New Jersey coastal management program bay and ocean shore segment and final environmental impact statement

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Coastal Zone
informa teiof New Jese
Coastal Managemen
Program-=Bay and
Ocean Shore AE
Segment and ~~~~~OASTAL ZONE
Segment and ji~~~~~FOR~'~PATION CENTE
Final Environmental
Impact Statement

I,~~ m
JI1,11~~-
6w~~~~~~~~~I
T

.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
'-Nationall Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management
V)

The New Jersey Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment
was prepared in part with financial assistance from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, under the provisions
of Section 305 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L. 92-583, as amended).

12'3 f5

NEW JERSEY COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

BAY AND OCEAN SHORE SEGMENT

AND

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Property of CSC Library

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

August 1978

}-. O(I D . DEFPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
(:3"-S~~ ~COASIAL bEFVICES CENTER
-- 2234 SOu H HOBSON AVENUE
n S ~~~~~CtdARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

Prepared by:

State of New Jersey U.S. Department of Commerce
Department of Environmental Protection National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Division of Marine Services Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management Office of Coastal Zone Management
P. 0. Box 1889 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Washington, D.C. 20235

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
).Brendan Byrne Daniel J. O'Hern
Governor Com missioner

He~~-f STATE OF NEW JERSEY
itY~~~~~~~ ~DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECMION
DANIEL J O'HERN, COMMISSIONER
P.O. BOX 1390
TRENTON, N.J. 08625
609-292-2885

AUU z 1978

Dear Reader:

I am pleased to present you with the New=Jersey CQastal Management Program -
Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and Final Environmental Impact Statement. As Governor
Byrne indicates in his cover letter, the Department of Environmental Protection is
the lead agency for coastal zone management in New Jersey.

Preparation of this Coastal Management Program began under the leadership of
former DEP Commissioners David J. Bardin and Rocco D. Ricci. I wish to express my
gratitude to my predecessors and to Director Donald T. Graham of the Division of
Marine Services and David N. Kinsey, Chief of the Office of Coatal Zone Management
and his staff for their contributions to this work.

The Management System, including the specific responsibilities of this Depart-
ment to meet the requirements of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, are
explained within the Program description. I am also directing that all Depart-
mental decisions which affect the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment be consistent with
the Coastal Management Program, to the extent permissible under existing statutes.
In particular, the decisions of the Natural Resources Council on riparian lands
management will be subject to my oversight and approval to insure that the Pro-
gram's policies are implemented.

Insights, suggestions and criticism from a wide variety of public agencies,
organizations and individuals have already contibuted significantly to the prepa-
ration of this program for the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. The planning and
implementation of New Jersey's coastal program will be successful only if it is
understood and supported by the public.

Each area of the state is special and important, but the coast is the area
which presents perhaps the most challenging set of potential opportunities and
conflicts. This Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment is
a major step towards the maintenance and enhancement of this precious area.

Very truly urs,

\Di'sso anie J. O'Hern

1CG00% RECYCLED

NOTE TO READER/NEPA SUMMARY

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) mandates that an environ-
mental impact statement be prepared as part of the review and approval process of
major actions by Federal agencies. The action contemplated is approval of the New
Jersey Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment under Section
306(h) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (CZMA). An
immediate effect of approval is the qualification of the State for Federal -matching
funds for use in administering the Coastal Mangement Program for the Bay and Ocean
Shore Segment. In addition, New Jersey will be eligible for continued funding
under the Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP). The federal Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act stipulates that Federal activities affecting the coastal zone shall be, to
the maximum extent practicable, consistent with an approved State coastal manage-
ment program.

This document is organized as follows:

Part I -Introduction - prepared by the Federal Office of Coastal
Zone Management (OCZM) with the assistance of
the State of New Jersey.
Part II -New Jersey Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment - prepared by the state and relied
upon by the Federal OCZM as a description of
the proposed action.
Parts III-VIII - Environmental Impacts - prepared by Federal OCZM with
the assistance of the State of New Jersey.

The thirteen appendices which follow Part VIII are also part of the Program.
Appendix M includes responses to general questions raised by the public on the
Draft EIS.

For purposes of reviewing this proposed action, the key concerns are:

- whether the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment is consistent with the objec-
tives and policies of the national legislation,

- whether the State management authorities are adequate to implement the
segment,

- whether the award of Federal funds under Section 306(h) of the Federal
Act will help New Jersey to meet those objectives, and

- whether there will be a net environmental gain as a result of Program
approval and implementation.

The Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management believes the answers to these
key questions are affirmative. The Office has widely circulated this document to
all interested agencies and parties in order to receive the fullest expression of
opinion on these questions.

This Program is of major significance, not only to New Jersey, but to the
Nation. it is one of the first Programs submitted from an eastern coastal state.
Further, the New Jersey coast represents a concentration of natural, historic, and
economic attributes that is of national importance. The Federal Office of Coastal
Zone Management thanks those participating in the review of the New Jersey Coastal
Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and this environmental impact
statement.

NEPA Summary

()Draft Environmental Impact Statement (X Final Environmental
Impact Statement

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Office of Coastal Zone Management. For additional information about this proposed
action or this statement, please contact:

Office of Coastal Zone Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Attn: Ms. Kathryn Cousins
Regional Manager, North Atlantic Region or
Richard S. O'Connor
Assistant Manager, North .*L--antic Region
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235
Phone: 202/634/4235

1. Type of Action

Proposed Federal approval of New Jersey Coastal Management Program -Bay and
Ocean Shore Segment.

00 Administrative ()Legislative

2. Brief Description of Action

It is proposed that the Secretary of Commerce approve the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Program (Bay and Ocean Shore Segment) of the State of New Jersey pursuant to
P.L. 92-583. Approval would permit implementation of the proposed segmented
program, allowing program administration grants to be awarded to the State, and
require that Federal actions be consistent with the Program, to the maximum extent
practicable.

3. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Adverse Environmental Effects

Approval and implementation of the Program will allow the State to implement
more effectively existing State management within the Bay and Ocean Shore region.
The State will condition, restrict, or prohibit selected land and water uses in
some parts of the New Jersey coast, while encouraging development in other parts.
Each coastal municipality will retain primary responsibility for managing land use
along its coast. The impacts of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program - Bay
and Ocean Shore Segment will be generally beneficial, although there may be
some adverse, short-term economic impacts on some coastal users, and the Program
will entail the irreversible commitment of coastal resources.

4. Alternatives Considered

A. Federal Alternatives

The Assistant Administrator could delay or deny approval of the New
Jersey Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment under
the following conditions if:

I1. The Program does not have the authorities necessary to imple-
ment the Program at the time of Section 306 segment approval.

2. The Program does not adequately achieve the goals of the
Coastal Zone Management Act as expressed by Congress in Section
302 of the Act.

3. The national interest in the siting of facilities in the
coastal zone were not adequately considered.

4. The Bay and Ocean Shore Segment could not be unified with the
entire state coastal management program.

B. State Alternatives

I. The S'tate could withdraw its application and not seek Federal
ass istance.

2. The State could wait until the entire State Program is sub-
mitted.

3. The State could wait until new legislation is adopted that
recodifies the Wetlands Act, CAFRA and Riparian Laws.

4. The State could reduce the coastal boundary under CAFRA
jurisdict ion.

5. The State could wait until more precise policies using the
Coastal Location Acceptability Method (CLAM) have been completed or
mapped.

6. The State could seek legislation delegating coastal zone
management authority to localities.

5. A list of all Federal, State and Local Agencies and other parties from
which comments were received is listed in the Appendix M.

6. This FEIS was submitted to EPA on August 30 , 1978.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
P a g e

Governor's Letter
Commissioner's Letter
Note to Reader/NEPA Summary i
Table of Contents v

PART I: INTRODUCTION 1

PART II: NEW JERSEY COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - BAY AND 7
OCEAN SHORE SEGMENT: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

Chapter One: COASTAL MANAGEMENT IN NEW JERSEY 8

Purpose

Major Issues and Opportunities

Coastal Management Efforts in New Jersey

New Jersey Approach to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Program

Chapter Two: BOUNDARY - DEFINING THE COASTAL ZONE 14

Introduction

Inland Boundary - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment

Seaward and Interstate Boundaries - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment

Chapter Three: A VISION OF THE COAST 20

Introduction

The Vision

Basic Coastal Policies

Chapter Four: COASTAL RESOURCE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
27
1.0 General 27

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Authority

1.3 Jurisdiction

1.4 Severability

1.5 Review, Revision, and Expiration

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Cont.
Page

2.0 Coastal Decision-Making Process
30
2.1 General

2.2 Principles

2.3 Definition

2.4 Pre-Application Phase

2.5 Application or Project Review Phase

2.6 Information Requirements

3.0 Location Policies
33
3.1 General
33
3.2 Special Areas
34
3.2.1 General

3.2.2 Shellfish Beds

3.2.3 Surf Clam Areas

3.2.4 Prime Fishing Areas

3.2.5 Finfish Migration Pathways

3.2.6 Submerged Vegetation

3.2.7 Navigation Channels

3.2.8 Shipwrecks and Artificial Reefs

3.2.9 Marine Sanctuaries

3.2.10 Beaches

3.2.11 Coastal Wetlands

3.2.12 High Risk Beach Erosion Areas

3.2.13 Dunes

3.2.14 Central Barrier Island Corridor

3.2.15 Historic Places

3.2.16 Specimen Trees

3.2.17 White Cedar Stands

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Cont.
Page

3.2.18 Endangered or Threatened Wildlife or Vegetation
Species Habitat

3.2.19 Critical Wildlife Habitats

3.2.20 Public Open Space

3.2.21 Steep Slopes

3.2.22 Farmland Conservation Areas

3.2.23 Bogs and Freshwater Wetlands

3.2.24 Ephemeral Stream Corridor

3.2.25 Special Hazards Areas

3.2.26 Excluded Federal Lands

3.2.27 Borrow Pits

3.3 Water Areas 63
63
3.3.1 General Definition of Water Areas

3.3.2 General Policy on Uses of Water Areas

3.3.3 General Rationale for Water Areas Policy

3.3.4 Water Acceptability Table

3.3.5 Definitions of Water Body Types

3.3.6 Rationale for Policies by Water Body Types

3.3.7 Definitions of Water Uses

3.3.8 Water Acceptability Conditions by Water Uses

3.4 Water's Edge 83

3.4.1 General Definition of Water's Edge

3.4.2 Natural Water's Edge

3.4.3 Retained Water's Edge

3.4.4 Filled Water's Edge

3.5 Land Areas
90
3.5.1 General Definition of Land Areas

3.5.2 General Policy for Land Areas

3.5.3 Coastal Regions

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS -Cont.
Page

3.5.4 Environmental Sensitivity

3.5.5 Development Potential

3.5.6 Definition of Acceptable Intensity of Development

3.5.7 Land Acceptability Tables

3.5.8 Determination of Location Acceptability

3.6. Policy on Location of Linear Development

3.7 General Location Policy

4.0 Uses Policies 115

4.1 Purpose

4.2 Housing

4.3 Resort-Recreation

4.4 Energy

4.5 Public Facility

4.6 Industry-Commerce

4.7 Ports

4.8 Coastal Engineering

5.0 Resource Policies
147
5.1 Purpose

5.2 Marine Fish and Fisheries

5.3 Water Quality

5.4 Surface Water Use

5.5 Groundwater Use

5.6 Runoff

5.7 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control

5.8 Vegetation

5.9 Wildlife

5.10 Air

5.11 Public Services

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Cont.
Page

5.12 Public Access to the Shorefront

5.13 Scenic Resources and Design

5.14 Secondary Impacts

5.15 Buffers and Compatability of Uses

5.16 Solid Waste

5.17 Energy Conservation

5.18 Neighborhoods and Special Communities

5.19 Traffic

5.20 High Percolation Wet Soils

5.21 Wet Soils

5.22 Fertile Soils

5.23 Flood Hazard Areas

Chapter Five: MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - POLICIES ON DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES 164
!64
Introduction
164
Department of Environmental Protection 65

165
Division of Marine Services 165

- Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA)
- Wetlands Act
- Riparian Statutes
- Shore Protection Program

Other Programs in DEP 167

Division of Water Resources
Division of Environmental Quality
Division of Parks and Forestry
Green Acres Program
Division of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries
Solid Waste Administration
Office of the Commissioner

Department of Energy 173

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Cont.
Page

Other State Departments 174

Department of Agriculture
Department of Community Affairs
Department of Labor and Industry
Department of the Public Advocate
Department of Transportation

Municipal and County Government 175

Regional and Interstate Agencies 176

Public Participation 177

Conflict Resolution - Appeals
178
Chapter Six: MANAGING THE COAST: NATIONAL INTERESTS, CONSISTENCY OF
FEDERAL ACTIONS AND REGIONAL BENEFIT DECISIONS

Introduction

National Interests
180
Federal ConsistencyO
Federal Consistency ~~~~~~~~~191

Regional Benefit Decisions 199

Chapter Seven: SPECIAL COASTAL RESOURCE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT

Introduction 201

Geographic Areas of Particular Concern 201

Areas for Preservation and Restoration
206
Chapter Eight: NEXT STEPS IN COASTAL MANAGEMENT IN NEW JERSEY 207

Managing the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment 207

Completing the State's Management Program 208

Changing the Coastal Management Program
210
Part III: PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT
211
Part IV: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
225
Part V: PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CAN BE AVOIDED 231

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Cont.
Page

Part VI: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE 233
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Part VII: IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 235
THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD
IT BE IMPLEMENTED

Part VIII: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 237

APPENDICES

A. Secretarial Findings Index
241
B. The Coastal Planning Process: 1973-1978
243
C. Federal Agency Participation: 1975-1978
250
D. Local Government Participation: 1975-1978
254
E. Coastal Zone Boundary
258
F. Excluded Federal Lands
278
C. Memorandum of Understanding between DEP and DOE on
Coastal Zone Management 280

H. Legal Authorities
286
I. Legal Commentary
300
J. Glossary
306
K. Data Sources for Location Policies
317
L. Using the Coastal Resource and Development Policies
323
M. Comments and Responses on the NJCMP-Boss and DEIS (May 1978)
329

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - New Jersey Bay and Ocean Shore Segment Boundary, 1978
15
Figure 2 - New Jersey CAFRA Inland Boundary, 1973
16
Figure 3 - Segment Inland Boundary
18

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Cont.
Page

Figure 4 - Coastal Regions 22

Figure 5 - Dunes

Figure 6 - Central Barrier Island Corridor
50
Figure 7 - Water Body Types
66
Figure 8 - Natural Water's Edge 84

Figure 9 - Retained Water's Edge 86

Figure 10 - Filled Water's Edge 89

Figure 11 - Infill Diagram

Figure 12 - Outer Continental Shelf - Present and Potential Oil
and Gas Leasing Areas 127

Figure 13 - Pine Barrens Exclusion Area
129
Figure 14 - Flood Hazard Areas
162
Figure 15 - Coastal Permit Jurisdiction
166
Figure 16 - Coastal Permit Process
167
Figure 17 - Higbee Beach GAPC 203

Figure 18 - Federal Agency Participation 251

Figure 19 - Wetlands Landward of CAFRA Boundary
262
Figure 20 - New Jersey Coastal Zone Region Proposed Coastal
Zone - 1977 264

Figure 21 - New Jersey Coastal Zone Boundary Index Map and Maps
at 1:250,000 Scale

Figure 22 - Selected Salinity Data
275
Figure 23 - Major Federal Lands Excluded from the Bay and
Ocean Shore Segment 279

PART I

INTRODUCTION

The New Jersey Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment has
been prepared to determine and describe New Jersey's strategy to manage the
future protection and development of the coast. The State of New Jersey is seeking
approval of the Program by the U. S. Department of Commerce to obtain the benefits
of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, which will aide State efforts to manage
the often conflicting pressures facing the coast.

This document serves as a combined Coastal Management Program for the Bay
and Ocean Shore Segment and as a Final Environmental Impact Statement, because
federal approval of a state coastal management program is considered a "major
action" requiring an environmental impact statement under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act (NEPA). The New Jersey 'Department of Environmental Protection,
Office of Coastal Zone Management (DEP-OCZM) prepared the Coastal Management
Program, in part with funding provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration CNOAA).

New Jersey is preparing its coastal management program in two phases. The
geographic area addressed by this first part of the New Jersey Coastal Management
Program includes a 1,382 square mile land area and related coastal waters in a
region stretching from the Raritan Bay along the Atlantic oceanfront to the Delaware
Bay. This is the area defined by the State Legislature in the Coastal Area Facility
Review Act (CAFRA) of 1973, plus coastal wetland areas inland of the CAFRA boundary
which are regulated under the Wetlands Act of 1970.

Thi's document defines and explains the Coastal Resource and Development
Policies and the management system the Department of Environmental Protection and
the Department of Energy will use in managing activities in this Coastal Program
Segment. The Coastal Policies are divided into three groups: (1) Location Poli-
cies evaluate specific types of coastal locations, such as wetlands and prime farm
land; C2) Use Policies are directed at different uses of the coastal zone, such as
housing and energy facility development; and (3) Resource Policies focus on con-
trolling the effects of development, such as water runoff and soil erosion, and on
the protection of natural and cultural resources.

The major choices and basic direction provided in the many specific policy
statements are represented by four Basic Coastal Policies:

1. Protect the coastal ecosystem.

2. Concentrate rather than disperse the pattern of coastal
residential, commercial, industrial, and resort-oriented
development, and encourage the preservation of open space.

3. Employ a method for decision-making which allows each
coastal location to be evaluated in terms of both the
advantages and the disadvantages it offers for development.

4. Protect the health, safety and welfare of people who
reside, work, and visit in the coastal zone.

The Coastal Management Program will be implemented through existing laws and
agencies. The principal legal authority will be the coordinated use of the Coastal
Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA), Wetlands and Waterfront Development (riparian)
permit programs, shore protection program and the regulatory activities of the
Department of Energy. The Coastal Area Facility Review Act (N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 et
seq.) is New Jersey's major coastal law. In CAFRA, the Legislature entrusted the
Department of Environmental Protection with the responsibility to regulate the
location, design, and construction of housing developments of 25 or more units and
most major industrial, sewer, and energy facilities in the legislatively-defined
"Coastal Area". Since CAFRA took effect in September 1973, DEP has received 267
applications for CAFRA permits. To date, 179 applications have been approved,
while 18 residential projects and one sanitary landfill have been denied CAFRA
permits.

DEP also has authority to regulate certain activities on mapped coastal
wetlands, under the Wetlands Act of 1970 (N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 et seq.). Virtually any
development in a mapped tidal wetland must receive a Wetlands permit before con-
struction can begin. In addition, certain activities are prohibited in the wet-
lands, including dumping solid waste, discharging treated or untreated sewage
waste, storing or disposing of pesticides, applying persistent pesticides, and
applying pesticides on significant stands of wetlands vegetation.

New Jersey's third major coastal law is the set of riparian statutes which
apply to the lands now or formerly flowed by tidal waters. Under these statutes,
DEP and the Natural Resource Council (an autonomous but closely related citizen
body, with members appointed by the Governor with the consent of the State Senate)
can sell or lease these lands, and manage most activities on the lands through the
administration of the Waterfront Development permit program. Through the riparian
statutes, DEP requires a permit for construction or alteration of facilities such
as a dock, wharf, pier, bulkhead, bridge, pipeline or cable, and dredging and
filling involving lands flowed by the tide.

New Jersey's fourth key coastal law concerns the shore protection program
of state aid to municipalities to finance structural and non-structural solutions
to shoreline erosion.

The policies and procedures outlined in Part II, Chapter Four have been
adopted as rules by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection.

The Coastal Program will also rely upon the consistency of federal actions
and actions of other agenies to carry out the Basic Coastal Policies, to the extent
statutorily permissible. Finally, the Coastal Program will serve as guidance to
municipal, county and regional agencies with coastal decision-making responsibilities.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued in May 1978 was a
revision of the Coastal Management Strategy for New Jersey-CAFRA Area submitted by
DEP to the Governor, Members of the State Legislature, and the general public in
the Fall of 1977. More than 80 individuals, groups, and agencies submitted com-
ments on the Strategy either in writing or at one of the eight public meetings
convened by DEP and attended by more than 300 people. Although the Basic Coastal
Policies and the Use Policies remained substantially the same, the public comments
led to numerous revisions and additions between the Strategy and the DEIS. The
most significant change was the total reorganization and rewriting of the Location

Policy, defined in the Coastal Management Strategy as the Coastal Location Accept-
ability Method or CLAM. The individual comments and DEP responses to them were
summarized in Appendix C and E of the DEIS and presented in greater detail in a
separate document, Coastal Management Strategy-Public Comments and DEP Responses
(May 1978).

The Draft EIS of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program-Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment was distributed to, and reviewed by the public between May and July 1978.
The review process and public comments are described in detail in Appendix M.

The award of federal funds will allow New Jersey to:

a) continue to refine, develop and implement the Program's Coastal Resource
and 'Development Policies, also referred to as the Coastal Location
Acceptability Method (CLAM), including identification of more specific
site locations appropriate for specific uses.

b) undertake mapping programs which will chart the natural, social and
economic land and water features of the coastal zone.

c) promote appropriate uses of coastal resources,.by encouraging acceptable
economic develpoment and undertaking projects such as the Beach Shuttle
Service.

d) increase coordination on coastal decision making among federal, state,
and local governmental agencies.

e) continue educational and information programs and projects to increase
coastal awareness.

f) develop more specific energy facility siting criteria and policies
jointly with the New Jersey Department of Energy.

g) coordinate with Atlantic City and Atlantic County officials in the
planning and redevelopment of Atlantic City and its region.

h) support and promote access to beaches and other waterfront areas.

i) improve coastal management enforcement and monitoring programs in DEP.

j) fully consider the national interests in the use of coastal resources.

History of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583 was passed in recognition
of the importance of the coastal zone of the United States and the potentially
adverse affects of intense pressures upon this national resource. The Act author-
ized a voluntary program of financial assistance to states to manage their coasts
and is administered by the Secretary of Commerce, who in turn delegated this
responsibility to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Office of Coastal Zone Management. The program -was substantially modified by
the Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976 (P.L. 94-370).

The CZMA opens by stating "there is a national interest in the effective
management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone"
(Section 302(a)). The statement of Congressional findings goes on to describe how
competition for the utilization of coastal resource brought on by the increased
demands of population growth and economic expression has led to the degradation of
the coastal environment, including the "loss of living marine resources, wildlife,
nutrient-rich areas, permanent and adverse changes to ecological systems, decreas-
ing open space for public use, and shoreline erosion." The CZMA then states, "the
key to more effective protection and use of the land and water resources of the
coastal zone is to encourage states to exercise their full authority over the land
and waters in the coastal zone by assisting states ... in developing land and water
use programs ... for dealing with coastal land and water use decisions of more than
local significance" (Section 302(h)).

The state level of government has prime responsibility for achieving "effec-
tive management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone"
(Section 302(a)). Under Section 305 of the federal Act, up to four years of grants
are available to 34 coastal states and territories (the Great Lakes States are
included) to finance up to 80 percent of program development costs. General
guidelines for the preparation of management programs are provided in 15 CFR
920.50.

After developing a management program, the state may submit its program
to the Assistant Administrator for approval. If a program has deficiencies which
can be remedied but prohibit full approval under Section 306, the state is eligible
for additional funding under Section 305(d). Funds provided under this Section can
be used for initial program implementation and continued program development
efforts (15 CFR 920.61). If approved, the state is then eligible for annual grants
under Section 306 to administer its management program.

NOAA-OCZM has published criteria to be used for approving state coastal
management programs and guidelines for program administration grants (15 CFR Part
923, Federal Register 40 (6): 1683-1695). These criteria and guidelines set forth
(a) the standards to be utilized by the Assistant Administrator in reviewing and
approving coastal management programs developed and submitted by coastal states for
approval, (b) procedures by which coastal states may qualify to receive program
administration grants, and (c) policies for the administration by coastal states of
approved coastal management programs. The Assistant Administrator will review the
management program in accordance with the following general requirements:

1) That the management program is comprehensive. The Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act emphasizes that important ecological, cultural, historic and
aesthetic values such as living marine resources, wildlife habitats, open
space and nutrient rich areas are being lost or adversely affected by
population growth and economic development in the coastal zone.

2) That the policies, standards, objectives and criteria upon which deci-
sions pursuant to the program will be based are articulated clearly and
are sufficiently specific to provide (i) a clear understanding of the
program and how, and (ii) a clear sense of direction and predictability
for decision makers who must take actions pursuant to or consistent with
the management program; and

3) That there are sufficient policies of an enforceable nature to insure the
implementation of and adherence to the management program.

As of August 1, 1978, 33 out of 34 eligible coastal states and territories had
received program development grants and seven states (Washington, Oregon, Cali-
fornia, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, and Michigan) and two segments had
received program approval under Section 306. The New Jersey Coastal Management
Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment is one of several programs proposed for
approval prior to October 1978.

The 1976 Amendments established a new assistance program called the Coastal
Energy Impact Program (CEIP), consisting of grants, loans, and bond guarantees to
states impacted by OCS oil and gas or other forms of energy development. In order
to be eligible for assistance, a state must be receiving development (305) or
administration (306) grants, or, in the Assistant Administrator' s view, be devel-
oping a management program consistent with the policies and objectives contained in
Section 303 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Other sections of the Act provide
grants to states to coordinate, study, plan, and implement interstate coastal
management programs (Section 309); allow the Assistant Administrator to conduct a
pro-ram of research, study, and training to support state management programs
(Section 310) and provide grants to states to acquire lands for access to beaches
and other public coastal areas (Section 315).

Besides the financial assistance incentive for state participation, the
Coastal Zone Management Act stipulates that federal actions affecting the coastal
zone shall be, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved state
management programs, the "federal consistency" requirement, Section 307(c)(l)
and (2). The state must concur with any applicant's certification that a federal
license or permit affecting land and water uses within the coastal zone is con-
sistent with the state's coastal management program before the federal license or
permit can be issued. Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act requires that
any outer continental shelf oil and gas activity described in an exploration,
development or production plan be certified prior to any approval by the Department
of interior. All direct federal development activities and certain forms of
federal assistance to state or local governments must also be consistent with the
approved program. Section 307 further provides for mediation by the Secretary of
Commerce when serious disagreement arises between a federal agency and a state
with respect to the administration of a state's program and shall require public
hearings in the concerned locality.

PART II

NEW JERSEY COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - BAY AND OCEAN SHORE SEGMENT

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

This Part presents the New Jersey Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean
Shore Segment in eight chapters, as prepared by the State of New Jersey. Chapter
One presents background information. Chapter Two defines the geographic scope of.
the Program. Chapter Three describes a vision of the future coast this program is
designed to help create. Chapter Four presents the heart of the- Program, the
policies on what should or should not take place in the 'coastal zone. All of
Chapter Four has been adopted, with appropriate revisions based on public comments,
as an agency rule according to the provisions of New Jersey's Administrative
Procedures Act. Chapter Five indicates how decisions will be made to carry out the
Program. Chapter Six addresses the national interests, federal consistency, and
uses of regional benefit. Chapter Seven addresses specific coastal resource and
development policy concerns required under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
Chapter Eight concludes with the next steps in the coastal management process in
New Jersey. Several appendices in this document are also part of the Program.

Chapter One: COASTAL MANAGEMENT IN NEW JERSEY'

Purpose
Major Issues and Opportunities
Coastal Management Efforts in New Jersey
New Jersey's Approach to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Program

Purpose

The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has prepared the New Jersey
Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment to protect the state's
coastal resources while accommodating needed future development. The Program
provides the statements of policy which will be followed by DEP in making coastal
decisions and which will guide other public and private actions. affecting the
coast. The Coastal Program is also designed to enable New Jersey to meet the
requirements, and thereby reap the benefits of the federal Coastal Zone Management
Act, particularly greater consistency between state and federal actions in the
coastal zone and federal funds for New Jersey's coastal management efforts.

This document describes the Coastal Program for the Delaware and Raritan
Bay and Atlantic Ocean Shore Segment of the New Jersey Coastal Zone. The Coastal
Program for the Segment includes a boundary description, statements of policy, and
� management system to apply the policies within the described boundary, as well as
� discussion of the next steps in the coastal planning process. Most regulatory
determinations will be made through the permit application process.

