerns and assurances that sufficient Program. 22 state and legal authority exists to carry out 22 MR. KINSEYS Thank you. I would like 23 the program. Briefly stated, it is the intent 23 to thank the freeholders of ocean County for 24 of the Coastal Zone Management Act that a 24 their hospitality this evening. I would also 25 unified set of enforceable policies be applied 25 like to thank the Ocean County 'lanning Board m m m - m m - m - -mm mm m _ _ _ -- I for publicizing tonight's hearing. I testimony. In addition, cories of written 2 I would like to welcome all of you to 2 testimony that may be available will be helpful. 3 this meeting. This is the latest in a series 3 They will be included in the record. 4 of various types of meetings that the Department 4 We have also had less formal sessions 5 of Environmental Protection has held in the i5 n the past and meetings and workshops, and we 6 past three years in the course of the coastal 6 will continue to have such sessions in the 7 planning process. I would like to stress that 7 future as the coastal management process con- 8 Chapter 3 of this document has been proposed 8 tinues. Some specific workshops are scheduled 9 as an administrative rule of the State of New 9 in the next two or three weeks to meet with 10 Jersey by the Commissioner of the Department 10 individual groups such as the builders and 11 of Environmental Protection. The formal notice the mining industry. My staff is available 12 was published in the New Jersey Register in May, 12 for setting up all those meetings that are 13 1978, with a comment period that closes on July 13 necessary to continue this process, 14 5th. Any comments on the rule should be 14 Tonight, I will attempt to give some 15 addressed to Chapter 3. However, the New Jersey 15 responses to some of the comments that may be 16 Department of Environmental Protection seeks 16 offered, but a more thorough response will be 17 comments on the entire document, just as the 17 made in an appendix in the final environmental 18 Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management seeks 18 impact statement. Each comment, will be noted 19 comments on the entire document as part of the 19 and a response will be given. 20 draft environmental impact statement process. 20 I would like to introduce a number 21 Copies of the document are available tonight 21 of the members of the staff of the Department 22 for those of you who do not have copies. 22 of Environmental Protection who are here tonight 23 I would also like to stress that 23 to help, and, perhaps, answer some of your 24 tonight is a formal public hearing. That's one 24 questions after the meeting. First, John 25 reason for a court stenographer taking down the 25 Weingart is the Assistant Chief of the Office 400 13 I of Coastal Zone Management. In the rear, we I presentation of his or her statement. As indi- 2 have Michael HloChman, a Principal Environmental 2 cated, a verbatim transcript of this hearing is 3 Specialist in the Office of Coastal zone being made ts an aid in preparing a summary of Management. We have llelga Baseman, who is in the hearing. If you have a prepared statement, Energy Planning with the office of Coastal Zone I would appreciate a copy of it for our records, 6 Management. We have Andrea Topper, a Senior if possible. As the speakers make their pre- 7 Planner in the office of Coastal Zone Managements sCntstions, I think they should probably move Steven Whitney, Supervisor of the CAFRA Permit to the nerest aisle and then speak clearly so Section in this offices John Sparmo, Senior that they can be heard thorought the room. Marine Inspectors and Mike Pisani, Staff 10 Also, I have been asked to indicate that there 11 Coordinator for the beach shuttle which I believe will be no smoking during this hearing. 12 is scheduled to open next weekend, going from 12 It to important to remember that this 13 13 Tome River to Island Beach State Park. hearing is for the purpose of receiving your 14 With that, let me turn the meeting 14 comments. In general, there will be no rebuttal 15 ov er to Dick. 15 to the comments on behalf of the new Jersey 16 fMR. GARDINERt There are just a couple 16 Coastal Management Program or the Federal 17 of ground rules that we intend to use for this 17 ffice of Costal Zone Managemnt, although 18 hearing. I think everybody has been asked to we may wish to make clarifying statements if 19 sign the attendance cards and indicate if they that seems appropriate. All statements will 20 would like to make a statement. I think I 20 be accepted and duly noted. 21 have just about all of those up here now. 21 Again, I would like to remind you 22 Speakers will be heard on a first come, first 22 that the closing date for comments on the 231 serve basis. Statements should be limited to 23 Federal portion for the draft environmental serve basis. Statements should be limited to 24 10 minutes or lean. The staff here may wish 24 impact statement is June 19, anl, for the 25 to ask questions of any speaker following the 25 State administrative rule, July 5. lI _ _ _ I _ I 140o1 I I _ _ _ _ ~~I ~Are there any questions regarding the recreational boating in New Jersey and its 2 2 procedures that we are going to use tonight? supporting industry. Properly applied, the 3 (At this time, there was no response.) 3 program can also nurture recreational boating 4 MR. GARDNER: If not, I think we will 4 by providing for the most effective use of " 5 5 proceed directly to the receipt of comments coastal land and by pursuing the continuance of 6 then. Our first speaker tonight is Michael an environment compatible with a clean family 7 L. Peodlpath of the Marine Trades Association of 7 recreation such as boating. 8 8 8 Now Jersey from Island neights. Because of the importance of the ~9 ~fMR. REDPATH: The Marine Trades 9 draft environmental impact statement to the O Association of Now Jersey, representing the 10 Coastal Zone, we must object to the short 11 State's recreational boating industry, is 11 period of time available for study and comment. 12 12 12 pleased to be a part of the ongoing coastal 12 A document that has taken so long to prepare 13 planning process. We welcome the opportunity 13 and is of such far-reaching impact deserves a 14 to comment on the draft environmental impact 14 longer period for study and for the preparation 15 statement. We recognize that the Department 15 of incisive comment. For this reason, the 16 of Environmental Protection is making an effort 16 Marine Trades Association's testimony is being 17 to consider coastal user input, as evidenced by 17 prepared in two parts; this general verbal 18 the changes made in the Coastal Management 18 testimony and a written testimony to be sub- 19 Program since the close of the comment period 19 mitted later, which includes a revised version 20 on the Coastal Management Strategy. 20 of our verbal testimony and an in-depth analysis 21 The draft E.I.S. is of utmost impor- 21 of each segment of the State that deals with 22 tance to our industry, as it is to all coastal 22 or affects recreational boating. 23 users, from both a restraining and nurturing 23 Wle in the Association see ourselVes 24 standpoint. The program obviously puts re- 24 as realistic environmentalists favoring 25 straints on the growth and maintenance of 2 environmental protection, but also recognizing 402 17 10 1 the need to balance that protection with economic 1 Coastal Zone Management cannot serve as an indus- 2 reality. It is with that philosophy that we 2 trial development agency, but O.C.Z.M.'n regu- 3 have reviewed the draft environmental impact 3 latory philosophy must be structured so as to 4 statement. On the whole, the draft environmental 4 be more inviting rather than dscotnraqing to 5 impact statement is a well thought out document 5 acceptable growth. 6 that reflects very well on the ability and 6 We are pleased to see that the draft 7 professionalism of the staff that prepared it. 7 environmental impact statement is more positive ur major criticisms lie with the negative 8 than the strategy, but, still, it's not positive 9 approach to management, a lack of working know- enough. It to unfortunately obvious that the 10 ledge of the uses regulated, and inconsistencies 10 program was conceived by ndminintrators who are 11 and lack of clarity in some areas. The program 11 not sufficiently in touch with the situation as 12 is entirely too negative. More attention must it exists in the real world environment. From 13 be given to attracting and encouraging the 13 a textbook standpoint, the program in workable. 14 uses desirable for the Coastal Zone. AO stated 14 From a real world standpoint, there are suffi- 15 in the Marine Trades Association's response to 15ii cent shortcomings to make it unworkable. There 16 the Coastal Management Strategy for New Jersey, 16 are many incorrect definitions that canse the 17 New Jersey has traditionally been oriented 17 program to lose credibility, as well an to mnke 18 toward solving problems through regulations. 18 it unworkable. The Association's written ten- 19 Encouragement must become a more positive 19 timony will elaborate on those shortcomings. 20 approach. The State must actively assist in 20 Further evidence of the lack of real 21 the development and maintenance of those private 21 world knowledge is the failure to tr-it certain 22 facilities that compliment the State'n goals -22 elements of the environment as trannJint change- 23 for the Coastal Zone through improved public 23 able entities. Certain eloments of the environ- 24 access without serious environmentnl degradation. 24 ment such as shellfish hoeds, granr.n, and sands 25 The Annsoiation recoqniees that the Office of 25 are capah]b of change and movement, and the - - - - - - - -19- - - - - - - - - - Y 19 policy must recognize this. It must also be 1 Greater participation by people with recognized that the economic impacts of the 2 direct working knowledge in regulated tses must 3 program are much more probable and much longer- 3 be included in drafting and applying rolicies 4 term than predicted. There are numerous incon- 4 and regulations. This could be accomplished sistencies and a need for clearer definitions. through membership on the Coastal Area Review 6 6 The inconsistencies exist both between indivi- 6 Board or through the use of consultants from dual policies and in basic philosophy. Is the 7 regulated industries in all decisions affecting 8 8 program to be specific, as the intent appears those industries. 9 9 to be, or general, as the specific lack of The program cannot work if it is unable 10 definitions or details would indicate? 10 to recognize the day-to-day problems and real- II In addition to the specific suggestions ities of regulated uses. The Department of 12 to be offered in the written testimony, the 12 Environmental Protection permit procedures Marine Trades Association has several general 13 must be simplified. We agree with the need to 14 positive suggestions for revising the draft 14 protect the environment, but the process 15 environmental impact statement and the proposed 15 employed to do that is actually scaring away 16 Coastal Zone Management Program. One of the 16 perfectly acceptable and perhaps beneficial 17 restraints to desirable development in the 17 projects because of the economic and psycholo- is Coastal Zone is the gamble involved in purchas- gical strain caused by the permit procens. 19 ing property or planning projects not knowing 19 Unless some overwhelming financial gain is 20 whether necessary permits would be attainable. 20 evident, it's just not worth pursuing a D.E.P. 21 Some pro-purchase or pre-planning guidance is21 permit. The kinds of businesses encouiraged by 22 desirable, including, perhaps, a general mapping 22 the Coastal Zone Management Program are essen- 23 of the Coastal Zone showing what uses would 23 tially small,'low economic yield businesses, 241 probably be acceptable in each area, as well 24 but the permit process is geared to betackled as what uses would probably not be acceptable. 25 by large, high yield businesses capable of 404 I employing a battery of lawyers and consultants. 1 of maintenance. It is imperative tht the 2 The CAFRA, wetlands, and riparian 2 Office of coastal Zone Management develop a 3 permits must be consolidated. Once consolidated, 3 beter understanding of the interactions between 4 they must be streamlined without weakening 4 the environment and the economy of the Coastal 5 their effectiveness. In order to gain s fresh 5 Zone. 6 perspective, an outside consultant must be 6 If the statement acut sporting and 7 brought in to guide the connsolidation and 7 prohibiting access to beaches and waterfront 8 streamlining. Working from within the Department 8 areas mean using funds to build facilities areas means using funds to beied facilities 9 can never happen effectively because all pro- and sport programs like the 9nland Beach shuttle, 10 posals would be based on existing procedures. 10 we are adamantly opposed. Coastal 7one Manage- 11 This must be accomplished with outside help. 1ent funds must not be used for 1ro1rcts. The s12 A further smplified and easier to 12 need for research into all aspects of the 13 obtain permit process must be considered for 13 coastal Zone is so great that spending Coastal 14 small, new projects or the maintenance of approval 14 zone funds for projects in unconscionable. The 15 for existing projects. The restraints on these 15 proposed study of recreation and boating in 16 projects which caused the least new disruption 16 New Jersey must be pursued. The naitrre of the 17 to the environment are disproportionately higher 17 sport, the nature of the induntryv the demand, 18 than for larger projects. The project cost 18 the restraints, and the prospects and recommen- 19 ratio is even further out of line than that 19 dationn for the future must he ilrlntified. A 20 with larger projects. The result is either study aimed at increasin2 the corpatilility 21 near total discouragement of these small pro- 21 of boats and their sport fneilities vltth the 22 jects or incentives to do the work without 22 environment should be unrlertalfn. 23 permits. Look at the state of disrepair in 23 The State's dredgin naoeln must be 24 many New Jersey marine facilities. The expensive 24 identified, along with the aqnrncy or body rca- 25 permit process actually encourages that lack 25 ponible for the dreg1i1nq. rrnpro-lvl for - ----- - rn - ------rn--rn -~~~~~~~~~~2 m-- m- - - -- -- - - _I IJ I / I I I I _24_ I accomplishing that dredging must be drafted. like. It would seem that for all the trouble 2 hA indicated in the Marine Trades Associatlon's 2 and expense an applicant must go through, it 3 response to the Coastal Zone Management 3 would only seem right that opponents to the 4 Strategy, a concerted effort must be made to 4 application be required to substantiate their 5 locate and develop spoils areas that are physi- 5 claims. A requirement that opponents be 6 cally and economically accessible to both the 6 required to file an environmental Impact state- 7 public and private sector. Goals for site 7 ment supporting their contentions would assist 8 development based on dredging needs within the permit reviewers and applicants in consid- 9 specific geographic areas must be set. Inves- 9 ering objections. 10 tigation of alternative dredging methods and 10 By incorporating the suggestions 11 dredge disposal and use must also be actively if included in this testimony and in the hAssoc- 12 pursued, whether within State Government or 12 iation's written testimony, we believe a work- 13 research institutes. Without the development 13 able Coastal Zone Management Program can be 14 of the spoils areas, NeW Jersey's dredging 14 created. We look forward to living and working 15 needs will remain unfilled. The State's water- 15 in the Coastal Zone which the program is directed 16 ways will continue to deteriorate. 16 toward creating and maintaining. 17 Unfortunately, some people claiming 17 Thank you. to be environmentalists give little regard to 18 MR. KINSEY1 Let me just address some 19 the serious economic impacts of their actions. 19 of the points you raised. Your suggestion that 20 Well-founded environmental considerations are 20 mapping of the Coastal Zone take place is one 21 an important part of the permit process and 21 that I agree with completely. Various mapping 22 must be encouraged. However, a stop must be 22 efforts have taken place in the past decade. 23 put to the attacks on projects launched by 23 One reason that the State is seeking Federal 24 people using environmental considerations as 24 approval is that with Federal approval will 25 an excuse for opposing projects they just don't 25 come funds. The expected grant is $800,000. 25 26 It ins our hope and our commitment to do envir- I t concernedt isn't there? 2 onmtental mapping at the scale of one inch equals 2 MR. GARDNER It nayn yen. It'" ur 3 2,000 feet. This in one of a number of projects 3 to you. 4 that have had to be deferred for lack of funds. 4 MR. WAGNER: Al right. First of 5 A boating study of commercial and, particularly, 5 all, the reason I didn't expect to make a pre- 6 recreational boating also had to be deferred 6 nentation is because of the short notice. I 7 for the same funding reasons. Permit simpli- 7 didn't have a chance to read thin over 7uffi- 8 fication and consolidation of coastal permits 8 ciently, but all I can say is that I have to 9 in another one of the Department's goals that 9 agree. I'm with a company that is a real 10 we hope to continue to work toward with the !1 estate developer and I am a wetlands owner on II financial assistance that will be available 11 Barnegat Day and Forked River. We have been 12 upon program approval, but, also, with the 12 there since 1955. I can only agree with most 13 clarity of having in-place rules on how the 13 of what Mr. Redpath has said. As a wetlands 14 decisions are going to be made and what will 14 owner, I would like to say that I feel that 15 be the basis for the decisions. That should 15 there is no such thing as all white or all 16 help in the process of decision making. 16 black. Everything it sort of a gray issue. 17 We too, of course, look forward to 17 We consider ourselves to have been careful in 18 continuing workingxith the Marine Trades Asnn- 18 the development of our property. I feel that 19 19 ciation. the way the environmentalists and a lot of 20 MR. (ARDNERt Thank you. The second 20 the D.E.P. consider developers tonanv in a 21 speaker is Alvin R. Wagner, Secretary- 21 little bit unfair. Let's face it, folk.s, if 22 Treasurer of Sunrine oench, Incorporated, For- 22 it weren't for develorern and heone buildern, 23 ked River, New Jersey. 23 a lot of us wouldn't be in Ocean county today. 24 MR. WAONERi I'm sorry, sir, but 24 I think that consideration should be given 25 there is a "no" on that as far as a presentation 25 to those real estate developments which have - - - - - - - -I m-- m m - w-I m - - -m M 27 1 been in operation before the Wetlands Act or I the Wetlands Act has no such provision and 2 before CAFRA was passed. I think that some 2 everything right now is up in the air. 3 kind of a grandfather clause should be included 3 MR. KINSEYs You are correct. There 4 as an amendment to those acts to permit real 4 is a permit application process and I'm sure 5 estate developments which were in the process 5 the staff of the Office of wetlands Management 6 of development to be given consideration to 6 would be glad to sit down with you in the pre- 7 the point where they can be included in such 7 application process to discuss any proposals 8 a manner that they will be an asset to the 8 you may have. 9 community rather than left as a bunch of 9 MR. WAGNER, We have gone through 10 pileswhich are detrimental, not only to the 10 that and we have an application whichlns been 11 community in general, but to the neighbors in 11 pending for the past six months. Corrcnpon- 12 that particular area. 12 dence has gone back and forth. So far, I all 13 That's/I have to say. Thank you. 13 think that we have spent close to $10,000 on 14 MR. KINSEYr Mr. Wagner, it's impor- 14 engineering fees, legal fees, and fees for 15 tant to realize that five years ago when the 15 marine biologists. Now we have to spend even 16 legislature passed the Coastal Area Review 16 more money for additional water tests, over 17 Act, the legislature did include a specific 17 $1,000 in additional water tests. of course, 18 grandfather clause so that those projects 18 this will not guarantee that we are ever going 19 that were in the process of development were 19 to got any kind of approval. 20 specifically excluded. The Department set 20 Thank you. 21 up a procedure to make sure that people could 21 MR. GARDNER: Thank you, Mr. Wagner. 22 realize whether they were or were not exempt. 22 Our next speaker is Winifred D. Meyer, repre- 23 That process has run its course for the past 23 senting the American Association of University 24 four years. 24 Women, Brant Beach, New Jersey. 25 MR. WAGNERt I agree with you, but 25 MS. MEYERs My name is Winifred D. 408 29 J. Meyer and I represent approximately 7,000 1 Administration and our own OffJ.ce of Coantal 2 college educated women in New Jersey, members 2 Zone manngement. In fact, to qet better 3 of the American Association of University 3 cl.tien participation, longer Stundy time would 4 Women. 4 be mont desirable. nowever, we have nome 5 In April, 1978, at the New Jersey r 5 solated reactions based tipon cur poli.cirs. 6 Division's meeting, their representatives one is on ocean dumping. tre have 7 unanimously approved the Division's legislative felt for some time that the demand of the 8 program--I'm sorry that I don't have one for American Littoral Society and of other coastal all of you--which, as part of its community groups to stop ocean dumpinq now will save un 10 policy, has the following statementt I much grief. The need for immediate action was 1I1"We support the protection and 11 emphasized by Doctor Donald 11. ,ear, Program 12 servation of water resources through local and 12 Advisor for E.P.A. Region III, when he told 13 State implementation of the National Environ- 13 the A.A.U.W. Middle Atlantic Regional Confer- 14 mental Policy Act, the Federal Winter Policy 14 nce this past weekend that there is a poten- 15 Act, the Federal water Pollution Control Act tial danger in the reappearance thin eprlng 16 Amendments of 1972, and the Coastal Area 16 of green slime on the ocean floor, indicating 17 Facilities Review Act, including citizen 17 the possibility of oxygen loon. We all remember 18 participation in Water Quality Planning (208), 18 what happened two years ago when a combinntion 19 ocean and wetlands protection, and preservation 19 of green slime and strong southwest winds caused 20 of fresh water resources such as the Pineland.e" 20 a massive fish kill off our coant. Ite believes 21 In a volunteer organization such as 21 we could face more of the name inlenn progran 22 ours, it is impossible to study thoroughly a 22 to diminish ocean dumpinq and to inn.titfte 23 document as far-reaching as the bay and ocean 2.3 better sewerage treatment be -iiven immediate 24 shore segment within the reaction time limit 24 and emergency attention. 25 set by the National oceanic and Atmospheric 25 Regarding high rink eronion arena, m - - - - - - - - - - - - 31 I * I~~ suspect that after the damage done by our although natures northeasters and other eroding sunorth asters to er the damage don by oarrier islandhous this winter 2 northeaster to the barrier lands this winter, factors are out of our jurisdiction, the 3 plus the additional building permitted on the 3 curtailment of building that threatens and 4 dunes this spring--and I give you Long Beach 4 destroys our dunes to not. It i in our inter- 5 Island as an example--that not only Barnegat 5 eat to sacrifice a bit economically now so ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~66 6 Light and others which are listed, but other that we do not ultimately destroy our constant 7 areas of these barrier islands are now high 7 areas of these barrier lands are now high 7 economy by losing our beaches, and, consequently, 8 risk erosion areas. The segment on Page 51, the summer and other seasonal visitors who are 9 Section 6.4.1.2. states, "Development in high 9 most responsible for our shoreland's economy. 10 risk erosion areas is prohibited except for 10 A major impact upon our bays and It shore protection measures that satisfy the 11 shores is, of course, that of offshore drilling. 12 shore protection use policiesw, and again on 12We commend the D.R.P.'a encouragement of outer 13 Page 55, Section 6.4.2.2., "Development on 13 continental shelf related facilities only in 14 dunes is prohibited, with the exception of the 14 developed areas, and the fact that pipelines 15 construction of limited pedestrian walkways will be conditionally aceptable only if they will be conditionally acceptable only if they 16 supported on piles above the dune surface.' 16 flow already developed right-of-way. fd~low already developed righte-of-way. 17 We hope that this means that there will be a 17 Furthermore, although the segment prohibits 18 big improvement in preserving all of New Jersey's 18 pipeline corridors for landing oil in the central 19 barrier islands' protective dunes. Figure 8 19 Pine Barrens area of the Mullica River, the 20 on Page 56 of the segment dramatically shows 20 Cedar Creek watershed, and portions of the 21 how man has violated nature's protection. In 21 Rancocas Creek and Toms River watersheds, we 22 fact, it's hard to understand why parts of our 22 feel strongly that the same prohibition should 23 barrier islands were never declared national 23 apply to all possible pollutants, and in a 24 seashores like Hateras and parts of Cape Cod 24 much larger section of the Pine Barrens area. 25 with similar exposures to the sea. Itowever, 25 The reason for this thinking is the fact that 410 I our underground water reserves in the Pine l concentrating rather than disbursing the 2 Barrens are all one big lake, and whatever 2 pattern of coastal residential, commercial, 3 pollutes one section pollutes it all. We 3 industrial, and resort oriented development, 4 cannot afford to pollute our water reserves 4and (2) encouraging the preaervntionof open 5 whether it be through development and its 5 space. 6 attendant pollutants, or through possible oil 6 Conservation in energy leads us to 7 or gas leakage. There can be no guarantee 7 alternate sources, as mentioned in the segment. 8 that pollution will not occur in those cases. The A.A.U.W. feels strongly that there should 9 To cite a local instance, recent events indi- 9 be stringent limitations on the use of nuclear to cate that we may need those water reserves 0to reactors and accelleration of the technology it sooner than expected. For instance, see the If leading to the development of adequate energy 12 Beach Haven Times of June 7, which reports 12 sources other than nuclear, with emphasis on 13 pleas for a regional water system for southern 13 renewable sources; sun, wind, tides, co-gener- 14 Ocean County because the salt level in the 14 atlon, and geothermic. What area can better 15 water from the wells on Long Beach Island, 15 lend itself to the use of sun and wind than 16 and, ultimately, on the mainland, is increasing 16 the Coastal Area with practically no shade 17 notably, the result of the Increased use of 17 and an almost constant wind? If we can put 18 water since the county sewerage installation. 18 a man on the moon, we certainly can utilize 19 The recommendation given is that present wells 19 sun and wind more inexpensively and efficiently 20 will be abandoned and water piped in from the 20 than we do now. We feel that all we need is 21 Pinelands where drilling would take place. I, 21 to accellerate the technology. I'm sure we 22 for one, didn't expect it this soon. 22 have it. we urge New Jersey to use all means 23 Conservation becomes a most impor- 23 on all levels of government to meet that 24 tant factor in these energy related matters. 24 challenge. 25 Therefore, we applaud the segment's policy of 25 we wish to compliment the Office of - - - - - - - - - - - Coastal Zone Management, not only on its well A gency. 2 thought outdocument, but also on its intense 2 MS. MEYERt The recommendation 3 efforts to encourage citizen participation in 3 shall come from whom? 4 the planning stage of the direction that New 4 MR. GARDNERs The recommendation 5 Jersey will go. This in the democratic way,[ 5 should be handled by the Federal Environmental 6 based originally on the town meetings in the 6 Protection Agency. 7 13 colonies whore everybody had his say. 7 MS. MEYERs Directly? 8 Certainly, the gentleman here tonight has made MR. GARDNERS I would think so, 9 it quite evident that everybody shall have 9 MS. MEYERs Thank you. o bhis say here. We sometimes feel that we get 10 MR, GARDNERt The next speaker is 11 useless ideas by this method, but we also get 11 Joseph M. Heeney, President of the Lacey 12 more good ideas. As a result, government by 12 Township Chamber of Commerce, Forked River, 13 1 13 the people becomes government for the people New Jersey. 14 and of the people. 14 MR. HEENEYs Yesn. I would like to 15 The New Jersey Division of the 15 preface my remarks with a statement that this 16 American Association of University Women offers 16 gentleman has brought out. We haven't had 17 its cooperation to the Office of Coastal Zone 17 that much time. I had to call an emergency 18 Management in moving forward our mutual recom- 18 meeting of my organization as late as yeaster- 19 mendations for a better New Jersey. 9 day and I have henpecked my notes tonight. 20 Thank you. 20 Basically, we support the concept 21 MR. GARDNER: Thank you very much. 21 of long-range planning to protect the ecology 22 That was a very thoughtful statement. I would 22 and our natural resources. Hlowever, the 23 like to point out that the responsibility for 23 Lacey Township Chamber of Commerce strongly 24 ocean dumping is primarily a Federal respon- 24 opposes the adoption of this program as it 25 25 2ibility held by the Environmental Protection is presently proposed. We find it an extreme 37 set of regulations that take away from the I developed later with possibly different stan- 2 vital and necessary home rule features of 2 dards. This is piecemeal and arbitrary. If 3 townships and counties. It can impose, and 3 the regulations are acceptable to one area, 4 probably will, a tremendous tax hardship on 4 then the same standards should apply uniformly. '.5 communities and the taxpayers, as all tax losses 5 In general, the acceptance of the 6 will have to be borne locally and not with the 6 program can impose a financial disaster to 7 State. It has built in regulations that will 7 every community it encompasses, which takes 8 result in such tax ratable losses. It contains 8 in, as you are aware, 1,382 square miles. Our 9 unrealistic standards, such as for drain water 9 Chamber of Commerce has sent letters to our 10 runoff. The section pertaining to wetlands 10 elected officials, both State and local, to PI Idefinitions is far too severe, and many tax- 11 protest the program in its present form. We 12 payers will find that they don't even own the 12 are contacting every chamber of commerce in 13 13 13 homes they have bought and paid taxes on for 3 Ocean County to solicit their support in our 14 many years. I find myself in that same posi- 14 protest. 15 tion. I came from Hudson County, Jersey City, 15 In conclusion, all powers of these 16 16 16 I bought a home that was built on filled-in 16 regulations lie within one department, once 17 land, and I'm very grateful that I sold out 17 it is enacted, not with our elected officials. is and I'm not up there now because it could 18 This then becomes taxation without represon- 19 possibly belong to the State. I would say. 19 tation. I think we fought that fight a lot 20 it would be worth about $70,000 today. The 20 of years ago. We don't need to go through 21 State could take it away from me. 21 that again. When the tax stability In din- 22 We object to one section of the 22 turbed, the senior citizens also are hurt 23 State, South Jersey, being programmed first, 23 in our own area of the State. That means one 24 and the other areas of Hlackensack, the Meadow- 24 third of the population. we have to be pro- 25 lands, the Delaware River, et cetera, being 25 tected. We can't give them pennies that we ....----- -- - - - _~~m I E _ _ _ _ _ _ 140 1 I take in from Atlantic City and take their I sort of thing? 2 homes away from them and take their tax 2 MR. KINSEYv I'm not aware of any 3 ratable properties away from them. 3 change proposed in this document on the defini- 4 Thank you. 4 tion of wetlands. The wetlands policies con- ~~5 ~ MR. KINSEY1 I would like to r tained in the bay and ocean shore segment 6 clarify that the Coastal Management Program 6 document are exactly the name wetlands policies 7 rests on four existing State laws passed, 7 in the adopted wetlands regulations. They 8 in some cases, 50, 60, or 70 years ago, and, 8 went through an exhaustive public hearing 9 most recently, the CAFRA statute in 1973, 9 process with notification to all wetland pro- 10 but the four laws are the CAFRA statute, the 10 perty owners beginning in the early 1970's. 11 wetlands and riparian statutes, as well asn 11 They are just stated in this framework so that 12 the Department of Energy Act in 1977. What 12 one can see how decisions will be made on the 13 the program does La to spell out policies 13 wetlands, riparian, and CAFRA permit decisions. 14 for carrying out those existing State laws 14 MR. GARDNERI Thank you, Mr. Heeney. 15 so that the discretion of the administrators 15 The next speaker is Edward Perry, representing 16 in the Department of Environmental Protection 16 the Fish and Wildlife Service of the United 17 and the Department of Energy will be diminished 17 States Department of the Interior. le has 18 intentionally. That's the purpose of spelling 18 journeyed here from the State College of 19 out policies arid the adopting of the rules, 19 Pennsylvania. 20 rather than simply letting the legislative 20 MR. PERRYt I will have an official 21 standards, which are sometimes broad and more 21 copy of this for you probably within a week 22 general, be the basis for decision making. 22 or so. 23 MR. HEENEY2 Isn't it correct that 23 Because of the broad based respon- 24 you are changing what constitutes a wetland 24 sibility for managing and conserving fish and 25 from the tidal height to the vegetalon. that 25 wildlife resourcen, we have reviewed ttew Jerseys 414 41 Z42 I Coastal Management Program in some detail. These inventory has not been fully completed. New 2 comments represent the official views of theecond publication Jersey has published a second publication 3 Fish and Wildlife Service at this time, and 3 entitled, "An Inventory of the New Jersey 4 not necessarily those of the Department of 4oastal Area". However, in our opinion, this r.. 5 the Interior as yet. A copy of these comments 5 document is just a listing of biblioqraphic 6 will be forthcoming within a few weelc. terms and does not fully meet the inventory 7 One of the major strengths of New 7 requirements of both State and Federal law. a Jersey's Coastal Management Program is that A suitable inventory should have identified 9 9 it recognizes the importance of protecting and mapped areas of unique or vulnerable to existing valuable coastal resources for fish, to habitat, critical habitat for endangered If wildlife, and recreational purposes. The 11 PI wildlife, and recies, recreational areas where development 12 Service fully supports these objectives, and is dependent on access to coastal waters, areas we will work with New Jersey to provide assis- 13of ignficance for commercial or industrial tance during the implementation of their coastal 14development, high hazard areas from storm 15 program. We are also particularly pleased 15 eros/on, and floods, prime fishing sites for 16 with the first basic coastal policy, which is 16 areas, fish pathways, special wildlife habitats, 17 17 17 to protect the coastal eco-syetem. 17 and other coastal areas suitable for develop- 18 Although the program is oriented 18 mnent and preservation. Much of this information toward coastal resource protection, there are 19 is already available. These areas should have 20 20 a number of weaknesses that should be corrected 20 been mapped and incorporated into the CLAM 21 to strengthen the coastal resource prcbction 21 process. To plan for the future, it is essen- 22 element of the program. For example, despite 22 tial to know what resources are available in 23 the fact that the Coastal Zone Management Act 23 what quantity and quality and where they are 24 and the CAFRA State law require an inventory 24 located. A comprehensive inventory would have 25 of coastal resources, we believe that the 25 fulfilled this need. Because these inventories m n----- 43 1 have not been fully completed, we believe that' ! phraseology. 2 the CLAM process lacks an adequate data base. It is the Service's opinion that it 3 Although CLAM appears to be an excellent mech- is especially important to prevent further 4 anism for evaluating permits, CLAM does not go habitat destruction in special water areas in 5 into effect until a permit is applied for. 5New Jersey. Our review of the program reveals 6 Because of the lack of a complete coastal 6 that it fails to provide a buffer zone around 7 resource inventory, a permit applicant will 7 geographic areas of particular concern or not be knowledgeable of where important coastal G.A.P.C.'I. We are pleased that the wetlands resources are located until they actually go located inland of the CAPRA boundary and within 10 through the permit process. Maps that clearly 10 the Coastal Zone boundary are designated as show the most important coastal areas would G.A.P.C.'s. However, the shoreline uses adja- 12 serve to guide developmentand increase the 12 cent to those a.A.P.C.'s are not regulated by 13 predictability of the permit process. Therefore, 13 the program. Thus, some uses can be expected 14 we recommend that the basic coastal resource 1 to cause significant adverse impacts. Therefore, 15 inventory be completed. we recommend the buffer zone be established 16 The second weakness of the program 16 around all G.A.P.C.'s, and that uses within 17 is that it fails to address the cumulative 17 the buffer zone be regulated by the Coastal 18 18 impacts of small development projects. Housing Zone Management Program. 19 developments of less than 25 units are not Despite these weaknesses, we believe 21) subject to the CAFRA permit process. 20 that this Coastal Zone Management Program is 21 Anotlher concern relates to the loca- 21 a significant step toward the wise use of a 22 tion policies. Although the rationale behind finite resource base. with some modifications, 23 the location policies are excellent, we believe 23 it can be the plan that will enable New Jersey 24 some of the policies need strengthening by the 24 to grow and prosper while preserving a heritage 25 25 elimination of ambiguous words and the vague of national significance for its citizens now 416 45 I and in the future. 1 MR. GARDNERt Just one comment about 2 Thank you. 2 the inventory. The Federal statutes and 3 MR. OARDNERs Thank you very much, 3 regulations don't require a comprehensive 4 Mr. Perry. I appreciate that and I appreciate 4 inventory of all coastal resources in the 5 your coming a long distance to attend this 5 State, although we certainly encourage it to 6 hearing. 6 the extent that it is necessary to carry out 7 MR. KINSEYt Thank you, Ed. The 7 the program, but a comprehensive inventory is 8 comment about the inventory is a useful one. 8 not required. A lot of states, as they begin 9 The point about a data base is a very impor- 9 to implement their approved programs, will, 10 tant one. The data base, in my mind, t really 10 as David indicated, be getting increasingly 11 never finished because it keeps changing. 1 into the inventory mapping stage in an extremely 12 Your comment that CLAM not yet affi12 detailed way as a device for assisting in the Your comment that CLAM to not yet affirmative ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~13 1 13 or that the Coastal Location Acceptability 13 permit activities. 14 Method will not be able to give people advanced 14 Mr. Perry, I would like to ask you 15 guidance of likely sites that are appropriate 15 one question. Do I understand that these, 16 is a good one, but I respectfully disagree. 16 indeed, are the official Fish and Wildlife 17 I'm quite encouraged to find some of the 17 Service comments, but they are not necessarily is county planning agencies have been using this 18 those that will be provided through the 19 method for comparing their plan with the types 19 Department of the Interiori is that true? 20 of policies inherent in the Coastal Location 20 MR. PERRYt They probably will be. 21 Acceptability Method. We have to do much more 21 They haven't tied all the comments together 22 work to make thin clearer to all and make 22 as yet. These are the official comments of 23 whatever refinements might be necessary. We 23 the FPsh and Wildlife Service at this time. 24 look forward to the continuing cooperation of 24 MR. GARDNERR Thank you. The next the ~S~ervice in doing that. 25 speaker is David Morrtls, Jr., repreenlting the - - m - - m - - - - - - - - - 47 1 Monmouth county Planning Board, from Freehold, 1 elements of the Coastal Zone Management 2 New Jersey. 2 Plan. We really don't have any big quarrel 3 MR. MORRISS I guess we have two 3 with the Coastal Zone Hanagement Program or 4 cards in. 4 the CAFRA process. We don't see eye to eye 5 MR. GARDNER: Did you indicate that 5 all the time, but we have found that the 6 you wished to speak? 6 Office of Coastal Zone Management is very 7 MR. HUGULEYt There will just be 7 reasonable and we usually cansit down with 8 one of us speaking. I'm Bob Huguley. 8 them. After we scream at each other for a ~~9 ~ MR. OARDNERS Please proceed. 9 while, we come to some understanding. 10 MR. HUGULEYs My name is Robert W. 10 I would like to make one comment 11 Huguley, Principal Environmental Planner with 11 though on the bay and ocean shore document. On 12 the Monmouth County Planning Board. I don't 12 Page 45, Figure 5, you have the water accept- 13 have any prepared comments tonight because we 13 ability table. You have a number of types of 14 haven't completed the analysis of this document. 14 water bodies and esterine bodies and so forth. 15 We have looked at the CLAM procedure, 15 Then you have a number of different uses and 16 and I want to compliment the State. We think 16 so forth. Under 'dredging-maintenance", we 17 it has done a very good Job and it looks like 17 do disagree with your designations for lakes 18 something that will be quite equitable. It's 18 and ponds in the inland basin, and with the 19 based on something that we can put our hands 19 small creeks and streams in the channel segment. 20 on and use as a working procedure. We are in 20 You have 'P", which is prohibited. We feel 21 the process of using it to look at some CAFRA 21 that this will further restrict maintonance, 22 applications that we have in at the moment. 22 desalting, and desnagging in streams and small 23 In general, the Monmouth County Planning Board 23 rivers within the CAFRA area for mosquito 24 supports the CAFRA program. We are under 24 control purposes and for general flooding 25 contract with the D.E.P. to perform some 25 purposes. In Monmouth County, we have a 49 I Drainage and Waterways Agency which works with I particularly helpful. 2 the Mosquito Extermination Commission. We 2 MR. HUOULERY We will do that. 3 have a program whereby we go around and clean 3 MR. GARDNERt Thank. you. The next 4 out streams and so forth for mosquito control. 4 speaker is Derry W. Bennett, representing the 5 The reason we have a Drainage and Waterways 5 American Littoral Society in llighlands, New 6 Agency is because of the very stringent D.E.P, 6 Jersey. 7 regulations on this process. We feel very 7 MR, BENNETTt Good evening. I 8 strongly about this because in Monmouth County, 8 represent about 1,500 members in flew Jerney 9 we have over 200,000 people in the coastal who have been interested in coastal environ- 10 Region and we have some very, very severe 10 mental protection since 1969 when the Wetlands 11 mosquito control problems. We would like to 11 Act was drawn up, and then through the whole 12 see exemptions for mosquito commissions, pro- 12 process of CAFPRA and into the Federal plan. 13 viding they perform a certain standard of 13 when CAFRA was passed in 1973, the 14 work. 14 legislature found that the State should regulate 15 We will be submitting more formal 15 land uses "within the framework of a compre- 16 comments later. 16 hensive environmental design strategy whichl 17 MR. GARDNERI Thank you very much. 17 preserves the most ecologically sensitive and 18 MR. KINSEYs Thank you for that 18 fragile area from inappropriate development." 