The Coastal Program also presents the standards DEP will use. to determine
the consistency of actions proposed in the coastal zone by federal, state, and
local agencies. New Jersey's coastal policies will be used to determine the con-
sistency with the approved program of federal activities, development projects,
licenses, permits, and financial assistance to the State and local governments
under Section 307 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. The Coastal Program
will aide DEP when it is called upon to review federal domestic financial assist-
ance applications under the A-95 Project Notification and Review Process, as well
as Environmental Impact Statements prepared under the National Environmental Policy
Act. From time to time, DEP is also likely to receive requests for advice or
comments on the adequacy or appropriateness of plans and proposals by government
agencies and private interests. The Coastal Policies provide a visible basis for
offering an informed comment on the consistency of these plans and proposals.

State funding decisions that affect coastal resources will also be guided by
the Coastal Program. In particular, several important State aid, and direct State
financing programs administered by DEP involve decision-making in the Bay and
Ocean Shore Segment: (1) the Green Acres Open -Space Acquisition and Outdoor
Recreation program of grants to local governments and direct DEP efforts, (2) the
Shore Protection program of matching grants to local governments, and (3) the
wastewater treatment facilities construction grants program.

This Coastal Management Program is a tool for making decisions, but it is not
a panacea. It is important to understand that this document is not a detailed,
rigid plan indicating only one activity which can or should take place on each
site, block, or acre in the coastal zone. New Jersey has deliberately designed a
program which accommodates the creativity, interests, and initiative of individual
land owners, developers, citizens, and others, and recognizes the State's historic
commitment to a strong role for local governments in land use decision-making. The
Program, therefore, focuses on coastal resource management decisions with greater
than local significance that the Legislature has entrusted to State agencies. The
Coastal Program provides enforceable policies to form predictable and consistent
decisions which will best manage New Jersey's coast.

Major Issues and Opportunities

Sand dunes, power plants, surf clams and tankers all share the resources of
New Jersey's coast. Over the years, numerous competing and often conflicting
activities have converged on the Jersey Shore. New Jersey residents and tourists
from all regions of the country spend their vacations at the Jersey Shore which
accounts for the vitality of New Jersey's second largest revenue-producing indus-
try, tourism. Boaters, fishermen, divers, young and old enjoy the ocean breezes
and salt air. Rapid development of the shore area to accommodate those seeking
relief from hot summers in the city, as well as those desiring permanent residence
in a healthy environment, however, has created many competing pressures for the
coast's fragile resources. New Jersey's wetlands were disappearing until the
passage of the Wetlands Act. The barrier islands are overbuilt. The shoreline is
eroding. Fish and shellfish resources are under intense pressure from recreational,
commercial and industrial interests. The energy industry continues to examine the
coast for potential sites for energy facilities. How can the Jersey coast be
maintained as a healthy ecosystem and guard against the depletion of natural
resources, while accommodating those resort-oriented and other activities and
facilities which belong on the coast? Recognizing the coast as one of the nation's
and state's most important resources, coastal laws were passed in 1970 and 1973 at
the state level in New Jersey and 1972 and 1976 at the federal level to provide
funding, regulatory techniques and governmental and public focus on the management
of coastal areas.

One of the major issues the Coastal Program addresses is water quality. The
water bodies in the coastal area are crucial to the vitality of the coastal
ecosystem and the protection of the health and safety of coastal and many inland
residents. Proper management can alleviate problems of contaminated ground and
surface water, stream turbidity and lind and bank erosion. Good water quality is
also essential to the fish and shellfishing industry, as well as to sport fishermen
and boaters.

Recent storms and increased development have contributed to New Jersey's
eroding shoreline. Beach restoration and preservation are essential for main-
taining New Jersey's thriving tourist industry. Construction along the beach and
waterfront areas can also limit public access to the shore. High-rises built in
the past have obstructed some panoramic vistas, and some beachfront development
interferes with passive and active coastal recreation.

The coast does not just include pristine areas. Many of the once thriving
urban waterfronts in New Jersey are now vacant land and unused, poorly maintained
docks. Atlantic City faces a unique set of development pressures from casino
gambling and offshore oil and gas exploration.

Energy is one of the most complex issues facing the entire country. The
Jersey coast currently has two operating nuclear plants and four more are under
construction. The prospect of oil and gas exploration and development off New
Jersey's coast is now a reality. New Jersey will have to grapple with the new
demands which will be placed on the coast's resources by the activities and
facilities associated with exploration, and later, possible development and
production of offshore oil and gas.

Public concern for prudent coastal management reflects a general concern for
the quality of life. People want to live in a healthy environment, and provide a
healthy environment for all the other living resources which are part of the
coastal ecosystem. However, the public often expresses concern over the morass of
regulations at all levels of government directed toward management of public goods
and resources. Often, the applications, fees, permits and time delays appear to
overshadow the intended benefits of a resource management program.

Despite the federal and state legislation for coastal management in New
Jersey, the coastal program faces several constraints. The real property tax
system has led to inter-municipal rivalry for ratable-producing property. Con-
struction and development often take precedence over concern for open space in
some financially hard pressed municipalities. New Jersey's strong tradition of
home rule has meant that some municipalities make individual development decisions
with little regard for regional impacts, posing severe constraints for the proper
management of coastal regions. In addition, the actions, or lack of action, of
neighboring states can affect New Jersey's coast.

Coastal management in New Jersey is a delicate process, balancing fragile
and sensitive environmental resources with development essential to the economy of
the state. The public wants to work, live, and play, in the coastal zone, as well
as to develop, restore and protect the coast. The agenda of coastal zone manage-
ment ranges from dredge spoil disposal to offshore oil, from protection of surf
clam beds to preservation of dunes. This requires a program that is dynamic and
flexible to change, and, most important, responsive to the concerns of the citizenry
while being sufficiently specific to indicate to public officials and private
interests the implications of the program.

Coastal Management Efforts In New Jersey

In New Jersey, the Legislature has given increasing responsibility for coastal
management to the state government. The State's active involvement in coastal
management dates back to 1776 when it became owner of all tide-flowed lands, as a
result of the American Revolution. During the past 200 years, the state's policies
and practices have reflected the concerns and perception of the time. In the late
1800's and early 1900's for example, the State sold considerable amounts of
riparian land to railroad and land development companies at bargain rates. In the
early 1900's the State began to more actively regulate construction along the tidal
waterfronts of New Jersey.

Within the past decade, however, as the public's environmental consciousness
has grown, the State's role has increased. The Department of Environmental Pro-
tection, created in 1970, has had the lead responsibility for the state's coastal
management activities. Through the Shore Protection Program, DEP has disbursed
millions of dollars for shore protection structures and prog rams. In recent years,
DEP has used that funding as an incentive to encourage municipalities to provide
public access to adjacent waters and shorefront areas.

In 1970, the Legislature passed the Wetlands Act and, in 1973, the Coastal
Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA). The two resulting regulatory programs, together
with the State's responsibility to approve all activities on riparian land, solidi-
fied the State's role in coastal management. The pressures faced by the New Jersey
coast for oil and gas, recreation, casino gambling, and many other activities,
along with the opportunities provided by the federal Coastal Zone iManagement Act of
1972, have further intensified and concentrated the State's efforts to manage the
coast.

New Jersey Approach to the National Coastal Zone Management Program

The federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P. L. 92-583, as amended
in 1976 by P.L. 94-370) established a voluntary national program to encourage
coastal states to define and carry out comprehensive programs to manage coastal
areas. Administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
Office of Coastal Zone Management (NOAA-OCZM) in the U. S. Department of Commerce,
the basic national program offers states two chief incentives: First, funds for
coastal planning and management, and second, an opportunity to increase the con-
sistency of federal actions in a stat~e's coastal zone with the state's own coastal
policies.

It it important to note that unli1~e the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, no direct federal coastal management standards or regula-
tions will be imposed if New Jersey fails or declines to develop a federally
acceptable coastal management program.

New Jersey began participating in the national coastal management program in
June 1974, by receiving its first coastal planning, or program development, grant
from NOAA-OCZM. Since 1974, federal grants have provided more than two-thirds of
the funds, or approximately $1.9 million, used by the Department of Environmental
Protection and other state and county agencies for coastal planning. Federal
approval of New Jersey's coastal management program entitles the State to continue
receiving federal grants.

The federal Coastal Zone Management Act and the NOAA-OCZM regulations con-
cerning the approval of management programs (15 CFR 923, Federal Register, Vol. 43,
No. 41, March 1, 1978, pp. 8378-8431) define the framework, program approval
standards, and options available to states in formulating a coastal management
program. The New Jersey approach to the national program features submission of a
management program for federal approval in two phases and reliance upon direct
state controls to carry out the program.

The region defined by state law as the "Coastal Area" in the Coastal Area
Facility Review Act of 1973, and commonly referred to as the "CAPRA Area", gen-
erally defines the geographic extent of the first phase, or segment, of New Jersey's
coastal management program submitted for federal approval. Approximately 3, 750
acres of Coastal Wetlands already regulated under the Wetlands Act, located -inland
of the CAPRA boundary, are also included in the geographic scope of the Bay and

Ocean Shore Segment. New Jersey's use of the option to pursue federal approval of
the Segment recognizes the fundamental adequacy of the State's coastal management
program in the major, Delaware Bay, Raritan Bay and Atlantic Ocean front portion of
New Jersey's coastal zone.

This document constitutes the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment management program
submission to NOAA-OCZM. The second phase, completing the management program for
the entire coastline of the state as described in Chapter Seven, is expected to be
submitted for federal approval in 1979.

State coastal management programs vary across the nation, and properly so
given the diversity of resources and pressures facing the shorelines of the United
States. One important distinction between state coastal programs is the approach
to governmental decision-making. New Jersey's program has been fashioned by
drawing upon New Jersey's pattern of selected State involvement in coastal land and
water use decision-making, within a tradition of strong municipal land use decision-
making.

The federal Coastal Zone Management Act offers a state three broad options
for implementing its coastal program:

Technique A - Local Implementation - Section 306(e)(1)(A)
Technique B - Direct State Control - Section 306(e)(1)(B)
Technique C - Case-by-Case Reviews - Section 306(e)(1)(C)

Technique A means that states may establish criteria and standards for local
implementation, under state review and enforcement procedures. Technique B means
that states may engage in direct regulation. Technique C means that states may
operate through the administrative review of local plans, projects and regulations
for consistency with statement management.

New Jersey opts for the direct state control approach (Technique B), relying
upon existing state laws which entrust the Department of Environmental Protection
and Department of Energy with direct state control over selected coastal areas and
selected uses of coastal resources. This is the only feasible option under current
New Jersey law.

In particular, the DEP enabling legislation, and the Coastal Area Facility
Review Act (CAFRA), Wetlands Act, and riparian and shore protection statutes, as
well as the Department of Energy Act, provide a strong mandate and basis for direct
State agency involvement in key decisions involving the coastal region.

The strong direct State role does not mean that DEP will regulate every
proposed use of coastal resources within the defined coastal zone. Local govern-
ments in the coastal zone will continue to be solely responsible for the consider-
able amount of land and water use decision-making in the coastal zone which has no
regional impact, as defined by State law.

New Jersey's management program for the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment has three
interrelated, basic elements: First, a boundary defining the general geographic
scope of the program; Second, Coastal Resource and Development Policies defining
the standards for making decisions on what activities may take place within the
boundary; and Third, a management system defining the types of decisions subject to
the program, and the process by which those decisions will be made. The Coastal
Management Program, a guide to decision-making, resembles a tripod. All three

legs, or elements, must be firmly in place for the Program to stand and work. All
three elements function together and must be read and understood tghe, e spe-
cially because of New Jersey's direct state control approach.

For example, if read out of the context of the overall management program,
the Coastal Resource and Development Policies could be applied to every land and
water use decision in the coastal zone, from the location of a single gas station
to a nuclear generating station. That is not the intent here. Rather, the Coastal
Resource and Development Policies are to be applied as substantive standards for
decision-making for only those selected coastal decisions defined in the management
system, particularly on CAFRA, Wetlands, and riparian permit applications. The
Coastal Policies could, however, because of their comprehensive nature, be used to
guide other decisions not strictly subject to the New Jersey Coastal Program. The
heart of the program remains, however, the combination of boundary definition,
policy statements, and decision-making processes that in concert spell out New
Jersey's approach to managing its coastal resources.

Chapter Two: BOUNDARY-DEFINING THE COASTAL ZONE

Introduct ion
Inland Boundary - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment
Seaward and Interstate Boundaries - Segment

Introduction

Different people and various interest groups hold different perceptions of the
geographic extent of New Jersey' s coastal resources. This chapter defines the
boundary of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment of New Jersey's coastal zone under the
federal Coastal Zone Management Act. At this stage of New Jersey's participation
in the national coastal management program, the geographic scope of the New Jersey
Coastal Program submitted for federal approval is limited to this initial segment.
New Jersey's coastal management program for federal purposes does not yet include
the entire coastline of the state. The proposed boundary for the entire coastal
zone is described in Appendix E. All federal lands are excluded from the coastal
zone. Appendix F contains a list of the excluded federal lands.

The boundary for the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment must not be considered in a
vacuum. It must be read and understood in concert with the Coastal Resource and
Development Policies of Chapter Four and the Management System of Chapter Five that
defines how decisions on uses of coastal resources will be made within the defined
boundary under the Coastal Management Program.

Inland Boundary - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment

The geographic scope of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment includes lands along
New Jersey's Atlantic Ocean shoreline, lands along the bays behind the barrier
islands, and lands along the Delaware Bay and Raritan Bay. This general descrip-
tion provides the basis for the term "Bay and Ocean Shore Segment", as depicted in
Figure 1. The actual inland boundary of the Segment uses the CAFRA boundary and
the Upper Wetlands Boundary, and is defined as:

The landward boundary of the Coastal Area as defined in the
Coastal Area Facility Review Act, or the Upper Wetlands
Boundary of coastal wetlands located landward of the CAFRA
boundary along tidal water courses that flow through the
CAFRA Area, whichever is-more landward, including State-
owned tidelands.

In 1973, the Legislature enacted and the Governor signed into law the Coastal
Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA). This law includes a statutory "Coastal Area"
that generally describes the inland boundary of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment,
with the ex'ception of certain additional wetlands areas as defined in this chapter.
The inland boundary of the "Coastal Area"' delineated under CAFRA in 1973 appears on
Figure 2. It extends from the Raritan Bay east to Sandy Hook, south to Cape May
Point and north and west up the Delaware estuary almost to the Delaware Memorial
Bridge north of Salem. The total land area is 1,376 square miles or 17 percent of
New Jersey's land area. The coastline is more than 215 miles in length, with 126
miles along the Atlantic oceanfront from Sandy Hook to Cape May. Inl~and the CAFRA
boundary ranges from a few thousand feet from the ocean in Monmouth County, to 24
miles from the Atlantic Ocean around the Mullica River at Batsto in Burlington

Figure I

NEW JERSEY N

BAY AND K.

OCEAN SHORE

SEGMENT ~ P~:c~

BOUNDARY',:

1978 tc ry

(CAFRA AND
WELNDS) / -

P- J,

hA,
A-~~~J Di

PENNSLAI a N_ L ~ I
DELAWAN E \ ~ :~&

1 /

* ~~~~~~~~ENVIRNMENETAL PROTECTIOA

Figure 2

CAFRA

BOUNDAR
1973

tvo00

U~~1

County. Major roads and rights-of-way, such as the Garden State Parkway and county
roads, define the inland boundary. The law excluded a small area around the Cape
May County Airport from the "Coastal Area". A metes-and-bounds description of the
"Coastal Area" may be found in the statute in Appendix H (N.J.S.A. 13:19-4).
Maps indicating the CAFRA boundary on U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangle
maps (scale of one inch = 2,000 feet or 1:24,000) are available for public inspec-
tion at the Trenton offices of DEP's Division of Marine Services.

The CAFRA Area features the stretch of barrier islands and headlands tra-
ditionally called the "Jersey Shore," *long known as a recreation area for the
state, northeastern United States, and Canada. Thip area includes all of the
state's oceanfront beaches. Parts of the unique Pine Barrens, as well as the
shores of the Delaware Bay and Raritan Bay are also included within the "Coastal
Area". All of Atlantic City, which faces new opportunities and problems as a
result of casino gambling and offshore oil and gas exploration, lies within the
CAFRA Area.

While the statutory CAFRA Area does include considerable portions of the
regulated coastal wetlands, DEP completed the rigorous delineation and mapping of
coastal wetlands required by the Wetlands Act of 1970 (N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 et seq.)
after enactment of CAFRA. As a result, approximately 3,750 acres of selected
coastal wetlands are found landward of the present CAFRA inland boundary, along
tidal streams that are largely included within the CAFRA Area. This situation
occurs primarily in Atlantic, Burlington, Cumberland, Monmouth and Salem counties.
In order to comply with the inland boundary requirements of the federal Coastal
Zone Management Act, these coastal wetlands must be included with this first
segment of New Jersey's coastal management program. State-owned tidelands along
these same tidal streams are also included by definition.

The-Upper Wetlands Boundary defines land areas subject to the jurisdiction of
the Wetlands Act, on photo-maps (scale of one inch = 200 feet or 1:2,400) on file
at county court houses and available for inspection at the Trenton offices of DEP's
Division of Marine Services. Appendix E lists the DEP Wetlands maps that include
Coastal Wetlands areas considered to be within the inland boundary of the Bay and
Ocean Shore Segment. Figure 3 shows an example of an area in Monmouth County where
wetlands extend landward of the CAFRA. boundary. As the inland boundary of the
Segment is not exactly the same as the CAFRA inland boundary, the phrase "Bay
and Ocean Shore" will be used to describe the geographic area that includes the
CAFRA Area and these directly adjacent Wetlands, for the purposes of the federal
Coastal Zone Management Act. This term will also be used to distinguish the Bay
and Ocean Shore Segment from the waterfront areas of New Jersey's coastline
along the Delaware and Hudson rivers.

Finally, as DEP completes its multi-year tidelands delineation program, the
inland boundary of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment may require further revision to
include tidelands that may also be located landward of the present CAFRA boundary.

Seaward and Interstate Boundaries - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment

The seaward boundary of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and indeed the entire
coastal zone is the outer limit of the United States territorial sea. This limit
is three nautical miles from base lines established by international law and
defined by the United States. The geographic jurisdiction of the Coastal Area
Facility Review Act extends seaward to the State's territorial limit.

Figure 3

-;mI' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~DMRENTO

egulate~~~~~~~~~PNOdENA eflandlC

Source: EXCERPT OF D.E.P SCALE
WETLANDS MAP 1: 2,400
NO, 574 -2154 I I' I
MONMOUTH COUNTY 0 50' 100' 200' 300'

New Jersey has potential interstate coastal zone boundaries with Delaware,
New York, and Pennsylvania, but the Pennsylvania boundary will not be addressed
here as it does not affect the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment.

New Jersey's Bay and Ocean Shore Segment boundary with the State of Delaware
through Delaware Bay and the Delaware River was established in 1933 by the U.S.
Supreme Court in New Jersey v. Delaware (291 U.S. 361). The interstate boundary is
generally along the ship channel in the middle of Delaware Bay. However, from a
point near the northern tip of Artificial Island, in Lower Alloways Creek Township,
Salem County, the interstate boundary between New Jersey and Delaware extends
north at the mean low water line on the New Jersey shoreline, until the Delaware-
Pennsylvania boundary. Resolution of potential conflicts between the coastal
policies of Delaware and New Jersey will require continued coordination and work
in the first year of Program approval, toward appropriate agreements between the
coastal management programs of both states, Salem County and the affected munici-
palities.

The extensions on the open sea of New Jersey's boundaries with New York and
Delaware are not yet determined. The issue of the lateral seaward boundary is
receiving focused attention as a result of the 1976 amendments to the federal
Coastal Zone Management Act, which created a Coastal Energy Impact Program to
assist states financially to cope with the onshore effects of offshore oil and gas
energy activities. Each state's share of this financial assistance depends in part
upon the leased Outer Continental Shelf acreage adjacent to a particular coastal
state. Adjacency is determined by the extension of the lateral seaward boundary of
each state or the delineation of a resource allocation between states. The New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New Jersey Department of
Energy, the designated lead agency for administration of the Coastal Energy Impact
Program in New Jersey, are taking steps to define the lateral seaward boundaries of
New Jersey with Delaware and with New York.

CHAPTER THREE: A VISION OF THE COAST

Introduction
The Vision
Basic Coastal Policies

Introduction

This Chapter explains the general direction of coastal zone management in New
Jersey by describing the desirable and likely future of eight regions withiin the
Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. It also includes the Basic Coastal Policies which
indicate the major choices represented by this program. The Chapter is intended to
provide an overview which has shaped, and been shaped by, the much more specific
set of Coastal Resource and Development Policies presented in Chapter Four and the
Management System described in Chapter Five.

The type of projections attempted in this chapter must be prefaced by certain
qualifications. First, events and situations change unpredictably. In the
last five years, for example, New Jersey's coast has been changed by the doubling
of gasoline prices and the radical shift in society's attitudes about energy, the
beginning and promise of casino gambling in Atlantic City, the unacceptable ocean
conditions and fishkill of 1976 and growing concern over ocean dumping, and the
severe winter storms of 1978.

Second, coastal zone management is but one of many government programs affect-
ing land and water use in the coastal zone. While DEP can issue a permit for
construction or expansion of a marina with public launching ramps, it cannot
require the relevant municipality to also issue the necessary approvals. Simi-
larly, DEP can do everything in its power to facilitate the location of new indus-
try and other development in coastal urban areas, but it cannot single-handedly
make them economically viable, nor can it fully predict changes in technology,
markets, or public taste which can quickly redefine what is possible.

Third, some development in the coastal zone is not directly affected by state
,governmental action. The use of federal lands, and the private construction of
small housing developments and commercial establishments in some locations, for
example, do not require a state coastal permit.

Fourth, predicting the future is always risky and subjective.

The Vision

This Coastal Management Program envisions a future coastal zone of New Jersey
which will reflect the historic development of the region as part intense recrea-
tion area, part natural, undeveloped area, and part built-up areas. The patterns
and intensity of development will be better managed in the future.. For example, to
minimize conflict between noncompatible uses, similar activities will be located
near each other. New developments will be designed to take advantage of increased
understanding of natural, as well as economic and social, processes and will
therefore have a greater net positive impact on the coast and the entire state than
some past development.

New developments will be heavily concentrated in, or immediately adjacent
to, existing developed areas. Recreation and tourism will continue to be the
largest industry in the coastal zone, and will perhaps expand as a result of
development in Atlantic City. Other urban areas in the coastal zone may be revi-
talized as well, as a result of efforts to concentrate new construction, to develop
urban waterfronts, and to encourage expansion of recreational activities in urban
areas.

Other industries will be located in inland parts of the coast. Single family
detached housing will continue to be common, but the coastal zone will have in-
creasing numbers of cluster developments, contributing to more efficient settlement
patterns.

The ocean waterfront from Sandy Hook to Cape May will be devoted almost
exclusively to recreation and commercial fishing. An exception is the possible
location of offshore pipeline crossings in a very small number of shorefront areas.
The inland areas of the coastal zone nearest the ocean will continue to provide
housing and commercial services for seasonal and year round residents. Portions of
the coastal zone further inland will also provide housing and locations for some
industries, as well as land for agriculture, preservation of plant and wildlife,
and recreation.

As this program is implemented and this vision becomes reality, some positive
results will be immediate and directly visible, such as the halt in the indiscrimi-
nate high-rise construction along the Atlantic Ocean shoreline. Other changes in
the coastal zone will be less visible, and perhaps take more time, such as changes
in water quality making possible renewed swimming in now polfuted waters, and a
revised public attitude towards the value and need to protect the ocean and the
coast.

DEP has categorized the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment into ten regions because
the coastal zone is not uniform (see Figure 4). Descriptions of the regions make
possible a more graphic, though still generalized, picture of its future. The
regions are: Barrier Beach, Northern, Central, Western Ocean, Barnegat Corridor,
Mullica-South Ocean, Absecon-Somers Point, Great Egg Harbor, Southern and Bay
Shore. Also, different broad growth policies -- High, Moderate, and Low -- are
appropriate for these regions and what should be the appropriate regional growth
policy.

In deciding where the boundaries for the regions should be placed, DEP used
several major data sources including: development patterns based on CAFRA and
Wetlands permit applications since 1972, the State Development Guide Plan-Prelimi-
nary Draft (September 1977), prepared by the Department of Community Affairs;
A set of maps called "The Coastal Area of New Jersey - Developed and Selected
Environmentally Sensitive Areas", December 1975, prepared by DEP-OCZM; Economic
Profiles of the individual counties (December 1975) prepared for DEP by the New
Jersey Department of Labor and Industry, Division of Planning and Research in
1975-1976, and "Growth Centers and their Implication on Land Use Planning in the
CAFRA Region", Department of Community Affairs, Division of State and Regional
Planning (August 1976), prepared for DEP-OCZM. DEP also made great use of the
Interim Land Use and Density Guidelines for the Coastal Area, prepared for DEP by
Rivkin Associates in 1976. In addition, the New Jersey Department of Energy
Draft Master Plan and various county planning studies completed for DEP in 1977-
1978 assisted this regional analysis.

Figure 4

NEW JERSEY /

COASTAL ~~YItDDL~

REGIONS Y-

S..~~~~~~~~~~~ETA

Z �1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~TRM~r

r~~~A

P E N N S Y LVANI
V~~~~~~~~~BRIRILN
DELAI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- A.'stRE~
.4,~~ ~~~j-

-4~

- I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ARRIER ISLAN4D

3�~~~... BEO
-A~~~~~~~......

wwaai-~~~~~~~~~~LLC -OR POINTHCA

RE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~GIONAL TYEGG HABO

REGION~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SALE TYPIES

MODERATE GROWTH

LOW GROWTH

BARRIER ISLAND
OUTSIDE OF COASTAL
ZOYNE --

BARRIER BEACH REGION - The Barrier Beach Region includes the Sandy Hook Spit south
to Monmouth Beach, headlands from Monmouth Beach to Bayhead, and the barrier
island chain of Island Beach, Long Beach, Little Beach, Brigantine, Absecon, Pecks,
Ludlum Beach, Seven Mile Beach, and Four Mile Beach Island. The inland boundary of
the parts of the Barrier Beach Region that do not have a west waterbody is the
first cultural feature.

The islands, headlands, and spits are considered one region due to their
oceanfront locations. Thne issues associated with these areas far outweigh the
differences between them. The ocean shorefront in the northern part of the seg-
ment, for example, although it is not strictly speaking a barrier island, responds
to development and natural events in a manner similar to the barrier island loca-
tions adjacent to the ocean or bay.

The future of the Barrier Beach Region will be a continuation of the pre-
sent. Recreation will be the dominant use of this part of the coastal zone, and
only small amounts of new development directly associated with recreation will be
constructed. Such development will be located on sites which have been previously
developed; undeveloped'sites in this region will, for the most part, remain as open
space. The focus of shore protection efforts will continue to shift from struc-
tural to nonstructural measures, including a halt to development most likely to be
destroyed by storms or floods.

NORTHERN REGION - The northern region includes all of the CAFRA area north of the
Manasquan River (the boundary between Monmouth and Ocean Counties), exclusive of
the Barrier Island Region described above.

This section of the coastal zone is part of a more general suburban ring in
the New York-Northern New Jersey Metropolitan area. Once a relatively undeveloped
place of seasonal homes with a tourism-oriented economy, this region, like much oi
Monmouth and parts of Middlesex counties, became a "bedroom" suburb after World War
II for more mobile and affluent people working in New York City. More recently, as
industry and commerce have also suburbanized, this area has developed an economic
base of its own. The region includes Asbury Park and Long Branch, which have
experienced some of the decline typical of older Northeastern cities.

While designated a High Growth Region, this region is likely to change little
in the foreseeable future. New developments will include housing development,
possibly senior citizen developments, and light industry, and will occupy suitable
sites which fill in largely developed areas. Initiatives at all levels of govern-
ment may stimulate increased activity in Asbury Park and Long Branch.

CENTRAL REGION - The Central Region is bounded in the north by the Monmouth-Ocean
County Boundary, on the west by State Highway 37 and the Garden State Parkway in
the south by Cedar Creek, and in the east by the back bay waters. Since 1950, this
High Growth Region has held the position of the fastest growing area in the state.
Relatively young, formerly urban families and senior citizens have constituted the
bulk of Ocean County's population growth over the past twenty years. Population is
curently growing faster than employment. Retail trade for both summer visitors and
year round residents is the largest single source of employment.

Due to the availability of large, easy to develop and relatively low cost
tracts of land, the region is still experiencing a housing boom. This type of
largely residential, commercial, and light industrial development is likely to
continue. The pattern of development in the region will one day form a relatively
smooth transition between the densely populated Northern Region and the largely
undeveloped Mullica-Southern Ocean Region. The population of this Region will
continue to include more older people and fewer people who commute to New York.

Ocean County also has two Moderate Growth Regions, the WESTERN OCEAN REGION,
located west of the Garden State Parkway and southwest of State Highway 37 and the
BARNEGAT CORRIDOR located south of Cedar Creek (the boundary between Berkeley and
Lacey Township), north of State Highway 72, west of the back bay systems and east
of the Garden State Parkway. The Western Ocean Region has both large undeveloped,
forested lands as well as areas devoted to large scale senior citizen communities
and ilmenite mining. This region is expected to extend slowly beyond the current
reach of development, avoiding the heavily forested Central Pine Barrens areas.
The Barnegat Corridor has experienced pockets of new development in the past
decade, including installation of a regional sewage treatment system with collector
systems to serve existing settled areas. Designation of this area as a Moderate
Growth Region recognizes that a gradual pace of infill and some extension develop-
ment is appropriate here, rather than the more intense and scattered development
pattern acceptable in central and northern Ocean County. Additional residential
development attracted by the regional center of Toms River is likely to be
attracted to these two Moderate Growth Regions.

MULLICA-SOUTHERN OCEAN COUNTY REGION .- This Low Growth Region is bounded to the
north by Route 72, to the west by the CAFRA boundary, to the south by Route 561 in
Atlantic County, and to the east by the back bay systems. This is the largely
undeveloped Mullica Watershed. The environmental value of the watershed, its
inclusion of parts of the Pine Barrens and the rural southern Ocean County charac-
ter suggest that this area should remain largely undeveloped. Limited amounts of
new development may occur near existing development along U.S. Route 9 and the
Garden State Parkway interchanges.

ABSECON-SOMERS POINT REGION - The Absecon-Somers Point Region is bounded on the
north by Route 561, to the west by the Garden State Parkway, to the south by the
County Road Alternate 559 and to the east by the back bay water systems. This
High Growth Region is likely to experience the most change of any part of the Bay
and Ocean Shore Region if casino gambling in Atlantic City is successful in revita-
lizing the area. The Region will be devoted to housing, tourist industries and
other light to moderate industry. Because the existing infrastructure of Atlantic
City once supported a population much larger than the present population, new
development in this region will be able to locate primarily in already developed,
downtown areas of Atlantic City. Unless land prices in this Region reverse the
upward trend which began after the Casino Referendum passed, housing and support
facilities for people who work in Atlantic City may have to be located in sur-
rounding towns.

GREAT EGG HARBOR RIVER BASIN REGION - This Low Growth Region includes those por-
tions of Atlantic County southwest of County Road Alternate 559 and those portions
of Cape May County east of State Highway 50, north of County Road 585, and west of
U.S. Route 9. In both its current and likely future character, it resembles the

Mullica-South Ocean Region. It is a largely natural area which provides environ-
mental benefits to the surrounding area and is unlikely to change significantly.
As with both the Mullica-South Ocean and Absecon Regions, extensive success and
growth of the casino industry could lead to unexpected rates of growth.

THE SOUTHERN REGION - The Southern Region is all of Cape May County within the
CAFRA Area except that portion in the Great Egg Harbor River Basin Region and
Barrier Island Region. Tourism accounts for approximately 90 percent of this
Moderate Growth Region's economic base, and has also played a major role in the
region's development pattern. The region's ocean front municipalities and, to a
lesser extent, several of its Delaware Bay shore municipalities are very highly
developed, while haphazard, low density sprawl is the rule on the mainland. Due to
the region's relative isolation and the absence of economic bases other than
tourism, there is little year-round employment. This seasonality accounts for the
region's low annual income. The Southern Region will be relatively unchanged.
Small amounts of new development will fill in isolated pockets of land and tourism
will continue to be the dominant industry. A modest trend of converting summer
homes into year-round housing particularly for senior citizens may expand.

BAYSHORE REGION - The Bayshore Region encompasses all of the Bay and Ocean Shore
Region in Cumberland and Salem County and is designated a Low Growth Region.
This region is the least developed part of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and
includes large expanses of wetlands along Delaware Bay. These parts of the state
are too far from major employment centers to have developed as suburbs. Unlike
most other parts of the coastal zone, tourism has never played an important role in
this area's economy. The Region is largely agricultural land,, forests and wet-
lands, and sparsely populated with little existing infrastructure. The population
and economic activity in these counties are concentrated in the small, manufac-
turing-oriented cities of Millville, Bridgeton and Salem, which lie near the inland
boundary of the coastal zone.

This region is likely to remain largely undeveloped, and to continue to rely
on agriculture and sand mining as major industries. Efforts to clean up the
Delaware Bay and River may also revitalize the fish and shellfish industries. If
additional energy facilities requiring location remote from large population
centers are built in New Jersey, this Region offers potential sites. The Region
will accommodate construction of small numbers of housing adjacent to existing
development and possibly several larger developments and new industries. The large
expanses of agricultural land, wetlands, forests, and the historical community of
Greenwich will remain largely unchanged.

Basic Coastal Policies

Chapter Four of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean
Shore Segment contains many specific Coastal Resource and Development Policies
which DEP will use to make coastal land and water use decisions. The major choices
and the basic direction represented by the specific policies are summarized by the
following Basic Coastal Policies:

1. Protect the coastal ecosytem

The ecosystem of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment is fragile and special, and
is characterized by a combination of beaches and the ocean, tidal and inland
wetlands, flood plains, estuarine areas, bays, stream and stream corridors, vege-
tation, and wildlife habitats. These natural features make the area a desirable
place to visit, which in turn fosters the state's tourist industry. The same
features make the coastal region a productive area for agriculture and commercial
and recreational fishing. If the ecosystem is not protected, not only will natural
resources and processes be harmed, but the economy of the area, and of the state,
will suffer.

2. Concentrate rather than disperse the pattern of beneficial coastal resi-
dential, commercial, industrial, and resort development, and encourage
the preservation of open space

The special characteristics of the coast attract many different types of
development to an area which is limited in size. The concentration of development
is the most efficient way to use this limited space because it allows a large
variety of activities to be accommodated in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment while
minimizing conflicts which would occur between activities such as industry and
recreation if they were located near each. other. In addition, the concentration of
development can be more useful to the public than a similar amount of open space
scattered among many small parcels. The policy to concentrate development does not
apply to nuclear generating stations and liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities.

3. Employ a method for deci~ion-making which allows each coastal location to
be evaluated *in terms of both the advantages and the disadvantages
it offers for development

Traditionally, land and water use planning has focused exclusively on envi-
ronmental features which offer disadvantages for development or which should be
preserved. Each location, however, can also be evaluated in terms of the advan-
tages it offers for development. A site near existing roads, for example, could be
developed with less cost and enviornmental disturbance than a more isolated site.
This policy insures that both types of factors will be considered in decision-
making under the Coastal Program.

4. Protect the health, safety and welfare of people who reside, work and vis-
sit in the coastal zone

The last basic policy is a reminder that people use the coast for different
purposes and have different needs and expectations. The quality of human life
improves if needed development is built in a manner which respects the natural and
built environment.

Chapter Four: COASTAL RESOURCE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES

1.0 General
2.0 Coastal Decision-Making Process
3.0 Location Policies
4.0 Use Policies
5.0 Resources Policies

*~**~4 . V** 4 *****************************************

Note to Reader

This chapter defines substantive coastal policies to guide public decisions
about significant proposed development and management of resources in the Bay and
Ocean Shore Region of New Jersey's coastal zone. A three step decision-making
process is used in order to increase predictability and add more specificity to
the coastal decision-making process.

The entire chapter has been adopted as administrative rules (N.J.A.C. 7:7E-1.1
et seq., effective September 28, 1978). The policies will be carried out using the
legal authorities and organization described in Chapter Five: Management System.
Appendix L, Using the Coastal Resource and Development Policies, provides examples
of the use of the three step decision-making process.

1.0 General

1.1 Purpose

This chapter presents the substantive policies of the Department of
Environmental Protection regarding the use and development of coastal
resources, to be used by the Divison of Marine Services in the Department
primarily in reviewing permit applications under the Coastal Area
Facility Review Act (CAFRA), N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 et seq., Wetlands Act,
N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 et seq., and Waterfront Development Permit Program,
N.J.S.A. 12:5-3. The rules also provide a basis for recommendations by
the Department to the Natural Resource Council on applications for
riparian grants, leases, or licenses. In 1977, the Commissioner of DEP
submitted to the Governor and Legislature the Coastal Management Strategy
for New Jersey-CAFRA Area (September 1977), prepared by the Department as
required by CAFRA, N.J.S.A. 13:19-16, and submitted for public scrutiny
in late 1977. The Department revised the Coastal Management Strategy
based on extensive public comments and in May 1978 submitted the revised
Strategy for public review as the New Jersey Coastal Management Program -
Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. In August 1978 the Governor submitted the
revised New Jersey Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment for federal approval. By adopting these policies as administra-
tive rules, according to the Administrative Procedures Act, the Depart-
ment aims to increase the predictability of the Department's coastal
decision-making by limiting administrative discretion, as well as to
ensure the enforceability of the coastal resource and development

policies of the coastal management program of the State of New Jersey
prepared under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. Further, the
Department interprets the "public health, safety, and welfare" clause
in CAFRA (N.J.S.A. 13:19-10f) and the Wetlands Act (N.J.S.A. 13:9A-4d) to
include a full consideration of the national interests in the wise use of
coastal resources.

1.2 Authority

These rules are adopted under the general powers of the Department,
N.J.S.A. 13:1D-9, as well as the Department's specific rule-making and
coastal management powers under the Coastal Area Facility Review Act,
N.J.S.A. 13:19-17, the Wetlands Act, N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 et seq., and the
riparian statutes, N.J.S.A. 12:5-1 et seq. These rules are consistent
with the purpose and intent of the 90 Day Construction Permit Law and
regulations, P.L. 1975, c. 232, and N.J.A.C. 7:1C-1 et seq. These rules
complement the adopted rules that implement the Wetlands Act, N.J.A.C.
7:7A-1.0 et seq., and the rules that define the permit application
procedures under CAFRA, N.J.A.C. 7:7D-2.0 et seq. The Coastal Resource
and Development Policies are derived from the legislative intent of the
CAFRA, Wetlands, and riparian statutes, and, in the case of the Coastal
Area Facility Review Act, the rules define the standards for approval,
conditional approval, or denial of permit applications more precisely
than the findings required by N.J.S.A. 13:19-10 and 11.

1.3 Jurisdiction

1.3.1 General

These rules shall apply to five categories, as defined in
Section 1.3.2-1.3.7, of actions or decisions by the Department
on uses of coastal resources within or significantly affecting
the Bay and Ocean Shore Region of the coastal zone: (a)
coastal permits, (b) consistency determinations, (c) financial
assistance, (d) DEP management actions affecting the coastal
zone, and (e) DEP planning actions affecting the coastal
zone.

1.3.2 Geographic Scope of Bay and Ocean Shore Region

These rules shall apply geographically to the Bay and Ocean
Shore Region which is defined as the Coastal Area (CAFRA)
defined by N.J.S.A. 13:19-4 and Regulated Wetlands listed at
N.J.A.C. 7A-1.13 that are landward of the inland CAFRA boundary
along a tidal watercourse that flows through the Coastal Area.
The Region is a segment of New Jersey's coastal zone under the
federal Coastal Zone Management Act.

1.3.3 Coastal Permits

These rules shall apply to waterfront development permits
(N.J.S.A. 12:5-3), Wetlands permits (N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 et seq.)
and CAFRA permits (N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 et seq.) within the Bay and
Ocean Shore Region.

1.3.4 Consistency Determinations

These rules shall apply to decisions on the consistency or
compatibility of proposed actions by federal, state, and local
agencies with the Coastal Resources and Development Policies,
including but not limited to determinations of federal con-
sistency under Section 307 of the federal Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act, determinations of consistency or compatibiity under
the Coastal Energy Impact Program under Section 308 of the
federal Coastal Zone Management Act, comments on Draft and
Final Environmental Impact Statements prepared under the
National Environmental Policy Act, and comments on other public
and private plans, programs, projects and policies.

1.3.5 Financial Assistance Decisions

These rules shall apply to state aid financial assistance
decisions by DEP under the Shore Protection Program and Green
Acres Program- within the Bay and Ocean Shore Region, to the
extent permissible under existing statutes and regulations.

1.3.6 DEP Management Actions

These rules shall apply, to the extent statutorily permissible,
to management actions in or affecting the coastal zone by
various divisons, of the Department, in addition to coastal
permits, including regulatory actions by the Division of Water
Resources, the Division of Environmental Quality, and the Solid
Waste Administration.

1.3.7 DEP Planning Act~ions

These rules shall provide the basic policy direction for DEP's
future planning actions in the Bay and Ocean Shore Region as
the lead state coastal management agency under Section 306 of
the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.

1.4 Severability

If any provision of these rules or the application of these rules to any
person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the rules and
the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than
those to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby.

1.5 Review, Revision, and Expiration

The Department shall periodically review these rules, consider the
various national, state, and local interests in coastal resources and
developments seeking coastal locations, and propose and adopt appropriate
revisions to these rules. The Department expects to propose revisions to
the rules in 1979 in the course of completing the management program for
the State's coastal zone and integrating the revision with the present
rules for the Bay and Ocean Shore Region. Under the requirements of the
federal Coastal Zone Management Act, the Department expects to conduct an
annual review of the rules and expects to revise, am~end 'or readopt the
rules before the five year deadline under Executive Order No. 66 for
periodic review of administrative rules.

2.0 Coastal Decision-Making Process

2.1 General

Decisions on uses of coastal resources shall be made using the three
step process comprising the Location Policies (Section 3.0), the Use
Policies (Section 4.0), and the Resources Policies (Section 5.0) of these
rules. Depending upon the proposed use, project design, location, and
surrounding region, different specific policies in each of the three
steps may be applicable in the coastal decision-making process. The
Coastal Resource 'and Development Policies address a wide range of land
and water types (locations), present and potential land and water uses,
and natural, cultural, social and economic resources in the coastal zone.
DEP does not, however, expect each proposed use of coastal resources to
address all Location Policies, Use Policies, and Resource Policies.
Rather, the applicable policies are expected to vary from proposal to
proposal.

2.2 Principles

The Coastal Resource and Development Policies represent the consideration
of various conflicting, competing, and contradictory local, state, and.
national interests in diverse coastal resources and in diverse uses of
coastal locations. Numerous balances have been struck among these inter-
ests in defining these policies, which reduce but do not presume to
eliminate all conflicts among interests. One reason for this intentional
balancing and conflict reducing approach is that coastal management
involves explicit consideration of a broad range of concerns, in con-
trast to other, resource management programs which have a more limited
scope of concern. Decision-making on individual proposed actions using
the Coastal Resources and Development Policies must therefore consider
all three steps in the process, and weigh, evaluate, and interpret'
inevitably complex interests, using the framework established by the
policies. in this process, interpretations of terms, such as "prudent",
"feasible", "minimal", "practicable", and "maximum extent", as used in a
specific policy or combinations of the policies, may vary, depending upon
the context of the proposed use, location, and design. Finally, these
principles should not be understood as authorizing arbitrary decision-
making or unrestrained administrative discretion. Rather, the limited
flexibility intentionally built into the Coastal Resource and Development
Policies provides a mechanism for incorporating professional judgment by
DEP officials, as well as recommendations and comments by applicants,
public agencies, special interest groups, corporations, and citizens into
the coastal decision-making process.

2.3 Definitions

The Coastal Resource and Development Polices are stated in terms of
actions that are encouraged, required, acceptable, conditionally accept-
able, discouraged, or prohibited. Some policies include specific con-
ditions that must be met in order for an action to be deemed acceptable.
Within the context of the Coastal Resource and Development Policies and
the principles defined above in Section 2.2, the following words have the
following meanings.

(a) "action", "activity", "development ", "project", "proposal", or
"use" are used interchangably to describe the proposed use of
coastal resources that is under scrutiny using the Coastal Resource
and Development Policies.

(b) "site", "location" "area", or "surrounding region" means the geo-
graphic scope of the proposed use of coastal resources that is under
scrutiny using the Coastal Resource and Development Policies,
including both the primary, or direct site of a proposed use as well
as the appropriate surrounding area or region that may be affected
by or affects the proposed use and that must be evaluated as part of
the coastal decision-making process, as well as alternative sites.

(d) "discouraged" means that a proposed use of coastal resources is
likely to be rejected or denied as DEP has determined that such uses
of coastal resources should be deterred and developers should be
dissuaded from proposing such uses. A coastal policy discouraging a
use may specify mitigating conditions that may be met in order for a
use to be deemed acceptable, but a presumption exists that the
proposed use is unacceptable.

(e) "conditionally acceptable" means that proposed use of coastal re-
sources is likely to be acceptable provided that conditions speci-
fied in the policy are satisfied.

(f) "acceptable" means that a proposed use of coastal resources is
likely to be approved.

(g) "encouraged" means that a proposed use of coastal resources is accep-
table and further is a use, by its purpose, location, design, or
effect, that DEP has determined should be fostered and supported in
the coastal zone, through favorable consideration of other aspects
of the location, design, or effect of the use in terms of the
weighing process of the Coastal Resource and Development Policies.

2.4 Pre-Application Phase

At an optional pre-application conference with a prospective applicant,
DEP shall employ the Coastal Resources and Development Polices as a basis
for a candid, informal and non-binding evaluation of the merits of a
proposed use, location and design.

2.5 Application or Project Review Phase

DEP shall employ the Coastal Resource and Development Policies as the
standards for issuing actual decisions, making determinations, and
carrying out management and planning actions that affect the coastal
zone. Decisions may be issued with conditions or pre-conditions as
reasonably necessary to carry out the spirit and intent of the Coastal
Resource and Development Policies.

2.6 Information Requirements

Applicants for coastal permits shall comply with the adopted procedural
rules and regulations that define the information to be submitted as part
of applications for Waterfront Development, Wetlands, and CAFRA Permits.
Applicants shall submit information to DEP indicating and documenting how
the proposed use complies with the applicable Coastal Resource and
Development Policies. This information shall be submitted at least in a
discrete section of the application, or its accompanying environmental
impact statement CEIS) if applicable, that is identified by the heading
"Compliance with Coastal Resource and Development Policies". At the
pre-application phase, mapped information for a site and its surrounding
region shall be submitted at least at a scale of 1:24,000 (1 inch = 2,000
feet). At the application phase, mapped information shall be submitted
at least at a scale of 1:24,000 and at larger scale(s), such as 1:2,400
(I inch =200 feet), appropriate for the size and complexity of the site
and its surrounding region. information describing the site and sur-
rounding region, including alternatives, in terms of the Coastal Resource
and Development Policies, shall be mapped to the maximum extent practi-
cable. Approximate data sources referred to in the Coastal Resource and
Development Policies, such as soil surveys, may be supplemented by
site-specific data presented by an applicant in the environmental impact
statement.

3.0 LOCATION POLICIES

3.1 General
3.2 Special Areas
3.3 Water Areas
3.4 water's Edge Areas
3.5 Land Areas
3.6 Policy on Location of Linear Development
3.7 General Location Policy

3.1 General

3.1.1 Purpose

The coastal land and water areas of New Jersey are diverse.
The same development placed in different locations will have
different impacts on the coastal ecosystem and built environ-
ment as well as different social and economic implications.
Different policies are therefore required for different loca-
tions. This section defines the Location Policies of the
Coastal Program. This presentation of the policies is lengthy
and detailed because the coast is large, varied, and complex.
The method of applying the policies is, however, relatively
simple.

3.1.2 Classification of Land and Water Types

The Location Policies classify all land and water features of
the coastal zone into at least one category and assign a policy
on the use of each type of location in each category. The
Location Policies contain four broad categories: (a) Special
Areas, (b) Water Areas, Cc) Water's Edge Areas, and (d) Land
Areas. Special Areas are Water, Water's Edge, or Land Areas
that merit more focused attention as they constitute a highly
valued natural resource, serve important purposes of human use,
or form a significant natural hazard. The policies in the
Special Areas supplement the more gene!ral Location Policies,
and take precedence in case of policy conflict.

3.1.3 Mapping and Acceptability Determination

The Location Policies provide a logical series of six steps for
determining the acceptability for use of a coastal location.
At each step the locations shall be mapped, to the maximum
extent practicable, by an applicant, at least at a scale of
1:24,000 (1 inch =2,000 feet) at the pre-application phase.

Step I - Identify and map site and surrounding region (the same
step should be carried out for the evaluation of
alternative sites

Step 2 - Identify and Map Special Areas

Step 3 - identify and Map Water Areas

Step 4 - Identify and Map Water's Edge Areas

Step 5 - Identify and Map Land Areas

Step 6 - Determine Location Acceptability

Mapping at each step serves to identify geographically the
extent of a policy's applicability to a specific site and
surrounding region. The acceptability of a location is then
determined by synthesizing and evaluating the applicable
policies, before evaluating the proposed use in terms of the
Use Policies (Step 7) and Resource Policies (Step 8). The
final DEP decision is Step 9.

3.2 Special Areas

3.2.1 General

Certain Specific Water, Water's Edge and Land Areas merit
focused attention and special management policies. This
section defines a broad range of Special Areas and indicates
the applicable 'Location Policies.

3.2.2 Shellfish Beds

3.2.2.1 Definition

Shellfish Beds are defined as estuarine bay or river
bottoms (tidelands) presently supporting commercial
or recreational quantities of hard clams, soft clams,
oyster or bay scallops. This category includes:
open, seasonally open, and specially restricted water
quality classes as shown in NJDEP Condemned Area
Charts I through 10, prepared by and available from
DEP. Source areas for transplanting (relays) pro-
grams and depuration processing are included, as well
as natural or artificial oyster seed (spat) setting
beds. Maps of shellfish beds can be found in H.
Raskin (1963) "Distribution of Shellfish Resources in
Relation to New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway"
Shellfish beds presently closed due to water pollu-
tion are considered within this definition once the
beds are reopened to shellfishing. Natural blue
mussel beds on open bay and inlet bottoms are also
included in the definition of Shellfish Beds.

3.2.2.2 Policy

Coastal development which would directly discharge
untreated domestic sewage, or industrial wastes,
toxic or carcinogenic agents or significantly alter
salinity regime, or natural water flow patterns

during the construction or operation of development
is prohibited. Water dependent development which
requires dredging adjacent to shellfish beds is
discouraged unless the activity is managed so as not
to cause significant mortality of the shellfish
resulting from increase in turbidity and sedimenta-
tion, resuspension of toxic chemicals, or to other-
wise interfere with the natural functioning of the
shellfish beds. Dredging within shellfish beds is
prohibited. Maintenance dredging of existing naviga-
tion channels is conditionally acceptable in these
areas provided that oyster and clam transplant and
relay programs, and/or depuration facilities are
used.

3.2.2.3 Rationale

Estuarine shellfish are harvested by both commercial
and recreational fishermen, with the sport group
concentrating on hard clams. Oysters, bay scallops
and soft clams are predominantly commercial species.
Commercial dockside landing values in New Jersey
for 1976 were $3.17 million for estuarine mollusks,
with an estimated retail industry value of $7.94
million. The commercial harvest is estimated to
support employment of 1,500 persons in fishing,
distribution, processing, and retail. Sport clammers
numbered 17,000 in 1976. In addition to direct human
consumption, shellfish play an important role in the
overall ecology of the estuary. Young clams are
important forage foods for a variety of finfish such
as winter flounder, crabs and migratory waterfowl
especially the diving species.

3.2.3 Surf Clam Areas

3.2.3.1 Definition

Waters within the State of New Jersey three nautical
mile territorial sea which can be demonstrated to
support significant commercially exploitable quanti-
ties of surf clams, or beds important for reproduc-
tivity replacement of fishery stocks. This includes
Sea Clam Research Sanctuaries established by the N.J.
Bureau of Shellfisheries, under the authority of
N.J.S.A. 50:1-5 and adopted as N.J.A.C. 7:26-7.6,
June, 1974. Waters open for harvesting or condemned
for harvesting are delineated on NJDEP Condemned Area
Charts 1 through 10.

3.2.3.2 Policy

Development which would result in condemnation of
surf clam stocks is prohibited. Development that
would lead to closing productive surf clam areas to
commercial surf clamming or result in significant
mortality of concentrations of surf clams is accept-
able only at less productive surf clam areas.
Development within Surf Clam Areas is conditionally
acceptable only if the development is of national
interest and no prudent and feasible alternative
sites exist.

3.2.3.3 Rationale

The surf clam fishery is New Jersey's single most
important fishery with dock-side landing values
(wholesale) of $10.8 million during 1976 and esti-
mated retail value of $27 million. The industry
annually generates monies in excess of the retail
value, supports employment of over 300 full and part
time people in fishing and 1,000 - 1,500 in canning,
processing, distribution and industry services.
Significant areas of productive water are presently
closed due to water pollution. In addition, the
massive marine fish kill during the summer of 1976
was estimated to have resulted in the loss of $65
million in sea clam stocks over a seven year period.
Surf clam harvesting within New Jersey's territorial
sea is regulated by NJDEP. The Mid-Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Management Council regulates sea clamming
within the Fishery Conservation Zone (200 mile
limit). Harvesting is required to be compatible with
these agencies, as appropriate. 'Harvest quotas and
other management measures have been adopted for sea
clamming (surf clams and ocean quahogs) within
the Fishery Conservation Zone.

3.2.4 Prime Fishing Areas

3.2.4.1 Definition

Prime Fishing Areas include tidal water areas and
water's edge areas which have a demonstrable history
of supporting a significant local quantity of
recreational fishing activity. The area includes
all coastal jetties and groins and public fishing
piers or docks. Prime Fishing Areas also include
all red line delineated features within the State of
New Jersey's three mile territorial sea illustrated
in: B.L. Freeman and L.A. Walford (1974) Angler's
Guide to the United States Atlantic Coast Fish,
Fishing Grounds and Fishing Facilities, Section
III and IV.

3.2.4.2 Policy

Permissible uses of Prime Fishing Areas include
recreational and commercial finfishing and shell-
fishing, as presently regulated by NJDEP Division of
Fish, Game, and Shellfisheries, scuba diving and
other water related recreational activities.

Prohibited uses include sand or gravel submarine
mining which would alter existing bathymetry to a
significant degree so as to reduce the high fishery
productivity of these areas. Disposal of domestic
or industrial wastes must meet applicable State and
federal effluent limitations and water quality
standards. Development which would preclude existing
public access to the shoreline is prohibited.

3.2.4.3 Rationale

Natural bathymetric features, such as the Shrewsbury
Rocks and important sand ridges, and artificial
structures act as congregation areas for many species
of finfish, shellfish, and a diversity of inverte-
brate species which are essential to marine ecosystem
functioning. These areas are heavily utilized by
recreational and commercial fishermen. Over 2.7
million people annually participate in marine sport
fishing and shellfishing in New Jersey. This repre-
sents the highest number of participants in any
state, from Maine to Maryland. Of that total, 1.6
million reside in New Jersey, with the remaining
number coming mostly from Pennsylvania and New York
(792,000 and 300,000 respectively.) The Mid-Atlantic
Regional Fisheries Management Council manages fishing
activities seaward of the State's coastal zone.

3.2.5 Finfish Migratory Pathways

3.2.5.1 Definition

Waterways (rivers, streams, creeks, bays and inlets)
which can be demonstrated to serve as passageways for
anadromous fish to or from seasonal spawning areas,
including juvenile anadromous fish which migrate in
autumn and those listed by H. E. Zich (1977) "New
Jersey Anadromous Fish Inventory" NJDEP Miscellaneous
Report. No. 41, and including those portions of the
Hudson and Delaware Rivers within the coastal zone
boundary are defined as Finfish Migratory Pathways.
Species of concern include: alewife (river herring)
(Alosa pseudoharengus), blueback herring (Alosa
aestivalis), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), and
striped bass (Morone saxatilis).

3.2.5.2 Policies

Development, such as dams, dikes and spillways or
chemical water quality barriers, that block move-
ment of anadromous species is discouraged, unless
acceptable mitigation measures, such as fish ladders,
erosion control, and oxygenation are used. Miti-
gating measures are required for any development
which would result in: lowering dissolved oxygen
levels, releasing toxic chemicals, raising ambient
water temperature, impinging or suffocating species,
causing siltation, or raising turbidity levels during
spring migration periods. Water's edge development
which incorporates migration access structures, such
as functioning fish ladders, will be encouraged,
provided that the NJDEP, Division of Fish, Game, and
Shellfisheries approves the design of the access
structure.

3.2.5.3 Rationale

Striped bass are one of New Jersey's most prized
sport fish and are actively sought wherever they
occur in New Jersey. This species spawns in the
Delaware, Hudson and Maurice Rivers. American Shad,
once much more numerous and formerly an important
commercial species, continue to make an annual
spawning run in the Delaware River, where there is an
active sport fishery. A much reduced commercial
fishery exists in Delaware Bay. Herrings are import-
ant forage species and spawn annually in many of New
Jersey's tidal tributaries. Herrings are fished
during spring runs, for direct human consumption and
for use as bait.

3.2.6 Submerged Vegetation

3.2.6.1 Definition

This special area includes estuarine water areas
supporting rooted vascular' seagrasses such as
widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) and eelgrass (Zostera
marina). Eelgrass beds are limited to shallow
portions of' Sandy Hook Bay, Shrewsbury River,
lower Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor. Widgeon
grass is for the most part limited to shallow areas
o'f upper Barnegat Bay. Generalized maps of the
distribution of the above species for Little Egg
Harbor, and a method for delineation, are avail-
able from DEP in the DEP-OCZM sponsored study, in
R.E. Good. et al. Analysis and Delineation of the
Submerged Vegetation: A Case History of Little Egg
Harbor (1978). In areas outside of Little Egg
Harbor, a developer will be required to survey this
resource until DEP completes addititional surveys.

3.2.6.2 Policy

Destruction of submerged vegetation beds is prohi-
bited. Mitigation measures are required for all
upland developments which would result in erosion or
increased turbidity that would adversely affect this
special area. Trenching for energy pipelines and
submarine cables of national significance will be
conditionally acceptable, provided there is no
prudent or feasible alternative site, and if the site
is restored to original bathymetry and replanted with
pre-development vegetation species, if these species
have not colonized the site after three years.

3.2.6.3 Rationale

New Jersey's estuarine waters are relatively shallow,
rich in nutrients and highly productive. The sub-
merged vegetation of these shallow waters serve
important functions, as suspended sediment traps,
important winter forage for migratory waterfowl,
nursery areas for juvenile finfish, bay scallops and
blue-claw crabs, and by nourishing fishery resources
through primary biological productivity (synthesis of
basic organic material) through detrital food webs
in a similar manner to salt marsh emergent Spartina
cord grasses. In addition, seagrasses absorb wave
energy and help stabilize silty bay bottoms. The
value of seagrasses was dramatically illustrated
during the 1930's when a disease epidemic virtually
eliminated eelgrass from the eastern U.S. Atlantic
ocean coastline. The number of finfish, shellfish,
and waterfowl drastically decreased, threatening
their survival. The oyster industry of the Atlantic
coast was ruined. Bays became choked with silt and
sewage, as new mud flats were formed.

3.2.7 Navigation Channels

3.2.7.1 Definition

Navigation channels include water areas in tidal
rivers and bays presently maintained and marked
by U.S. Coast Guard with buoys or stakes, as shown on
NOAA/National Ocean Survey Charts: 12314, 12312,
12311, 12304, 12318, 12323, 12337, 12337, and 12343.
Navigation channels also include channels marked with
buoys, dolphins, and stakes, and maintained by the
State of New Jersey.

3.2.7.2 Policy

Maintenance dredging of existing navigation channels
is encouraged. Development which would cause terres-
trial soil and shoreline erosion and siltation in
navigation channels shall utilize appropriate mitiga-
tion measures. Development which would result in
loss of navigability is prohibited.

3.2.7.3 Rationale

Navigation channels are essential for commercial and
recreational surface water transportation, especially
in New Jersey's back bays where water depths are very
shallow. Channels play an important ecological role
in providing estuarine circulation and flushing
routes, and migration pathways and wintering and
feeding habitat for a wide diversity of finfish,
shellfish, and waterfowl.

3.2.8 Shipwrecks and Artificial Reefs

3.2.8.1 Definition

This Special Area includes all permanently submerged
remains of vessels lying within the ocean waters of
the State of New Jersey three mile territorial
sea, but outside of Navigation Channels, whether sunk
intentionally or unintentionally. Known sites
include those shown either on National Ocean Survey
(N.O.S.) Charts listed in the definition above of the
Navigation Channel Special Area, or listed in: W.
Krotee and R. Krotee Shipwrecks Of f the New Jersey
Coast (1966). Also included in this category
are artif icial fishing reefs which serve the same
natural function as a habitat for living marine
resources.

.3.2.8.2 Policy

Acceptable uses include recreational and commercial
finfishing and shellfishing, scuba diving, research
and expansion of artificial reefs by the deposition
of additional weighed non-toxic material, provided
it can be demonstrated that additional material will
not wash ashore, or interfere with either navigation
as regulated by U.S. Coast Guard or commercial
fishing operations.

Prohibited uses include commercial salvage of wrecks,
submarine sand or gravel mining which would destroy
ecological or physical stability, and sewage or
industrial waste disposal.

3.2.8.3 Rationale

Shipwrecks serve as critical habitat for benthic
finfish and lobsters, and other invertebrates which
prefer shelter in hard substrates otherwise uncommon
in New Jersey's marine waters. These areas function
as congregation areas for migratory species and
support extensive recreational fishing by private
boats, commercial party boats, and commercial lob-
stering. Shipwrecks are also fragile historic
and cultural resources. Scuba diving club members
from New Jersey and other states visit these re-
sources.

3.2.9 Marine Sanctuary

3.2.9.1 Definition

A marine sanctuary is a specific geographic area
located within ocean waters, from the highest extent
,of tidal action seaward to the outer edge of the
Continental Shelf, which has been designated by the
Secretary of Commerce after approval by the President
of the United States. Any sanctuary within New
Jersey's coastal zone would not become effective if
within 60 days of designation the Governor dis-
approved. Under Title III of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-532), a
marine sanctuary can be established for the purpose
of preserving or restoring marine areas for various
values. To date, there are no designated marine
sanctuaries within New Jersey. The Office of Ocean
Management within NOAA is presently reviewing all
recommendations, including those within the Mid-
Atlantic states. DEP-OCZM submitted six recommen-
dations to NOAA in 1977, including the Hudson Canyon,
Shrewsbury Rocks, Great Bay estuary, shipwrecks,
-inlets, and offshore sand ridges. Designation of one
or more of these areas as marine sanctuaries in
New Jersey's nearshore and offshore areas requires
joint actions by the Governor of New Jersey and the
U.S. Secretary of Commerce, and could take place
during 1979.

3.2.9.2 Policy

Management principles in the selected areas will
serve to preserve and protect the areas, as well as
indicate what actions are not permissible in the
area. Non-permissible uses will be dependent on
the five basic purposes for designation, which
include: habitat areas, species areas, research
areas, recreational and esthetic areas, and unique or
exceptional areas. After designation, activities not

or restricted, but in general all other uses are
allowed. Final policy in marine sanctuaries must be
approved jointly by the Governor of New Jersey and
the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.

3.2.9.3 Rationale

Certain portions of the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent
estuaries are of special national and regional value
which could be adversely impacted by development
likely to take place in the future, especially
activities related to offshore oil and gas develop-
ment. It is in the long-term interest of the people
of the Nation to identify, protect, and manage these
special areas.

3.2.10 Beaches

3.2.10.1 Definition

Beaches are gently sloping areas of unconsolidated
material, typically sand, that extend landward from
the water to the area where a definite change takes
place either in material or physiographic form, or to
the line of vegetation. The upland limit of beaches
is typically defined by the vegetation line or the
first cultural feature, such as a road, seawall, or
boardwalk. Beaches are divided into the "wet beach"1,
the area at and below the mean high water line, and
the "dry beach", the area above the mean high water
line. The wet beach area is impressed with the
Public Trust Doctrine.

3.2.10.2 Policy

(a) Unrestricted public access to beaches is encour-
aged. Coastal development that unreasonably
restricts public access to beaches is prohibited

(b) New, expanded, or rebuilt development, with
paving and/or structures, is prohibited on
beaches, unless the proposed development is
(i) publicly funded and (ii) has no prudent or
feasible alternative on a non-beach location.

3.2.10.3 Rationale

Undeveloped beaches are vital to the New Jersey
resort economy. Unrestricted access for recreational
purposes is desirable so that the beaches can be
enjoyed by all residents and visitors of the state.
Public access will be required for any beaches
obtaining state funds for shore protection purposes.
Beaches are subject to coastal storms and erosion

from offshore currents. Public health and safety
considerations require that structures be excluded
from beaches to prevent or minimize loss of life or
property from storms and floods, except for some
shore protection structures and linear facilities,
such as pipelines, when non-beach locations are not
prudent or feasible. Wet sand beaches have been
designated a Geographic Area of Particular Concern
(GAPC) under the federal Coastal Zone Management
Act.

3.2.11 Coastal Wetlands

3.2.11.1 Definition

Coastal Wetlands are low-lying marsh, swamp, meadow
and flat land areas subject to tidal action as
delineated by DEP on official maps at a scale of
1:2,400 (1 inch = 200 feet) listed at N.J.A.C.
7:7A-1.13. Coastal Wetlands extend beyond the Bay
and Ocean Shore Region along the Delaware River and
its tributaries and along the Raritan Bay, but do not
extend north of the Raritan Bay.

3.2.11.2 Policy

(a) In general, development of all kinds is discour-
aged in wetlands, unless DEP can find that the
proposed development meets the following four
standards (see N.J.A.C. 7:7A-1.5 and 1.7):

(i) Requires water access or is water oriented
as a central purpose of the basic function
of the activity (this policy applies only
to development proposed on or adjacent to
waterways),

(ii) Has no prudent or feasible alternative on a
non-wetland site,

(iii) Will result in minimum feasible altera-
tion or impairment of natural tidal circu-
lation, and

(iv) Will result in minimum feasible altera-
tion or impairment of natural contour or
the natural vegetation of the wetlands.

(b) In particular, dumping solid or liquid wastes
and applying or storing certain pesticides on
wetlands are prohibited (see N.J.A.C. 7:7A-1.2).

(c) Under State law, the actvities of the State
Mosquito Control Commission and county mosquito
control commissions are exempted from the
coastal wetlands policy (a) above.

3.2.11.3 Rationale

The environmental values, and fragility of coastal
wetlands have been officially recognized in New
Jersey since the passage of the Wetlands Act of 1970
(N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 et seq.) Coastal wetlands are
undoubtedly the most environmentally valuable land
areas within the coastal zone.

Coastal wetlands contribute to the physical stability
of the coastal zone by serving as: (a) a transi-
tional area between the forces of the open sea and
upland areas by absorption and dissipation of wind
driven storm waves and storm surges, (b) flood water
storage areas, thus reducing inland damage, and Cc)
sediment and pollution traps. Also, wetlands perform
naturally the wastewater treatment process of
removing phosphorous and nitrogenous water pollu-
tants, unless the wetlands are stressed.

The biological productivity of New Jersey's coastal
wetlands is enormous and critical to the function of
estuarine and marine ecosystems. The emergent cord
grasses and associated algae mats convert inorganic
nutrients into organic vegetative material through
the process of photosynthesis which is the critical
basis for estuarine and marine food webs. The
primary biological productivity of New Jersey's
coastal wetlands is greater than that of terrestrial
corn and wheat fields on a per acre basis. However,
this value was not widely known and was formerly
overlooked. The principal direct dietary benefi-
ciaries of organic wetland detritus are bacteria and
protozonian, which are in turn fed upon by large
invertebrates. Important finfish, shellfish, and
waterfowl and other resources feed upon these inver-
tebrates. New Jersey's Coastal Wetlands are prime
wintering habitat annually for hundreds of thousands
of migratory waterfowl. Approximately two-thirds of
marine finfish and shellfish are known to be estua-
rine and, therefore, wetlands-dependent.

DEP encourages both the restoration of degraded
wetlands as a mitigation measure for certain types of
approved wetlands development and the creation of new
wetlands in non-sensitive areas. The Division of
Marine Services has previously required restoration
of temporarily disturbed wetlands and will continue
*to do so in a case-by-case basis. The construction
of new vegetated wetlands is a highly technical
activity requiring a great degree of precision and
understanding of the estuarine system.

3.2.12 High Risk Beach Erosion Area

3.2.12.1 Definition

High Risk Beach Erosion Areas are ocean shorelines
that are eroding and/or have a history of erosion,
causing them to be highly susceptible for further
erosion and damage from storms. High Risk Beach
Erosion Areas may be identified by any one of
the following characteristics:

(a) Lack of beaches
(b) Lack of beaches at high tide
(c) Narrow beaches
(d) High beach mobility
(e) Foreshore extended under a boardwalk
(f) Low dunes or no dunes
(g) Escarped foredune
(h) Gaps in dune fields
(i) Steep beach slopes
(j) Cliffed bluffs adjacent to beach
(k) Insufficient dune or bluff vegetation
(1) Exposed, damaged or breached jetties,
groins or seawalls
(m) High long-term erosion rates
(n) Pronounced downdrift effects of groins
(jetties)

High Risk Beach Erosion Areas extend inland to the
first cultural feature, established dune field, or
area likely to be eroded in less than 50 years,
whichever is the shortest distance, and include
overwash areas where sand is carried over and through
dunes during storm surges.

3.2.12.2 Policy

(a) Development in High Risk Beach Erosion Areas
is prohibited, except for shore protection
measures that satisfy the Use Policies for
Shore Protection (see Section 4.0) and the
Special Area Policy on Dunes (See Section
3.2.13).

(b) Development in areas adjacent to High Risk
Beach Erosion Areas that would contribute to
further beach erosion updrift (depending' upon
the direction of littoral drift) is prohibited.

3.2.12.3 Rationale

As a result of continuing rising sea levels and
active storm-induced sand movement and offshore
currents (littoral drift), the Atlantic coastline of
New Jersey is a retreating shore. Coastal erosion

also affects the bayshores of New Jersey. The rate
of retreat, or erosion, is not uniform, and varies
locally depending upon the nature and magnitude of
coastal processes operating within individual parts
of the shoreline. Certain parts of the shoreline
have a higher risk for further erosion. Development
other than restoration measures should be sharply
restricted in these areas in order to protect public
safety and prevent loss of life and property.

In 1977, The Center for Coastal and Environmental
Studies at Rutgers University completed a study
commissioned by DEP-OCZM, entitled, Coastal Geomor-
phology of New Jersey, which analyzed the problems of
shoreline erosion, classified the shoreline and
identified thirteen specific examples of high risk
erosion areas:

1. Cumberland County - Delaware Bay Shore (devel-
oped portions along bayshore)
2. Middle Township (developed portions of bayshore),
Cape May County
3. Cape May City
4. Northern Wildwood (where Hereford Inlet fronts
beach)
5. Strathmere (Putnam Avenue to end of developed
island)
6. Ocean City (3rd St. to 18th St.)
7. Ocean City (E. Atlantic Blvd. to Newcastle Rd.)
8. Atlantic City (where Absecon Inlet fronts beach,
Oriental Ave. to Parkside)
9. Barnegat Light (8th to 4th St.)
10. Loch Arbour to Elberon
11. Long Branch
12. Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach
13. Raritan Bay (developed portions along bayshore)

In addition, the southern half of Sea Isle City can
be considered a High Risk Beach Erosion Area after
the winter storms of 1978.

Overwash is one of several basic mechanisms by which
barrier islands naturally migrate landwards over
decades, in addition to the creation of inlets and
migration of dunes. Overwash areas indicate a clear
risk of further beach erosion.

3.2.13 Dunes

3.2.13.1 Definition

Dunes are formations of partially stabilized, vege-
tated, drifting sand roughly paralleling and upland
from the beaches on ocean and bay shores. The

Figure 5

SC.ON DA R YPPRlMAR'1

at ~~OCAN

I oc-A

NA~h)RLOG DUNES

inland limit of dunes is defined topographically.