19 ~suggestion. My copy of that table, and, in 19 Measured against that phraneology, 20 fact, many other pages of this document have we believe that the draft document under con- 21 lots of markings on them of suggestions and 21 sideration today falls short of the legslsative 22 changes and things to consider. If you can 22 intent of CAFRA, but goes much of the way 23 provide us with alternate language or the 23 toward coping with land use decision making 24 appropriate condition that you think should 24 in the Coastal Zone. We believe, and we have 25 be inserted at this point, that will be 25 said it in the past, that loth the inventory ~--"- - m m m m m m m m - - - - m _ _ _ _ _ _ 52 M I and the alternative management strategies which I steps and pretty much understand what his chances 2 the Department of Environmental Protection 2 are of getting a permit or not. There doesn't 3 presented as required under CAFRA were weak 3 seem to be any reason why an applicant cannot 4 documents, and they led to a final management 4 go through the process. There is no reason 5 plan presented to the legislature last Septem- r5 for the applicant to be surprised by a decision 6 ber which does not fulfill the legislative 6 from the D.E.P. 1 intent of CAFRA. That D.E.P. document has 7 It is obviously legal for the State 8 now been refined and appears today as the 8 to control some land use decisions in the 9 State's presentation to the National Oceanic 9 Coastal Zone because what happens in the 10 and Atmospheric Administration to fulfill a 10 Coastal Zone influences areas outside of the If segment of its coastal plan. If the plan Is 11 specific areas of development. So, to that 12 followed, it will lead to better environmental 12 extent, the document protects the coastal 13 ~protection along the coast, and, totht1 13 protection along the coast, and, to that 13 environment and does so in a clear and predict- 14 extent, we can support it, but there are 14 able manner. We support that. However, there 15 deficiencies in the document, places where the 15 are some weaknesses that need to be fixed up. 16 language can be strengthened or rewritten so 16 First of all, it is our feeling 17 that the natural coastal resources can better 17 that CLAM to reaction, not planning. The 18 Dtha CLA sil reavestion nmot pann ing. Thep 18 survive. Let me make some general comments 18 DEP still leaves the Important first Step--- ~19 ao~~n this document. ~19 what should happen to the land--to the devel- 20 E a h raton this document.tat2 20 Each draft of this document that 20 oper, contrary to the intent of CAFRA, which 21 we have seen does a better job of being specific 21 emphasized a statewide interest in the well- 22 about what can and cannot be done to land and 22 being of coastal water and land. Instead of 23 water in the Coastal Zone. It now seems to 23 a vision of the coast, the D.E.P. has decided 24 us as if a developer or proposer of development 24 to design "a program which accommodates the 25 can, with the CLAM method, go through the 25 creativity and initiative of individual 420 53 54 I landowners and developers and others." Rather I the impact of each against environmental con- 2 than dlrecting development or non-development 2 straints, without acknowledging that an accumu- than directing development or non-development 3 on the coast, the State will react to the plans 3 lation of developments can cause environmental 4 of others. This is not to say that CLAM i stress. Also, because residential construction 5 not a useful tool in coastal planning, but 5 of less than 25 units does not require a permit, not a useful toot in coastal planning, but 6 CLAM will work better If a plan, drawn from an 6 there can be an accumulation of small impacts inventory, sketches in some general vision of through small developments. There are ca-es, 8 the coast. 8 I'm sure, where more than 25 units can be per- the coast. 9 9 mitted with little environmental impact, and we believe that the growth areas need 10 better definition. The map on Page 98 i 10 other cases where a single unit can cause better definition. The map on Page 98 is 11 the one that concerns us. It shows growth i t serious environmental damage. Environmental 12 areas that are. at adds with the State Develop- 12 sensitivity, not the number of units, should areas that are at odds with the State Develop- 13 13 guide land use. ment Guide Plan, partly because the D.E.P. 114 14 We believe that the G.A.P.C. nomina- 11 has added to the growth areas of that guide 15 plan. "Likely areas of development pressure 15 tion process wan mishandled. The D.E.P. re- 16 16 ceived some 170 nominations from citizens based on the experience from 1973-78 in the 17 CAPRA permit program of regulating major resi- 17 for designations of coastal places to be 17 CAFRA permit program of regulating major real- 18 dential development." This in another example 18 G.A.P.C.s or geographic areas of particular 19 of reacting to development pressure rather than 19 concern. The citizens themselves were asked of reacting to development pressure rather than 20 planning It. Delineation of growth areas needs 20 to spot parts of the coast that they wanted 21 refinement. 21 protected that had some kind of special 2 1 refinement. r 22 We believe that cumulative impacts 22 significance. Yet, the D.E.P. has finnlly 23 are not well measured and should be. Without 23 included only one of those. It mentions two are not well measured and should bc. Without 24 an inventory or a plan, the D.E.P. will wait 24 othersl the coastal wetlands and wet sand Z 5 an inventoryorpr a plan, the D.E.P. will wait 25 for permt applcation to arrve, weghng 25 beaches, but both of these are almady protected m - ~ - - m m - - -~~~~ - - m m - - - - m 55 under wetlands and riparian statutes. lligbee 1 the two departments and its effectiveness in Iunder wetlands and riparian statutes. !Higbee 2 Beach certainly deserves .A.P.C. status, but 2 protecting marine resources. WIe note that Beach certainly deserves O.A.P.C. status, but so do many other nominations. Coupled with the 3 on Page 280, the Energy Facility Review Board, 4.E.P. decision to not map critical areas f 4 which will settle disputes over energy siting D.E.P. Js decision to not map critical areas of 5pecial biological gnifcance, it has missed 5 between the two departments, is heavily weighted special biological significance, it has missed 6 6 toward energy interests and does not provide a prime opportunity to delineate areas where 7 development would be banned. Citizen partici- 7 for third party participation. 8 8 Costa! authority. We believe that pation in the G.A.P.C. process was good. State Coastal authority. We believe that 9 9 the State must maintain control over land use reaction to citizen participation was not. 10 energy, we believe that the section 0 decisions in the Coastal zone and not delegate on energy, we believe that the section ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iItI its authority to counties and municipalities. covering energy is strong and much improved 11 its authority to counties and mun palitie 12 12 Beyond that, the State needs to approach over earlier drafts. It appears to set into 13 13 communities to see that their zoning ordin- perspective the relative needs for new energy 14 14 ances conform to coastal policies. Already, facilities. We believe the new energy facilities 15 15 we see development of coastal land for 24 in the Coastal Zone are very low, with natural 16 16 units to avoid CAFRA. I do include a clipping. coastal productivity which, of course, in very 17 high. We do have concerns about how the D.E.P. 17 I'm sure you have seen it in the local paper. high. We do have concerns about how the D.E.P. 18 will maintain its premier position a s controller 18 While this document speaks about dune protec- will maintain its premier position as controller 19 19 tion--and this was stressed in an earlier of coastal land use in the face of the efforts 20 20 testimony--it fails to come to grips with of the new Department of Energy to enter the 21 21 single-family development on dunes. As I energy siting discussion. Legislation now 22 in the Assembly Committee an Energy and Natural 22 understand it now; under this document, the in the Assembly Committee on Energy and Natural 23 23 State really has nothing to say about a single- Resources can weaken D.E.P.'s powers on the 24 coast. In particular, we question the legal 24 family dwelling constructed on sand dunes. 25 trength of the memo of understanding between 25 There are some local ordinances, but no State 422strength of the memo of understanding between 422 1 law. So, it is my understanding that as It I In general, we support the policies 2 stands right now, any town without a sand 2 outlined in this document, but we cannot support 3 dune ordinance can do nothing, nor can the 3 all of the document's details. In addition to 4 State do anything about the construction of 4 the more general comments contained here, we 5 24 units on sand dunes. Barrier beaches can 5 plan to submit more details on specific wording. 6 be heavily developed under present regulations. 6 In summary, we think that the document 7 A coastal plan that cannot control construction 7 under discussion is a step toward coastal 8 on dunes and barrier beaches is too weak. 8 environmental protection with room for inprove- 9 Further, mosquito commissions impact heavily 9 ment. we recommend its approval along the l0 on coastal natural resources. Their work 10 lines that we recommend. II should also fall within the coastal plan's 11 MR. KINSEYs Thank you. I would like 12 regulations. 12 to clarify the role of the growth area map 13 Manpower needed to process permits. 13 or the growth potential factor in the Coastal 14 The D.E.P. does not have enough staff to do a 14 Location Acceptability Method. It is mportant 15 thorough job of processing CAPRA applications. 15 to bear in mind that that map and that factor 16 While this document states that its policies 16 is but one of six factors that are weighed in 17 can be enforced under present law! Wetlands, 17 the process of determining the acceptability 18 CAFRA, Riparian, and Shore Protection, this is 18 of land for development. In that sense, It 19 only true if there are enough people to process 19 is very different from the State Development 20 applications. The staff in both the CAFRA and 20 Guide Plan prepared by the Department of 21 Wetlands Sections must be doubled. We also 21 Community Affairs. There are differences in 22 suggest that procedures for regulating land 22 the areas in the two documents for reasons. 23 use through the Office of Shore Protection be 23 There are some areas in the coastal document 24 made a part of this document as CAFRA and 24 that are more sensitive than the D.C.A. plan. 25 Wetlands regulations are, (Page 285). 25 Also, there are some areas that are leas -I m - m 11 m - m - Isensitive. It goes both ways. There is a I Jersey Builders Association, CAFRA Committee. 2 difference. One factor sto that one is a 2 We have been involved with CAFRA prospective document. In terms of the Coastal 3 since its inception in 1973 and have seen the 4Location Acceptability Method, it maps out 4 program grow in scope and content. Previously, what should or should not take place, and we have been asked to comment upon the Coastal 6 6 6that still stands. I again respectfully dis- 6 Zone Management Interim land Use and Density agree that CLAM is not reactive. It's a plan Guidelines, the Coastal Zone Management Strategy, 8 for laying out what the future should be. I and received, in March of this year, a pre- fer laying out what the future should be. I have a clear sense from some of the user groups publication working draft of the document under 10 1 1in the Coastal Zone that they are very well 10 discussion this evening. We distributed copies 11 convinced that the document does represent a of the draft environmental impact statement 12 clear statement of what will take place in 12 to numerous builders and their consultants, 131 13 1l th fuue3 including engineers, planners, environmental 14 1 the future. 1We look forward to your more detailed 14 consultants, and realtors. A workshop meeting 15 15 was held with representatives of the Office comments. MR. GARDNERs Thank you verymuh 16 JOR. GARDNERs Thank you very much. 16 of Coastal Zone Management on June 7, 1978. 11 The next speaker In Michael J. Gross, represent-17At this workshop, the discussion focused upon The next speaker is Michael J. Gross, represent- 18 ing the New Jersey Builders Association from the glaring engineering and planning defici- 19 19 encies in the document, as well as inadequacies Toms River. 21) MR. GROSS I would like to defer 20 in the scope of the draft environmental impact 21 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~2 21 that to Joseph Todino, who has some general i 21 statement. Therefore, we have requested that 22 2 22 comments, and then I have more specific comments. 22 the comment period be extended for at least 23 2 ~~23 ~ MR. GARDNERt Mr. Todino. 23 60 days. The draft environmental impact 24 tMR. TODINOt Good evening. My name 24 statement was submitted to the Federal Envir- 25 2 25 is Joseph Todino and I am Chairman of the New 25 onmental Protection Agency on April 28, 1978, 424 61 62 ! and a notice of availability was published in I implemented until' there is another announcement 2 the Federal Register on May 5, 1970. The 2 of that substantive change in the Hew Jersey 3 period for public comment to the Federal Office 3 Register and time is afforded for comment on 4 of Coastal Zone Management extends only to 4 this change. 5 June 19, 1978. Furthermore, it is proposed 5 The usual course of events utilized 6 that Chapter 3 of Part II of this document be 6 by the D.E.P. is exemplified by a document 7 adopted as formal rules and regulations some- 7 entitled, "Coastal Management Strategy - rublic time in September. The deadline for comments Comments and D.E.P. Responses". In that docu- to the State Department of Environmental meant, D.E.P. synthesizes many of the comments 10 Protection is July 5. We feel it is unfair, 10 on the Coastal Management Strategy, some 434 11 to say the least, to mandate that comments on II in number, and offers a response to those 12 a 350-page document be submitted within such 12 comments. It is unfortunate, however, that a short period of time. No environmental 13 the response, in some instances, is the first 14 benefits will accrue by expediting the 14 indication of D.E.P, s position on some of 15 acceptance of this draft environmental impact 15 the criticisms. Wouldn't it be far better to 16 statement by the Federal Government. It would 16 engage in a dialogue on these comments? very 17 appear that the more prudent course would be 17 often, our questions remain unanswered at to allow a sufficient time to comment and 18 face-to-face meetings until such a public 19 then discuss those comments and resolve the 19 written document is published, with no oppor- z2n issues involved. We were informed at the 20 tunity to respond. 21 June 7 workshop meeting that the policy on 21 Above and beyond the lack of dialogue, 22 runoff would be altered and there was a deco- 22 with respect to the previous comments and 23 ment that would be published to that effect. 23 criticisms of documents published by the New 24 Certainly, this is a change in the proposed 24 Jersey office of Coastal Zone Management, there 25 rules and regulations that cannot possibly be 25 are somne glaring inadequecies in the present m -m r - m - 63 I documents. For instance, the section on runoff is absolutely no analysis of the effect of 2 would, in effect, prohibit development in almost 2 the land acceptability table on the bay and 3 all areas of the CAFRA Zone. The section on 3 ocean shore segment of the coast, nor is there 4 definitions of waters edge areas is confusing 4 a basis for the conclusions drawn on each line and, in some cases, misleading. There are 5 of the location acceptability table. Until 66 6 certain engineering and planning decisions em- 6 that basis is clearly set forth, there is no 7 bodied in the draft environmental impact state- 7 way to evaluate the validity of the land accept- ment which are questionable and have no basi s ability table. Thus, there is no rationale in any documents that have thus far been made 9 for the decisions reflected in the land accept- 10 available. The land acceptability tables on 10 ability tables. It is a table which, in effect, Pages 103 through 111 are actually a detailed serves as a plan for the bay and ocean shore 12 plan for the acceptable development of the bay 12 segment of the Coastal Zone. 13 and ocean shore segment of the Coastal Area. 13 There are other significant defici- 4 The Office of Coastal Zone Nanagement has failed 14 encles,the most glaring of which is that the 15 to analyze how much of the bay and ocean shore 15 document in question leaves no room for flex- 16 segment of the Coastal Area will be eligible 16 ibllity, judgment, and imaginative planning. 17 for high and moderate intensity development 17 Most of the policies, as set forth, are comn- 18 based upon the land acceptability tables. This 18 pletely inflexible. As a matter o[ fact, at 19 is extremely important because, pursuant to 19 the June 7 workshop, it was the opinion of 20 the provisions of the draft environmental ia- 20 the Chief of the CAFRA Permit Section that if 21 pact statement, if high and moderate intensity 21 the criteria on the location acceptability 22 development is not allowed, then the use and 22 table are not met for medium and high intensity 23 resource policies need not even be considered 23 development, that there is not enough flex- 241 because they will not result in the allowance 24 ibility in the document to allow for such 25 ~of moderate or intense developrient. Thus, there 25 medium and high intensity development. 426 I~ ~ ~Furthermore, there is little rationale I surrounding uses, they should be explored and 2 set forth for many of the policies in thin 2 not discouraged or prohibited. 3 document. The restrictions on high-rise 3 The idea that dwellings along the 4 development are simply not based on any logical 4 shore should not block the view of the ocean 5 and professional planning concepts and, in r5 afforded to other people who live in the area 6 fact, do not make common sense. On the one 6 is reflective of the most regressive "last 7 hand, there is a policy to encourage and foster 7 in shut the door" thinking. Why should people low and moderate income housing. obviously, 8 expect that just because they buy property 9 9 n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~earptecsot t hat has beausiewo they u poperty the greater density, the more opportunity for 9 near the hore that has a view of the ocean, 10 lw and moderate income housing, and the 10 that they can enjoy this view forever, not- low and moderate income housing, and the 11 greatest density of all is high-rise develop- II withtanding the fact that another property 12 ment. By restricting high-rise development 12 owner owns land between their dwelling and 13 13 teoen to areas which already contain such develop- 13 the ocean. 14 ment, such as Keansburg, Atlantic City, and 14 There are numerous examples of 15 Asbury Park, as a practical matter, you may 15 planning policies and engineering decisions 16 be discouraging the construction of high-rise 16 net forth with absolutely no basis in fact. 17 dwellings because there s very little incen- 17 For instance, what is the source for allowable 18 tive to construct low and moderate income 18 percentage of impermeable paving, permeable 19 high-rise housing in these towns. As a matter 19 paving, and structures? For instance, for 20 of fact, Federal monies may not be available 20 high density development, 90 percent impermeable 21 for high-rise developments containing children. 21 paving is allowed, and for moderate density 22 There is no question about the fact that itn 22 development, 30 percent Impermeable paving 23 some areas, hgh-res would be completely 23 is allowed. What is the level of density 24 ineompatble with surrounding urseas. loweer 24 allowed for impermeable paving between 30 incompatible with surrounding u9es. However, 25 wher" hiqh-rises are not Incompatib3c with 25 and 90 percent? Where is the basis for the definition of stream head and the 300-foot I Area is also much too inflexible and has no 2 buffer around a stream head? We understand 2 basis in fact. Only if existing industrial 3 that this very issue is the subject of a 3 sites are demonstrated to be impractical will 4 contract for study that has not yet even been 4 new sites be acceptable, providing that there 5 completed. Hlow can the Office of Coastal 5 is a high ratio of jobs created, as opposed 6 Zone Management possibly include definitions 6 to the acres of the site util zed for develop- 7 of areas without absolutely any basin in fact? 7 ment and the development poses no conflict with 8 The same holds true for the definition of 8 the resort-recreation uses of the coast. "Page 9 upper water's edge, which is defined, partially, 9 1484. There is really no logical basis for 10 as 50 foot horizontally from the lower limit , 10 this policy except the statement that there I1I where in the basis for this 50 feet? IAgain, iI are significant environmental impacts of most 12 we are of the understanding that this is the 12 industrial development, a statement that cer- 13 subject matter of a contract for study, and 13 tainly is not borne out as a general proposition. 14 no conclusion has yet been reached with res- 14 Furthermore, there is no secondary impact 15 pect to this topic. 15 analysis of this and many other policies con- 16 The policies in this environmental 16 tained in the draft environmental impact state- 17 impact statement are also inconsistent with 17 ment. 18 other State policies. For instance, the 18 MR. GARDNERS Excuse me. 10 minutes 19 State Development Guide plan seems to encour- 19 has elapsed on this presenttion. I wonder if 20 age high-rise development along a certain 20 it would be possible for you to summarize the 21 portion of the New Jersey coast, which is 21 remainder of your statement for us? 22 not encouraged by this environmental impact 22 Ye I think I can do 23 statement. fow are these two differing 23 that. 24 policies reconciled? The policy on siting 24 MR. GARDNER I don't want to cut off 25 of industrial facilities within the Coastal 25 any presentation you have, but in fairness to 428 69 ' I I MR. GnRDNERr rr. Orons, did you wish the people who are here, I think we should try 2 2adhere to that time limit to make an additional statement? 3MR TOD~NOt In conclusion, we feel 3 MR. TODINOt In conclusion, we feel 3 MR. OROSS: Yes. I indicated at the that not until a basis for each of the policies outset that I wan going to defer to tr. Todino. as net forth in the draft environmental impact 5 I have more specific comments. 6 6 With respect to the specific statement statement is enunciated, until many of the 7 7 on Pnge lW of this D.E.I.S., there is an lndi- inconsistencies are explained, and a sufficient 8 8 cation that d0ofshons on limited impacts anf ct- environmental impact statement is prepared analyzing 9 ing only one municipality shall be made by 10 effects of all of the policies contained in10 local citizens and officials. I don't know if 11 the draft environmental Impact statement, can that means just that facilities less than 24 12 the Secretary of Commerce approve the coastal12 units, for instance, are considered local, but 13 Zone 13 there is no mechanism to that typeiof program 14 14 aarried out that x *now of, You have the rest of the statement. 15 MR. GARDNERt Fine. Your entire 15 In connection with Mr. Todino's remarks, MR. GARDNER! Fine. Your entire 16 statement will be Included In the record. Thank 16 there is no indication why shopping facilities 17 17 should be within two miles of the site in order you very much, Mr. Todino. 