Typically, the land surface rises above a beach as a
foredune, flattens on a ridge line, and then falls as
a back dune. This is the primary dune. sometimes
the surface rises and falls again one or more times,
creating secondary or tertiary dunes. The term dune
includes all areas between the inland limit of the
dry, sandy beach and the foot of the most inland dune
slope. Two types of dune areas exist along the New
Jersey shoreline: natural dunes and developed dunes.
Natural dunes modified, but not totally destroyed by
man, are defined as "developed dunes" (See Figure 5).

3.2.13.2 Policy

.(a) Development on dunes is prohibited with the
the exception of the construction of very
limited pedestrian walkways which do not
unreasonably damage the structure of the dunes,
such as pathways supported above the dune
surface.

(b) Development that destroys dunes must restore
and revegetate the natutal dune area, based on a
long range plan for the area.

Cc) The stabilization of existing dunes and the
creation -of new dunes compatible with natural
beach profiles are encouraged.

(d) Development adjacent to High Risk Beach Erosion
Areas and developed dunes is conditionally
acceptable provided that the dune form and
volume are adequate to protect the proposed
inland development.

3.2.13.3 Rationale

Dunes serve as valuable physical storm wave protec-
tion, wildlife habitat, aesthetic and educational
resources. The number and extent of dunes and
barrier beach vegetation have diminshed along New
Jersey's Atlantic coastline, due largely to extensive
and intensive development on barrier islands. Most
of New Jersey's dunes are located either in publicly-
owned areas such as Sandy Hook (Gatleway National
Recreation Area), Island Beach State Park, Little
Beach in the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge, and
Higbee Beach in Cape May County (proposed for state
acquisition), as well as adjacent to the developed-
parts of barrier island. Additional small but
significant remaining dune areas are in public
ownership at -Sea Girt at the State Police Academy,
Ocean Crest State Park (undeveloped) at Ocean City,
Strathniere Natural Area at Corson's Inlet, and Cape.
May Point State Park. Avalon has a 1l-block stretch
of primary and secondary dunes with thick, mature
barrier island vegetation.

3.2.14 Central Barrier Island Corridor

3.2.14.1 Definition

The Central Barrier Island corridor is that portion
of barrier islands and spits or peninsulas (narrow
land areas surrounded by both bay and ocean waters
and connected to the mainland) that lies upland and
between the Coastal Wetlands, Beaches, Retained
Water's-Edge and Filled Water's Edge areas that line
the ocean and bay sides of a barrier island or spit.
The Central Barrier Island Corridor excludes Dunes
Special Area and begins at that foot of the most
inland slope of Dunes. The Central Barrier Islarkd
Corridor also excludes wash-over areas. Central
Barrier Island Corridor does not apply to the head-
lands of northern Ocean County, Monmouth County, and
the tip of Cape May County, which are part of the
mainland (See Figure 6).

3.2.14.2 Policy

New or expanded development within the Central
Barrier Island Corridor is conditionally acceptable
provided that the criteria for High Development
Potential are met, as defined in the policy for Land
Areas (see Section 3.5.5). 'The acceptable density of
new development shall be determined using the high-.
rise policy for residential structures.

3.2.14.3 Rationale

All of New Jersey's barrier islands and spits, except
for Pullen Island in the Brigantine National Wildlife
Refuge, are developed to varying degrees, largely as
a result of incremental decisions made. beginning more
than one hundred years ago. Because the public
facilities (roads and utilities) necessary to support
urban and resort' development already exist, and
should be protected on New Jersey's barrier islands,
and because development pressure is intense on
barrier islands, the acceptability for development is
to be determined by the Location Policy's criteria
for residential development on Land Areas. Use of
the high development potential criterion will gener-
ally accept infill projects and discourage. exten-
sions of development on barrier islands and spits.
The high-rise policies will limit sharp increases in
density on the presently developed islands.

The policy recognizes the diversity of New Jersey's
barrier islands, from Absecon Island with the resort
city and urban center of Atlantic City to Long Beach
Island with largely single-family seasonal homes.

LANDt B5ACIBAX jwr1~NRL TAL4 OCA
JLAND 1LADGANIR
I I ~~~~~~~~.j ~~~~~~ a~~C""PLE2

I SM4 'BRIR I:5L
_____ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ID

else .-.:

p ACB EA.

MCK, BA STA

~ ~*~ig A-Arj

- C~~gfl~~AL AMR ISLAND~ CcCoo. COj5oI

.j.i .

EDM ~ ~~AE

FIGURS ~ ~ ~ 6CECENTAL -2ApI~
I~4J~Nfl BOaC~toap~

Implementation of the policy is expected to reinforce
the existing character of New Jersey's developed
barrier islands and not add appreciably to the
public service costs and emergency evacuation (in
times of hurricanes) problems of these islands.

3.2.15 Historic Resources

3.2.15.1 Definition

Historic resources include objects, structures,
neighborhoods, districts, and man-made or man-
modified features of the landscape, including archae-
ological sites, which either are on or are eligible
for inclusion on the State or National Register of
Historic Places. The criteria for eligibility are
defined by the U.S. Department of Interior, Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service.

3.2.15.2 Policy

(a) Development that detracts from, encroaches upon,
damages, or destroys the value of historic
resources is discouraged, unless it causes
minimal practicable degradation of the resource.

(b) Development that incorporates historic resources
in adaptive reuse is encouraged.

(c) Scientific recording and/or removal of the his-
toric resources or other mitigation measures
must take place, if the proposed development
would irreversably and/or adversely affect
historic resources.

3.2.15.3 Rationale

The range of historic resources along the coast is
broad and diverse, from the oceanfront Victorian
"gingerbread" architecture, to examples of New
Jersey's maritime heritage, to colonial homes, to
Indian artifacts. The public interest requires the
preservation of both representative and unique
examples of historical and archaeological (cultural)
resources of the coast, in order to provide present
and future generations with a &ense of the people,
who lived, worked, and visited the coast in the
past. DEP's Office of Historic Preservation main-
tains an up-to-date list of properties on the
New Jersey State Register of Historic Places (N.J.S.A.
13:IB-15.128 et seq.) and the National Register of
Historic Places. As the-State Historic Preservation
Officer, the Commissioner of DEP, and staff of DEP's

Office of Historic Preservation and Office of Envi-
ronmental Review advise DEP's Division of Marine
Services on the historic resources aspects of coastal
decisions.

3.2.16 Specimen Trees

3.2.16.1 Definition

Specimen trees are the largest (diameter at 4.5 feet
above ground) known individual trees of each species
in New Jersey as listed by DEP-Bureau of Forestry
(see New Jersey Outdoors, September-October 1977 for
a listing of specimen trees). A specimen- tree site
is the area directly beneath the crown, also known as
the drip line. In addition, large trees approaching
the diameter of the known largest tree shall be
considered Specimen Trees.

3.2.16.2 Policy

Development is prohibited that would significantly
reduce the amount of light reaching the crown, alter
drainage patterns within the site, adversely affect
the quality of water reaching the site, cause erosion
or deposition of material in or directly adjacent to
the site, or otherwise inijure the tree. The site of
the tree extends to the outer limit of the buffer
area necessary to avoid adverse impacts, or 50 feet
from the tree, whichever is less.

3.2.16.3 Rationale

Many interested citizens have assisted DEP, over
decades, in locating specimen trees. This process
includes reporting large trees that can be considered
specimens even though they may not be the largest in
New Jersey of a species. Specimen trees are an
irreplaceable scientific resource. Often these trees
have also been associated with historical events.

3.2.17 White Cedar Stands

3.2.17.1 Definition

Low lying areas supporting Atlantic White Cedars
(Chamaecyparis thyoides), where white cedars compose
a significant percentage of stems within a given
area. Generalized location maps of white cedar
stands can be found in J. McCormick and L. Jones, The
Pine Barrens Vegetation (1973), and forest type maps
within the N.J. Bureau of Forestry.

3.2.17.2 Policy

Development that adversely affects White Cedar Stands
is prohibited.

3.2.17.3 Rationale

White cedar stands, as well as other lowland swamp
forests, play an important role in purifying water in
coastal streams, retarding runoff, providing scenic
value, and serving as a rich habitat for many rare
and endangered plant and animal species, as well as
game species, such as deer. White cedars also act as
forest fire breaks. White cedar stands most commonly
occur in flood plains and in the fringe areas, of
drainage ways and bogs, which are frequently under-
lain with saturated organic peat deposits. This
material is particularly unsuited for development
unless highly altered. Many of these locations are
Natural Water's Edge Areas.

White cedar is New Jersey's most valuable timber
species and grows in discrete stands. The wood has a
long tradition of maritime and local craft uses.
Unfortunately, white cedars have been eliminated from
much of their previous range in New Jersey.

3.2.18 Endangered or Threatend Wildlife or Vegetation Species Habitats

3.2.18.1' Definition

Land, Water's Edge, or Water Areas known to be the
habitat of any wildlife (fauna) or vegetation (flora)
identified as "endangered" or "threatened" species on
official federal or state lists of endangered or
threatened 'species are considered a special area.
The definition also includes a sufficient buffer area
to insure continued survival of the speci.es. DEP
intentionally restricts dissemination of data showing
the geographic distribution of these species habi-
tats, in order to protect the habitats.

3.2.18.2 Policy

Development that would adversely affect the habitats
of endangered or threatened species is prohibited.
DEP will review proposals on a case-by-case basis.

3.2.18.3 Rationale

Endangered and threatened species are organisms which
are facing possible extinction in the immediate
future due to loss of suitable habitat, past over-
exploitation through human activities or natural

causes. Extinction is an irreversible event and
represents a loss to both future human use, educa-
tion research and to the interrelationship of
all living creatures with the ecosystem.

At present (1978), the official list of endangered
wildlife (fauna) species in New Jersey, available
from DEP, Division of Fish, Came and Shellfisheries
(see N.J.A.C. 7:25-11.1), includes the following
species: Shortnose sturgeon, Blue-spotted salamander,
Eastern tiger salamander, Bog turtle, Bald Eagle,
Peregrine Falcon, Osprey, Cooper's Hawk, and Indiana
Bat, as well as various marine mammals and marine
reptiles. Additional species have threatened status.
At present (1978), no official state or federal list
exists of endangered or threatened vegetation (flora)
species, although the Smithsonian Institution did in
1975 submit a report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service identifying fifteen species of New Jersey
plants for consideration for atdoption on federal
lists (see 40 FR 27863-27864, July 1, 1975).

3.2.19 Critical Wildlife Habitats

3.2.19.1 Definition

Critical Wildlife Habitats are specific areas known
to serve an essential role in maintaining wildlife
(fauna), particularly in wintering, breeding, and
migrating. Rookeries for colonial nesting birds such
as herons., egrets, ibis, terns, gulls, and skimmers,
stopovers for migratory birds, such as the Cape May
Point region, and natural corridors for wildlife
movement merit a special management approach through
designation as a Special Area. Ecotones, or edges
between two-,types of habitats, are a particularly
valuable Critical Wildlife Habitat. Many Critical
Wildlife Habitats, such as salt marsh water fowl
wintering areas, and muskrat habitats, are singled
out as Water or Water's Edge Areas.

3.2.19.2 Policy

Development that would adversely affect Critical
Wildlife Habitats is discouraged, unless: (a)
minimal feasible interference with the habitat can be
demonstrated, (b) there is no prudent or feasible
alternative location for the development, and (c) the
proposal includes- appropriate mitigation measures.
DEP will review proposals on a case by case basis.

3.2.19.3 Rationale

The State of New Jersey, as custodian of a particular
portion of the national wildlife heritage, has the
obligation of stewardship on behalf of the people of
the state and nation to perpetuate wildlife species
within its borders for the u&se, education, research,
and enjoyment by future generations.

3.2.20 Public Open Space

3.2.20.1 Definition

Public Open Space constitute land areas owned and
maintained by state, federal, county and municipal
agencies or non-profit private groups (such as
conservation organizations and homeowner's associa-
tion) and dedicated to conservation of natural
resources, public recreation, or wildlife protection
or management. Public Open Space also includes State
Forests, State Parks, and State Fish and Wildlife
Management Areas and designated Natural Areas
(N.J.S.A. 13:lB-15.12a et seq.) within DEP-owned and
managed lands.

3.2.20.2 Policy

(a) New or expanded public or private open space
development is encouraged at locations compat-
ible or supportive of adjacent and surrounding
land uses.

(b) Development that adversely affects existing
public open space is discouraged.

(c) Development within existing public open space,
such as campgrounds and roads, is conditionally
acceptable, provided that the development
complies with the Coastal Resource and Develop-
ment Policies and is consistent with the charac-
ter and purpose of the public open space.

3.2.20.3 Rationale

As the rapid urbanization of New Jersey continues and
leisure time increases, open space will play an
increasingly important role in maintaining a desir-
able living environment for the residents of New
Jersey. Even though the supply of open space has
decreased under the growing pressure for development,
the State's expanding population will require more
public open space to satisfy its needs.

Not only is open space the basic resource for recrea-
tion facility development, it also performs other
worthwhile functions. Open space can create public
spaces in densely settled areas, shape urban growth,
provide buffers for incompatible uses, retain con-
tiguous farmland, insure the preservation of wildlife
corridors, increase the economic value of adjacent
land, and preserve distinct architectual, historic,
and.geologic sites.

The distribution of open space should not only be
centered around the preservation of unique areas, but
must also respond to the needs of people. Where
possible, open spaces should be contiguous both
visually and physically to promote a sense of con-
tinuity and to afford users continued movement
through the public open spaces.

3.2.21 Steep Slopes

3.2.21.1 Definition

Steep slopes are areas with slopes greater than

3.2.21.2 Policy

(a) Development on steep slopes greater than 15%
is prohibited, unless the regrading of a very
small part of a site is essential to the overall
landscaping plan for the site, in which case the
grading shall be done to less than a 10%. slope.

(b) Development on steep slopes between 10-15%
is discouraged, unless-.

(i) limited stabilization structures and
measures, such as terracing and paving, are
consistent with the natural character of
the site, to the maximum extent practicable,

(ii) The design of the development is compatible
with the slope characteristics of the site
in visual,.physical, and engineering
terms,

(iii) minimal feasible site disturbance and
maximum practicable revegetation take
place.

3.2.21.3 Rationale

Only a few Steep Slopes Areas exist in the rela-
tively flat Coastal Plain of New Jersey. Steep
slopes occur in the Bay and Ocean Shore Region along

certain tributaries of th e Delaware River, and the
Raritan River, in the northeastern portion of
Monmouth County known as the Highlands, which is
bounded by Sandy Hook Bay and the Navesink River.
Slope maps are available from NJDEP/OCZM based on
U.S.G.S. Topographic Quadrangle sheets (1:24,000
scale). Isolated steep slope areas are also found
near headwaters of coastal streams.

Preservation of 'steep slopes controls soil erosion,
protects up-slope lands, minimizes pollution surface
waters, and reduces flooding. When vegetation is
stripped, rainfall strikes surface soils causing soil
particle movement through surface water flow and
gravity, which result in increased surface runoff and
downstream flooding. When this silty water enters a
surface water body, increased turbidity and sedimen-
tation usually follow which can cause reduction of
productivity and flood water storage capacity.
Aesthetics are also affected when erosion occurs
and topsoil is lost.

3.2.22 Farmland Conservation Areas

3.2.22.1 Definition

Large, contiguous areas of 20 acres or more (in
single or multiple tracts) with soils of classifica-
tions in the Capability Classes I, 11 and III as
mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, in National Cooperative Soil
Surveys,and Special Soils for Blueberries and Cran-
berries, which are actively farmed, suitable for
farming, or forested, and located in Cape May,
Cumberland or Salem Counties are defined as Farmland
Conservation Areas. The Farmland Conservation Areas
should not be confused with the Farmland Preservation
Demonstration Project in Burlington County.

3.2.22.2 Policy

(a) Farmland Conservation Areas shall be maintained
and protected for open space or farming purposes
to the maximum extent practicable.

(b) Continued, renewed, or new farming is encouraged
in Farmland Conservation Areas.

(c) Conversion of Farmland Conservation Areas to
development is acceptable only when the pre-
dominant surrounding pattern of development
is urban or suburban and continued, renewed,
or new farming is likely to produce unacceptable
urban-agricultural conflict.

3.2.22.3 Rationale

Farmland Conservation Areas are *an irreplaceable
natural resource essential to the production- of food
and fiber, particularly in the "Garden State."
Conservation of large, contiguous areas of these
lands for farming serves both private and public
interests, particularly in terms of ready access to
locally-grown food, jobs and open space preservation.
At the same time, the policy here recognizes the
desirability of minimizing conflicts between farm and
urban areas.

Only the three southern counties within the Bay and
Ocean Shore Region have significant Farmland Conser-
vation Areas located in a manner generally compatible
with present or future farming. In Cape May County,
approximately 39.8% of the county's soils qualify as
Capability Classes I and 11 (including areas outside
of the coastal zone boundary). Some of these
irreplaceable soil resources have already been
converted to urban uses. Other areas which are of a
sufficiently large scale to make farming feasible
should be reserved for farming purposes, provided
that rural-urban conflicts are minimized.

3.2.23 Bogs and Freshwater Wetlands

3.2.23.1 Definition

Bogs and freshwater wetlands are local, natural or
man-made, vegetated undrained topographic depressions
with the seasonal high water table at surface, fed by
groundwater, usually underlain with peat and other
organic material. Water in bogs is acidic, nearly
free of dissolved nutrients.

3.2.23.2 Policy

Development that would adversely affect the natural
functioning of the bog or ephemeral pond environment
,is prohibited.

3.2.23.3 Rationale

Bogs, while limited in extent in the Bay and Ocean
*Shore Region, are the habitat for many rare and
endangered species of plants and animals. Bogs are
inappropriate development sites due to poor drainage
and load bearing capacity of the underlying soils.
Bogs also assist in flood control.

3.2.24 Ephemeral Stream Corridor

3.2.24.1 Definition

The Ephemeral Stream Corridor is the area adjacent to
an ephemeral or intermittent stream, as indicated on
USGS topographic quadrangles or National Cooperative
Soil Survey maps prepared by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, that has a
depth to seasonal high water table of less than or
equal to one foot.

3.2.24.2 Policy

Coastal development that would adversely affect the
natural functioning of Ephemeral Stream Corridors is
prohibited. In particular, paving, filling, effluent
discharge, vegetation disturbance, and disturbance of
drainage patterns are prohibited.

3.2.24.3 Rationale

Ephemeral Stream Corridors serve vital functions in
the water cycle of the coastal ecosystem. These
areas serve as groundwater discharge areas that help
maintain the quality of the water regimen of streams,
and directly protect the quality of coastal waters.
Ephemeral Stream Corridors may only be approximately
depicted using USGS or SCS maps. Site surveys may
well be required.

3.2.25 Special Hazard Areas

3.2.25.1 Definition

Special Hazard Areas include areas with a known
actual or potential hazard to public health, safety,
and welfare, or to public or private property, such
as the navigable air space around airports and
potential evacuation zones around major industrial
and energy facilities.

3.2.25.2 Policy

Coastal development that would increase the potential
danger of Special Hazard Areas is discouraged, unless
appropriate mitigating measures are adopted.

3.2.25.3 Rationale

Management of the coastal zone requires a concern for
development that would directly or indirectly
increase potential danger to life and property.
Mitigating measures such as height limits near
airports and evacuation plans for industrial facili-
ties may adequately address the concern in this area.

3.2.26 Excluded Federal Lands

3.2.26.1 Definition

Excluded Federal Lands are those lands that are
owned, leased, held in trust or whose use is other-
wise by law subject solely to the discretion of the
United States of America, its officers or agents, and
are exlcuded from New Jersey's Coastal Zone as
required by the federal Coastal Zone Management
Act.

3.2.26.2 Policy

Federal actions on Excluded Federal Lands that
significantly affect the coastal zone (spillover
impacts) shall be consistent with the Coastal
Resource and Development Policies, to the maximum
extent practicable.

3.2.26.3 Rationale

While the federal Coastal Zone Management Act
requires that federal lands be excluded 'from a
state's coastal zone, it is important that New
Jersey's Coastal Resource and Development Policies
explicitly note the location of these special areas
in order that the spillover impacts of actions in
these areas may be properly evaluated.

3.2.27 Borrow Pits

3.2.27.1 Definition

Borrow pits are topographic depressions resulting
from the extraction of unconsolidated sediments.
They may be wet or dry depending on whether the
extraction extends below the water table.

3.2.27.2 Policy

(a) The conservation of wet borrow pits is encour-
aged for water amenity and wildlife habitats
provided that:-

Ci Unstabilized slopes at the water's edge are
not more than 1:3 and are planted with
adapted vegetation.

(ii) Slopes greater than 1:3 are stabilized with
either rip-rap or bulkheads of environmen-
tally suitable materials.

60_

(iii) Unstabilized slopes are maximized and
stabilized slopes minimized to the maximum
extent practicable.

(b) The use of borrow pits as detention areas for
runoff is acceptable provided that the applicant
can demonstrate:

(i) That the input of nutrients to well borrow
pits will not cause eutrophication to
standing water.

(ii) That the input of other contaminants will
not cause unacceptable surface or ground
water degradation.

(iii) That the percolation rate can accommodate
peak storm runoff or that an overflow is
provided that satisfies the runoff policy.

If these conditions cannot be met, site grading
shall be used to direct surface runoff away from
borrow pits.

Cc) Extensive filling of large wet borrow pits is
discouraged.

(d) Filling of small wet borrow pits, areas of large
wet borrow pits, and dry borrow pits is accept-
able providing:

(i) The fill sediments are non-toxic and of a
s-ediment size suitable for proposed uses.
Some dredge spoil sediments could satisfy
this condition.

(ii) That impacts on surrounding ground and
surface water movement are acceptable.

(e) Dry borrow pits may be acceptable as solid
waste landfill sites providing:

(i) The fill is chemically inert or if the'
fill is chemically active that the pit is
lined and the leachate collected and
treated before release to ground or surface
water.

(ii) That impacts on surrounding ground or
surface water movement are acceptable.

(iii) The fill is compatible with surrounding
land uses.

3.2.27.3 Rationale

Borrow pits are man-made land forms that offer
special opportunities and constraints to development
and therefore merit special policies, rather than
being included in the Land Areas policy. Lakes and
ponds of varying depth and area form in pits where
extraction has cut through the water table. These
lakes are valuable as open space and wildlife habi-
tats. These lakes should be incorporated into
recreation or residential developments. Wet pits
often require special development and management
practices to preserve their open space value.
Surrounding slopes may be steep and liable to slump
and erosion. Stabilization may be required.

Borrow pit lakes typically have little or no flow,
being fed only from ground water, and are very
sensitive to imputs of nutrients, heavy metals,
pesticides, petrochemical wastes and other contami-
nants. There is little or no flushing to remove
contaminants. Evaporation tends to concentrate
even small inputs over a period of time. Eutrophi-
cation and biomagnification of toxicity are parti-
cular problems. if wet borrow pits are used as
runoff detention areas, therefore special care is
needed to maintain water quality.

Large wet borrow pits have high amenity and habitat
value and should be preserved where possible. Small
wet borrow pits and dry pits may, however, unreason-
ably obstruct optimum site plans. In these cases,
filling may be acceptable providing the fill is clean
and offers sufficient load bearing capacity for the
proposed use. Also, the surrounding hydrologic
systems must not-., be unacceptably disturbed. Filling
these areas offers an opportunity for land disposal
of some dredge spoils.

The disposal of solid waste in the coastal area is a
growing problem. The type of waste varies widely,
with building rubble, domestic and industrial waste
and the less usable sediments from dredging opera-
tions all requiring disposal. Dry borrow pits offer
disposal opportunities if the filling is compatible
with surrounding uses and the chemical, biological
and physical impacts of the fill and leachate can be
contained and mitigated.

3.3 Water Areas

3.3.1 General Definition of Water Areas

Areas below the mean high water line, including intertidal
areas, and nontidal permanent surface water features are
classified as "Water Areas". Water *Areas include various
specific types of basins and channels.

3.3.2 General Policy on Uses of Water Areas

The location policy for coastal Water Areas varies according to
the depth of the water basin, flow of the water channel, and
proposed use of the water areas. For this reason, specific
water basin and water channel types and specific uses of water
areas are defined below. Specific coastal policies are articu-
lated in a Water Acceptability Table for specific uses, con-
sidering both the advantages and disadvantages (sensitivity and
development potential) of various types of locations, using the
Coastal Location Acceptability Method (CLAM). In addition to
the Water Areas policies presented here, proposed coastal
development must also comply with applicable state and federal
surface and ground water quality statutes and regulations.

3.3.3 General Rationale for Water Areas Policy

The sensitivity of water areas to environmental impacts depends
primarily on the assimilative capacity of the specific water
area. Assimilative capacity indicates the amount of adverse
impact or pollutants that a water body can absorb and neutra-
lize before it begins to display a significant reduction in
biological diversity, chemical, or physical water quality. Two
factors -- water volume 'and flushing rate (the rate that water
in a channel or basin is replaced) -- are used in CLAM to
determine the approximate assimilative capacity of water basins
and water channels respectively. Other factors may also be
important i.n reaching a specific decision. Water volume
depends upon the surface area and depth of a water body. The
Location Policy for Water Areas considers flushing rate in
terms of six types of water channels and two types of bays.

3.3.4 Water Acceptability Table

The Water Acceptability Table indicates the Coastal Manage-
ment Program's location policy toward the introduction of the
various uses into each of the coastal water body types. This
table uses the following key:

P = The use is prohibited (except in areas where the State of
New Jersey has conveyed a riparian grant, in which case the use
is discouraged, although a waterfront development permit is
required for use of the water area).

WAITM ACDJrTYMBILITY TAMBE'
Seld- ~~~~~~~~~~~~143clium
Enclosed Rivers
and Inland M-rn-Made LarWca reeks Intermit-tent
Omoan o w Bay Back-BaY Basin Harbor Rivers & Streanis Streams Guts Inlets Canals
P = Prohibited
D = Discouraged
C = wnditionally
Acceptable
E= Encouraged
/= impractical

MM1~ Water depths are w .IVA
measured from + I g
roan low water ;a - er. ;D -

l.rcp'zical ture C C CCCC C c' * CC CC / /D p p
2. Loi tRani-a / C / CC CCC C C CCE;CC 0 C C C
3. Re-ti~inilg Structures DO 0 0 D 00 1) B 0 DOD 0 0 D D
4. Docks and Piers 0 C 0 C C C C C L) E E C C C /C D E)
S. Dredging-Maintenance / / C C C C C/ P E C C C / /C E E
6. Dredging-New O p DOD D D O p D 1) D D / 0 D C
7. SploilDsposal C C P P C p p p p6 P p p P P P P P P
8. Dokiping ]p P p P P p p p p p p p p p p p p
9. Filling / 0 / P D POD p p P 0 D P p D P p
1O. Piling B C DC C C C C 0 C C C C C /C C D
11. Mooring pp P D C C C / P C C C C / / C 0) 0
12. Sand and Gravel C p p p p p p p p p C C p / /pC P
13. Bridges / / DOD D OD D p P p C C C C C C 0 C
14. -CableRoutes C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 0 0 0
15. overhead Lines / / pp p p p p p p 0 C C C C C P p
16. Pipeline Routes C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C D C
l7. Eans andlInpoundronts / / / / / P b 1) / / D 1o o p P p p
18. Pipes C B C CD C C D C C C CO D p C 0 C
19. Miscellaneous C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

D = The use is discouraged

C =The use is conditionally acceptable, subject to the conditions
identified in the next section

E = The use is encouraged

/= The use is impractical

The rationale for the policies is provided by waterbody type in
Section 3.3.6.

3.3.5 Definitions of Water Body Types

The water areas of the coastal zone have been classified into
twelve water body types, as defined below. Some Special Area
polcies, such as Navigation Channels, also apply to Water
Areas. In addition, some water body types are further classi-
fied according to the depth of the water body type, or its
bathymetry (see Figure 7).

3.3.5.1 Ocean

This basin type has two depth levels (O'-18' and
18'+) and includes all areas of the Atlantic Ocean
out to the limit of New Jersey's territorial sea,
three nautical miles from the shoreline. The
ocean extends from the marine boundary with the State
of New York in Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay south
to the marine boundary with the State of Delaware in
Delaware Bay, near Cape May Point.

3.3.5.2 Open Bay

This basin type has three depth levels (0'-6',
6'-18', and 18+) and is defined as a large, somewhat
confined estuary with a wide unrestricted inlet to
the ocean and with a major river mouth discharging
directly into its upper portion. Delaware Bay,
Raritan Bay, Sandy Hook Bay, and Upper New York Bay
are the only representatives of this water body type
in New Jersey.

3.3.5.3 Semi-enclosed and Back Bay

This basin type is a partially confined estuary with
direct inlet connection and some inflow of freshwater.
Semi-enclosed bays differ from back 'bays in depth,
degree of restriction of inlet and level of fresh-
water inflow, but the initial location policy is
identical for two water body types. Great Bay and
Great Egg Harbor are examples of semi-enclosed bays,
Barnegat Bay, Little Egg Harbor, the Shark River
estuary and other bays in Atlantic and Cape May
Counties are back bays. This combined water body
type has three depth levels (0-1/2', 1/2'-6', and
6'+).

3.3.5.4 Inland Basins

This basin type includes enclosed freshwater basins,
both shallow and deep, with little or insignificant
flow, such as lakes, ponds, and reservoirs.

Figure 7

WATER

BODY r f'

TYPES ' -'*~

"'-kY> kA~r~�4~A$-> / LARGE RIVER

MEDIUM RIVERS

MEDIUM RIVER

LARGE RIVER

SEMI-ENCKOE BAY

WDTINLEDTAP

S~~EMI-EN CLOSE D B3AYDEATNTO

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

OP~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EN AYLUS OCEANC

MAN MADE HARBOR

S i

H ~~~~~~~~~~~I

nvl~~~~~~' II,
Of� I f

-/ 1<>L~ in�
i /~E -. /
Vgh ?tdS WATER TYPES /
OCEAN E 1
OPEN BAY ) /

LARGE RIVER v.m
BACK BAY ..
SEMI- ENCLOSED BAY...

MEDIUM RIVERS
CREEKS a STREAMS

GUTS Plum

KN~h INLETS Island
/'\' ,9 CANAL \ 9\m

MAN MADE HARBOR - _

INTERMITTENT I N4.t 4
iia~ STREAMS s
N 14-
1: 24,000 Snp
I"000 2toOC' 3000, cN

-�,~~~~~~C C.I.Ijae 4\
-C?7- N e
,.Locust,% use,

i!.;4IR FO~~I

___=: - N-' GUT ea

MEIM RIVER

N.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ~ ~~~~~~~~~1

. ....... **. o.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . ..a n

~~' ' ~~ ~ ;!:~~~$::~~:. BACK BAY:::: 'W

~~ b7~~~~~~-ra
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ls

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~10, 20, 301

..........~~~~~~~~~~~

-~~ .(*- ~~~....). ........... 0 3CO

.................WATE R TYPES
N ~~~~~~~OEAN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. ..~.. . 4'IV
~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~~~~~~~ ~~...... OPE N BAY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . . . . . ~ LARGE RIVER
..?+.~~~~~N
~~ ' ~BACK BAY
BAY ....: -K.-' SEMI-ENCLOSED SAY

WA . ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~MEDIUM RIVERS
t. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~CREEKS a STREAMS

..... .... ... ~~~~~~~~~GUTS
~~~~~ :~~~~~~~~~L I N L E T S

~~$. \\ . CANAL

. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MAN MADE HARBOR e-O
* ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~~~ ~~~ INTERMITTENT

* WATE R TYPES -.W -
OCEANF 8M

I~~~~~~~~~~~N -t
LRERIVER :.::::::r *aberQaleYa;'p
I 2j
BACK SAY
NNSEMI~-ENCLOSED SAY ~ u&'
7/' ~~~~~~~~~Bennett
MEDIUM RIVERS . .
CREEKS a STREAMS - 1

* .GUTS

*'- INLETS
CANAL rrrrh '\ SnaaGrv

) MAN MADE HARBOR -''�

INTERMITTENT --
eSTREAMS Ie - _ i

N
1 1:24,000-'rs -.- -

0. I 00a 2000 3000 ' .
j~~, ~ ,~.- -f 4 n ~~~J' ~l\4~- -AY

NO~~~~~~~~~----5C A
C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A.

~~- ,* .,. C? /~~~~~~~~'
.~~~~pfrN%%.//A\ *r*,, __~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,1~~~~~

-r~~~~~~~~~A AEHR

* c~~~~ Vt>-~~~~ (K ~~~~iOlv

/ 4,S:,pap.-O a y -

S~~~~~~~e.

PiK '

l ~':E,'V, '/tC~, 2,5 '.r.
�~~.300 FE- (NJ)) 6�G'E 70 ,_q 2(
�~-~ --T ..- .-- .---?_ , , WATER TYPE S
� 1 . . .-.
~~~~~~~~~~~OCEAN
� :. -. ~ �:-'.~i..-- ~_ :-~ ~ OPEN SAY ////
~.'> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ � l~, :'-~ "-~:~
i�;==r~ ~~~~"' =~--,v-7-''~ >'-:-- '; LARGE RIVER ' :':i:S:;:::::::'
� ''._ ~~ _-~-~- -- --- / BACK BAY ::::::::
F';~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,~-' SEMI- ENCLOSED BAY 1111;1
~~:$-.-i~--~" MEDIUM RIVERS
~/ '.~ ...-;- .~-- ~ ~ ~~~~~CREEKS 1~ STREAMS

-~-".?-'*:--x~-~-g,-~~~~~;-~i MAN MADg' HARBOR
L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-'

� ~MEDIUM RIVER~ ~_:;:~g;?~. ~ N
~,~ --,-. ~--':- - I: :>4,000
~ . ~ -I--~~� Za~ o, ,o o,~o, oo

ai~~~~~~~~ ...........

ili:iii'ii ::::::::::~:::::::r~;~: ""::::::::::::~:~::::~:::::::::::::::::
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;:':':' � � .:.~:.:....:...~;;i::::: :.:::f.:.~:::;;: T4s--~

~ ~ ::.��~�;;;~�::~~::,. ~ ..
:::: ::::::::::::::::~::�:~:~:::::::::::::::::::::::
�l;;;:�:~:�:�~:::::::::�~;:::::,:::::::::::::::::::''::�-"i;..
8:�:::�:wr~n:�:;:: :'::i:~I:::::::::::�::::::::::~:n�:::::::::::::::
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i'':j:':::'~: ..::~:::I:I
~:;;t~:::::::~:~:~ ~ :~::~~:~'~i�;i.~iiI"L~:-r�:si -.,....,..
i .........................:f����~�:::::::~~f
:-, "'~..~ i..::::::!~..::~~ia:::::.::::::i....~*..iiiii
::r:, :- - ============================== :" :"''

3.3.5.5 Man-Made Harbor

This basin type includes existing ports, marine
terminals, marinas and other semi-enclosed water
bodies protected by man-made structures, such
as a breakwater. This type also includes the water
area of existing dead end lagoons, both linear and
branched.

3.3.5.6 Large River

This channel type includes flowing waterways with
watersheds greater than 1,000 square miles, which
means the Delaware, Hudson, and Raritan Rivers.

3.3.5.7 Medium Rivers, Streams and Creeks

This channel type includes waterways with a watershed
area of less than 1,000 square miles. This includes
watercourses such as the Navesink, Manasquan, Toms,
Wading, Mullica, Great Egg, Maurice, Cohansey,
Salem and Rancocas and smaller streams. This water
body type has three depth levels (0'-1/2', 1/2'-6',
and 6'+)

3.3.5.9 Intermittent Streams

This channel type includes ephemeral streams that
appear intermittently, depending upon the season, the
depth of the water table, and precipitation, with
watersheds of less than one square mile.

3.3.5.10 Guts

This channel type includes tidal waterway connections
between two estuarine bodies of water. Also known as
thorofares, guts have no significant freshwater
drainage.

3.3.5.11 Inlets

This channel type includes natural narrow connections
between estuaries and the ocean.

3.3.5.12 Canals

This channel type includes man-made canal between
water bodies, specially the Cape May Canal and the
Bay Head-Manasquan Canal.

3.3.6 Rationale for Policies by Water Body Type

3.3.6.1 Ocean

The largest water body found within the coastal zone
is the Atlantic Ocean. The vast volume of water
together with strong wind induced mixing, surface and
subsurface currents, and tidal pulse make the ocean
the water body most able to assimilate human induced
stresses. The assimilative capacity of the ocean is
not unlimited, nor are all the benthic and pelagic
and surface organism equally resilient to stresses.
The high energy marine system simultaneously provides
opportunity for various uses such as recreation and
waste disposal and imposes several constraints to
human structures.

Marine waters are divided into two depth categories:
the shallower portion is most commonly thought of as
the surf zone, which is of national recreational
-value. Uses which would impact the recreational
values are consequently discouraged from these
location. Uses located within deeper portions have
less potential to adversely impact coastal resources
or induce impacts such as ocean shoreline instability.

3.3.6.2 Open Bays

Open bays include Delaware Bay and Raritan/Sandy
Hook/Lower Bay Complex. These are the largest
estuarine systems within the New Jersey coastal zone.
All estuaries provide essential nursery habitat for
marine finfish and shellfish while providing organic
nutrients for marine/estuarine food webs.

Open bays have traditionally been used as commer-
cial shipping entrances to the New Jersey/New York
harbors and New Jersey/Pennsylvania/Delaware harbors,
and have consequently suffered from extensive human
pertebations, with the northern area being more
severly disturbed.

Open bays have large rivers discharging into their
upper portions. Although a less rigorous environment
than the coastal sea, surface wave action can be high
during strong wind conditions. Open bays are exten-
sively used for commerce and recreation, although
recreation and commercial fin and shellfish has been
constrained by sewage pollution.

These water bodies are subdivided into three cate-
gories based solely on water depth. The criteria of
depth was used as this factor is closely related to
dilution potential.

3.3.6.3 Semi-Enclosed and Back Bays

Semi-enclosed water bodies are the estuaries behind
barrier beach islands with restricted, indirect, or
shallow inlets to the open ocean. This category
includes all non-riverine estuarine water bodies
including embayments and back bays.

These areas are more sensitive to human disturbance,
because of the very limited to moderate freshwater
inflow, slower tidal flushing, and smaller water body
volume.

The semi-enclosed estuaries are critical to the
protection and perpetuation of the coastal ecosystem.
Their physically protected geography allows more
sensitive or fragile organisms to survive than in the
more rigorous ocean and-open bays. The vast majority
of important marine finfish, shellfish and aquatic
birds utilize these areas as critical nursery habi-
tats. The contiguous coastal wetlands perform the
essential role of photosynthesis, resulting in
natural organic material export into the coastal sea
through the action of tidal and storm induced f lush-
ing.

These estuarine water bodies are subdivided into
three categories based solely upon the criteria of
relative water depth. Deeper water portion are the
areas most intensively used by man for water surface
activities such as navigation. Deeper water areas
have a greater physical ability to dilute pollutants
and biological detoxified toxic agents. This assimu-
lative capacity is not unlimited however. Shallow
water area generally have less potential dilution and
flushing.

3.3.6.4 Inland Basins

This category includes lake, ponds, and reservoirs
virtually all of which in the uriglaciated coastal
plain of southern New Jersey are man-made (impound-
ments). These types are relatively small water
bodies with no tidal influence or salinity. Many
inland basins are groundwater fed, while others are
known to serve as surface aquifer- recharge areas.

Inland basin have a severely limited. ability to flush
pollutants owing to limited freshwater inflow and
lack of tidal inundation. Pollutants which enter
these areas can precipitate to the bottom, remaining
a continuing source of contamination. Certain
basins also serve as potable surface water sources.

Due to the limited extent of this type, no depth

subdivision are made.

3.3.6.5 Man-made Harbors

This, category includes all created water body fea-
tures that were previously land or water's edge
features, including marine terminals, major ports,
marinas and lagoons, whether linear or branched.

Man-made harbors were created for the purpose of
facilitating navigation, for commercial or recrea-
tional purposes. Harbors are non-natural water
features with dredged bottoms and bulkheaded shore-
lines. Since these areas have been previously
devoted to intensive human use, which helps generate
monies to local ecnomic and recreational use,
policies prepetuating these values are appro-
priate.

3.3.6.6 Large Rivers

Large rivers include the Delaware, Hudson and
Raritan Rivers. These water bodies have a long
history of intensive human use, especially in com-
merce. These economic interests must be accom-
modated. Large rivers are all drained by watersheds
in excess of 1,000 square miles, and are tidally
influenced within the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment.
These factors allow for flushing of pollutants,
although extensive portions of each are presently
over-stressed with sewage and industrial wastes.

3.3.6.7 Medium Rivers, Creeks, and Streams

This category includes all flowing riverine water
bodies within the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment except
as listed above. Medium rivers have from moderate to
small discharge rates. Many within the Segment are
tidally influenced and most are relatively shallow,
and of smaller volume. These factors combine to
render these features more susceptible to degradation-
through human activities.

Medium rivers, creeks, and streams are subdivided by
water depth, which reflects the presumed abilities of
water areas with greater volume and circulation to
dilute and assimilate potential pollutants or accom-
modate the intensity of surface water activities.

3.3.6.8 intermittent Streams

'these are permanent surface and ground water drain-
ageways where flow rates fluctuate, with no surface
water during dry seasons. Due to the discontinous
presence of surface water, many water dependent uses
are not feasible or would require extensive altera-
t ions.

3.3.6.9 Cuts

Cuts, also called thorofares, are connecting water
features within the estuarine system. They have
no upland freshwater drainage, their flow rates vary,
all are tidally influenced, and their natural water
depths vary.

Cuts serve as important access ways for human navi-
gation, physical water circulation and tidal flushing
of estuaries. Also aquatic organisms migrate in and
out of upstream tidal areas through guts.

3.3.6.10 Inlets

Inlets are a channel type which connect estuarine
areas with the ocean. All inlets are tidally
influenced.

These areas serve a critical function as access ways
f or human navigation, water circulation, tidal
flushing of estuaries, upland freshwater drainage,
aquatic organisim migration or movements in and out of
estuaries, and for estuarine produced natural
organic material.

3.3.6.11 Canals

Canals are artificial wate~r bodies created to promote
and aid navigation. Along the Intra-coastal waterway
between upper Barnegat Bay and the Manasquan River
and between Cold Spring Harbor and Delaware Bay near
Cape May Point. This type has no significant fresh-
water drainage. Tidal flows are strong. Use within
this type must not constrain navigation.

3.3.7 Definitions of Water Uses

Numerous developments or activities seek locations in New
Jersey's coastal waters. Some uses involve locations both
above and below the mean high water line, in both Water and
Water's Edge areas. This section defines generally the
important uses of water areas managed by the Coastal Management
Program. Some uses involve combinations of uses, such as
retaining strucutres, dredging, and filling. Other uses, such
as Shore Protection uses, are defined elsewhere under Use
Policies.

3.3.7.1 Aquaculture

Aquaculture is the use of a permanently inundated
water area, whether saline or fresh, for the purposes
of growing and harvesting plants or animals in a way
to promote more rapid growth, reduce predation,
and increase harvest rate. Oyster farming in Dela-
ware Bay is a form of aquaculture.

3.3.7.2 Boat Ramps

Boat ramps are inclined planes, extending from the
land into a water body for the purpose of launching a
boat into the water until the water depth is suffi-
cient to allow the boat to float. Boat ramps
are most frequently paved with asphalt or concrete,
or covered with metal grates.

3.3.7.3 Retaining Structures

Retaining structures are retaining walls stabilizing
shorelines. Bulkheads are vertical retaining struc-
tures. Revetments are inclined retaining walls for
the same purpose. Sea walls are bulkheads or
revetements that face the ocean.

3.3.7.4 Docks and Piers

Docks and piers are large or small structures in the
'water for the purpose of gaining access to moored
boats for commercial or recreational purposes or for
fishing or recreational purposes. Docks are usually
supported on pilings driven into the bottom sub-
strate, but docks can float on the surface. Docks
made of fill and retaining structures are considered
under the water use types of filling and retaining
structures.

3. 3. 7.5 Dredging-Maintenance

Maintenance dredging is the removal of accumulated
sediment from areas where dredging has taken place in
the past, such as navigation channels, marinas, or
boat moorings, for the purpose of maintaining a
required water depth for navigation purposes.

3.3.7.6 Dredging - New

New dredging is the removal of sediment from the
bottom of a water body that has not been previously
dredged or excavated, for the purpose of increasing
water depth.

3.3.7.7 Dredged Spoil Disposal

Dredged spoil disposal is the discharge of sediments
(spoils) removed during dredging operations.

3.3.7.8 Dumping (Solid Waste or Sludge)

The dumping of solid waste or sludge is the discharge
of solid or semi-solid waste material from industrial
or domestic sources or sew.age treatment operations
into a water area.'

3.3.7.9 Filling

Filling is the deposition of inorganic material
(sand, soil, earth, dredge spoils, etc.) into
water areas for the purpose of raising water bottom
elevations.

3.3.7.10 Piling

Piling is the insertion of columnar structural
members into the water bottom substrate.

3.3.7.11 Mooring

A boat mooring is a temporary or permanent, piling or
floating anchored facility in a water body for the
purpose of attaching a boat.

3.3.7.12 Sand and Gravel Extraction

Sand and gravel extraction is the removal of sand or
gravel from the water bottom substrate., usually by
suction dredge.

3.3.7.13 Bridges

Bridge construction is the building of a vehicle or
pedestrian access route across a water body.

3.3.7.14 Cable Routes

Cable routes are the lines along which telecommuni-
cation cables or electrical transmission lines are
laid.

3.3.7.15 Overhead Transmission Lines

Overhead transmission lines are electrically con-
ducting wires hung between supporting pylons for the
transmission of electrical power from generating
plant to the site of consumption.

3.3.7.16 Pipeline Routes

Pipeline routes or corridors are linear sites along
which hollow pipes are laid, buried, or trenched for
the purpose of transmitting fluids. Examples would
be crude oil, natural gas, raw or potable water,
petroleum products or sewage pipelines. Construction
of an underwater pipeline may involve trenching,
temporary trench spoil storage, and back filling, or
jetting as an alternative to trenching.

3.3.7.17 Dams and Impoundments

Dams and impoundments are structures that obstruct
natural water flow patterns for the purpose of
forming a contained volume of water. Impoundments
include dikes with sluice gates and other structures
to control the flow of water.

3.3.7.18 Pipes

Pipes are tubular structures of metal, concrete,
plastic, or other material that are located in Water
Areas for the purpose of intake or discharge of
effluent.

3.3.7.19 Miscellaneous

Miscellaneous includes uses of Water Areas not
specifically defined in this section or addressed in
the Use Policies.

3.3.8 Water Acceptability Conditions

The Water Acceptability Table identified numerous uses that are
conditionally acceptable or discouraged at various water loca-
tions. This section defines those conditions, in addition to
the Use and Resource Policies of the Coastal Management Program.

3.3.8.1 Aquaculture

Aquaculture is conditionally acceptable in many water
body types, providing that water recreation and
resort uses are not unacceptably restricted, and that
aquaculture practices do not cause adverse off-site
environmental impacts.

3.3.8.2 Boat Ramps

Boat ramps are conditionally acceptable on ocean
shores providing that there is a demonstrated need
that cannot be satisfied by existing facilities; that
the shoreline is not a high risk erosion area; and
that the adjacent shorefront areas are intensely
developed with resort-related uses.

Boat ramps are conditionally acceptable on shallow
ocean and bay shores and river banks providing that
(a) they cause minimal practicable disturbance to
intertidal flats or subaqueous vegetation, (b) there
is a demonstrated need that cannot be satisfied by
existing facilities, (c) there is access to an
existing navigation channel of adequate depth,
and (d) the location policies for the water's edge
areas are satisfied.

Boat ramps shall be constructed of environmentally
acceptable materials such as concrete or oyster
shell. Public use ramps have priority over re-
stricted use and private use ramps. Applications
for restricted and private use ramps will be approved
only if they can demonstrate that a public use ramp
is not feasible. Refuse barrels shall be provided as
part of a boat ramp.

3.3.8.3 Retaining Structures

Bulkheads, revetments, and sea walls and other
retaining structures are generally discouraged in
Water Areas. On a case by case basis, shoreline
retention structures may be considered for accepta-
bility if it can be shown that without shoreline
stabilization there is danger to life or property or
that water dependent uses that satisfy the Location
Policy requirements for Water's Edge Areas cannot
feasibly operate without the structure. A small
retaining structure that connects two existing lawful
retaining structures may be considered for accept-
ability if it would provide a net benefit to the
environment. Rip-rap is a preferred construction
material for retaining structures as it pr ovides a
habitat for aquatic life and helps absorb wave
energy. The Coastal Engineering Use Policies pro-
vide more detailed conditions.

3.3.8.4 Docks and Piers

New docks and piers are conditionally accept-
able in some water body types provided that: (a)
there is a demonstrated need that cannot be satisfied
by existing facilities, (b) the adjacent shorefront
is intensely used for coastal recreation, (c) the
location policies for water's edge areas are satis-
fied, (d) the construction minimizes adverse environ-
mental impact to the maximum extent feasible, (e)
the docks and piers are located so as to not hinder
navigation or conflict with overhead transmission
lines, and (f) there is minimum feasible interruption
of natural water flow patterns. Docks and piers on

pilings shall be preferred to solid constructions on
fill. Applicants shall demonstrate why floating
docks and piers cannot serve the required purpose.
Repairs and maintenance of existing docks and piers
are generally acceptable.

3.3.8.5 Dredging-Maintenance

Maintenance dredging is acceptable to the authorized
depth in all existing navigation channels, access
channels, and boat moorings to ensure that adequate
water depth is available for safe navigation, pro-
vided that an acceptable spoil disposal site exists.
Maintenance dredging is acceptable to provide access
to marinas., docks, ports, and other appropriate
water-dependent facilities. Maintenance dredging is
impractical in a number of water body types at
locations outside of the Navigation Channels Special
Areas.

3.3.8.6 Dredging-New

New dredging is generally discouraged. On a case by
case basis, new dredging may be considered for
acceptability for boat moorings or navigation chan-
nels providing that: (a) there is a demonstrated
need that cannot be satisfied by existing facilities,
(b) the facilities served by the new dredging satisfy
the location requirements for water's edge areas, (c)
the adjacent water areas are currently used for
recreational or commercial boating, (d) the dredge
area causes no significant disturbance to intertidal
flats or subaqueous vegetation, (e) the adverse
environmental impacts are minimized to the maximum
extent feasible,' (f) an acceptable dredge spoil
disposal site exists, and (g) the dredged area is
reduced to the minimum practical. New dredging or
excavation to create new lagoons for residential
development is prohibited.

3.3.8.7 Dredged Spoil Disposal

Subaqueous disposal of dredge spoils is prohibited in
most water body types, until the acceptabiity of this
technique is. demonstrated by appropriate research.

Clean dredge sediments of suitable particle size are
acceptable for beach nourishment on ocean or open bay
shores. Additional conditions for Dredge Spoil
Disposal are indicated in the Coastal Engineering
Use Policies.

3.3.8.8 Dumping

The dumping of solid or semi-solid waste of any
description in any coastal waters is prohibited.

3.3.8.9 Filling

Filling is generally discouraged in all coa stal
waters. Clean sediment of suitable particle size and
composition is acceptable for beach nourishment
projects (see the Coastal Engineering Use Policies).
Limited filling may be considered elsewhere for
acceptability on a case by case basis provided that:
(a) the use that requires the fill satisfies the
location policies for the water's edge, (b) there is
a demonstrated need that cannot be satisfied by
existing facilities, (c) there is no feasible or
practical alternative to filling and that filling is
essential to the functioning of the use., (d the
minimum practical area is filled, (e) the adverse
environmental impacts are minimized, and (f) inter-
tidal flats and Special Areas are not disturbed.

3.3.8.10 Piling

Piling is usually associated with docks, shoreline
structures, and piers and must satisfy the conditions
set out above for these uses. Piling that is an'
elment of a use addressed in a Use Policy must
satisfy the Use Policy.

3.3.8.11 Mooring

Temporary or permanent boat mooring areas are condi-
tionally acceptable in some water body types provided
that the mooring area is adequately marked and is not
a hazard to navigation.

3.3.8.12 Sand and Gravel

Sand and gravel mining for mineral extraction or
beach nourishment is conditionally acceptable in the
deep ocean and inlets providing that: (a) areas of
finfish and shellfish concentration are neither
directly or indirectly degraded, (b) the physical and
chemical impacts associated with turbidity and
release of toxic agents from substrate layers are
minimized to the maximum extent practicable, and
adhere to applicable water quality standards, and (c)
the visual impact of dredging machinery from shore
areas is acceptable.

3.3.8.13 Bridges

Bridges are conditionally acceptable over rivers and
streams provided that there is a demonstrated need
that cannot be satisfied by existing facilities and
that the secondary impacts of the new or improved
bridge are acceptable (see the Secondary Impact
Policy in the Resources Policies).

3.3.8.14 Cable Routes

Cable routes are conditionally acceptable provided
that (a) the route avoids Special Areas to the
maximum extent practicable, (b) the route avoids
areas where anchors may foul the cable, and (c) the
alignment of the cable route is marked at the land-
fall and by buoys at the surface.

3.3.8.15 Overhead Transmission Lines

Overhead transmission lines are prohibited, except
over specified water body types where transmission
lines will be considered for acceptability provided
that: (a) there is a demonstrated need that cannot
be satisfied by existing facilities, (b) there is no
feasible alternate route that avoids crossing water
bodies, (c) further development likely to be induced
by the transmission lines is acceptable, Cd adequate
safety precautions are included to prevent a broken
cable touching the water in case of accidental
breakage, and the transmission line provides adequate
vertical clearance for masts.

3.3.8.16 Pipeline Routes

Pipeline routes are conditionally acceptable provided
that (a) they are not sited within Special Areas,
unless no prudent and feasible alternate route
exists, (b) trenching take place to a sufficient
depth to avoid puncturing or snagging anchors or sea
clam dredges, and Cc) the pipeline is sufficiently
deep to avoid uncovering by erosion of water cur-
rents, Cd) the conditions outlined for pipelines in
the Use Policies (See Section 7.0) are satisfied.
Temporary trench spoil storage and back filling as
part of pipeline trenching is acceptable provided
that bottom contours are reestablished following
trench spoil removal to the original bottom contours,
to the maximum extent practicable. Jetting pipelines
into bottomw sediments is conditionally acceptable
provided that trenching and backfilling are imprac-
tical.

3.3.8.17 Dams and Impoundments

Darns and impoundments are impractical in many water
body types, prohibited in other water body types,
and discouraged in specified water body types, unless
essential for water supply purposes or the creation
of special wildlife habitats.

3.3.8.18 Pipes

Pipes and outfalls for the intake or discharge
of effluent are conditionally acceptable provided
that the use associated with the pipe meets the
Coastal Resource and Development Policies and the
effluent meets all applicable water quality statutes
and regulations. The Water Areas policy applies only
to the location of the pipes, not to the effluent.

3.3.8.19 Miscellaneous

Uses of Water Areas not identified in the Water
Acceptability Table or addressed in the Use Policies
will be analyzed on a case-by--case basis.

3.4 Water's Edge Areas

3.4.1 General Definition of Water's Edge

The Water's Edge is a strip of natural or disturbed land and
water areas at the interface between Water Areas (both tidal
and non-tidal) and Land Areas. The Water's Edge includes three
broad categories: Natural Water's Edge, Retained Water's Edge,
and Filled Water's Edge. In general, the Water's Edge extends
from the mean high water line to either the landward limit of
soils with a seasonal high water table at the surface or the
cultural feature closest to the Water Area, whichever is the
lesser distance.

3.4.2 Natural Water's Edge

3.4.2.1 Definition

On the mainland, the Natural Water's Edge includes
natural, undisturbed land and water features that are
contiguous with Water Areas and stretch from Water
Areas to the landward limit of soils with a seasonal
high water table at the surface excluding Atsion
soils, or the first cultural feature such as a road,
whichever lies closest to the water. On barrier
islands, spits, and headlands, the seasonal high
water table criterion does not apply. (However, the
Special Area policies of Wetlands, Beaches, Dunes and
Central Barrier Island Corridor do apply.) The upper

.~~.... .~~~ .. ~NATUPAL -,.-

.itii~~~~~J1~~~ ATLANTric
~~~~ ~~~OCEAN

WATE~R'S

SSCI kL VA.LJE~
~~~~:. ~~~~~~AREA-BAcqjE a s
WATF-R'S ~ wALWA~f.

Cj WA-TEr
FIGURE 8 NATURAL.WATER'$ EDGE.5~PA

limit of the Natural Water's Edge is defined by
either the landward limit of Coastal Wetlands and/or
Beaches Special Areas. The limit of soils with a
seasonal high water table at the surface may be
determined using reports from the National Coopera-
tive Soil Survey prepared by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, or by a
specific soil survey at the site (See Figure 8).

3.4.2.2 Policy

In general, development is discouraged in the Natural
Water's Edge, unless the development satisfies all of
the following conditions:

(a) Requires water access or is water-oriented as a
central purpose of the basic function of the
activity (this condition applies only to devel-
opment proposed on or adjacent to waterways),

(b) Has no prudent or feasible alternative on a
non Natural Water's Edge site,

(d) Would result in minimal feasible alteration
of on-site vegetation.

3.4..2.3 Rationale

The land-water interface is among the most sensitive
parts of the coastal ecosystem. When left undevel-
oped, the Natural Water's Edge serves several import-
ant functions: maintenance of estuarine producti-
vity, control of stream flow variation, erosion and
sediment control, flood control, water purification,
channel stabilization, open space and recreation, and
maintenance of wildlife habitats. Also, construction
in the Natural Water's Edge usually requires costly
drainage, filling, excavation, or'piling, which
further adversely affects coasta],resources. If left
undisturbed, the Natural Water's Edge provides a
valuable buffer to protect Water Areas from upland
activities. 'The Natural Water's Edge also includes
areas such as freshwater wetlands and lowland swamp
forests.

3.4.3 Retained Water's Edge

3.4.3.1 Definition of Retained Water's Edge

Retained Water's Edge Areas are adjacent~,,to either
Water Areas or Natural Water's Edge Areas as defined
above and stabilized with existing bulkheads, revet-
ments or sea walls. The lower limit of the Retained

22 2 2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .2:2* *.:::.. :. 2*.222..:2: 22. 2 22:2. :.....
. . :2: .2~22:::.:..2~ ':2:~':2222W~...... .. ...

.~~~~~2 222..2222. .. ........
..........~.

.......... . . ..2.. ..
..~~~~~~~'. .................. ..

222 22:::..... .. .. . .2:......
~2........

..22222..:..2.'::. :.
..... .....22,
........... ~ ~ '2 . 2222:2::'.22:. .:2::2:......:::.. ......::2.2.....2:.: 2.2
'2 ... .... ~::....
.. ..... .. .........
.222::::;::.... .... 2.........22 . 22.222222 22 222.2. ..
:::2.22222. 2222:2:::.2:2.2:2.:.2. 2U.:222'2222.' . 2::'2N2::v2222D2.
2:2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~.'2:2..:2222. .2 ........~2::. ....... ...
.2.....::.... . ............22.
. ....;22222 22 .222r22..2 .'2.:'. .:.2:222. :2::2. 22222 . . ..
.2::::222222:.........:..... .:2:2:22. .. VL
2222.. 2222222:.~~2222222222.........2::.2~22222:2 .2

. .......

.2222.222:22.222...:2.22:.2:............. 222 .. 2:::.2:2222l2~2222222... .....222.:.. . . . ....... ...222:: __ ..1
2. ....... .:......' .
222222222:2~~.2......... ....
.......~~~~~~~~~...2.2: *.- :...:..:2..::.:2::...
~~~~~~...... ... ... .. .......
22222222222~~~~.22222.2'. '222..222: .2222::.. ..
2222222222:~~~~~~~..222 .2...::2.....' '. . . . . . . .. T RA F A~i

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ':2::..22:.. ..
'MMME: ~~~~~~~..2..

2' .2... .

:..22222.:....222 . 2:.... :.. ....

........... ......2222 ... OC E
22:2:2222~~.........' .:...........
222222222~~~~~.... .... ......

. ... ......
...... 222.. ....
222222.......... 222 2::
.. . .....2222
222:222222:........... ..222:.2222:2.. .....

.....:2.':222:......
WL 'NTANND

-P~~~~~~~~~~~~~lOl~

~~.J" I6RE.P.TAN..D.WffR CUTRAFATER'S

86~~~~~COADO

Water's Edge is the line of the retaining structure.,
The upper 0limit of the Retained Water' s Edge is
the upland limit of fill or the first public cultural
feature inland from the retaining structure (such as
a road or boardwalk) whichever is the lesser. Two
types of Retained Water's Edge Areas exist, along
both open water bodies and those along man-made
lagoons (See Figure 9).

3.4.3.2 Policy

Development is acceptable in Retained Water's Edge
Areas along open water bodies providing that: (a)
the development is either water dependent or the site'
is proposed for a public recreation or resort use
(This latter category would include waterfront parks)
and is compatible with adjacent land uses, (b) the
structural condition of the existing retaining
structure is adequate to protect the structure, or
the proposed development provides for adequate repair
of the structure, and (c) the site would not contri-
bute to the extension of Central Barrier Island
Corridor through development.

Development is conditionally acceptable on Retained
Water's Edge Areas along existing non-developed,
man-made lagoons providing that:. (a) the develop-
ment is compatible with adjacent land uses, and (b)
the structural condition of the existing retaining
structure is adequate to protect' the proposed-devel-
opment or the proposed development provides for
adequate repair of the structure.

3.4.3.3 Rationale

Retained Water's Edge areas are of less environmental
concern than undisturbed water's edge areas. The
buffering functions of the water's edge have already
been largely lost through excavation, filling and the
construction of retaining structures. It is accept-
able to allow certain kinds of develoment up to the
line of the existing retaining structure. Because
the waterfront is a scarce resource, it is desirable
to limit development in these areas to uses that are
either dependent on direct water access or uses that
are related to shoreland recreation and benefit the
most number of people. The construction of new
private housing along built up open water bodies
would be an inefficient use of this scarce resource,
but such uses as public waterfront parks, hotels and
restaurants acceptable.

3.4.4 Filled Water's Edge

3.4.4.1 Definition of Filled Water's Edge

Filled Water's Edge areas occur when existing f illed
areas lie immediately adjacent to Water or Natural
Water's Edge Areas including streams, and there is no
retaining structure along the shoreline. The land-
ward limit of the Filled Water's Edge is the first
cultural feature landward of the adacent Water Area,
or the upland limit of fill, whichever is the lesser.
Two types of Filled Water Edge are defined: those
along open water bodies and those along existing
man-made lagoons. Some existing or former dredged
spoil and excavation fill disposal sites are Filled
Water's Edge Areas (See Figure 10).

3.4.4.2 Policy

The development of Filled Water's Edge Areas along
open water bodies is discouraged, except for public-
oriented or water-dependent uses that demonstrates
that site reclamation is infeasible.

Development on Filled Water's Edge Areas along
existing but undeveloped man-made lagoons is condi-
tionally acceptable provided that,

(a) reclamation of the site is infeasbile,

(b) the development is compatible with adjacent land
and water uses,

(c) stabilization of the slope of the Filled Water's
Edge occurs using natural materials to provide
an appropriate buffer, to the maximum extent
practicable, and

(d) causes minimal feasible adverse impact on
adjacent land and water areas.

3.4.4.3 Rationale

Filled lands adjacent to water areas represent
potential problems for water quality. The slope must
be stabilized in order to prevent erosion, turbidity
and loss of-estuarine productivity.

These problems have been well documented in Grant
F. Walton., et al, Evaluation of Estuarine Site
Development Lagoons (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers-
Water Resources Research Institute, 1976). Thousands
of undeveloped building lots exist in the Bay and
Ocean Shore Region along stabilized and unstabilized

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. ........

........ . . . . MI

...........~-~...

---- ... .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...... . . . . . . ..~rLANT
X%~~~~~~~~~ .............ED

.............................J .WE.. ..L.......D.. .

....~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~Q .......

.~~~~~ .IL~ WAa.' . ...... ...

2-xX ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8

lagoons created by destroying wetlands in the 1950's
and 1960's. Development of these residential lots is
acceptable provided that water quality standards are
met and the banks of the filled areas are revege-
tated, or retained, since the fundamental and near
irretrievable damage to the environment of these
areas took place a decade or more ago.

3.5 Land Areas

3.5.1 General Definition of Land Areas

Land Areas include all mainland land features located upland of
the Water's Edge, which is typically defined by the limit of
soils with a seasonal h-igh water table at the surface.

3.5.2 General Policy for Land Areas

The acceptability for development of 'Land Areas is defined in
terms of three levels of acceptable development intensity.
Three factors determine the acceptable development intensity
for various locations in Land Areas: (a) Coastal Region, (b)
Environmental Sensitivity, and (c) Development Potential.
Assessment of these three factors indicates the appropriate
pattern of development from a broad, regional perspective and
provide a method for determining the acceptable intensity of
development'of specific sites, as well as entire regions.

Determination of the specific policy for a Land Area site is a
four step process. First, the Coastal Region in which- the site
is located is determined. Second, the Environmental Sensiti-
vity and Development P otential of the site are determined.
Third, the 'Land Acceptability Table for the appropriate region
is consulted to determine the acceptable intensity of develop-
ment of the site, given the three possible combinations of
Development Potential and Environmental Sensitivity factors for.
the site or parts of the sites. Fourth, the proposed intensity
of development of the site is compared with the acceptable
intensity of development for the site.

Coastal development which does not conform with the acceptable
intensity of development of a site is discouraged.

3.5.3 Coastal Regions

3.5.3.1 General

The Bay and Ocean Shore Region of the coastal zone is
classified into ten different regions on the basis
of the varied patterns of coastal development and
resources. For these regions, DEP uses three broad
regional growth strategies: (a) High Growth, (b)

Moderate Growth, and (c) Low Growth. High Growth
means that infill, extension, and some scattered
development patterns are acceptable, from a regional
coastal management perspective. Moderate Growth
means that infill and some extension development
patterns are acceptable. Low Growth means that only
infill development is acceptable (See Figure 4 in
Chapter Three).

3.5.3.2 Barrier Island Region

The oceanfront barrier islands and spits constitute
the Barrier Island Region. The Land Areas Policy
does not apply to the Barrier Islands Region, which
is composed entirely of various Special Areas.

3.5.3.3 Northern Region

The Northern Region includes those portions of
Monmouth and Middlesex County that are within the Bay
and Ocean Shore Region and is designated a High
Growth Region.

3.5.3.4 Central Region

The Central Region includes those portions of Ocean
County within the Bay and Ocean Shore Region that are
north of State Highway 37 and west of the Garden
State Parkway, and those parts of the county north of
Cedar Creek and east of the Parkway, and is desig-
nated a High Growth Region.

3.5.3.5 Western Ocean County Region

The Western Ocean County Region includes those
portions of Ocean County west of the Garden State
Parkway and south of State Highway 37, and is
designated a Moderate Growth Region.

3.5.3.6 Barnegat Corridor Region

The Barnegat Corridor Region includes those portions
of Ocean County south of Cedar Creek and north of
State Highway 72, and is designated a Moderate Growth
Region.

3.5.3.7 The Mullica-Southern Ocean Region

The Mullica-Southern Ocean Region includes those
portions of Ocean County south of State Highway 72,
all of Burlington County, and those portions of
Atlantic County north of County Road 561, located
within the Bay and Ocean Shore Region, and is desig-
nated a Low Growth Region.

3.5.3.8 Absecon-Somers Point Region

The Absecon-Somers Point Region includes those
mainland protions of Atlantic County south of County
Road 561, and east of Garden State Parkway, and is
designated a High Growth Region.

3.5.3.9 Great Egg Harbor River Region

The Great Egg Harbor River Region includes those
portions of Atlantic County southwest of County Road
Alternate 559 and those portions of Cape May County
east of State Highway 50, north of County Road
585, and west of U.S. Highway 9, and is designated a
Low Growth Region.

3.5.3.10 Southern Region

All of Cape May County, within the Bay and Ocean
Shore Region, except for that portion in the Great
Egg Harbor River Region, is designated a Moderate
Growth Region.

3.5.3.11 Delaware Bayshore Region

All of Cumberland County and Salem County within the
Bay and Ocean Shore Region is designated a Low Growth
Region.

3.5.4 Environmental Sensitivity

3.5.4.1 General

Environmental Sensitivity is a composite indication
of the general suitability of a land area for devel-
opment based on three factors -- (a) vegetation, (b)
fertile soils, and (c) high percolation wet soils --
that are combined to indicated High, Moderate, or Low
Environmental Sensitivity on a site or parts of a
site. This section first defines these rankings and
then defines specifically the three factors.

3.5.4.2 High Environmental Sensitivity

High Environmental Sensitivity Areas are land areas
with: (a) forest vegetation, and (b) high soil
productivity or high percolation wet soils which
are adjacent to a stream channel (permanent or
ephemeral), as defined below.

3.5.4.3 Moderate Environmental Sensitivity

Moderate Environmental Sensitivity Areas are neither
High nor Low Environmental Sensitivity Areas.