18 MR. KINSHYf Thank you. I would for the site to be encouraged. There is a 19 like to reiterate the po19 supposed basis for the two-mile restriction 20 20 schools. however, if you live in Oeean that we have scheduled for next Wednesday as on a follow-up to the workshop we had last 21 a follow-up to the workshop we had last 21 County or Monmouth County, you know that just 22 Wednesday to go over, in detail, the comments 22 about no school district follows that. You 23h the professional planners and 23 can live within a quarter of a mile of the with the professional planners and engineers 24 and attorneys with whom we work in carrying 24 school, and if there are no sidewalks, the 25 out ftl coastal policies. 25 school district will insist that children be bused. So, I think that the two miles is some- I prohibit residential development, whether 2 what unrealistic in terms of what is going on 2 lagoons are bulkheaded or not. We are talking 3 in the area. 3 about existing lagoons. we are not talking about 4 There also seems to be no basis for 4 dredging any lagoons. We are talking about 5 the low potential given to certain distances r. 5 existing lagoons, some with bulkheads, some 6 from roads and sewers on Page 90 of the draft. 6 not. On Page 132, 7.2.1, there is an indica- 7 There also seems to be a marked 7 tion that housing requiring lagoons will be shift in this draft. Previous statements in 8 prohibited. I don't know if that refers to various documents indicated that CAPRA was 9 existing lagoons or just new lagoons. In 10 interested in infill and extension of existing 10 Item 6.5.3.3, housing is discouraged on lagoons It facilities and encouraging those. However, in 11 because the shoreline is warce. The first 12 1 12 this draft, there seems to be a fallback on 12 question Z have i how scarce? Has the D.E.P. 13 encouraging what CAFRA considers to be lnfill. 13 or the Office of Coastal Zone Management of 14 CAFRA considers inflll to be development which 14 New Jersey ever delineated how many miles of 15 is surrounded 50 percent by current development. 15 shoreline are actually available presently for 16 There seems to be no basis for this. There 16 development? That's number one. Number two, 17 seems to be no basis for the exclusion of 17 there are shoreline areas that have been created 18 extensions of development which may not tax the 18 artificially by the digging of lagoons. Does 19 intra-structure any greater than infill taxes 19 inland lagoon development constitute shoreline? 20 it. Yet, this change has been made and it 20 At the same time, storm wate, outfall cannot 21 has been slipplaced into lagoons. This, in fact, would 22 That brings me to the topic that I 22 prohibit at least residential developments of 23 wanted to discuss specifically, and that is 23 lagoons because there is nowhere else to put 24 lagoon development. Although it's not stated 24 storm water outfall. 25 specifically, this D.E.I.S. would, in effect, 25 There is a recommendation of hotels 430 73 774 and motels. We think that is poor planning and 1 of lagoon lots. It seems to be another trend 2 has no basis in good planning practices. Number 2 in planning, as secondary impacts are now trends 3 one, the access will probably be the same. You 3 in planning. I would like to note in passing are going to have the same roads. Number two, that although secondary impacts are the current people who live in lagoon communities certainly 5 trend in planning in this document, we believe 6 don't want hotels and restaurants near their 6 it is deficient because it does not address the 7 dwelling units. It's tough enough for a devel- 7 secondary impacts of any of the policies set oper to get local acquiescence in existing forth herein. When I say it in deficient, I 9 lagoon developments, but, certainly hotels and 9 mean that it does not meet the statutory re- 10 motels would meet with far greater opposition. 10 quirements. What is the environmental harm 11 Also, there is more paving involved in the 11 of lagoon lots? Well, as a matter of fact, 12 construction of hotels and motels which are 12 we had tests conducted in 1974 in several lagoon 13 supposedly water access dependent. We would lots. These tests show that the water quality 14 submit that lagoon development in this area of 14 of the lagoons with storm water outfalls was 15 New Jersey is water acces dependent because 15 far superior to existing lagoons with no 16 of the location because moat of the people have 16 storm water outfall. What we are saying is 17 boats. That's the reason they buy the lots. 17 that lagoon development does not necessarily 18 The policy ignores the overwhelming desirability 18 have to have an adverse environmental effect. 119 of lagoon lots and the aspirations of the 19 lowever, this document, in effect, would outlaw 20 people who buy those lots and live on those 20 those developments. There is a statement 21 lots. The people want them. 21 that vegetation should be utilized. lome 22 Now, that comes to the balancing ques- 22 owners do not buy a lagoon lot no they can 23 tion of what is the environmental harm of pro- 23 have a nice view. It's so they can use their 24 perly bulkheaded lagoon lots. vell, as usual, 24 boat. That's why they are bullheaded. If 25 there is really no basis for the discouragement 25 commercial uses are only allowed, you still mmm mm mm Mm mm mm mo 75 I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I MR. OARDNER! Thank you, Mr. Gross. 1 have to have these bulkheads in order to protect MR. ARDNER Thank you, Mr. Grss 2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 MR. KINStYr Thank you, Mike. 2 against erosion underneath the paving that you 2 MR. KINSY Thank you, Mike. 3 placed down. That's another specific point. 3 (At this time, a short recess was 4 There is a discussion of permeable 4 called.) 5 paving. Maybe that's another new trend in 6 planning. However, there has never been a study 6 Alan Avery of the Ocean County Planning Board 6planning. tieorste, tilers has never been a study 7 of permeable paving in the State of New Jersey. 7 Staff in Tome River. 8 ~~~~~~~~~~~8 MR. AVERYI My name is Alan Avery 8 We understand that maybe there is a study in 8 R. AVERY My name s Alan Avery 9 another state. As a matter offct, local 9 and I am a staff planner with the Ocean County another state. As a matter of ~ct, local 10 municipalities are not generally in favor of 10 Planning Board. Part of my responsibilities tthis because there are certain problems in 11 with the County involve Coastal Zone planning. this because there are certain problems in 12 connection with permeable paving. Again, 12 1 am here to read a statement on behalf of 13 there is no basis for this policy. 13 Steven Pollock, Acting Planning Director. Mr. there is no basis for this policy. 14 I guess our specific comment in that 14 Pollock had a previous commitment which pre- 4 I~~~ guess our specific comment in that 15 there seems to be decisions that are made,15 vented him from attending tonight's hearing. 5there seems to be decisions that are made, 16 unfortunately, without any input from profess- 16 This statement generally highlights concerns 17 t onal planners and professional engineers. 17 regarding the Coastal Management Program for 7 onal planners and professional engineers. 18 As Mr. insey mentioned, it will have that 18 the bay and ocean shore segment. It is antici- 19 nput hther or not.ty accept that input 19 pated that more detailed comments will be pro- input. Whether or not they accept that input 20 and utilize that input, of course, i within 20 pared and submitted to the New Jersey Department and utilize that input, of course, la within 21 their discretion, but we would think that 21 of Environmental Protection on behalf of the their discretion, but we would think that 22 not only in this stage, after the document 22 Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders and 23 is published, but in the preparation of the 23 the Ocean County Planning Board. Under the 24 documents, that input should be sought from 24 terms of the State-County Coastal Coordination 24documents, that input should be sought from 2 25 professional plannrn and professional engineers. 25 Project agreement, these comments will be 432 I submitted previous to the July 5, 1978 deadline. I development potential of a specific parcol of 2 ocean County has long supported the 2 land. It should facilitate permit applications 3 goal of protecting and preserving the complex 3 and eliminate much of the administrative dis- 4 and sensitive environmental areas associated 4 cretion in making permit decisions. At the with the bay and ocean shore. The part of l 5 same time, a management system that provides 6 Ocean County affected by the policies proposed 6 and sets guidelines for development proposals in the bay and ocean shore segment is one of 7 based on environmental concerns hloulJr result 8 the rare natural beauty and bountiful resources. 8 in better planned, more environmentally sound However, the Coastal Region of the County 9 development. Based upon preliminary review, 10 has been and, no doubt, will continue to be 10 it appears that the State has accomplinhed a the scene of powerful and often contradictory 11 great deal toward this end. 12 pressures for development. 12 We also applaud the efforts made by 13 The bay and ocean shore segment of 13 the New Jersey Department of Environmental 14 the Coastal Zone Management Program addresses 14 Protection to involve municipal and county 15 many of the development and conservation issues 15 government in both the development of the 16 of concern to the County. For the first time, 16 proposed policies and in their implementation. 17 the State has made a clear effort to develop 17 This involvement has been achieved by the 18 policies regarding some very troublesome issues 18 opportunity to comment on the Coastal Zone 19 such as development of wetland areas and other 19 Management Program at public meetings and 20 areas of environmental concern, oil and gas 20 public hearings, as well as at working meet- 21 pipelines, and related energy facilities 21 ings such as those held by the Statn-County 22 including the siting of nuclear generating 22 Coastal Coordination Program. We firmly 23 plants. In concept, a management system based 23 support and will cooperate with the rnw 24 on the location, use, and resource policies 24 Jersey Department of Environmental Protnction's 25 should allow for a clear definition of the 25 effort to involve and consider local avid County input in CAFRA, wetlands, and riparian I proposed program are identified, it is imposs- 2 permit decisions. 2 ible to adequately evaluate the socio-economic ~~~3 While we generally support the 3 issues raised by the program. efforts of the Coastal Zone Management staff, Also, the Coastal Zone Management ProgrAmwllservte Castal polic raaefeencefo 5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ there are, however, certain issues that we feel Program will erve as a poliy reference for 6 must be addressed prior to formal adoption of 6 State review of plans and proposals of regional 7 the bay and ocean shore segment. 7impact. It is difficult to see how this program 8 ~~First, and probably most important 8 with its emphasis on site speeific considera- from the standpoint of land use planning and tions, will adequately consider the regional 10 coordination with County and local planning, 10 impacts of, for instance, 208 Areawide Water 11 is the absence of a comprehensive land use 11 Quality Plans and projects submitted for A-95 12 plan that clearly delineates the spatial 12 review. 13 distribution of acceptable uses under the plan 13 A second area of concern is the 14 and identifies areas that are suitable or 14 institutional arrangements between local, County, unsuitable for development. A composite map 15 and State programs. These relationships must 16 showing the key locations and use restrictions 16 be better defined. The Coastal Program was 17 listed in the report is absolutely essential. 17 supposedly based on the principle that the pro- 18 The absence of such a map severely limits the 18 gram would, and I quote, "Consider only coastal 19 19 9ability of local and County Government to 19 resource and coastal land and water use decisions 20 specifically evaluate the impacts of the bay 20 of greater than local significance, and create 21 and ocean shore segment on their respective 21 mechanisms to ensure that decisions on coastal 22 zoning or comprehensive development plans and 22 land and water uses are made at the lowest 23 to identify areas whre conflicts between 23 practicable level of government, consistent to identify areas where conflicts between 24 local and State concerns might arise. Until 24 with these guiding principles." Local decisions 25 such time as the spatial impacts of the 25 of municipal impact only should be made at the 434 1 local level. The Department of Environmental 1 Ocean County, none correspond. Furthermore, 2 Protection should focus only on coordinating 2 neither the criteria used to designate the 3 policies and decisions of clearly statewide 3 growth areas in the Coastal Program nor the 4 concern. Nowhere ois it apparent that the 4 reasons for the differences between the two S Coastal Program considers local concerns nn F 5 development plano prepared by State agencies 6 reflected in local and County zoning and master 6 is addressed in the draft. 7 plans. it is also difficult to relate decisions 7 Growth areas for Ocean County, as on neighborhood shopping or school sites or8 defined in the 208 Plan, were based on the 9 onl n neighboho hoppngt tor scho itso restrictions based on these factors to state- 9 following eight considerations, 10 wdcocr.10 (1) all environmental factors con- wide concern. If1~ ~A third area of concern in the 11 sidered by the Coastal Program, 12 designation of growth areas. The Coastal 12 (2) present development trends, 13 Program emphasizes the concentration of devel- 13 (3) location of approved but unbuilt 14 opment in ocean County essentially to an area 14 subdivisions, 15 north of Lacey Township and east of the Oarden 15 (4) existing and proposed avkilabil- 16 State Parkway, excluding the barrier beaches. 16 lty of mewers, 17 Restricting growth to this area conflicts with 17 (5) existing and proposed availabi- the proposed State Development Plan Guide 18 ity of water, 19 prepared by the New Jersey Department of 19 (6) existing land uses, 2n Community A�fairs, the Ocean County Concept 20 (7) existing municipal zoning, 21 Plan prepared by the Ocean County Planning 21 (8) npecific locational connidera- 22 Board, and the Ocean County 208 Water Quality 22 tions such as transportation and market and 23 Plan. Each of the four plans was federally 23 labor areas. 24 funded, each define growth areas, but with 24 Using these factors, it wan posnible 25 the exception of the two plans prepared by 25 to define growth areas and to determine that m m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ d ein grwt ar n an -o deemin ha 83 ---------- - l - 03 I sufficient acreage was available in these I environmental problems than the orderly, 2 areas to accommodate the expected population 2 managed expansion of development into environ- 3 increases in ocean County without impacting 3 mentally suitable areas. 4 environmentally sensitive areas and in an 4 A good example of those potential 5 efficient, logical development pattern. a 5 problems would be in the areas of groundwater. 6 The Coastal Program limits growth 6 100 percent of Ocean County's potable water 7 areas to 10 municipalities in ocean County, 7 supply comes from groundwater. Concentration 8 six of which are essentially developed. A 8 of development may have potential long-term 9 serious question arises as to whether there 9 serious impacts on groundwater. Policies 10 is sufficient amounts of developable lands 10 which will increase withdrawal rates in areas 11 in these growth areas to accommodate projected 11 where aquifers are already developed to some 12 population increases without impacting or 12 extent and already experiencing localized pro- 13 infringing upon environmentally sensitive 13 blems need to be carefully evaluated. 14 areas or radically altering the density and 14 Planned future growth in the north- 15 characteristics of existing communities. 15 western sectors of the County, as well as 16 The rationale behind the limited 16 balanced growth in the eastern regions of the 7 designation of growth areas is to encourage 17 County, could serve to equalize withdrawals 18 the consolidation of residential and other 18 and help mitigate these problems. It appears 19 land use development in areas where services 19 that this growth pattern would be restricted 20 such as electric, water, sewer, and other 20 under the Coastal Program. 21 infrastructures are in place, thereby reducing 21 Therefore, before formal approval ts 22 the costs and environmental impacts resulting 22 given to the bay and ocean shore segment of 23 from the extensions of services into undeveloped 23 the Coastal Zone Management Program, we recommend 24 areas. In Ocean County, this policy of con- 24 that the following actions be taken, 25 centration has the potential to create more 25 (1) A map be prepared by the Now 436 I Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Mr. Avery. 2 shallowing the spatial distribution of land uses 2 MR. KINSEYt Thank you, Alan. 3 and land suitable or unsuitable for development 3 MR. GARDNERs The next speaker is 4 as defined by the Coastal Program. 4 W.C. Campbell, representing the Environmental 5 r) (2) Additional time be provided 5 Commission, Ocean County. 6 6 for local and County evaluation of tils map. (At this time, there was no response.) (3) Additional consideration be 7 fl. GARDNERt Hr. Campbell is not 8 given to local and County plans, especially present. I will ask for him at the end of in considering the designation of growth and 9 the meeting. to limited growth areas. 10 The next speaker is Kathy Kievltt, I1 In closing, I would like to commend of South Seaside Park, New Jersey. 12 the New Jersey Department of Environmental 12 HM. KIEVITTe I would lilke to commend 13 Protection for soliciting public comments and 13 David Kinsey and the New Jersey Office of 14 addressing many of the concerns of Ocean County. 14 Coastal Zone Hanagement for preparing this 15 Ocean County looks forward to working closely 15 detailed document. I endorse what I perceive 16 with the New Jersey Department of Environmental 16 to be the intent of coastal zone management: 17 Protection to assure the protection of our 17 that is, to protect valuable and vital natural 18 18 bay and ocean shore areas. The Planning Board resources while regulating continued orderly 19 19 19 staff welcomes the opportunity to provide 19 development, public use, and recreation. 20 additional input to the Coastal Program as it 20 it iS essential to have a management 21 continues to be refined. I would like to 21 program administered at the State level, as 22 thank you for the opportunity to present these 22 this program will be, although local input is 23 comments concerning the bay and ocean shore 23 invaluable in forming policies which suit 24 segment at tonight's hearing. 24 each area's unique resources and problems. 25 MR. CARDNERs Thank you very much, 25 However, home rule must not be allowed to 87 1 prevail because it is a grossly inadequate land for purposes which are environmentally 2 means of enforcing CAFRA and protecting coastal 2 unacceptable. resources. The Coastal Location Acceptability ~~4 ~ While I am in agreement with many 4 Method or CLAM provides a sound basis for 5 of the policies proposed in this draft environ- 5 management decisions, but the management 6 mental impact statement, I am disturbed by 6 strategy should also include a detailed 7 the ambiguous language found throughout the 7 overall plan for the whole Coastal Area. If 8 8 environmental impact statement. For example, 8 development proposals continue to be consider- the recurrent use of the phrase "no prudent 9 ed on a case by case basis, the attern for 10 or feasible alternative'. which is refexred to 10 development will be set by the early developers. as a reason for siting a type of development 11 Unwise early development can serve to preclude 12 where it would otherwise be prohibited. Exam- 12 future wise use of an area. If a specific 13 13 plea of this would be Sections 6.5.1.4 b and 1 overall plan has first been formulated, all 14 c, and 6.5.2.2 b. This ambiguity permits sub- 14 development choices and uses can be coor- 15 jective evaluations and loopholes which will 15 dinated. When there is no overall plan,later 16 vary from case to case, from year to year. 16 development is forced to adapt or conform to 17 I believe it would be more beneficial to have 17 limitations directly or indirectly imposed Is more specific guidelines and interpretations 18 by earlier development. 19 of policies. Developers, as well as environ- 19 I strongly support the practice of 20 mentalists and other concerned citizens, 20 infill, for example, locating new housing and 21 should be able to predict, with certainty, 21 commercial and industrial development within 22 the type andcbgree of development which is or 22 areas which have already been developed, 23 is not acceptable in a particular area. Such 23 rather than in undeveloped areas. I also 24 advance knowledge can help to prevent devel- 24 support the policy proposed for locating 25 opera from investing large sums of money in 25 Atlantic City casinos along the boardwalk 438 89 I and/or where public transportation is available. I Monmouth and Ocean County. One thlng in the 2 As a shore resident, business owner, 2 film that was shown today is to consider the 3 and environmentalist, I am deeply concerned 3 potential factors and build where there are 4 with the future use of our Coastal Area. I urge 4 sewers rather than have to build sewers in 5 the Office of Coastal Zone Management to con- 5 order to have buildings built. I qistion the 6 tinue to strengthen the environmental standards 6 feasibility of CAFRA and the Federal Government 7 used to safeguard the New Jersey coast and to 7 promoting the duplicate newer systemg in small 8 withstand inevitable attempts to eviscerate areas such as the peninsuln from Toint Pleasant this much needed management program on the part Beach to Island Beach Park. It neems to me 10 of short-sighted developers and home rule 10 that it is not in accordance with coastal regn- It advocates. 11 lations to encourage high density building by 12 ! appreciate this opportunity to 12 building duplicate sewer systems. 13 present my opinion of the proposed plans for 13 Also, you are polluting the air 14 managing our coastal resources. 14 with the pumping stations. You are disturbing 15 MR. OARDNERt Thank you very much. 15 the residential areas with the noine.. That's 16 MR, FINSEYs Thank you. 16 not coastal protection. I just wonder what 17 MR. 0ARDNERt The next speaker is 17 kind of environment you are protecting by pro- 18 Prank Krajacich. 18 mating these kinds of things and granting 19 (At this time, there wan no response.) 19 permits for duplicate sewer systems. 20 IMR. GARDNER, The next speaker is 20 MR. KINSEYt Mrs. Richer, I'm not 21 Mrs. Leo B. Dicher, Jr., of Normandy Beach, 21 totally aware of what you mean by duplicate 22 New Jersey. 22 systems. 