3.5.4.4 Low Environmental Sensitivity

Low Environmental Sensitivity Areas are low areas
with: (a) onsite paving or structures or (b) areas
with bare earth or herbacious vegetation or early
successional meadow with low soil fertility, and low
depth to seasonal high water table.

3.5.4.5 Definitions of Environmental Sensitivity Factors

(a) Forest vegetation is defined as a natural commu-
nity of trees and shrubs with tree species
predominantly those of the late successional
stage for the region.

(b) High soil productivity is defined as soils with
Agricultural Capability Class I, as defined by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Con-
servation Service in National Cooperative Soil
Surveys. Low soil productivity is any soil
defined Agricultural Capability Class IV-VIII.

(c) High percolation wet soils are soils with a
depth to seasonal high water table of three
feet or less and with textures equal to or
coarser than loamy sand within a 24 inch
depth from the surface, as indicated in National
Cooperative Soil Surveys and includes primarily
the following coastal soils series: Atsion
(At), Hammonton (HaA), Klej (KmA), and Lakewood
*(LaA, LeB, and LeC).

(d) Low depth to seasonal high water table is
defined as a depth to seasonal high water table
of more than five feet.

3.5.4.6 Rationale

(a) High environmental sensitivity

This ranking is given to land areas where
combinations of environmental factors either
make the area particularly valuable as a
resource or particularly sensitive to impacts,
or a combination-*of the two. Two area types are
-important. First, a combination of valuable
resources exists where forest vegetation
coincides with the most productive soils.
In addition, undeveloped areas are valuable as
open space, for screening, as wildlife habitats,
for ground and surface water purification, and
as areas that could be used in the future for
local food production and/or nutrient absorp-
tion. These areas have value both. for the

functions they now perform in a developing area
and as a limited land bank of the most produc-
tive soils. Second, where forest vegetation
coincides with a rapid soil percolation rate and
a shallow water table, there is a combination of
resource value and impact sensitivity factors of
special concern where there is an adjacent
stream or water body. Areas of high soil
percolation and shallow water table are espe-
cially sensitive to ground water impacts
because the rapid percolation offers little
pollutant filtration and the distance to ground
water is small. When these areas coincide with
forest vegetation, itself a valuable resource in
developing areas, the 'physical and biological
processes of tree roots contribute to ground
water protection by taking up nutrients and
other contaminants. The combination of loss of
forest vegetation and degradation of ground
water that occurs when these areas are developed
raises the level of sensitivity.

(b) Medium Environmental Sensitivity

These are land areas that are neither especially
sensitive or insensitive to development.

This ranking is given to areas where there would
be particularly little loss of valued resources
or sensitivity imapcts of concern if development
took place. All1 paved areas are included,"
because in these areas most of the adverse
impacts associated with development have
occurred and further development will minimally
diminish natural resources or generate new
adverse impacts. The second category of low
sensitivity has a low resource value since the
soils are infertile and there is little or no
vegetation. Since the soils are coarse and have
low erosion potential, there is a relatively
large distance to ground water and therefore
little potential for transferring adverse
impacts.

3.5.5 Development Potential

3.5.5.1 General

Development Potential hag three levels --High,
Medium and Low -- depending upon the presence or
absence of certain development-oriented elements at

or near the site of the proposed development, as
defined below. The Development Potential rating
applies to the entire site. Different sets of
Development Potential criteria are defined below for
different categories of development. Also, some
of the criteria vary depending upon the regional
type. If a specific set of Development Potential
criteria is not defined for a particular category or
type of development, then the Location Policy assumes
a Medium Potential for that category until specific
criteria are adopted by DEP. Recommended criteria
from an applicant or the public may be considered
in the course of the permit application process for a
particular development prior to adoption by DEP
of specific criteria.

3.5.5.2 Residential Development Potential Criteria

3.5.5.2.1 Scope

The Residential Development category
includes housing, retirement communities,
hotels, motels, minor commercial facilities
of a neighborhood or community scale, and
intensive, community scale recreation
facilities, such as parks, ball fields, and
golf courses.

3.5.5.2.2 High Potential sites meet all of the
following criteria:

(a) Roads - Direct access from the site
to an existing paved public road with
sufficient capacity to absorb satis-
factorily the traffic generated by the
proposed development, or in High
Growth Regions, direct access to roads
which either in their existing state,
or with improvements included in the
proposed coastal development, provide
adequate capacity, or adjacent to
roads that have been approved but not
built.

(b) Sewage - Direct access to a wastewater
treatment system, including collector
sewers and treatment plant, with
adequate capacity to treat the sewage
from the proposed development, or
soils suitable for on-site sewage
disposal systems that will meet
applicable ground and surface water
quality standards, or in High Growth
Regions , access to existing or
an approved wastewater treatment
system.

(c) Infill - At least 50% of the boundaries
of the site are either immediately
adjacent to or directly across a
public road from sites with existing
residential developments or a closely
related and associated type of devel-
opment such as schools (See Figure
11).

3.5.5.3.3 Medium Potential sites do not meet all of
the criteria for High Potential sites and
do not meet any of the criteria for Low
Potential sites.

3.5.5.3.4 Low Potential sites in Low or Moderate
Growth Regions meet any one of following
criteria:

(a) Roads - Site located more than 1,000
feet from the nearest paved public
road,

(b) Sewage - Site located more than 1,000
feet from an adequate wastewater
treatment system, or soils unsuitable
for on-site sewage disposal systems,

In High Growth Regions, Low Potential sites
meet either of the following criteria:

(a) Roads - Site located more than 1,000
feet from the nearest existing paved
or proposed public road, or

(b) Sewage - Site located more than 1,000
feet from existing or approved adequate
wastewater treatment system.

3.5.5.3 Major Commercial and Industrial Development Potential
Criteria

3.5.5.3.1 Scope

The Major Commercial and Industrial Devel-
opment category includes all industrial
development, warehouses, manufacturing
plants, wholesale and major regional
shopping centers, and major parking facili-
ties.

Figure II:

I NFILL

DIAGRAM

______ _______ -STREET

institutionaDEVELOPED
m UDEVELOPED

THIS IS INFILL

___ __ __ ___ -.___ ___ _ - ___ ___ _ --STREET

BOUNDARY
LENGTHS I DEVELOPED

-- Liii ~~~~UNDEVELOPED
THIS IS INFILL

L EJ ~~~~~~~UNDEVELOPED
THIS IS NOT INFILL

3.5.5.3.2 High Potential sites meet all of the
following criteria:

(a) Roads - Direct access from the site to
a paved public road with sufficient
capacity to absorb satisfactorily the
traffic generated by the proposed
development, or in High Growth
Regions direct access to roads which
either in their existing state, or
with improvements included in the
proposed development, provide adequate
capacity.

Sites shall also be within two miles
of an existing intersection with a
limited access highway, parkway, or
expressway, or for industrial
development, be a site within one-half
mile of a freight rail line with
adequate capacity for the needs of the
industrial development and with an
agreement to build a spur to serve the
industrial development.

(b) Sewage - Direct access to a waste-
water treatment system, including
collector sewers and treatment plant,
with adequate capacity to treat the
sewage from the proposed development,
or soils suitable for on-site sewage
disposal systems that will meet
applicable ground and surface water
quality standards. In High Growth
Regions, where the existing sewage
collection or treatment capacity is
inadequate and the soils are unsuit-
able for septic systems, an applicant
may include an agreement with a sewage
authority to increase service to
provide the required capac~ity. This
will qualify the proposal for a high
potential rating, provided that
secondary impact analysis demonstrates
that any development likely to be
induced by new sewage capacity above
the requirements of the proposal is
acceptable.

existing major commercial or indus-
trial development.

3.5.5.3.3 Medium Potential sites do not meet all of
the criteria for High Potential site`sand
do not meet any of the criteria for Low
Potential sites.

3.5.5.3.4 Low Potential sites meet any one of the
following criteria:

(a) Roads - A site located more than 1,000
feet from the nearest paved public
road and more than 5 miles from the
nearest intersection with a limited
access highway, parkway or expressway,
except in High Growth Regions where
the site may be located more than
1,000 feet from the nearest paved
public road.

(b) Infill - A site located more than
one-half mile from the nearest exist-
ing commerical or industrial develop-
ment of more than 20,000 square feet
building area.

3.5.5.3 Campground Development Potential Criteria

3.5.5.3.1 Scope

A campground development provides facili-
ties for visitors to enjoy the natural
resources of the coast. Typically, this
type of development seeks sites somewhat
isolated from other development and
with access to water, beach, forest and
other natural amenities.

3.5.5.3.2 High Potential sites meet all of the
following criteria:

(a) Roads - Sites shall have direct access
to a paved public or private road of
adequate capacity to serve the needs
of the development.

(b) Sewage -Direct access to a wastewater
treatment system, including collector
sewers and treatment plant, with
adequate capacity to treat the sewage
from the proposed development, or
soils suitable for on-site sewage
disposal systems that will meet
applicable ground and surface water
quality standards.

(c) Region - The region surrounding the
site is natural, undeveloped and
contains either beaches, streams, or
forests, and is readily accessible by
foot to campground users.

3.5.5.3.3 Medium Potential sites do not meet all of
the criteria for High Potential sites and
do not meet any of the criteria for low
potential sites.

3.5.5.3.4 Low Potential sites meet any one of the,
following criteria:

(a) Roads -More than one-half mile to
the nearest public paved road.

(b) Sewage - More than 1,000 feet to the
nearest sewer with sufficient capacity
for the needs of the development
and soils unsuitable for subsurface
sewage disposal systems.

(c) Region - The region surrounding the
si:te3is at least partially developed
or is not accessible by foot to
campground users.

3. 5..5.4 Energy Facility Development Potential Criteria

[This section is reserved pending completion of joint
coastal energy facility siting studies by DEP and
NJDOE. In the interim., the development potential of
energy facilities is assumed to be moderate.)

3.5.5.5 Rationale

High Development Potential sites satisfy the major*
siting requirements of coastal 'uses and may be
most desirable from the developer's viewpoint.
The Development Potential factor also considers the
extent to which the development of a site would carry
out the basic coastal policy to concentrate the
pattern of development by serving as infill to
existing patterns of development, or whether the
proposed development site would extend or scatter the
pattern of development. DEP recognizes that other
factors may be important in siting decisions from a
developer's perspective. Use of the development
potential factor stresses the advantages of existing
settled areas and emphasizes the disadvantages of
sparsely settled areas in determining' the accept-
ability of locations. This. factor promotes efficient
capital investment in public infrastructure 'and
community facilities, as well as conservation of open
space.

100

3.5.6 Definition of Acceptable Intensity of Development

3.5.6.1 General

The Location Policy for Land Areas is expressed in
terms of three acceptable intensitities of develop-
ment of the site or parts of a site, as determined by
consulting the Land Aeptability Tables for the
appropriate region. The acceptable intensities of
development are expressed in terms of maximum
and minimum acceptable percentages of the site, or of
different parts of a site, that may be, or must be
used for structures, herbs and shrubs, or forests.
Permeable paving provides a 10% bonus over the
permitted maximum level of structures and impervious
paving.

3.5.6.2 High Intensity Development

This level of development permits extensive develop-
ment of paving and structures. Tyicaly, if analy-
sis showed that most of a large area was acceptable
for intensive development, the landscape that would
be produced would be urban or heavily industri-
alized. The photomaps below show examples of typical
High Intensity Development landscapes.

__ 7
- ~~J4~R
Frdy
5 -~~~ -~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WNIR

Al ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

M~ X RI - - -k�
WO PPr"' 1M

-~ ~~~~7: ,. g
41

101

For parts of a site classified for High Intensity
Development, the acceptable range of development
is:

High
Intensity Structures and Permeable
Development Impervious Paving Paving Herb and Shrub Forest

~m ~aximum 80% 90% 95%
m~inimum ~-5% 5%
1(Dash symbol (-) indicates no maximum or minimum)

This range allows most of each part of the site in
this category to be developed with structures or
paving, while preserving at least a small minimum
of open space in herbs, shrubs and trees for micro-
climate control, aquifer recharge and visual screen-
ing. A developer planning to use pervious paving
can, as a bonus, develop a larger percentage of the
area.

The required percentage of forest shall either be
preserved, or, if there is no forest on the site,
shall be planted. Tree species shall be those of the
native mature forest, and saplings �hall be at least
6 feet high at a minimum density of 1 per 100
sq. ft. Forest areas shall be protected from tramp-
ling.

Shrubs and herbs shall be suitable to the substrate
conditions. In the acid sandy soils common in the
coastal area, this requirement excludes many species
common in more inland areas.

High Intensity Development must be compatible in
density with its surrounding region.

3.5.6.3 Moderate Intensity Development

At this level of development, between 30 and 40
percent of an area can be developed in paving and
structures. Typically, if analysis showed that most
of a large area was acceptable for moderate intensity'
development, the landscape that would be produced
would be suburban. The photomaps below show examples
of Moderate Intensity Development landscapes.

meu-,; ~ ~ ,;

V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' X, -~

/ * r-Cj

For parts of a site classified for moderate intensity
development, the acceptable range of development
elements is as follows:

Moderate
Intensity Structures and Permeable
Development Impervious Paving Paving Herb and Shrub Forest

Maximum 30% 40% 80% -
Minimum - - 20%

This range allows, for example, development of
residential subdivisions of up to approximately 4
dwelling units per acre or, if the porous paving
allowance is used and the dwellings are clustered,
up to approximately 8 dwelling units per acre.

A minimum 20 percent of forest is required to ensure
that forest vegetation is preserved or planted for
microclimate control, energy conservation, soil
stabilization, aquifer recharge and wildlife habitat.
Where the site has no existing forest, this percen-
tage shall be met by planting native forest species
of the mature forest. It is not intended that
this should be costly planting. Whip saplings (less
than 3 feet high) at a density of 1 per 200 square
feet are acceptable. The forested areas shall
be protected from trampling. The herbs and shrubs
shall be adapted to the environmental conditions of
the site to reduce the adverse impacts associated
with extensive liming, fertilization and irrigation.
The acid sandy soils common in coastal areas exclude
many species common in inland areas, including most
lawn grasses.

3.5.6.4 Low Intensity Development

At this level of development intensity, the existing
conditions of the site are not to be disturbed, with
removal of vegetation for clearing or maintenance

103

purposes, and no grading, paving or structures.
Typically the landscape of Low Intensity Development
areas would be rural, agricultural, or forest, as
shown below in the photomaps.

.7--. Lan . A:t i Te.'
,~ "..?':-f,,, ' .

3.5.7.1 General

The Land Acceptability Tables, one for each of the

intensity, if it has three areas with different
3.5.7.1 General

applies to an entire site, each site can have a

104

3.5.7.2 Land Acceptability Table: High Growth Region

(Northern, Central, and Absecon-Somers Point Regions)

ACCEPTABLE
DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL SENSITIVITY INTENSITY

Line High Moderate Low
Number High Medium Low Low Medium High Intensity Intensity Intensity

1 X X X

2 X X X

3 X X X

4 X X X

5 X X X

6 X X X

7 X X X

8 X X X

9 X X X

105

3.5.7.3 Land Acceptability Table: Moderate Growth Region

(Southern, Western Ocean, and Barnegat Corridor Regions)

ACCEPTABLE
DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL SENSITIVITY INTENSITY

Line High Moderate Low
Number High Medium Low Low Medium High Intensity Intensity Intensity

1 X X X

2 X X X

3 X X X

4 IX X X

5 IX X X

6 IX X X

7 IX X X

8 X X X

9 ' X X

106

3.5.7.4 Land Acceptability Table: Low Growth Region

(Mullica-Southern Ocean, Great Egg Harbor River
Basin, and Delaware Bayshore Regions)

ACCEPTABLE
DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL SENSITIVITY INTENSITY

Line High Moderate Low
Number High Medium Low Low Medium High Intensity Intensity Intensity

1 X X X

2 X X X

3 X X X

4 X X X

5 X X X

6 X X X

7 X X X

8 X. X X

9 X X X

107

3.5.7.5 Rationale

The Land Acceptability Tables represent a striking of
balances between the environmental sensitivity and
development potential of sites, and balances among
regions, in order to indicate both which land areas
are appropriate locations for development and how the
design of the development should use the land fea-
tures of the site.

Environmental Sensitivity is weighed more heavily in
Low Growth Regions than in High Growth Regions.
Development Potential is weighed more heavily in High
Growth Regions.

The ten regions of the coast are divided into three
regional growth types as follows: High Growth:
Northern, Central (excluding Western Ocean County and
Barnegat Corridor) and Absecon-Somers Point; Medium
Growth: Western Ocean County, Barnegat Corridor, and
Southern; Low Growth: Delaware Bayshore, Mullica-
Southern Ocean and Great Egg Harbor River Basin.

The definition and rationale for the geographic
distribution and general growth policies are dis-
cussed in Chapter Three. These general growth
policies are the basis for the distribution of the
development acceptability. The three lAnd accept-
ability tables show that in high growth areas,
development potential is favored to promote growth,
and in low growth areas environmental sensitivity
is favored to promote conservation. This general
policy affects the tables as follows:

High Growth Regions (Northern, Central, and Absecon-
Somers Point)

General

The general policy in these regions is to promote
growth through inf ill, and lightly limited extension.
In the Northern and Absecon areas, most growth will
take place in high potential infill sites because of
the pattern and density of existing development. In
the eastern Central region, growth may occur through
both inf ill and extension. The question here is how
much to limit the extension and scattering of devel-
opment so that orderly growth is promoted that does
not induce sprawl without unreasonably interfering
with the sequence in which sites are developed.

108

In this high growth category, the criteria of both
high and low development potential are changed to
make it easier to obtain a high or medium ranking.
For example, proposals that have adequate access to
roads and sewers that have been approved but not
built may qualify for high development potential
status. Proposals that are within 1,000' of roads
and sewers that have been approved but are not built
qualify for medium development potential. In these
areas of planned growth, the requirement that a site
must be infill to qualify for medium development
potential does not apply. This definition identifies
areas where growth is currently planne'd and then
assigns acceptable development intensities as if the
infrastructure were in place, which allows non-
sequential development. The definition of levels of
environmental sensitivity is the same throughout-the
tables.

Lines 1, 2, 3 In these lines development potential is high.
Basically these are infill sites. In a high growth
area these are prime development areas, satisfying
the policy of concentration, so development potential
is weighed heavily.

Line 1. There is no conflict in this line. Sites with
high development potential and low environmental
sensitivity are suitable for any intensity of devel-
opment compatible with their surroundings.

Line 2. There is little conflict in this line. In high
growth areas the high development potential overrides
medium environmental sensitivity. Impacts can
generally be contained by mitigation. Development of
any intensity compatible with the surroundings is
therefore appropriate to promote growth.

Line 3. This is a line of high conflict. Development in
these areas encroaches upon fertile forests and
forested areas around streams with wet high percola-
tion soils. However, because of the high potential
and high growth designations, moderate intensity
development is considered acceptable to promote
growth. Development on sites, or parts of sites,
that are included on this line shall minimize dis-
turbance to the maximum extent practicable and shall
distribute the limited areas of structures and paving
acceptable in the moderate intensity class as much as
possible in areas with a deeper water table and less
valuable forest. Mitigation measures to reduce
ground and surface water impacts are essential.

109

Lines 4, 5, 6 In these three lines the development potential
moves to medium. In high growth areas development
potential is also weighed heavily, though less than
in the first three lines. The balance is designed to
conserve the limited areas of high sensitivity that
occur in high,. growth regions as open space for
surrounding developments.

Line 4. The environmental sensitivity is low and development
of any compatible intensity is appropriate to promote
growth.

Line 5. Development potential overrides the moderate envi-
ronmental sensitivity to promote growth. 'The accept-
able development intensity is high, rather than
medium, because the resource loss is moderate and, to
promote clustering, intensive growth is desirable.
The open space necessary in a developing high growth
region is better provided in larger contiguous areas
which may also conserve high sensitivity land types,
than dispersed through lower density development in
moderately sensitivity areas.

Line 6. This is a line of conflict. Here high environmental
sensitivity overrides development potential. Almost
all the high sensitivity areas in the high growth
regions are limited areas of forested Atsion, Lake-
wood or Klej soils adjacent to streams and water
bodies. In these moderate development potential
growth extension areas, the preservation of these
water related areas is desirable for a number of
reasons.

- They are linked to the water's edge corridors and
so many become parks and wildlife habitats linked
to an integrated non vehicular movement system
providing recreation and diversity for surrounding
areas of development.

- They conserve the most valuable and sensitive land
areas of a developing region improving water
quality and adding to the mitigating effects of the-
water's edge areas.

- Development of these areas is relatively difficult
and expensive: vegetation must be cleared, filling,
is necessary for foundations and paving and special
mitigation measures are necessary for the release
of sewage and runoff effluents.

Conservation therefore benefits both the community
and the environment.

Lines 7, 8, 9 In these three lines, 'development potential is
low, sites are distant from existing or approved
roads and sewers, and soils are unsuitable for septic
systems. The criteria for low development potential
in high growth areas allows scattered non-sequential
development in areas where growth is planned.
Environmental sensitivity must be weighed more
heavily in these three lines to prevent sprawl into
unsewered areas where soils are unsuitable for septic
systems. This is particularly common in the sandy
soils of high growth regions.

Line 7. This is the only line of these three where conflict
arises between the policy of promoting development in
high growth areas and the policy of discouraging
sprawl. The criteria for low potential in high
growth areas are designed more narrowly than in other
areas to allow most sites to qualify for medium
development potential. Environmental sensitivity
overrides development potential in this line to
restrict scattered development in unsewered sandy
soils.

Lines 8 & 9 In these two lines, environmental sensitivity over-
rides development potential to prevent scattered
development into areas of low potential where
resource loss and impacts are of concern.

Medium Growth Areas (Western Ocean County, Barnegat
Corridor, and Southern)

General

The general policy in these areas is to promote nodal
growth based on existing centers of development and
to limit ribbon and scattered development along minor
roads. It is desirable in these areas to promote
settlement patterns that could be served by public
transportation systems, particularly buses.

Because of this policy, development acceptability is
more limited in areas of extension. Environmental
sensitivity is weighed more heavily than in high
growth areas. The criteria for inclusion in high and
medium development categories are also more rigorous
for this reason. Sites must be adjacent to existing
roads and sewers to qualify for -high potential and
adjacent to existing developed sites and within
1,000 feet of existing roads and sewers to qualify
for medium potential. These more rigorous standards
are set to increase the limitations to sprawl in
moderate growth areas.

Lines 1, 2, 3 In these three lines, development potential is
high, sites infill or round off, and the necessary
infrastructure is available. These are the nodes
where growth is to be promoted. Development poten-
tial is weighed more heavily than environmental
sensitivity.

Lines I & 2 Here development potential overrides environmental
sensitivity. The acceptable development intensity is
kept high in both lines to promote clustering in the
growth nodes.

Line 3. This is a line of conflict, with development en-
croaching upon highly sensitive areas. In order to
promote concentration at nodes, development potential
partly overrides environmental sensitivity to permit
moderate intensity development. Developers building
on sites or parts of sites that are regulated by this
line shall place structures and paving in a way that
avoids the most sensitive parts of the area as much
as possible and mitigate impacts according to the
Resource Policies.

Lines 4, 5, 6 In these three lines, development potential is
medium, sites are extensions of existing development
and within moderate distances of roads and sewers.
If development acceptability is moderate or high,
ribbon development along roads is possible conflict-
ing with the policy of nodal development.

In moderate growth regions in the south, extensive
land areas fall within the Farmland Conservation
Area. In western Ocean County, there are few land
areas adjacent to existing roads. Little ribbon
development is therefore possible. To allow limited
growth', development potential partly overrides
environmental sensitivity in all but the most sensi-
tive areas to allow moderate intensity development.

Lines 4 & 5 Here moderate intensity development is acceptable
to allow very limited extensions of existing road-
side developments.

Line 6. Here the' most sensitive areas are conserved from
ribbon development both to prevent sprawl in moderate
growth areas and to protect valued and sensitive
land areas.

Lines 7, 8, 9 In these areas development potential is low, sites
are distant from roads, and sewers and soils are
unsuitable for septic tanks. To prevent scattered
sprawl development in limited growth areas, the
acceptable intensity of development is low.

11 2

Low Growth Areas (Delaware Bayshore, Mullica-Southern
Ocean Great Egg Harbor River Basin)

General

The general policy in these areas is that conserva-
tion is more important than development and environ-
mental sensitivity is therefore weighed more heavily
than other areas. In the Delaware Bayshore, the
concern is the conservation of agricultural land. In
the Mullica-Southern Ocean and Great Egg Harbor River
Basin regions the concern is conservation of the
natural environment. The spread of development must,
therefore, be highly restricted. In order to satisfy
these policies, development has been limited to
infilling and rounding off in areas of moderate and
low environmental sensitivity.

Lines 1 & 2 These lines show moderate intensity development
acceptable in infill sites. This allows a limited
amount of growth within existing settlements espe-
cially where development had leapfrogged in the past
leaving pockets of undeveloped land.

Lines 3 to 9 In these lines development is restricted in low
growth areas either because the lower development
potential implies ribbon or scattered sprawl in
conflict with the subregional growth policy or, to
conserve the environmentally sensitive areas which
are more valuable in low growth areas than elsewhere.

3.5.8 Determination of Location Acceptability

The location acceptability of a coastal development proposed
for Land Area is determined by comparing the site plan of the
proposed development, and the proposed percentages of the site
to be used for structures, paving, herb and shrub vegetation,
and forest vegetation, with the acceptable minimum and maximum
percentages of the site to be used for structures, paving, herb
and shrub vegetation, and forest vegetation, as specified in
the three levels of acceptable development intensity that
apply to the site or parts of the site according to the Land
Acceptability Tables. The percentages of the proposed develop-
ment's site plan shall conform with the percentages determined
using the Land Acceptability Tables, to the maximum extent
practicable.

3.6 Policy on Location of Linear Development

A linear development, such as but not limited to a road, sewer line,
or offshore pipeline, that must connect two points to function shall
comply with the specific location policies to determine the most accept-
able route, to the maximum extent practicable. If part of the proposed
alignment of a linear development is found to be unacceptable under the

113

specific location policies, that alignment (perhaps not the least pos-
sible distance) may nonetheless be acceptable, provided the following
conditions are met:

(a) there is no prudent or feasible alternative alignment which would
have less impact on sensitive areas,

(b) there will be no permanent or lone term loss of unique or irreplace-
able areas,

Cc) appropriate measures will be used to mitigate adverse environmental
impacts to the maximum extent feasible, such as restoration of
disturbed vegetation, habitats, and land and water features,

(d) the alignment is located on or in existing transportation corridors
and alignments, to the maximum extent practicable.

3.7 General Location Policy

A location may be acceptable for development under the specific location
policies above, but the DEP may reject or conditionally approve the
proposed development of the location as reasonably necessary to:

(a) promote the public health, safety, and welfare,

(b) protect, public and private property, wildlife and marine fisheries,
and

( c) preserve, protect and enhance the natural environment.

114

4.0 USE POLICIES

4.1 Purpose
4.2 Housing
4.3 Resort-Recreation
4.4 Energy
4.5 Public Facility
4.6 Industry-Commerce
4.7 Forts
4.8 Coastal Engineering

4.1 Purpose

Many types of development seek locations in the coastal zone. The second
stage in the screening process of the Coastal Resource and Development
Policies spells out a set of policies for particular uses of coastal
resources. The Use Policies often reinforce and highlight Location
Policies.

4.2 Housing Use Policies

4.2.1 Definition

Housing in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment includes both large
and small developments of single family detached houses,
multi-family units with apartments or town houses, high
rise buildings and mixed use developments. The Housing Poli-
cies which follow will apply to all proposed housing on wet-
lands or riparian lands and to housing projects of 25 or
more units in other parts of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment.

4.2.2 Water's Edge Housing

Policy

New housing, development is prohibited in Water Areas and the
Natural Water's Edge. The stabilization of existing lagoons
through revegetation, bulkheading or other means is condi-
tionally acceptable provided that the conditions of the
Retained Water's Edge and Filled Water's Edge are satisfied.

Rationale

Housing is not dependent on water access, and does not qualify
for any exceptions to the policy of restricting development in
sensitive areas.- Housing in these areas would require new
lagoons, dredging, and filling.

4.2.3 Cluster Development

Policy

Housing developments that cluster dwelling units on the areas
of sites most suitable for development are encouraged.