23 MRS. nICNER: I didn't have a chance 23 MRS. DIBTCtE There is already a 24 to mcuie through this document. I testified 24 16-inch newer line on Hlighway 35 South. The 25 last year when they had the hearingsn n 25 Ocean County Sewerage Authority h! n1' ptreting I - m m m - -I -s m m - - _ - m - _ _ ~ m - - - - - - - - 92 - in a 24-inch sewer line on Highway 35 North. I covering the same area and with no noticeable 2 It's a small peninsula. Why do we need so 2 growth in buildings. many sewers? The 16-inch sewer line right now, 3 MR. KINSEYs Thank you for your 4 the engineers tell me is only used to about 4 question. I will try to come up with a good 5 a four-inch capacity at peak time. There is 5 answer. no land there to build many more homes. It's 6 MRS. BICHERg I would appreicate it. a well developed area now and I just wonder 7 why the Ocean County Sewerage Authority has 8 Steven from the ty of Ocean City Steven Gabridl from the City of Ocean City, received permits from CAFRA and from the New Jersey. 10 Federal Government to build a duplicate sewer 10 MR, GABRIELs I am Steven Gabriel. if system. | 11 I work in the Mayor's Office in Ocean City. 12 MR. KINSEYI I will have to go back 12 In reviewing the document, I have a couple of 13 to the office to examine that case to learn 13 } questions for you and then one comment. 14 more about that case. It is important to 14 more about that case. Concerning sand dunes, structural 15 note that there are large regional sewerage 15 development on the sand dunes is prohibited in 16 systems that have been built at the initiative 16 16 systems that have been built at the initi ative i 16 this document. I'm just wondering how we, in 17 of the State and the County with State and 17 the localities,can develop our dune ordinances 18 Federal funds and local funds to achieve a that the courts aren't compromising them so that the courts arenet compromising them 19 number of objectives, one of which is to clean 19 or striking them down. up the bay waters which are really a vital 20 21 part of the economy and the shore area. !., 21 something I brought up at an earlier public 22 ~RSB. BIECHER: That's why the first 1 22 meeting. That was concerning the reconstruc- 23 sewerage system was put in, to tie in with the 23 tion of nonconforming uses in the Coastal 241 plan in ortley Beach. I can't understand 24 Zone. I'm asking now, again, whether any 25 why a duplicate system has to be built 25 progress has been made on any kind of policy 440 // 93 I done. Atto Al Excuse me. Could you 2 Thank you. again, please? 3 MR. GARDNER1 Thank you. XX ABDRILtI Out wt,ths is 4 aiR. KINSEYs The question of the 'et's may you have a home or a 5 reconstruction of non-conforming uses is an 6 illing on a sand dune in the Coastal 6 issue I believe you posed a couple of weeks 7 o a nat is the policy in the instance 7 ago with local officials. We are looking 8 that there is destruction of that due to a8 into it and trying to consider that. We are 9 flood? going through this public hearing process 10 MR. GARDNERs Thank you. to see if we have other similar situations 1I MR. GABRIEL2 One comment I had, in or, perhaps, someone will propose an actual 12 going over the document, it seems to me that 12 language that can be considered for the revi- 13 there is a potential for more public education 13 sion of the rules. In terms of the prohibition 14 as it relates to the document. Not only ar14 on dunes and how municipalities can draft 15 we planning the Coastal Zone, but I think there 15 appropriate ordinances, we will be glad to 16 are some very good social issues being addressed 16 try to work with you and give whatever asnis- 17 and encouraged. There is a barrier design 17 tance we can provide as far as dune protection. 18 in these communities that these people should 18 on your point on public education, 19 be aware of. I think just the general need 19 that's one reason there is a Coastal Management 20 .for Coastal Zone management must be a topic 20 Program nationwide. In New Jersey, efforts 21 for educational work, and I think a possible r 21 that began a number of years ago will continue 22 layman's guide to CLAM and the three policies 22 to bring the people's attention into relation- 23 might also be something that we could develop 23 ships and the need for proper management. 24 and get out to the people so that there is a 24 MR. GARDNERI Thank you, Mr. Gabriel. 25 better general understanding of what is being 25 That concludes the list of speakers -~~ --- ----- m - - m - - - - - m - - m - m - - -M9 95 I who have indicated that they would want to on down in wldwoo. There should be some 2sort of a program. I don't know whether it's 2 provide us with some testimony. At this point, 2 sort of a program. I don't know whether t's ~3 1 wul lket oenthemetig p o nyn3 under the scope of your plan or not, but I would like to open the meeting up to anyone 4 who may wish to make a statement who did not 4 there should be some sort of a program to 5 5 prohibit this type of building. Some people sign up. 6 Ms. GREGGI I have not a long state- 6 will say it should be under local control and MS. GREGG8 ! have not a long state- 7ment, just a comment. My name o Alecia 7 other people will say under State control, but m eat, just a comment. My name is Aleels 8 Gregg. I'm with the Ocean City Public Relations 8 it is my feeling that it should be a combina- 9 Department. tion of, perhaps, State guidelines for local Department. ~10 I have been involved with coastal 10 control. zone management for a few years in the Pennsyl- I had occasion, a couple of weeks 12 vana area. I want to compliment the people 12 ago, to travel along the dunes in Beach Haven vania area. I want to compliment the people 13 involved n your program. I realize, a 13 and to see some of the single dwellings that involved in your program. I realize, as 14 everybody else does, that there are certain 14 were being built on the dunes. Being an 15 deficiencies in any program, but having been 15 oldtime resident of New England, the only thing 5deficiencies in any program, but having been 16 involved with several other segments of coastal 16 I can say is that I'm sure that anybody who 17 zone management, I can ay that your program17 built that type of a house on the back side zone management, I san say that your program 18 at least is readable and understandable to a of a dune with part of it extending on the at least is readable and understandable to a 19 muhhge[ereta oeohr ht119 front side has never sat through a hurricane much higher degree than some others that I 20 20 such as I understand the one you had here in have been involved with. 21 1 also hve one commnt. I am a21 1962 Growing up in New England, I have seen 2I I also have one comment. I am ah Z2 fairly new resident of the shore. I have only 22 these all my life. 23 ~~~That's all I have to say. Thank you, been here for several years, but I think the 23 That's all I have to ay. Thank you. 24 MR. GARDNERz Thank you. I appre- 4on Steve had about the 24 units--obviously, 24 M. GARDNE Thank you. I appre- -Vbody has read about what is going 25 ciate that. 442 I Does anyone else wish to be heard 2 tonight? 2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 3 (At this time, there was no response.) 3 4 MR. OARDNERI If not, it's been a 4 I, CINDY CALU, a Certified Shorthand 5 long evening. I appreciate your willingness 5 Reporter and Notary Public of the State of 6 to sit here and to listen to a wide variety 6 New Jersey do hereby certify that the fore- of comments on the New Jersey program. On going In a true and accurate transcript of 8 behalf of the Federal Office of Coastal Zone the testimony taken stenographically, and was 9 Management and on behalf of the New Jersey 9 transcribed by me to the best of my knowledge 10 Office, we thank you for coming and offering to and ability. if your assistance and comments. Thank you 11 12 very much. 12 13 David, do you have anything further? 13 14 14 MR. KINSEYt Let me also extend my 14 CINDY CALU, .S.R. 15 thanks. I have one final request. On the 15 16 table, there is a small questionnaire which 16 17 we Invite you to fill out to give us some 17 18 feedback on this type of hearing and how you 18 DATE 19 came to learn about it and what you thought 19 20 of it. Hopefully, we can plan and carry out 20 21 better and better meetings. 21 22 Thank you again for coming. 22 23 (The hearing was concluded at 23 24 10,00 P.. ) 24 25 25 m~II m State of Hew Jersey D Department of Environmental Protection ' Page Diii o 5 John Holland, Cumberland County Planning Board 14 Division of Marine Services Office of Coastal Zone Management 6 Alexander T. Ogden 20 ooo Elwood R. Jarmer, Director of Planning for Transcript of Public Hearing n Cape May County Planning Board 24 COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Bay and Ocean Shore Segment Gary Carpenter 29 June 13, 1978 ioL.R. Hudson 31, 73 Courthouse |Michael L. Redpath, Marine Trades Association Bridgeton, New Jersey of New Jersey 34 B12 Alfred C. Coleman, Jr. 44 E P 0 R E: 13 Alvin Griffith fi9 David N. Kinsey, Chief, New Jersey Alvin r Office of Coastal Zone Management II Daniel O'Connor, President of "Save Our River Richard Gardner, Director of Program Environment" 57 Development and Research, United States Office Of Coastal Zone Thomas A Henry 66 Thomas A. Henry 66 Management Mary A. Dowhy 69 Fred Gentile 75 In },) SILVER & RENZI REPORTING SERVICE I! CER77FIED SIIORTHAND R1EORTERS 824 WEST STATE STREET TRENTON. NEW JERSEY 08o68 (609) 989-919! 444 3 MR. GARDNER: good evening, ladies | i MR. GARDNER: I would like to thank and gentlemen. a the Department of Environmental Protection for I would like to welcome you to this | ! having brought that slide presentation along as i; Joint federal and state public hearing which a means to introduce this hearing tonight. has been called for the dual purpose of re- This hearing is in part is being held ceiving testimony on the Draft Environmental i 'i as part of the procedures as was shown in the Impact Statement and the proposed adoption of / slide presentation, further procedures of the Chapter 3 for coastal resource and development national environmental policy of 1969, which policies as an administrative rule for the State calls for preparation of a draft and final en- of New Jersey an coastal program for the bay vironmental impact statement concerning proposed and ocean shore segment. ' federal action which might sufficiently affect My name Is Richard Gardner, and I am , athe human environment. As part of the process representing the Office of Coastal Zone Manage- of considering environmental effects, one or more ment, an arm of the National Oceanic and At- public hearings may be called In order to receive mospherc Admnstraton in the Unted StatesIt the public testimony, and this is one of three Department of Commerce. On my right is David t such public hearings on the draft environmental Kinsey, Chief of the Office of Coastal Zone impact statement for the New Jersey Coastal Pro- Management for the State of New Jersey's De- gram for Bay and Shore Segment. partment of Environmental Protection. The major federal action being con- As a means of introducing this hearing ' , As a means Of introducing this hearing sidered for federal approval of this segment for and this discussion with you, the objectives and the State of New Jersey by the assistant ad- the content of this program, we will initially ministrator for Coastal Zone Management on behalf have a brief slide presentation prepared by the of the United States Secretary of Commerce, under ofthe Unted Satso Secrtion30 of teCoastale Zonder state's Department of Environmental Protection. the termsof Section 306 of the Coastal Zone (A slide presentation Is given.) Management Act of 1972, as amended. Federal m~ ~~~~~( sld -presentation ms-g-ven.) 5 ~ of epoManagement has prepared a Draft Environmental approval of the New Jersey program will allow approval of the New Jersey~~' i Impact Statement which contains within it the substantial federal program administration grants II New Jersey Coastal Zone Program for this segment. to be awarded to the state, and in addition, The document contains the description of the would require the federal action consistent with the tr othsttsprstate's program and an analysis of the probable the terms of the state's program. impacts of the New Jersey Program and a listing It should be pointed out here the pro- of the alternatives to the proposed action and gram being presented for federal approval covers identification of unavoidable environmental only a portion of the state's shoreline along etfeats, a discussion of long term versus short the Delaware Bay roughly south of the Delaware term effects, and a listing of the irreversible Memorial Bridge, along the Atlantic shore from Cape May to Sandy Hook, and along the south shore or Irretrievable commitment of resources resulting of ai from program approval. In addition, it includes of Raritan Day. While this segment includes I~ ~a number of appendices containing detailed in- approximately 80 per cent of the state's coastal II frmaton ad leal dcumets rferred to in the area, it does not include areas along the Dela- formation and legal documents re ware and Hudson Rivers and Hackensack Meadows program. Before this Draft Environmental Impact and other waterways which must be included in a complete state coastal management program. I' Statement was issued, the federal Office of Coastal Zone Management made a preliminary de- Section 306H of the Coastal ZoneCosaZn termination that this segment of the New Jersey Management Act permits federal approval of the i Program could be approved. program for a segment of the state's coastal area, with the proviso that programs for all seg- A period of public review of the docu- ment began on May 5, 1978, when a notice of merits are coordinated and integrated into a public availability was published in the Federal single unified program as soon as is reasonably Register. The document was distributed to practicable. federal, state, county, and municipal governments, The federal office of Coastal Zone 446 and to national special interest groups during i Segment. Written comments can be sent to CAPFHA May. In addition, copies were sent to all Hh T ay. In addition, copies ere sent to all w and the Office of Coastal Zone Management, 3300 Jersey depository libraries in this segment of Whitehaven Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C. New Jersey. Additional copies can be obtained 20235. 1 will have that address available for from the Office of Coastal Zone Management or anyone who wants it after the meeting. from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Perhaps a word about the role of the Protection In Trenton. I guess we have some federal government and the state government in copies here on the table on the side .' copies here on the table an the side. coastal management is appropriate. The basic Newspaper advertisements announcing i purpose for the Coastal Zone Management Act is the availability of the document and the date t, to encourage and assist coastal states to and location of these publichearings were andloatonofhec.e we develop and carry out coherent programs for the placed in the Atlantic City Press, the Trenton I placd in protection and wise management of the lands and Times, the Trentonian, the Newark Star-Ledger, Iwaters of the state's coastal areas. The states waters or the state's coastal areas. The states the Vineland Times Journal, and the Toms River often acting in oncer with local units of often acting in concert with local units of Daily Observer during the last week in May. I, Daily Observer during the last week In May. government are the primary focus of this effort. Notice of this public hearing was also printed Not only is it the state's prerogative to par- lIn the Federal Register on May 16, 1978. lticipate in the program or not, as it wishes, The period for receiving public comments since this is a voluntary program, but state on this document closes on June 19, and I be- coastal management programs are built upon legal coastal management programs are built upon legal lieve that's next Monday, 1978. authorities containing state legislation. Im- All comments received at this hearing.' All comments received at this hearing plementation of these programs likewise Is the and all written comments received by June 19 will responsibility o state and often local govern- responsibility or state and often local govern- be considered fully in the final determination ment. on federal approval of the New Jersey Coastal The federal government offers two Management Program for the Bay and Ocean Shore angement ProramfortheayandOprincipal incentives for states to participate in 9~~~~~~~~ ! 1 coastal management. The first is it makes funds are here to assist you tonight. First is Richard available both to develop programs which meet ? O'Connor, who is the deputy regional manager in certain minimum criteria established in federal this Atantic Region. fe is working directly with thistate Reion. the developmeng ietlyf ith law, and upon federal approval, to carry them , the state in the development of this program. out. Second, it requires that the actions of Richard. federal agencies must be consistent with the And June Cradick, environmental terms of the state's coastal zone management pro- specialist, who assisted in the preparationof gram as approved. the draft and environmental capacity. I think Federal approval is awarded on the she's at the door. basis of completion of a number of criteria con- At this time I would like to turn the tained in the Coastal Zone Management Act, which II meeting over to David Kinsey, who holds the primarily addresses the process by which the principal responsibility for the development and state's program was developed, but which also I: administration of the coastal program, to explain addressed national interest concerns and his presentation part of this hearing. assurances that state legal avenues are Dave. sufficient to carry out the program. T A MR. KINSEY: First let me welcome my Briefly stated, it is the intent of I federal colleagues to the first of three public the Coastal Zone Management Act that a unified U : hearings to few Jersey, and let me also thank set of enforceable policies be applied to the the freeholders of Cumberland County for their use of vital coastal resources, and that these hospitality in making available the freeholders policies apply to state, local, federal, and meeting room tonight, as well they have done on private actions. previous occasions on the part of the coastal Before we go on any further, I would planning process. like to introduce two staff members from the I would like to simply stress that federal Office of Coastal Zone Management who Chapter 3 of the Coastal Program for the Bay 448 111 12 Segment, the coastal resources and development With that, let's turn back to Mr. f policies have been proposed by the Commissioner Gardner. of the Department of Environmental Protection as M, R. GARDNER: I Just would like to out- formal agency rules under New Jersey's admini- line some of the brief grouncrules we will use strative procedures act. The public notice for for this hearing. I think everybody has been the proposed adoption of the rules appeared in i asked to sign an attendance card indicating if the New Jersey Register on May 4, 1978, with a they would like to make a statement. I believe comment. That extends through July 5, 1978. ; I have those here. Speakers will be heard on a The comments made at this hearing, as well an first come, first served basis. Statements written comments submitted to me by July 5, will should be limited to ten minutes, and the federal be considered in the rulemaking process that must I and state staff here may wish to ask questions be completed prior to formal federal approval of | of any speaker following presentation of his or the New Jersey Coastal Program for the Bay and l. her statement. Ocean Shore Segment. I, A transcript of this hearing is being As Mr. Gardner pointed out, copies of ; made as an aid in preparing a summary of the the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment documents are I, hearing. available on the literature table to my left in I; If you have a prepared statement, I this room. l would appreciate a copy for our records. I would like to introduce Hr. John Speakers may make their presentations Weingart, Assistant Chief, New Jersey Office of from their seats. I guess I would prefer actually Coastal Zone Management, who is here tonight, you use the microphone here for recording pur- Stephanie Taylor and Katherine McKenna, who are poses, and I have been asked to request there be interns in the Office of Coastal Management. no smoking during this hearing. They are also here this evening to help in any It's important to remember that this way. hearing is for the purpose of receiving your comments. There will be generally no rebuttal I 11 Administration, and statements to make clear the to comments on behalf of the New.Jersey Coastal responses that are made to them today, and go Program or the Office of Coastal Zone Managemen beyond the comments we may be able to offer in although we may wish to make some clarifying response tonight. statements, if that's appropriate. "Ey MR. GARDNER: Thank you, Dave. Are there any questions at this time With that we will launch Into our tes- regarding the conduct of this hearing? timony. The first speaker tonight is John If not, I think we are prepared to Holland of I assume Cumberland County Planning proceed with the receipt of comments at this Board In Bridgeton. time. Mr. Holland. MR. KINSEY: One further comment. In MR. JOHN HOLLAND: Do I understand- terms of the responses that will be made the remarks are only to be directed toward generally by members of the Office of Coastalannin g Zone Management In New Jersey's Department of erally on the report? Environmental Protection to the comments that 1.5 MR. OARDNERi Your comments on the en- Ii might be made here tonight, or as well an written tire report are welcome as far as the federal comments, as the state has done with the coastal 1 7 office is concerned. I think the state's con- management strategy document submitted last fall li, cern Is primarily with Chapter 3. in preparing a document entitled Coastal Manage- MR. HOLLAND: Do you want me to come ment Strategy, Public Comments and DEP Responses, t h irpoe there will be a similar section prepared as part '1MR. GARDNER: If you come to the micro- of the final environmental Impact statement that phone, I would appreciate It. will list the various comments made as part of MR. KINSEY: To carry that point, both the public review process, and then list the the federal office and the state office are con- comens o N ,NaIc A 15 16 of the entire document, but in particular I want I be reduced to follow the ten foot contour, a line to single out that Chapter 3 has been proposed 7 that would have direct and meaningful relationship as an administrative rule in the State of New 3 to the tidal water areas which the program seeks Jersey, and that by tonight's hearing is part of . to protect. We see no reason why the coastal the rulemaking process under New Jersey law. l zone boundary must follow cultural features such MR. GARDNER: Mr. Holland. as roads and railroads, as was done by our legis- MR. 10OLLANDi As the coastal management 7 lature in establishing the CAFIA boundary. An program is developed and refined, a major concern n upland ten foot selected elevation contour would of the Cumberland County Planning Board has to do 9 be accurately mapped and interpreted in critical with the impact that this program will have on 10 areas by murnicipal engineers, Junt as has been people who own land, those who are seeking to accomplished in the case of the HUD flood in- provide their livelihood, and those who might be 17 surance rate maps, If this were done, it would able to provide new Job opportunities in our I: reduce the overall area included in thile coastal coastal area. rl zone, providing more suitable rationale for While the planning board recognizes 15 boundary line location, and constitute a first the importance of protecting the natural environ- !I step towards securing legislative cooperation in mentf the coastal area, it also feels strongly 1 revising the CAFRA boundary line to map it. the sometimes critical needs of people's living, P In reducing these boundary lines, the DEP would working, and business environments must also be '.I be complying with the intent of Congress as recognized, and that a balance must be struck ?, described in OCZM's Threshold Paper Number One, between the two that will not unnecessarily ! 21 which states it is clear that the intent of stultify agriculture, business, or commercial Congress was that states delineate boundaries recreational activities in the bay region. 2' with a relatively conservative approach, in- To this end we will recommend that the e l cluding only those shore lands the asen of which coastal zone bounday now included in the program , ' have a direct and significant impact on coastal 17 waters. An ultimate reduction in the CAFRA I pensive application preparation and costly and boundary would relieve a substantial number of 2 possible time delays. upland property owners from the costly, time- Such a procedure might be tied in with consuming, and discouraging red tape involved in I the issuance of local building permits through the CAFRA permit process. ' 5 the municipal construction official's office, Another way in which the program could 6 i ncluding based on natural resource advice pro- take into account the needs of people living in 7 vided by the soil conservation district, which the area is through a more sensitive approach to I presently reviews many local development pro- regulation and administration. Just as a good 9 Jects, and is thoroughly familiar with the Judge seeks to make the punishment fit the crime, 10 management of natural resource criteria included the Coastal Zone Management Program should find I! in the programs land acceptability tables. ways to simplify the program's impact on project 12 Another of the planning board's con- applications having a relatively insignificant 13 cerns has to do with the regional growth impact on natural resources. This might be done 11 potential map shown on page 98. This map de- through the institution of a locally managed per- 15 lineates growth areas and limited growth areas. mit procedure for certain classes of minor ! The general view of the map discloses the pre- developments in both wetlands and CAFRA portions 17 dominant concentration of growth areas of the zone. Replacement of storm damaged 18 throughout the northern portions of the coastal dockage and construction of minor new private or 19 zone and an almost complete absence of such commercial boat docks, and the construction or n areas in the southern portions, with the ex- repair of necessary agricultural grid and tide 21 ception of the area adjacent to Atlantic City. protection structures are examples of projects : The implication here is that a development that should be considered. 1 application originating practically anywhere in The planning board feels this would be our area will be viewed more critically than another means of avoiding unnecessary and ex- one emanating from the almost continuous growth 452 ~~~~~~~~~~~19 So~~~~20 area comprising the northern portion of the I business owners, are an important and critical coastal zone. The basis for these delineations 7 part of that environment, and as such have a probably has to do with the state of existing right to expect that their interests will be re- development. speceted. The program should be limited in its However, if we are truly concerned 5 approach. It should not be used as a tool to about the quality of our coastal resources, it prevent or promote regional development, the seems to us at least as much and probably more s elling or land, or the conduct or legitimate concern should be exercised over developments | commercial activities. occurring in the natherly more extensively A map delineating our recommended I ~~~~~ucL4L~~~~Lnu more I ~~~~~A map delineating our recommended developed water side areas than in the southern 10 coastal boundary and a more detailed statement, lower density coastal and bay side sections. | including comments on the coastal location We reel this classification, along |' 1! acceptability method, will be submitted prior to with a similar approach in the state guide plan, i July 5. will not only work to complicate local develop- let MR. GARDNER: Thank you very much. ment proposals and other economic activities 1 5 Do you have a copy or that statement through coastal regulatory process, but will 16 you can leave? also be used to discourage grants and other aids 1 IMR. HOLLAND: I don't, but I will see for new infrastructure which will be needed if i you get a copy. any more intensive development areas are to be 1 '4R. GARDNER: Thank you very much. created in our region. | 52f) Our next speaker is Alexander T. Ogden In conclusion, the planning board 2 of Port Norris, New Jersey. urges the DEP, while it seems to protect and ? Mr. Ogden. enhance the coastal environment, maintain a con- ? MR. ALEXANDER T. OUDEII: One of the tinuing awareness that the land owners and wage questions I would have is, is thin to be some earners, as well as existing and prospective ! consolidation of the efforts of the two depart- ...... - - --- . - -mm 2820 21 ments? In other words, do we still have to file I cently on a housing complex in Mauricetown; with the State Department of Environmental Pro- I I there's an application approved for Pennsylvania tection and both with the federal government, or Sand Glass Company's continued mining operations; does this consolidate those two? there's an application that was approved for the MR. GARDNER; The federal approval of i Bridgeton treatment plant several hundred yards the coastal program for the State of New Jersey from where we are tonight. does not imply any additional regulatory effort MR. OGDEN: Yes, sir. by the federal government at all, it's a state MR. KINSEY: There are one or two program which we have supported. applications still pending that's under CAFRA. 1i MR. OGDEN: Yes, Does it take away ' Two other laws, that are Wetlands Act any of it? I and the Waterfront Development Permit Program MR. GARDNER: Pardon? I under the riparian statutes, are laws that get MR. OGDEN: I was Just wondering if it 1 ; involved with so-called concurrent Jurisdiction takes away some of the red tape. ,, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. So in that MR. GARDNER: It has potential for 15 case, which is concurrent federal Jurisdiction doing it. Whether that will happen--- 1. and the requirement for a federal permit, when MR. KINSEY: Perhaps I could help by one is proposing dredging or piling in navigable using a specific hypothetical example. Three key n waterways, but this--what this program does is coastal permits that are part of the coastal pro- T I spell out detailed written policies for how the gram, our so-called coast areas review act, law, State of New Jersey will be making its decisions that applies to large developments. I under the Waterfront Development Permit Program. In the case of Cumberland County to The criteria for decisionmaking under the Wet- date there have been in the past four and a half lands Act have been spelledout already, and by years only a small number of CAFRA permit appli- continued working cooperation between the State cations. There's an application approved re- of New Jersey Division of Marine Services and 454 24 23 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. l they're doing, is to then start to have to go It's our hope to further simplify this 1 around through people who attempt to do wonderful system as, for example, we were able to do in the 2 things and yet sometimes don't quite know what ice emergency a number of years--two years ago. ; you're talking about, and then they might change So to that extent federal support, financial the subject or send you to another department to support, will help the effort to further simplify try and explain yourself there. this process. / I guess that pretty near covers what MR. OGDEN: Yes. The main thing, my | I have, I was thinking about. main concern with for the past several years now MR. GARDNER: Fine. If you are to put is in the banking of the Maurice River. That I) that in writing, we would be delighted to have currently is becoming all wetlands, or of course that as part of the record. that's a new name for swamp, and it's destoying 1 MR. OGDEN: Thank you very much. fish and destroying oysters at a tremendous rate. i MR. GARDNER: Thank you, Mr. Ogden. It's permitting salt water to come up into the I Our next speaker is Edward 0. Gibson fresh water area, and this wetland grows every of Port Norris, New Jersey. year. In some areas it may only be five to ten U, MR. EDWARD 0. GIB3ON I don't care to inches, but in the past five years or so it's I make a statement. easy to see where it has taken over over a MR. GARDNER: Fine, thank you. thousand acres of land. Some of it was forest, We move then to E.H. Jarmer of Cape some of it--much of it was farmland. May Court House, New Jersey. And of course we always have the con- . Mr. Jarmer. tlnunng problem of, as we mention, of the people MR. ELWOOD R. JARMER: My name is El- in our area, of whether it's salt hay farm, which wood R. Jarmer and I am Director of Planning for has been there for 200 years they've worked on the Cape May County Planning Board. it that way, and they pretty well know what One comment that Cape May County, at - m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- - m- - - 25 least a larger portion of Cape May County con- plementation of explicit decisionmaking process stitutes the CAFRA area than any other county, to coastal location acceptabliy method, known Just about 80 per cent, a little over 80 per cent as CLAM; finally, protection of the public health, just about 80 per cent, a little over 80 per cent of the Cape May County constitutes coastal zonl | safety, and welfare. ! '. !i ~~We particularly endorse those policies in New Jersey. Consequently we have great We particularly endorse those policies interest In the state's program. which recognize and protect the fragile natural This statement is read on behalf of resources of the coast, those which constitute the Cape May County Planning Board. i l an explicit and rational decisionmaking process By way of introduction, I want to which,in turn, will remove much of the uncertainty By way of int~~~~~~~~~suroducinds th currnt adtoc AReiin thank the federal and state officials for being that surrounds the current ad hoc CAFRA decson- able to present the statement. The policies of making process, and the energy policies which the coastal segment represent a sgnfcant I accommodate energy development consistent with the coastal segment represent a significant !-i the four foundation policies. Finally, we commitment of human effort, time, and financial the four foundation policies. Finally, we resources which evolved over the past four years. enthusiastically applaud the resort-recreational Even though it is not a final step, the document use policies and the priority of such uses in culminates a multiyear effort which was sub- the Bay and Ocean Segment of the coast. mitted to public scrutiny time after time, and If the coastal program has a singular we think It's been tempered by various con- significant defect, it is that it fails to dis- stituencles. l close the cumulative impacts of its own implemen- The coastal program. We strongly en- tation. It remains unclear as to how many people The coastal program. We strongly en-I ' 'r~1 or how many developments the coastal program dorse the four basic coastal policies. In short, or how many developments the coastal program these objectives are protection of the eco system; ' would permit within the Bay and Ocean Segment. two, concentration rather than dispersal of Likewise, CLAM fails to distinguish between the development with strong emphasis on open space best possible use of the land at a given site preservation; thirdly, the development and im- and other uses it would permit. Given these un- 456 certainties, it is also impossible to comprehend | holds for both developers and environmentalists. where the people will be, what kinds of services The environmental impact statement. and facilities they will require, and the impacts Today we are called upon to--I want to speak to they will cause to air and water resources. the coastal program itself, but also to the en- While the water and air resource I vironmental impact of its implementation. As policies call for conformance with all applicable ; noted above, the deficiency in the segment to state and federal standards, the coastal program / clearly specify its cumulative impacts reflects does not yet contain a mechanism by which to itself within the environmental impact statement. adjudge the cumulative effects. While we recog- Where the impacts are as yet unknown. the impact nize that our current concern for environmental cannot fully and meaningfully be assessed. problems and quality has sprung from our past Secondly, the EIS does not appear to failure to look ahead, solutions to these 17 take a hard look at the impacts upon the imple- deficiencies must be found. We recognize the mentation of the coastal program will have in New Jersey DEP is aware of these problems and I non-CAFRA areas. Upon approval, it would seem has begun to develop scopes of work and let con- that non-CAFRA areas adjacent to the CAFRA border tracts to solve them. t would be subjected to intense development pressure, However, because CLAM is not yet fully I. which in turn may generate impacts in adjacent tested, we urge that the case study appendix, 1s CAFRA areas. Likewise, developments of 24 units Appendix N, be expanded in the final EIS with re- 1, or less will not come under the Jurisdiction of spect to both geographical location of the sites :"the coastal program, but could, on a cumulative studied and the nature of developments analyzed. basis, have greater impact on the coastal zone. Case studies involving motel or recreational Observations in Cape May County indl- development proposals on barrier islands and cate that both of these exceptions could have a adjacent to water areas, for example, would help significant impact on the coastal zone. While to clarify the multitude of implications CLAM these issues have been raised In the EIS, adequate _ _ _ _ _ _ - 7-__ _ _ _ m - - m m m - m - - m - 3 m ~~~~~~~~~mmm 29 solutions are not proposed. not only Jesse Morie Company, Pennsylvania Glass !i This concludes the prepared testimony. Sand Corporation, Whitehead Brothers Company, Attached to this is a list of technical issues George F. Pettinos Company and Unisil Corporation, which you may want to consider, and I would be all of which are industrial sand mining companies happy to answer any questions. located within South Jersey. Many have operations MR. GARDNER: Thank you very much, Mr. within CAFRA boundaries or holdings within CAFRA Jarmer, we appreciate that. It's a well thought boundaries. out statement. The areas of concern we have are, one, MR. KINSEY: Let me simply add the very much concern to us is the Office of Coastal suggestion that the case studies, additional Management has not addressed itself in any great case studies be prepared, demonstrated how the detail to the mining that gets on within the coastal location acceptability method is used, CAFRA boundaries--- is an excellent one, and I trust we will be MR. GARDNER: Excuse me, sir, you working closely with Cape May County Planning talking of the federal or state? Board and other county planning agencies in i)' MR. CARPENTER: State office. And I developing cases that ought to be analyzed using think this is obvious when you look on page l48 this method and working toward the preparation of the document, I believe it is, due to the of either of us of free standing handbook im- briefness in the document. We have tried on plementing how this method works, or an expanded , several occasions to have meetings and we have appendix in the final environmental impact not been very successful. However, now we have statement. one set up for the 26th of June, I believe it MR. GARDNER: The next speaker is is. I hope there's some good that comes from Gary Carpenter of Mauricetown, New Jersey. this meeting. MR. GARY CARPENTER: Yes. Let me Just The other area that we are concerned say I am speaking on behalf of this evening of with is the negative approach this document takes 458 31 32 toward the mining industry as a whole, since it Jotting down a few things. a very basic and important industry to the over- I am a private owner down in Bay Point, all economy, not only of South Jersey, but to New Jersey, in a small fishing community, and we many of our neighboring states. I have small timber piers and docks and summer My next comment to, has any consider- | " homes which we entirely enjoy, and we boat and ation been given In this document to the impact } crab off ofr the pier, which means to me we are that this document would have on mining and not doing any damage, the crabs are still there associated Industries? and the weeds are growing up around the docks Thank you. *! and stuff, so the fish can still come in and MR. ARDNER Thank you very much, we eat, and we all think very much about controlling MR. ARDE~tThank you very much, we ~~~~~~~appreciate l~. It ~ our environment, keeping it clean, and obeying appreciate it.� MR. KINSEY: Mr. Carpentr, I look the laws, and we contribute a goodly sum of forward to meeting you on the 26th. The meeting money to the area each summer, because I counted has been arranged and we have benefited from the i up my fish would approximately cost me a hundred helpful meetings with the mining industry on d some previous occasions in the past years. So But the thing of it we can't under- I look forward to the meeting. a: stand about this is why we are all treated the MR. CARPENTER: Good., same as commercial owners, such as marinas, and MR. GARDNER: Thank you. forced to do a lot of unneeded and surveying and Our next speaker is .R . Hudson of, engineering to legalize the pier that we had to ~~~~~*Bay Point, New Jersey. prepare repliesevery year from teice and erosion Bay Point, Now Jersey. ~~~~~~~Mr. H~udson. ~damage, and when we asked somebody about our Mr. Hudson. M. L.R. HUDSON: I came here th erosion, we lost about 60 feet or ground off the MR. L.R. HUDSON: I came here thin back of the side of my lot this year, and Ne evening totally unprepared because I didn't know back O the side O my lot thi year, and I would be allowed to speak, so I've just been can't get anybody to hear us about it. They all m~~~~ mol _e aloe mosek oIv tbe - m - - - - m m - M~~~ e m m M I3~~ ~33 };3 keep referring us back to the environmental de- I Hudson. I appreciate your comments, and in pre- partment. It's like trying to climb out of the paring them on short notice. pool and somebody stepping on your ringers and : J Our next speaker is Michael L. Redpath kicking you back in. l of Marine Trades Association of New Jersey, Island So why can't we get a separate set | Heights, New Jersey. for private owners? Mr. Redpath. And big developers, when they come in /. MR. MICHIIAEL L. REDPATH: The Marine an area, they destroy everything, and I do be- i Trades Association of New Jersey, representing lieve in controlling them. the state's recreational boating industry, is But I think there's got to be some way i ; pleased to be a part of the ongoing coastal that we can live with the birds and the fish, be- planning process. We welcome the opportunity to cause I don't think it all belongs to them. I l comment on the Draft Environmental Impact State- Thank you very much, sir, and by the 1 i ment, recognizing the Department of Environmental way, this engineering cost In putting a--causing Protection is making an effort to consider coastal a lot of people hardships, they can't afford it, users as affected by the Coastal Management Pro- and the place has been there 50 or 60 years and 1, gram since the close of the comment period on nobody ever bothered us. Coastal Management Program Strategy. This docu- Now the houses used to be 300 or 1400 ment is of utmost importance to our industry, as feet from the bay anyhow, and the water in comi ng it is to all coastal users from both a restraining up under them. So that ground we lost, the state , and newer standpoint. The program obviously puts has come along and claiming that. It ought to I restraints on the growth and even maintenance of be some kind of a way to explain it to us so we recreational boating in New Jersey and its can understand it. supporting industries. Properly applied, the Thank you very much, sir. program can also further regulate boating by MR. GARDNER: Thank you very much, Mr. providi g for the most effective use of and the 460 35 1, 36 II~~~~~~~~~3 continuation of environmentally clean family I: Impact Statement is a well thought out document recreation such as boating. j that reflects very well on the ability and pro- Because of the Importance of the Draft fessionalism of the staff that prepared it. Our Environmental Impact Statement to the coastal major criticisms lie with the negative approach h zone, our initial nature of criticism is of thetomagenalcofwrigkoldefth , ~ ~~to management, a lack of working knowledge of the sort purely available for study and comment. use of regulated and Inconsistencies and lack or The document that has taken so long to prepare clarity In some areas. The program Is entirely and is of such far reaching impact deserves a too negative. More attention must be given to longer period for study and the preparation of attracting and encouraging uses desirable for incisive comment. For this reason the Marine the coastal zone an stated In the Marine Trades Trades Association testimony to being prepared 1l Association response to the coastal management in two parts, this general verbal strategy for Now Jersey. the written testimony to be submitted later, New Jersey has traditionally been which includes a revised version of our verbal , oriented to solving problems through regulation. testimony and an indepth analysis of each section Prohibiting ~:~ ;,This evidently isn't the policy.Prhbtn of the statement that deals with or affects and discouragement alone will not provide for recreational boating. the coastal zone envisioned by New Jersey Coastal We of the association see ourselves as Zone planners. Encouragement must become the realistic environmentalists, favoring environ- p positive approach. The state must actively -assist in the development and maintenance of mental protection, but also recognizing the neede to balance that protection with economic those private facilities that compliment the realities. It is with that philosophy that we state's goal for the coast zone through im- proved public access without serious environmental haerviwdtheDafteniomentalIp. Statement. degradation. On the whole, the Draft Environmental We are pleased to see the Draft Ei)- 37 vironmental Impact Statement is more positive I more probable and much more long term and much than the strategy, but it still is not positive more endangered than indicated from a mechanical ii enough. standpoint, and there is a widespread need for It is unfortunately obvious that the thH=more concise definition. The Inconpistencies program was conceived by the administrators who exist both between individual policies and in are not sufficiently in touch with the situation basic philosophy. Is the program to be as it exists in the real world environment. From specifically as the intent appears to be or a textbook standpoint the program is workable; f generally as the frequent lack of definition or from a real world standpoint, there are sufficient details would indicate? shortcomings to make it unworkable. Such things I In addition to the specific as incorrect definitions, that of navigational i suggestions to be offered in written testimony, channel, for example, and unrealistic water the Marine Trades Association has several general depths in various policies causes the program to 1 positive suggestions for revising the Draft En- lose credibility as well as to make it unwork- 1l vironmental Impact Statement. Assistance in able. The association's written testimony will L, considering potential sites must be programmed. elaborate on those shortcomings. 16 One of the restrains to desirable development in Further evidence of the lack of real I,' the coastal zone is the gamble in purchasing world knowledge is the failure to treat certain In property, not knowing whether the necessary per- elements of the environment as transient, r mite would be attainable. Some planning choices changeable entities, and also downplaying of would be desirable, perhaps a general map of the economic impacts. Elements of the environment ' coastal zone showing what uses would probably such as shellfish beds, grasses, and sand are be acceptable in each area as well as what uses capable of change and movements, and the policies would probably not be acceptable. Greater must recognize this. It must also be recognized participation by people with direct working the economic impacts of the program are much knowledge and regulated uses must be included in 462 39 40 drafting and applying policies and regulations. must be consolidated. Once consolidated they This can be accomplished through the membership must then be streamlined without weakening their must then be streamlined without weakening their on the coastal area review board or through the effectiveness. In order to gain a fresh per- * use of consultants from regulated industries In | spective, an outside consultant should be brought all the decisions affecting those industries. in to guide the onoldation and streamline in to guide the consolidation and streamline The program cannot work if it is unable to recog- everything. Working from within the department nize the day-to-day problems and realities of t can never happen effectively, all proposals / it can never happen effectively, all proposals regulated uses.' * ~~~~~~~~~~~~regulated uses. would be based on existing procedures. This The Department of Environmental Pro- must be accomplished with outside help. teetlon permit procedures must be simplified. It is imperative that officials o the It is Imperst'ire that officials of' the We agree with the need to protect the environ- Coastal Zone Management a better under- Coastal Zone Mlanagement developla bedtter under- ment, but the means employed to do that is 1?standing o the interrelatonshp between the standing of the interrelationship between tile actually searing away perfectly acceptable, per- environment and the economy of the coastal zone. ' ~~~~~~environment and the economy of the coastal zone. haps beneficial projects, because or the i.o: haps beneficial projects, because of the Coastal zone management funds must not be used economic and psychological strain caused by the for projects. The need for research into all permit process. Unless some overwhelming l' permit process. Unless some overwhelming aspects of the coastal zone is so great that financial gain is evident, it Just isn't worth spending coastal zone funds for projects rather pursuing a DEP permit. The kinds of businesses than research is unconscionable. than research Is unconscionable. encouraged by the Coastal Zone Management Pro- The proposed studies of recreational The proposed studies of recreational gram are essentially small, low economic yield boating in New Jersey must be pursued. The businesses. But the permit process is geared to nature of the sport, nature of the industry, being tackled by a large, high yield business users, demand, carrying capacity, restraints, capable of employing a battery of lawyers and and prospects of and recoendations or the and prospects of and recommendations for the consultants. future must be identified. A study aimed at The CAFRA wetlands and riparian permits increasing the compatibility of boats and their - m m me m m - M support facilities with the environment should be of the permit process and must be encouraged. undertaken. However, a stop must be put to the tax on pro- The state's dredging must be identified Jeets launched by people using environmental along with the agency for better responsibility , considerations as an excuse for opposing projects for the dredging. Proposals for accomplishing that they just plain don't like. It would seem that dredging must be drafted. As indicated in that for all the probable expense an applicant the Marine Trades Association response to the must go through, it would be only right that Coastal Zone Management Strategy, a concerted opponents of the application be required to effort must be made to locate and develop spoils substantiate their claims. A requirement that areas physically and economically accessible to If' opponents be required to file an environmental both the public and private sector. Goals for i1 impact statement supporting their contentions site development based on dredging needs within , would assist both permit review and application specific geographic areas must be set. Investi- i in considering objections. gation of alternative dredging methods and If By incorporating the suggestions in- dredge spoils disposal and use must also be e!; eluded in this testimony and In the association's actively pursued. Whether within state govern- - written testimony, we will be able to work with ment or research institutes, without the J" the Coastal Zone ManagEment people and we would development of spoils areas, New Jersey's like to live and work in the coastal zone for dredging needs will remain unfilled and the which the program is directed. state's waterways will continue to deteriorate. , MR. GARDNER: Thank you. Unfortunately, some supposed en- , MR. KINSEY: I have one question. You vironmentalists play at various provisions, referred to a statement suggesting that we not giving little reflection to the serious economic fund projects. What exactly did you mean by impact of their reactions. Well-founded en- , projects? vironmental considerations are an important part MR. REDPATH: Within the Draft En- 464 Ji 3 1144 "13 vironmental Impact Statement that at one point I ;i coastal zone is one that we agree wholeheartedly mentions that some of the federal funds will be t with. In fact, one of the major uses of the used to specifically fund beach access projects I first year program implementation grant to be re- and others. It doesn't define what the projects aelived with federal approval of the segment we are, but using the project in a context, it in- ' hope to do environmental sensitivity mapping of dicates it will be either construction or some- , the coastal zone segment, again to further the thing like the beach level or something along I development becoming increasingly specific on those lines. |how the coastal land and water use policies will MR. KINSEY: That helps me to under- be applied. stand. The beach level is one type of a problem, Io We look forward to your written tee- and in the last summer there was no extra support ti timony too. that was being funded. This summer the State 5. MR. REDPAT11: Thank you. Department of Environmental Protection and the 5 MR. GARDNER: I would certainly under- highway authority are funding. It score that statement, and I hope your written I have one question back to you. I'm ;; , comments will follow those up. glad you brought up the issue of the recreation 1 Thank you very much. boating study, that the state proposed to do had J Our next speaker is Mr. Alfred C. to be deferred for the funding reasons, lack of Coleman, Jr. of Pennsville, who has indicated he federal funds, as the project came close to be- ,' wanted to ask a question. ginning. Secondly, your suggestion for pre- Mr. Coleman. planning guidance is one we will all agree with, MR. ALFRED C. COLEMAN, JR.: Alfred la one reason the division has a preapplication Coleman, Pennsville, New Jersey. procedure. You members are well aware of it and Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your recog- the use helps cut down some of the delays. nlzIng the questions to be anked, since you Your suggestion for mapping of the granted possible cross-examination by the 465 4: 5 46 federal agency as well as the state. The grandfather clause protects those nuclear The Coastal Area Facilities Review Act facilities prior to the enactment of the CAFPA enables the state to approve or disapprove energy Act and permits those facilities, two and three, facilities. Will this act be amended when the for example, additional cooling powers, unproven energy siting bill is signed into law, which effect on the environment and safety and health seems to provide the commissioner of the DOE sole of citizens, and provides an open end permit to power over siting? Section 11 of the CAFRA Act / i license without amendment, without updating EIS, states that nuclear facilities before issued a f or revision to the alleged acceptable levels for permit must have provision for permanent disposal radiation provided therein. of nuclear waste. Yet a permit was issued for 10 For example, the S-3 Table of 10CFR51 Hope Creek 1 and 2. Does the act provide or II under cross-examination recently specifically does the environmental impact statement that we 12 ! read on Rule 2:22, the gentleman stated, and I are addressing here this evening or redesign or 1: believe this was Dr. Walter Jordan, possibly increase capacity for spent fuel pools qr re- I'l underestimated the acceptable exposure by a vision or amendments to original design? Do you factor of 100,000 times, not 100,000 times, a require an undated EIS for one of the most factor of a hundred thousand times. This type (, critical facilities for potential health hazard, of regulation as far as CAPRA is acceptable and the spent fuel pools? Do you use the 3-3 Table a nonworkable framework to protect either our of 10CFR51 to evaluate the EIS and all the per- ,, I. coastal area or citizens in Salem County, also manent effects to the gaseous and liquid the Oyster Creek area, possibly any future lo- effluence on the environment? cation of the floating nuclear plants, and most And this evening I scanned the NJSA recently, floating coal plants, with Salem County, 13:19-5, which permits to construct facilities, for instance, becoming a permanent waste de- dash 6 application for permit, and dash ?, con- pository in the next 30 or '0 years. tents of the environmental impact statements. The gentleman previously addressed those the assembly I believe will. be holding, on this expensive intervenors, and in some cases they the assembly I believe will be holdin on this used their own lawyer, in some cases the public proposed legislation. To answer your question will CAFRA be advocate's offisce provides the necessary lawyers i :~ al amended, that's clearly a question the legis- for those people. With interventions there are I lature can answers It's not one that repre- prehearIngs and the contentions must be proven lature can answer, it's not one that repre- j, t sentatives of the State Department of Envlron- and backed up, and at such time the nuclear reg- mental Protection can answer. But I am not ulatory commission either accepts the contentions aar of any proposals today to amend It. or rejects. They offer discovery and they must aware f any proposals today to amend t. I~ 2 ~To your second question concerning be proven. 11) Ad the redesign of spent storage facilities on So we are providing all the EIS that's necessary and a heck O a lot O it is at our Artifiahl Island, I am not aware of any pending necessary, and a heck of a lot of it is at our expense, and we are not getting paid to do it, state proposals under DEP and riparian to change we are looking out for both the environment and the key coastal programs today in the Artificial ;ii Island complex, and should one be submitted, it the citizens. would be reviewed in terms of the policies in Thank you. ..place today. MR. KINSEY: Mr. Coleman, perhaps I place today. l';: And particularly, I would like your could attempt to answer your two questions briel. l comment on the proposed policy on siting of briefly. The first question was the statute nuclear energy facilities in the coastal program, The first question was the statuteI believe, the S-1146 or 3-1147, so-called Dodd particularly page 145. l h~~~R. COLEMAN: The qu~estion actually Bill introduced by Senator Dodd in the state R. COLEMA: The question actually addressed you had issued a permit for [lope Creek senate, and which passed the state senate last addressed you had issued a permit for Hope Creek Monday 36 to 0. Theassembly has not yet taken 1 and 2. MR. KINSEY- That's correct, the UEP up the bill, and perhaps the appropriate forum : issued a permit. for this proposed shakeup would be the hearings MR. COLEMAN: O.K. Which provides for attempting to formulate a program that will pro- theMR sCoLEaN: oK Whic penroevasebides. fo the storage of 264 spent fuel assemblies.M teat the coastal areas of our state. They were If they were to come in and provide given the assignment to establish authority over for 1170 assemblies to Salem with spending the reckless growth and sprawl in our coastal applicable, would it be necessary to do anything areas, along with those of local governments and 6 under the CAFRA Act? 6| area agencies throughout the coastal regions of MR. KINSEY: It would be reviewed at our state. This is not an insurmountable task, the time of the submission, but our procedures but it must involve dedicated people. as part of the adopted CAPRA regulations for Therefore, my comments should not be provision to issue permits as necessary. If)l construed as criticism of the professional per- MR. COLEMAN: Thank you. formance of the state's OCZM staff or the dedi- MR. GARDNER: Thank you, Mr. Coleman. cation of OCZM administrative officials. Instead, Will you be submtting written comments they should be a reflection of the need for im- MR. COLEMAN: I can have them typed, i provement and review of tlie program's impact, yes. 11 cast on the municipalities and criticism of the MR. GARDNER: The last speaker who if coastal areas. i l;~~~~~~~~~~~I has indicated an interest in making a pre- 17 Mr. Chairman, pages 2 and 3 of my re- sentation is Alvin and Rosemarie Griffith of It, marks regard already expressed concerns in Cedarville, New Jersey. I'{ reference to the means for authority the state MRS. GRIFFITH: You can strike out will use to exert control over land and water the Rosemarie. 71 | uses. I believe they are already on file with MR. ALVIN aRIFFITH: Alvin Griffith, ' ; your office. For the sake of time, I will omit Lawrence Township Planning Board. I! them. However, I do request they become part The scope of New Jersey's Office of of the record. Pages 2 and 3 express my growing Coastal Zone Management task is vast in concern to the lack of coherence and integration of the environmental quality of the riparian, 1 Much of the concern embodied in the wetlands, and CAFRA rules and regulations. ' federal act of 1972 addressed preemption of local It Came as a surprise to see the 3 governments and assured that they would not be- coastal program had not adequately addressed come secontclass entities throughout the these concerns. New Jersey OCZM in developing 5 development process. The provision of a a program is aware of the shortcomings of the financial base is an essential condition to es- if three laws through the testimony of many who ? tablish this role. Although local and county came forward at public meetings to express their governments should not establish a role vis-a- dissatisfaction with them and requesting that via New Jersey OCZM, local governments needed New Jersey OCZM change the unfair aspects of i 10 professional assistance in order to offer in- them. New Jersey OCZM has been in a front ii telligent input to the program. For this they running position to initiate action that would 17 relied primarily on the county planning board. create the necessary amendments needed to reduce 1 The pass through funding program initiated in these discrepancles, but have failed to do so. I/ 1977 by New Jersey OCZM was totally inadequate Inaction has resulted in a wide- I for counties to carry out functions of communi- spread reeling that state and municipal consul- c ,, cation, consultation, and advocacy. The lack tations during the development process has of funding generally of the county has restricted taken place largely for form's sake, and that the necessary input needed to make local govern- inputs from local governments have not been l, ments effective partners. Acting individually, taken seriously. Local officials are extremely i: municipalities lack the ability to deal on a sensitive to the importance of the Coastal pro- ,1 professional or technical level with the pro- gram, and they also believe that their experience ' Cesional staff of OCZM. and awareness, as well as their very real In September 1977 Lawrence Township interest in the coast, should entitle them to be PFlanning Board requested New Jersey OCZM to more than bystanders. pass through funds and estahlish an office at Mmm m m - mm mm mm - MG - 53 Ifor endorsement. county level to better serve and educate the for endorseent. people of the coastal region. For this purpose Township Planning Board makes the following re- INew Jersey OCZM responded with $41335, a modest quests of NOAA-OCZ14: sum, to say the least, to solicit public opinion 5 Number one. On submitting Coastal Pro- and feed it back to the state. 6 gram to the secretary, it be noted that certain Action such as this has created a climate of uncertainty which will ultimately lead regulations set forth In riparian and wetland 3 I laws and the coastal boundary line in Cumberland to poor performance in the operation of the New Jersey OCZM proposed program. The public expects Io lo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 state and those local governments. more, and I'm sure Congress did too in 1972. Although the program is of national ii Number two, that NOAA-OCZM set a target Although the program is of national l~ ~date for those conflicts to be resolved. *! and state significance in the area of coastal ~:, ~~~Without the notation, and on approval management, it is even more important to the twelve coastal counties it affects. Therefore, of the secretary, the majority of the townships I5 in Cumberland County will be left with no other New Jersey OCZM and NOAA-OCZM must treat the Iss s Ialternative than to appeal the decision to the issues ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I N av aisdntional fromasa brce oard. national and regional perspective, but from a National Coastal Resources Board. local or municipal point of view as well. If For the benefit of NOAA-OCZM personnel here tonight, there Is a question as to the we cannot restore the balance and make the pro- gram a, genuine partnership between the munici- aexistence of a National Coastal Resources Board. gram a genuine partnership between the munici- palities and the state, we run the risk of having Although the Congressional Record, April 25, the program fail. 1972, indicates the creation of the board to It"s m n tprovide a forum for appeals by an aggrieved area ,~ ~~~It's my understanding that on approval of t vA Cwide planning entity or unit of local government from any decision or action of the secretary or Program to the United States Secretary of Commerce 55 [ 56 56 area wide planning entity, I have been informed 1 It is our hope that the recommendations by Mr. Jim Bowman, Executive Director of Coastal - we have made, modest though they may be, will Zone Management Advisory Committee, that the , facilitate the creation of a constructive at- board was never realized. I find no exclusion mosphere in which New Jersey OCZM and local and of the board mentioned in the amendments of 1976, county government in Cumberland County will in- so until such time I find the proper board for 6 deed work in concert to protect our coastal re- appeals, I use the National Coastal Resources 7 sources. Board to define my intent. Thank you. To conclude, it should be noted that ; MR. GARDNER: Thank you very much, Mr. the Lawrence Township Planning Board has been G riffith. favorably impressed with the efforts of the New 11 MR. KINSEY: Thank you, Mr. Griffith, Jersey OCZM4 in formulating CLAM, and the decision- 12 for your time. We will be working closely with making process described in Coastal Program, and; you. also with the dedication and capability of the I1 MR. OARDNER: Mr. Griffith, I would professional staff. However, we have raised I like to make a remark about your concern with the serious questions, in particular, the lack of | National Coastal Resources Board. It's my under- effective communications or working relation- standing that at the time the Coastal Zone ships between local governments and New Jersey | 1I Management Act was being considered in the senate I OCZMr. r and the house, the United States Senate and the The tensions between local and state House, that there was discussion of the establish- wide objectives in the planning and development ' ment of a National Coastal Resources Board for of a coastal protection program is unavoidable. a variety of functions. It would appear in the Any regional solution, however modest, guarantees bills in one of the houses--I can't remember such tensions. These tensions can be con- whether it was the senate or house bill--and structive. there was also provision made in that bill and , m 57 - m m - - in the other house bill for a National C MR O'CONNOR: Our organization Is Zone Management Advisory Committee to serve some Cumberland County's only environmental group, of the same functions. j and has been actively involved in coastal manage- It is my understanding that National i ment policy discussion and permit review since Coastal Resources Board did not survive the con- 5 1975. We find the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment ference and was never included in the enacted Draft ElS to be a. satisfactory coastal manage- 1972 act, although the Coastal Zone Management few criticisms Advisory Committee was seen as a substitute for of it, and we also believe that it is consistent that, and I think that's the reason for the con- with the policies and objectives of the Federal fusion there. 10 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. f7 MR. GRIFFITH: Thank you. II Since there will be a new bay and ocean MR. GARDNER: That concludes the list shore boundary as a result of this document, we of speakers that I have received at this point. 13 recommend that maps be prepared quickly for I !{~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I would like to, however, give tile opportunity ! I.I ii public distribution delineating the new boundary. for anyone else who may feel moved to make a If the boundary were drawn on 1:211,000 scale statement at this particular time, and I would i : topographic maps, these could be reduced to con- throw the floor open to anyone who would care to If venlent 8 1/2 by 11 inch sheets. The point I am make a statement. i m trying to make is we need to know precisely I believe this person here. i where that boundary is as quickly as possible. li MR. DANIEL O'CONNOR: My name is There is a list on page 255 of the Daniel O'Connor. I am President of the "Save Our ?draft IS which notes the wetlands maps, In- River Environment." I have a prepared statement. eluding wetlands areas considered to be within the eldnow baylands oceanshr bounsdary. t obe ofhi I Just didn't get here in time to fill out your th n forms. I the map numbers given are incorrect. Instead MR. GARDNER: Thank you. of--well, I won't read these, but there are two 60 59 maps that are incorrectly--the numbers are in- out with increasing age, making extremely correctly printed there. Some maps containing valuable wildlife habitat with extraordinary wetlands areas which are not listed but should 3 seanie qualities. The size and maturity of a be included, and I won't give you those, but stand should be factors In determining whether there are three maps altogether that should be 5 it is prime forest. included there. At several places in the draft EIS The definition of shellfish beds on 7 rare and endangered plants are discussed. The j ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~It page 31 should include the blue mussel "mytilus impression given, however, is that only those edulls" as a shellfish species. This edible ;9 plants covered by the federal Endangered Species mussel is found in commercial quantities in Act of 1973 will be protected. A distinguished shallow waters along the Atlantic Coast and l group of botanists collaborated in preparing a Delaware Bay, and I have a document which list of over 200 rare and endangered few Jersey describes that in some detail printed by the plants. It was published in 1975 in revised U.S. Department of Commerce, which I will give { form by the New Jersey State Museum under the you. Expanded commercial mussel culture is a I editorship of Dre. Fairbrothers and Hlough of distinct possibility in view of increased con- � Rutgers University. This publication Is the sumer demand and greater scientific knowledge of only authoritative source of information on flew the resource. I Jersey rare flora, and certainly should be used So-called prime forest areas should , as an integral part of the Coastal Management not be limited to white cedar stands. Other ), Program even in the absence of state legislation types of lowland swamp forests are of equal or ' mandating its use. greater value. For example, forests such as Rare plants are excellent indicators Bear Swamp in southeastern Cumberland County of biologically rich habitats, and it is not contain large numbers of trees such as sweet accidental that rare wildlife species are often gum and black gum, the interiors of which hollow found in association with rare plants. Both de- m - -mm m m--- ---- 61 serve protection. ! tidal flooding. Families living in these Farmed sites less than 20 acres in communities should be size cannot by the definition on page 65 be 3 housing facilities located outside of the 100 "prime agricultural areas" regardless of soil A year tidal flood boundary. type. This is an inexcusable loophole. The 5 The geographic areas of particular sole criteria for determining whether a particu- I concern nominated in the Draft EIS reveal extra- lar site is prime farmland should be its /':. ordinary timidity on the part of the Office of agricultural capability class. Coastal Zone Management, since each are already The soil fertility definitions on page owned by the state or are subject to strong 86 are somewhat unclear. For example, if a soil 10 state legislation. The idea should be to protect is in agricultural capability class 2 and wood- I! something that needs protection. We would pre- land suitability class 2, is its fertility 42 fer to see designation of some privately owned regarded as high or is it moderate? I prime forest lands, prime agricultural lands, It was somewhat disconcerting to see I14 or lands harboring endangered species which are 15 Bivalve and Shell Pile, two towns associated I in immediate danger of destructiondue to develop- with Cumberland County's oyster industry, singled 1i, ment. !l out for preservation under the Neighborhoods and 17 Those are my written comments, but if Special Communities resource policies section on 9 you permit me the time, I would also like to page 162. These towns were selected, we assume, ' comment on some of the things that people have for their ethnic, cultural, and historic already said up here, and what the position of qualities rather than aesthetic and architectural our group is on those. ones. Shell Pile and Bivalve will always exist John Holland of the county planning as waterfront industrial areas--at least we 7' board talked about a ten feet contour line as a hope so--but they are very poor places for resi- possible boundary, and of course we feel that dential dwellings due primarily to danger from the present boundary is acceptable. We would dential dwellings due primarily to danger from 63 6l very adamantly oppose the ten feet contour line l people will have Jobs. as a possible boundary for Cumberland County. | The gentleman from Bay Point spoke We have in Cumberland County a tre- 1 about the problems he's encountered with permits mendous amount of undeveloped, highly productive for his small home there. Hlie made many excellent agricultural wetlands, forests. We want to see points. One point in particular I would like to this land in the coastal area receive the maximum | emphasize, that is, the cost ofr engineering work amount of protection, and I'm afraid that legis- 1 and surveying and getting permits, the necessity lation, even if it might have some adverse of having an architect or an engineer actually economic effects, is the only way to do this. i' stamp the document. This is not required by the Our county here sometimes appears to In Army Corps of Engineers in its permit process as us to think that Jobs are provided only by I far as I understand, and I don't think it should factories in industrial parks, but all of our ' be required by the DEP either. major industries, glass, agriculture, food pro- I! In terms of relatively minor projects, cessing, depend on local natural resources, and I the Army Corps of Engineers allows handwritten these resources need the kind of protection that l drawings of a site by the property owner, and I the bay and ocean shore program provides. We It. think the DEP could permit this as well for small welcome this protection. II projects. This would save land owners a tre- The industrial future of Cumberland t mendous amount of money and engineering costs, County will rely primarily on development of the , and I don't think it would really substantially natural resources of Delaware Bay and the agri- Al harm the environment in any way. cultural resources of Cumberland County, and we .' And my last point, there,is a need for hope that your program will do a great deal to ' reconsideration of the riparian and wetland per- see those resources are not destroyed before mit programs administered by the DEP. We are an we've done the research we need to do in order ' environmental group, we recognize there is a to find out how to develop them properly no that need for this. We would very much like to see ~~~~~M mm m m m m -a --m - DEP policies for riparian and wetlands permit 1 one of the tasks being carried out this year by programs more clearly formulated and also much 2 the eleven coastal county planning agencies that more widely distributed to the public. There is 3 a tremendous amount of confusion here in Cumber- able passing through the state to help serve as land County over such matters as what permits 5 a clearing house to begin continued public edu- p m phs6 cation efforts. Cumberland County, Salem County, exactly what information must be included in the Cpe 1ay cost Cape May County are In part of that effort. Also eactly hticfration must bermincluded Ina sothoe a i o r m ,o there are efforts toward consolidation of ad- activities require permits, and I would think 9 ministrative consolidation of CAFFA, wetlands, that a great deal of opposition to these kinds of--this kind of legislation, coastal management activity that will be able to advance even policies, and so forth, would be limited to I further, hopefully with the financial support of people who have a better idea of what precisely the federal approval. they are required to do under the permit system. M 4. GARDNER: Thank you very much. Many people confuse the wetlands per- 15I believe the gentleman in the second raw~Indeicaeve he gentlema ike the speakouldyo mits with CAFRA permits; they confuse the I4 riparian permits with wetlands permits. They Identify yourself? don't really have much of an idea of what it is 18 they have to do under the law, and that sort 19Isle City, New Jersey. of situation causes a lot of problems from en- ?f One is I would like to ask that the section on vi ~ H ISY:Takyu r. 'onenorlst. .Ta y r'o high risk erosion areas be looked at in Section The last suggestion in terms of permit simpli- 6.4.1, especially In view of the criterion of fication and greater public education about the less than 50 years being the criterion used to requirements is an excellent one, and that is determine erosion of a barrier beach. As you know, the barrier beaches and if you would try to get off the islands in change much more quickly and much less time than ? an automobile, it would take you three to four 50 years. I live in Sea Isle City. Within the hours to move two blocks. So that some consid- last 25 years the erosion has gone from the eration should be given to the input of trarffic. south end to the north end to the middle, back s Third, I would like to support the to the north end again. motions already put forth tonight about shore This is particularly perplexing if you permit times. It was a Joy two years ago to look at this in relation to Section 7.8, which walk into the DEP office in Cape May Court House talks about beach protection measures, and one and within five minutes come out with a permit section talks about groins. But grohining that o10 to do extensive bulkhead and dock repairs. If does not create adverse conditions. I think our 1 that could be done under emergency conditions, island has demonstrated clearly if you put a I, it should be able to be done under normal con- groin in, you can expect ten blocks to the south 13 ditions. to have severe erosion problems, and this is I. And fourth, I would like to applaud recognized by the state, which has poured 15 the efforts of the DEP in funding a project re- thousands of dollars into creating a satisfactory In' cently to look at the overboard disposal of solution to that problem during the last two 1 dredge spoils. This would greatly alleviate the years. I, problems in trying to find land disposal areas Number two, I would like to also ask "' and would help keep the inland waterways that you consider the automobile traffic, and " navigable. specifically, parking on barrier beaches is a 71 l Thank you. real problem. Anyone who was in Cape May County 2' MR. GARDNER: Thank you very much. several years ago when a hurricane approached 2' MR. KINSEY: Mr. Henry, one question. quickly, it was virtually impossible to evacuate '! In reference to parking on beaches of barrier that county within a twelve-hour period of time, ' islands, were you referring to parking on the MI I I M I Ii~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 69 actual beach? You weren't referring to parking I the riparian rights than we do, but they don't on the actual beach itself? seem to know either. We are always referred back MR. HENRY: No. On my island it's 2 to the DEP in Trenton. We've gone to the only three blocks wide. governor, we've gone to the president, we've MR. KIIISEY: Thank you. gone to our senators, and we've gone the MR. GARDNER: Thank you, Mr. Henry. office of the advocate, and we have always been Is there anyone else who wishes to be told to go back to the office of the DEP to get heard at this time? clarification, which today is still not clear. Yes, ma'am. We are not business opportunists, we MRS. MARY A. DOWHY: My name is Mary I0 are not building a multi-million dollar complex Dowhy. I am from Camden, New Jersey, and I have 11 or a $500,000 business, or even a $250,000 unit. I., property in Bay Point, New Jersey. We are private citizens trying to enjoy the bay I don't know whether any of you on the I~ for relaxation and satisfying relief from our board are familiar with me, but I've been writing 1, 1 weekly chores in the city. We have limited to the DEP for the past two years in an effort 1-, means to try and keep what we thought we owned to legalize my pier. It's only a small, three 16 and had purchased with hard earned money. We foot wide pier that goes out onto the bay so I 11 now find that we own less and must pay more. can go out there and fish. I can't go out in a When we applied for a permit to add boat because I can't stand the sun that long. I? to our house in the city, we go to City Hall, After all the effort that we've put out in the ? !0 we tell them what we're going to do, they give h last two years, it doesn't seem right that I 21 us a permit, we pay for It naturally, but it's should go back home and not have had my say. a small fee, and we go ahead and construct it. So I hope you will bear with me please. But of course later they will come out and iri- We've tried to cut the red tape by spect it, approve it, and perhaps our taxes waill appealing to those who should know more about g go up a little. We are not asked to submit a, 7 2 copy of our deed, an owner's certificate cer- Holland from Cumberland County, Mr. Oriffith tifying that we have notified all the local and from Lawrence Township of both planning boards county offices. We do not have to have 15 copies in asking you that you try to simplify the appli- of certified surveyors, they certify the survey cation for permits, the hundred dollar fee we o! f our property. An impact statement is not have to pay, besides all this, plus the $25 for 'i {,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I necessary, and all the other papers, and in dupli. I permit, and I don't know what else, I am waiting cate the DEP has asked us for. 7 for the rest, I don't know what it's going to :'*~ ~The original cost to a private in- j amount to, before we're finished. But as a pri- dividual when we first started to make appli- "f vate citizen I'm asking that you consider the 'I cation, before we even applied for the permit, small, private home owner. What about those ; Just to have the surveys made, to have the bench Il people who bought property and now that they've , fline brought out to Bay Point, and the other I lost their land to erosion, they're being told Ii {: necessary things would have been $900. We wrote i that they have to move their houses? This l' to the state, we wrote to the Courier Post. The II doesn't seem right to me. V . Courier Post got to the state, the state came Ii So we are, as I said, I'm going along *1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!1 back, the State Department of Environmental 16 with the rest of the people and asking you to i; , Protection, and told us that since we were not I, try and have the Department of Environmental fle dredging, it would not be necessary to bring II Protection simplify the rules and regulations ,'! ' the bench line out, we did not have to have I for the private home owner. depth and soundings, which reduced the cost a Thank you. little bit. But we still feel that the cost of , MR. KINSEY: Thank you, Mrs. Dowhy. Just getting ready to apply for the permit is : We will continue our efforts to try to simplify prohibitive, it's far above what a common pri'- ' all of the permit procedures as well as in the vate citizen should have to pay. ' case of riparian lands, the real estate trans- '~; l So I would like to go along with Mr. action procedures that are required for the Po m m m m - - _ private property owner, or all owners, but I thing. if I rented a property and got a lease ~~~~~I I!wudtrwi ntegysf think it's proper for you all to bear in mind ? like that, I would throw it in the guy's face, the riparian land question, there are two aspects because it's no good to me, throw me out on involved in the discussion. It's not just a sudden notice overnight, you know, and after permit someone is seeking ownership or renting paying all this money, getting a lease like the tidal lands from the State of New Jersey, i that, I don't see it's doing any more good. and under the Constitution of New Jersey and MR. KINSEY: Mr. Hudson, if you have state laws the Department of Environmental Pro- I ; questions about the actual provisions of the tection has been given responsibility of managing " lease, perhaps we can discuss it afterwards, I those lands In the public trust, and that's why 10 would like to take up with you and any others our procedures for a license or a lease, or in ti in the audience of riparian rights management unusual circumstances an outright purchase of a I? in the division, because the terms of leases riparian grant. One needs both the license or 13 or appropriate instruments are fashioned in a lease as well as the permit for the small dock 14 way that hopefully are convenient for both as well as for large bulkheads. Ii parties, both the state as well as the property Wie will continue our efforts to try owner. to make the whole process simpler. / MR. HUDSON: And then after getting MR. OARDNER: Thank you, Mrs. Dowhy. 18 that lease, I am sent to the army engineers now That gentleman. t. to get another permit, and I'm still waiting on ,MH. UDSON: I would like to just say ' that. So if the army engineers has all the con- I got a shock a little while ago because I :1 , trol, why don't I get referred to them to start finally got to talk to somebody that might ?? with? listen. I didn't try to get a riparian lease, ;f MR. KINSEY: Because it Is the practice but it isn't worth anything to me because it of the army corps of engineers in New Jersey to states it can be revoked without cause or any- wait first for the state decision, because, AGA 76 after all, this is the State of flew Jersey that's away and then by an act of Ood the land is put 2 involved in the riparian process. So the state back, is it true that we have to buy that land makes the decision first and then the army corps back? of engineers, as has been noted earlier, the I got a lot 150 foot, I've got 60 |5 state does arrange, has been able to arrange f oot of dry ground to build on. If the good special procedures, for example, in the Jee Lord gives me another 60 or 90 feet back, I've emergency both the corps and the state were got to buy it back from the state, is that right? ' able to work things out quite quickly. But in Do you follow me? the course of that eice emergency, we, the de- HR. KINSEY: I hear your question loud partment, uncovered a number of, let's say, and clear. I simply do not know the answer under 1, illegal piers and docks, and there's been an New Jersey law; I am not an attorney, I don't ' effort over the past two years to legalize I? know the answer under New Jersey riparian laws. those structures, where we are the administrator 13 I will be glad to ask the attorney general's trying to carry out the laws. I 1, office to answer your question if you give me !~' ~ M~R. HUDSON: Take about 50 years to I spec O your cae. tl~~~~~do iA~t. X ~~ C~l/.~ 'MR. GENTILE: I'm not the only one, ;I MR. KINSEY: Thank you, Mr. Hudson. I7 j there's a whole lot of people, everybody in PU i~MR. GARDNER: Is there anyone else I :, Sea Breeze Beach is in the same predicament right I a who wishes to make a statement? I now. jA~ ~ Yes, air. I!1l MR. GARDNER: Thank you very much, Mr. ,~I ~ MR. FRED GENTILE: I am Fred Gentile, Gentile. i Fairfield Township. i -|Is there anyone else who wishes to '~~ ~I explained the situation the other make a statement at this time? day to people and they laughed at me. If you If not, I think we've come to the con- ". l own land along the bay and erosion carries it elunion of our hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statoment for the Bay and Ocean Shore a Certied Short I,~~~o S TEPHE J.PUL ersifeyd So Segment of the New Jersey Coastal Management | hand Reporter of the State of lew Jersey, do Program as well as hearing on the administrative 3 hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and regulations of the Coastal Resources Policies, . accurate transcript of testimony in the above en- Chapter 3. I would like to thank all of you who 5 titled cause. tildcause. have come out tonight, been here and listened 6 and participated with us. I personally have 7 found it very stimulating, very interesting, and I DATED: June - , 1978 I know David has been to meetings all over the 9 { , i state, he has enjoyed his perspective as well. 10 I{ ~! ~Dave? I i ',~ ~ MR. KINSEY: Yes. Let me Just reiter- I. . ate thanks, and also say that individuals with Il 'I J particular questions on individual matters, I 14 l'. will be glad to try to answer them after the 15 ,; meeting, or other members of the State Depart- i sI ment of Environmental Protection here will do I , our best to Just answer any questions. Ii ,'~ ~ MR. GARDNER: Thank you very much. ! Thank you all for coming. ?2