Rationale

Clustering is defined as an increase of net density realized by
reducing the size of private lots and retaining or increasing
the gross density of a project. The open space that is pro-
duced by clustering can be returned to the community as common
open space.- The location policies def ine certain sensitive
areas where development is limited. When such areas are
present on a site, the acceptable gross density may have to be
reduced, unless the net density can be increased by clustering.
Where municipal zoning requires minimum lot sizes that preclude
clustering, applicants are encouraged to seek local approval,
through new ordinances and/or variances, to maintain the
permissible gross density by clustering. DEP will aid this
endeavor by providing a rationale and testimony, as appro-
priate, especially for the protection of sensitive areas.
Cluster developments lessen the impact of construction by
preserving valued soil, open space, vegetation and aquifer
recharg e resources.- Some cluster developments also increase
insulation and reduce energy consumption due to shared walls
between units.

4.2.4 Residential Mix

Policy

Housing development that provides f or a mix of dwelling types
and for persons of different age and income groups is encouraged.

Rationale

The quality of life improves when residential areas provide a
diversity of dwelling types, at different cost levels, so that
people of different ages, life styles, and incomes can live
together, rather than the traditional pattern of highly strati-
'fied development that has taken place in the process of subur-
banization of the coastal zone. At the same, the coastal
region already provides specialized dwelling types for parti-
cular groups, such as senior citizens.

4.2.5 Fair Share Housing

Policy

Housing developments which contribute to a municipality's'
efforts to accommodate its fair share of low and moderate
income housing are encouraged. Housing developments shall
provide least cost housing where feasible.

116

Rationale

In March 1975, the New Jersey Supreme Court, in Southern
Burlington County NAACP v. The Township of Mount Laurel 67 N.J.
151 (1975) declared that a municipality must "presumptively
make realistically possible an. appropriate variety and choice
of housing ... at least to the extent of the municipality's
fair share of the present and prospective regional need ..
In April 1976, the Governor issued Executive Order No. 35,
(amended by Executive Order No. 46 of December 1976) which
directed the Di-vision of State and Regional Planning in the
Department of Community Affairs to prepare a statewide fair
share housing allocation plan. Developments in the coastal
zone that contribute to meeting defined municipal fair shares
are encouraged.

4.2.6 Barrier Free Design

Policy

Residential developments without barrier free design in public
areas are prohibited, and multi-family developments of more
than 250 units without barrier free design in some of the units
are discouraged. Further, barrier free design must be included
in all buildings and spaces used by the general public accord-
ing to State Law (N.J.S.A. 52:32-4). Barrier free design is
,encouraged in units of private residential developments,
especially at grade changes in public space within those
private developments.

Rationale

Housing in the coastal zone should be available to all people,
including those whose physical handicaps have precluded such
accommodation in the past. "Barrier Free Design Regulation",
published by the State of New Jersey, Department of the Treas-
ury, Division of Building and Construction on July 15, 1977,
defines the barrier free design requirements of public buildings.

4.2.7 Housing and Public Transp~ortation

Policy

The development of housing at locations and densities that
contribute to the feasibility of public transportation is
encouraged.

Rationale

Public health and welfare concerns about air quality, as well
as the necessity to limit energy consumption, require that
public policies and decisions encourage public transportation.

117

4.2.8 Housing Rehabilitation

Policy

Residential development involving the demolition and rede-
vel~opment of existing structures is discouraged, unless
rehabilitation of the existing structures is demonstrated to be
impractical, infeasible, and contrary to the public interest.

Rationale

The preservation, restoration, or rehabilitation of existing
structures is preferable to demolition and redevelopment in
order to save structures and neighborhoods with historic and
aesthetic interest. Rehabilitation can often be more labor
intensive than construction of a new building which means
that more jobs are created and less energy is consumed through
the production of new building materials. Applicants who build
on developed sites must demonstrate that existing structures
cannot be rehabilitated.

4.2.9 High Rise Housing

Policy

All high rise housing developments, defined as structures for
residential use more than six (6) stories or more than sixty
(60) feet from grade, are encouraged to locate in areas of.
existing high density, high-rise and/or intense settlements.
High rise housing is acceptable subject to the following
conditions:

(a) high-rise structures within the view of coastal waters
must be separated from coastal waters by at least one
public road or an equivalent park distance,

(b) the largest dimension of any high-rise structure must be
oriented perpendicular to the beach or coastal waters,

(c) the proposed structure must not block the view of dunes,
beaches, horizons, inlets, bays, or oceans that are
currently enjoyed from existing residential structures,
public roads or pathways,

(d) the structure must not overshadow beaches between May and
October,

Ce) the proposed structure must be in character with the sur-
rounding transitional heights and residential densities,
or be in character with a comprehensive development scheme
requiring an increase in height and density,

(f) the proposed structure must not have an adverse impact on
traffic and air quality.

118

Rationale

Considerable recent residential development along the coast,
from the Palisades to the barrier islands, has taken the form
of high-rise, high-density towers. While conserving of land,
some high-rise structures represent a visual intrusion,
cause adverse traffic impacts, and casts shadows on beaches.
Under CAFRA, DEP has approved several high-rise structures in
Atlantic City and denied two CAFRA applications for high-rise
proposals, one in downtown Toms River (Ocean County) and
another in Brigantine (Atlantic County). This policy strikes a
balance, between banning high-rises and allowing tall residen-
tial structures anywhere in the coastal zone.

4.2.10 Large Scale Planned Residential Development

Policy

Large scale, free-standing planned residential developments,
such as planned unit developments, shall be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis to determine the extent that the proposed
development carries out the basic coastal policy to concentrate
the pattern of development, contributes to regional housing
needs, and does not cause significant adverse secondary impacts.

Rationale

Large planned communities offer advantages of scale in creating
new modes of development and providing housing. Such large
projects may, however, detract from or alter appropriate
regional patterns of development.

4.3 Resort/Recreational Use Policies

4.3.1 Definition

Resort-recreation uses include the wide range of small and
large developments attracted to and often dependent upon
locations along the coast, particularly in the Bay and Ocean
Shore Segment. Resort-recreation uses include hotels, motels,
marinas, boating facilities, campgrounds, amusement piers,
parks and recreational structures such as bath houses and
fishing piers.

4.3.2 Recreation Priority

Policy

Resort/Recreation Uses shall have priority in the Bay and Ocean
Shore Segmenxt over all other uses, with highest priority
reserved for those uses that serve a greater rather than a
lesser number of people, and those uses that provide facilities
for people of all ages and for people with physical handicaps.

119

Rationale

The national and state interests in recreation are clearly
indicated in the coastal economy and are essential for the
quality of life. The coastal environment provides numerous
opportunities for recreation which should be expanded by public
policy and action, including priority setting.

4.3.3 New Recreation Areas

Policy

Recreation areas shall be incorporated in the design of all
residential and industrial development, to the maximum extent
practicable.

Rationale

The recent national recognition that recreation is physically
and mentally important for people of all ages should be accom-
modated by new development. Recreational facilities are
important near places of employment, as well as in residential
areas, since many people only have opportunities for recreation
during the working day.

4.3.4 Public Access

Policy

All public and private resort-recreation development adjacent
to coastal waters must provide for reasonable public access to
the shorefront.

Rationale

Shorefront areas maintained and protected by state tax reve-
nues, as well as by local funds, must be made available to all
state residents and visitors. Access includes visual access to
the shorefront, direct physical access, and indirect physical
access such as provision of transportation and supporting
facilities.

4.3.5 Hotel-Motel Developments

Policy

New, expanded or improved hotel-motel developments are condi-
tionally acceptable in existing resort-oriented areas, provided
that the development: (a) complies with the high-rise housing
policy, if appropriate, (b) promotes public recreational uses
of the coast, and (c) is compatible in scale, site design, and
architecture with surrounding development. Hotel-motel devel-
opments are discouraged in other areas. Resort areas are
existing concentrations of development that serve visitors to
the coastal zone.

120

Rationale

Hotels and motels enable New Jersey residents and tourists to
visit the coast. They thereby support the tourist economy of
the area. The buildings must be located, however, so they do
not harm or threaten the resources which attract people to the
coast.

4.3.6 Hotel-Casino Development

Policy

Hotel-casino development in Atlantic City shall be located in
the city's traditional resort area (along the Boardwalk), to
the maximum extent practicable. Hotel-casino development is
discouraged in existing residential areas and in areas where
access by public transportation and between the proposed
hotel-casino and the Boardwalk is limited. Rehabilitation and
renovation of existing hotels for hotel-casino purposes is
encouraged. Hotel-casino development shall comply with the
high-rise housing policy.

Rationale:

This hotel-casino location policy serves several purposes: (1)
protecting Atlantic City's existing, diverse neighborhoods, (2)
facilitating public tranpsortation solutions (such as bus,
jitney, park-and-ride, or rail) to the problem of increased
access to and in Atlantic City, (3) promoting pedestrian
movements, (4) reducing pressure on vehicular systems, and (5)
preserving the historic and low-rise residential character of
the Gardiner's Basin and Inlet area.

4.3.7 Marinas

Policy

New or expanded marinas for recreational boating are condi-
tionally acceptable if:

(a) the demonstrated regional demand for recreational boating
facilities cannot be met by the upgrading or expansion of
existing marinas, and

(b) the proposed marina includes the development of an appro-
priate mix of dry storage areas, public launching facili-
ties, and berthing spaces, depending upon the site condi-
tions and

(c) the proposed marina provides adequate pump out stations
for wastewater disposal from boats in a manner con-
sistent with federal and state water quality laws and
regulations.

121

New marinas that provide primarily for sail and oar boating are
encouraged.

Expansions of existing marinas shall be encouraged by limitingC
non-water dependent land uses that preclude support facilities
for boating.

Recreational boating facilities are acceptable provided that
they are designed and located in order to cause minimal feas-
ible interference with the commercial boating industry.

Rationale

The location of marinas requires the use of sensitive lands at
the waters edge which exist in only limited supply and are also
valued for other activities. The policies aim to ensure that
the area devoted to marinas is fully and efficiently utilized
to keep the size of the area required to a minimum. Facilities
for sail and oar boating are encouraged because such boats
consume less energy and have less of a polluting impact on the
water than motor boats.

4.3.8 Amusement Piers, Parks and Boardwalks

Policy

New amusement piers are prohibited, except in areas with
riparian grants where they are discouraged. Expanded or
extended amusement piers, parks, and boardwalks at the water's
edge or in the water and the on-site improvement or repair of
existing amusement piers, parks and boardwalk areas are dis-
courag~ed unless the proposed development meets the following
conditions:

(a) the amusement pier, parks, or boardwalk does not unreason-
ably conflict with aesthetic values, ocean views, other
beach uses, and wildlife functions, and

(b) public access to the shorefront is not limited, and

Rationale

Amusement piers, amusement parks, and boardwalks form an
essential element of the resort and recreational character of
some of the communities fronting on the Atlantic Ocean. The
carnival atmosphere of these areas provides fun and excitement

122

annually for hundreds of thousands of people. However, new
piers for amusement purposes are an inappropriate use of scarce
coastal resources, due to the natural hazard of the desired
ocean location and the importance of maintaining the visual
quality of the oceanfront. Also, amusement parks are not a
water-dependent use4 these facilities may be located inland on
less sensitive land and water features.

4.4 Energy Use Policies

4.4.1 General Definition of Energy Uses

Energy uses include facilities, plants or operations which
produce, convert, distribute, or store energy. Under the
Department of Energy Act, the term "energy facility" does not
include an operation conducted by a retail dealer.

4.4.2 General Energy Facility Siting Procedure

Policy

(a) The acceptability of all proposed new or expanded coastal
energy facilities shall be determined by a review process
that includes both NJDEP and the New Jersey Department of
Energy (N.J.S.A. 52:27F-1 et seq.) according to the
procedures defined in the Memorandum of Understanding
between NJDEP and NJDOE Coordination of Permit Reviews.

(b) NJDOE will determine the need for future coastal energy
facilities according to three basic standards. NJDOE will
submit an Energy Report to DEP with its determination of
the need for a coastal energy facility based on three
required findings:

(i) the existing sources of supply will not be adequate
to meet future levels of demand, including careful
consideration of the potential effects of conserva-
tion,

(ii) that no better technological alternative exists to
meet future levels of demand,

(iii) that no better locational alternative to the proposed
site exists.

(c) NJDEP will determine the acceptability of coastal energy
facilities using the Coastal Resource and Development
Policies.

(d) If NJDOE has submitted an Energy Report to DEP, the
DEP decision document shall refer to the NJDOE Energy
Report and indicate DEP's reasons for differences, if any,
between the DEP decision and the NJDOE Energy Report.

123

(e) Where NJDOE and NJDEP disagree on the acceptability of a
specific proposed coastal energy facility (for example,
on a specific proposed site for one type of energy facil-
ity), the disputed decision shall, in accord with 'state
law, be submitted to the State's Energy Facility Review
Board for final administrative action.

Rationale

NJDOE and NJDEP share responsibility for carrying out the
energy facility siting planning and project review elements of
the New Jersey Coastal Management Program. The State Energy
Master Plan and its appendices, the Coastal Resource and
Development Policies, and the Memorandum of Understanding
between NJDEP and NJDOE provide a clear framework for decision-
making by these two State agencies on the review of proposed
facilities, as well as a basis for continued consultation and
cooperative planning.

4.4.3 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas
Exploration and Development

Policy

Rapid exploration of the Mid-Atlantic, North Atlantic, and
other offshore areas with potential reserves of crude oil and
natural gas is encouraged, as long as all related onshore
activities do not conflict with existing land uses and are
conducted in accordance with the policies of the program.
Onshore activities for development and production of offshore
hydrocarbons shall be carried out according to the specific
energy facility policies of this section.

Rationale

The decision of the U.S. Department of Interior to lease
offshore tracts for crude oil and natural gas exploration
presents New Jersey with new onshore and marine-related envi-
ronmental problems and opportunities (See Figure 12). New
Jersey supports offshore exploration, recognizing the national
need to identify new energy supplies, as long as this new
industrial activity does not conflict with the State's second
most important industry, tourism, which depends upon the
maintenance of a high quality coastal environment.

In the event that commercial finds of oil and gas are made off
the Jersey coast, there may be considerable building activity
during the initial years while the industry prepares for
production. This activity will diminish once production gets
underway.

To minimize the impact of needed facilities, DEP encourages the
location of OCS-related facilities in developed areas where the
infrastrucure and labor market already exist to absorb such
activity.

124

T'igure 12
I~~~7 4 7 '72 I
76 NWYORK * CONNECTICUT R.

-41 4

PENNSYLVANIA )
r~~~~~e r

40-

Philadelphia

39-

* ~~Rehoboth
DELAWARBeach

OUTER CONTINENTAL 3

OIL-E& GAS LEASING

AREAS

Leased Areas (Sile No. 40)
-3 7
Proposed Lease Areas ~
VA. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(Sale 'No. 49)

O 10 50 150 miles
.36 N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~36-

75 74 ~~~~~~73 72 71

During the construction of onshore oil and gas facilities,
there may be an influx to the coastal zone of the marine
service and engineering industry. This service sector office-
oriented activity will be encouraged to locate in urban cen-
ters, such as Atlantic City, which because of its proximity to
OCS Lease Sale 40 has already been selected by industry as the
take-off point for helicopters to the offshore rigs and plat-
forms. Also, the U.S. Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) has located
its mid-Atlantic field office in Atlantic City to supervise and
monitor offshore operations.

4.4.4 Onshore Support Bases

Policy

New or expanded onshore support bases and marine terminals to
support offshore oil and gas exploration, development, and
production (including facilities for work boats, crew boats,
pipeline barges, helicopters, and limited, short-term storage
facilities), are encouraged at locations in built-up urban
areas of the state outside of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment
and discouraged in less developed areas of the coastal zone.
Preferable locations for water-dependent onshore support bases
include urban waterfront areas, where onshore adverse physical,
economic, and institutional impacts will be less than the
impacts likely to be placed, on less industrially developed
areas which are more dependent upon tourism and the resort
industry. Small facilities for storing oil spill containment
and cleanup eq t .e. _.
accepable'within theZB~ nd,;,Oce $.,Sho.re Seagment where such a
lo5atlon would facilitate and expedite offshore ~erge
opefrat ions.

Rationale

Offshore exploratory activity began off New Jersey in the
Baltimore Canyon on March 29, 1978. If the exploratory drill-
ing is successful, the offshore oil and gas industry is likely
to seek onshore support bases closer to the offshore tracts
than the present temporary bases established by the major oil,
gas, and offshore service and supply companies at Davisville,
Rhode Island. Because of shallow inlets in the Bay and Ocean
Shore Segment, few locations in this part of New Jersey meet
industry's siting requirements. This policy recognizes that
the New Jersey coast is favored by proximity to the offshore
tracts as a site for onshore staging bases, and carries out the
basic policy to concentrate rather than disperse industrial
development in the coastal zone.

4.7.5 Platform Fabrication Yards and Module Construction

Policy

Platform fabrication yards and module construction will be
encouraged in built-up areas of the coastal zone, outside of
the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment which have the requisite
acreage, adequate industrial infrastructure, ready access to

126

the open sea, and adequate water depth, and where the operation
of such a yard would not alter existing recreational uses of
the ocean and waterways in the areas.

Rationale

If offshore exploration proves successful, the development
phase of OCS activity in the Mid-Atlantic may require one or
more sites for constructing the steel platforms used offshore,
in addition to the platform construction yard tentatively
planned for Cape Charles in Virginia. Platform yards typi-
cally do not have the adverse air and water quality impacts
associated with some other industries. However, platform
construction yards require large tracts of land and are
labor intensive. The operation of a platform construction yard
could severely disrupt the economy and social fabric at less
developed communities and areas. For these reasons, offshore
platform construction yards are encouraged to seek locations in
*the already developed areas of the New Jersey. coast. However,
the height restrictions of bridges on the Delaware River and
other New Jersey waterways may sharply limit the suitability of
sites in New Jersey. Existing underutilized shipyards may be
used, however, for platform module construction.

4.4.6 Repair and Maintenance Facilities

Policy

Repair and maintenance facilities for vessels and equipment for
offshore activities will be encouraged, particularly at under-
utilized existing shipyards within the Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment.

Rationale

Existing small shipyards within the Bay and Ocean Shore Region,
such as these along the Maurice River in Cumberland County, may
serve valuable repair and maintenance support functions for
offshore operations without requiring construction of new
shipyards.

4.4.7 Pipe Coating Yards

Policy

Pipe coating yards are discouraged in the Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment and encouraged along the Delaware River and in the area
under the jurisdiction of the Fort Authority 'of New York and
New Jersey, in such communities as Middlesex, Union, Essex, and
Hudson Counties.

Rationale

Pipe coating yards con stitute an industrial activity that is
generally incompatible with the suburban and rural character of
the Bay and Ocean Shore Region. Further, pipe coating yards
typically require 100-150 acres, and wharf space with a pre-
ferred depth at the wharf of 20 to 30 feet. These siting

requirements suggest that highly industrial port areas, located
outside of the Bay and Ocean Shore Region, are preferred
locations.

4.4.8 Pipelines and Associated Facilities

Policy

Crude oil and natural gas pipelines to bring hydrocarbons from
offshore New Jersey's coast to existing refineries, and oil and
gas transmission and distribution systems and other new oil and
natural gas pipelines will be conditionally acceptable,
subject to the following conditions:

(a) For safety and conservation of resources, the number of
pipeline corridors, including trunk pipelines for natural
gas and oil, shall be limited, to the maximum extent
feasible, and designated following appropriate study and
analysis by the Department of Environmental Protection and
the New Jersey Department of Energy, and interested
federal, state and local agencies and affected industries,

(b) The pipeline corridors for landing oil or natural gas
are conditionally acceptable provided they follow existing
already developed or disturbed road, railroad, pipeline,
or other rights-of-way (such as the Atlantic City Express-
way), to the maximum extent practicable,

(c) Pipeline corridors for landing oil are prohibited in the
Central Pine Barrens area of the Mullica River, Cedar
Creek watersheds and portions of the Rancocas Creek and
Toms River watersheds, defined as the 760 square mile
region adopted by DEP as a "critical area" for sewerage
purposes and non-degradation surface and ground water
quality standards -- see N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.6(i), (j), and
N.J.A.C. 7:9-10.1(b) and Figure 13 -- and discouraged in
other undeveloped parts of the Pine Barrens,

(d) Pipeline corridors for natural gas are discouraged in
the Central Pine Barrens as defined above, unless the
developer can demonstrate that the proposed pipeline will
meet the adopted non-degradation standards for water
quality and cause no long term adverse environmental
impacts,

(e) Proposals to construct offshore oil and gas pipelines,
including all of the contemplated ancillary facilities
along the pipeline route such as, for example, gas pro-
cessing plants, oil storage terminals, booster stations,
surge tanks, and other related facilities, shall be
evaluated by DEP and the New Jersey Department of Energy,
in terms of the entire new potential pipeline corridor
through the State of New Jersey.

128

Figure 13

PINE BARRENS
EXCLUSION
PINE~~~~~~~~~S BARREN
AREA/
-PAS SAic

WARPEN RS-

~.UNTEROGpN

f~~T1PINE BARRENS
IiIJVEGETATION

- ~~~~~~~~~ ~~OFFSHORE
OIL OR GAS
SALEM :e~~~~~~~j~~:. ~PIPELINE
EXCLUSION
AREA

. . .. *. *. . ..

(f) To preserve the recreational and tourism character of the
coastal areas, new major pumping stations and other
ancillary facilities to the offshore oil and gas pipelines
shall be prohibited from locations in the Bay and Ocean
Shore Segment, except for major gas processing plants and
required compressor stations. Ancillary facilities shall
be protected by adequate visual, sound, and vegetative
buf fer areas.- Platforms for pumping or compressor sta-
tions shall be located out of sight of the shoreline,
and

(g) Pipeline corridors through the state coastal waters shall,
at a minimum and to the maximum extent feasible, avoid
offshore munitions, chemical and waste disposal areas,
heavily used waterways, geological faults, wetlands and
significant fish or shellfish habitats. Pipelines shall
be trenched to a depth sufficient to withstand exposure by
scouring, shipgroundings, anchors, fishing and clamming
and other potential obstacles on the sea floor.

Rationale

New Jersey recognizes that pipelines, rather than other modes
of surface transportation such as tankers and barges, are the
preferred and more environmentally sound method of bringing
crude oil and natural gas ashore from offshore wells. Pipe-
lines affect their immediate surroundings most dramatically
during construction. If construction is carried out properly,
there will be short term impacts, most visible during the
period of revegetation. At the same time, the potential
onshore effects of pipelines on the sensitive ecosystem of the
coast and the Pine Barrens, and the visual, noise, and odor
impacts potentially created with the ancillary facilities
associated with OCS pipelines, require that New Jersey proceed
cautiously and -prudently in selecting pipeline corridors,
specific alignments, and locations for ancillary facilities.

New Jersey along with the numerous public and private interests
at the local, state, and national levels involved in pipeline
siting, expects to participate in the proposed intergovern-
mental offshore oil and gas transportation planning process
being established by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Land Management. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with
responsibilty for siting gas pipelines, has also endorsed the
concept of utility corridors.

4.4.9 Oil Refineries and Petrochemical Facilities

Policy

Oil refineries and petrochemical facilities are prohibited in
areas where they might conflict with the resort-tourism indus-
try or areas of recreational or biological value. New o il
refineries and petrochemical facilities are. prohibited in the

130

Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. Expansion in capacity of exist-
ing oil refineries and petrochemical facilities at existing
sites, which are all located outside of the Bay and Ocean
Shore Segment, will be acceptable if such expansion does not
violate applicable state water quality standards.

Rationale

Based on the best available information, oil recovered from the
Baltimore Canyon and the Georges Bank is expected to be routed
by pipeline and tanker to the existing New Jersey, Pennsylvania
or Delaware refineries, to replace existing imported oil
Consequently, no new refineries are expected to be necessary in
New Jersey. However, the Draft EIS prepared by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Interior on OCS 'Lease Sale No. 49 (May 1978, Vol. 3 p.
614) indicates that additional refinery capacity might be
needed on the East Coast. With the five of the raid-Atlantic
region's ten refineries (with one out-of-operation since 1974),
New Jersey has already more than contributed its regional fair
share of coastal lands to refineries. Also, refineries are
large-scale industrial facilities that are neither coastal-
dependent nor compatible with the character of the Bay and
Ocean Shore Segment.

4.4.10 Gas Processing Plants

Policy

Gas processing plants, including partial processing plants,
between the offshore pipeline landfall and commercial natural
gas transmission lines shall be excluded from sites within the
Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and the Central Pine Barrens
Critical Area, to the maximum extent practicable, and shall be
located the maximum feasible distance from the shoreline. Such
plants should be located close to existing petrochemical plants
to which they may provide feedstock. The siting of gas pro-
cessing plants will be reviewed in terms of the total pipeline
routing system.

Rationale

Gas processing plants will be needed if gas is found off New
Jersey's shore, but these facilities do not require locations
on the shoreline. Gas is best transported by pipeline. To
promote the most efficient use of land, gas plants should be
located close to existing gas distribution lines. Alterna-
tively, where gas is associated with oil in oil pipelines, gas
separation plants should be located close to refineries to
which the oil pipelines will be routed.

4.4.11 Storage of Crude Oil, Gases and Other
Potentially Hazardous Liquid Substances

Policy

The storage of crude oil, gases and other potentially hazardous
liquid substances as defined in N.J.A.C. 7:lE-1.1 under the
Spill Compensation and Control Act (N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11)
related to offshore oil a-ad gas production is prohibited on
barrier islands a-ad discouraged elsewhere in the Bay and Ocean
Shore Segment. Major new storage facilities for crude oil and
gas, in the absence of processing facilities, will be permitted
only outside the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment in'the Port of New
York and New Jersey and the Delaware River Fort and where such
storage will not contribute unacceptably to overall regional
air or water quality degradation. Facilities for storing and
distributing finished petroleum products on a wholesale or
retail basis will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Rationale

Major storage facilities for hazardous substances are not
coastal-dependent and will not be permitted where storage might
limit or conflict with recreational or open space uses of the
coast.

4.4.12 Tanker Terminals

Policy

New or expanded tanker facilities will be acceptable only in
existing ports and harbors outside of the Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment where the required channel depths exist to accommodate
tankers. Multi-company use of existing and new tanker ter-
mi-nals will be encouraged in the Port of New York and New
Jersey and in the area bounded by the Delaware River Port
Authority, where adequate infrastructure exists to accommodate
the secondary impacts which may be generated by such terminals,
such as processing and storage facilities. New tanker ter-
minals will be discouraged on other parts of the coast,
including the Bay and Oceani' Shore Segment. Offshore tanker
terminals and deepwater ports are discouraged from the Bay and
Ocean Shore Region, pending a thorough evaluation of the
implications of such a facility, on a case-by-case basis.

Rationale

Onshore tanker facilities pose potential adverse environmental
impacts and could encourage secondary development activity that
is not necessarily coastal dependent. Also, even medium sized
tankers require minimum channel depths of 30 feet, which
excludes locations within the Bay and Ocean Shore Region. New
or expanded tanker terminals are therefore directed toward New
Jersey's established port areas. Deepwater ports appear

132

attractive to industry due to increasingly larger tankers,
limitations on dredging and the scarcity of waterfront land.
However, a deepwater port may, depending on its location, cause
severe adverse primary and secondary impacts on the built,
natural, and social environment.

4.4.13 Electric Generating Stations

Policy

New or expanded electric generating facilities (for base
load, cycling, or peaking purposes) and related facilities are
conditionally acceptable subject to the following conditions:

(a) The construction and operation of the proposed facility
shall comply with the Coastal Resource and Development
Policies, with special reference to air and water quality
standards and policies on marine resources and wildlife,

(b) NJDEP and NJDOE shall find that the proposed location and
design of the electrical generating facility is the most
prudent and feasible alternative for the production of
electrical power that NJDOE has determined is needed,
including a consideration, evaluation, and comparison by
the applicant of alternative sites within the coastal zone
and inland,

(c) Fossil fuel (coal, oil or gas) generating stations shall
not be located in particularly scenic or natural areas
that are important to recreation and open space purposes)

(d) Nuclear generating stations shall be located in generally
remote, rural, and low density areas, consistent with the
criteria of 10 CFR 100 (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
rules on siting nuclear generating stations and population
density) and/or any other related federal regulations.
In addition, NJDEP shall find that the nuclear generating
facility is proposed for a location where the appropriate
low population zone and population center distance are
likely to be maintained around the nuclear generating
facility, through techniques such as land use controls or
buffer zones,

133

waste material. This finding is required under present
state law (N.J.S.A. 13:19-11) and will be made consistent
with judicial decisions (see Public Interest Research
Group v. State of New Jersey, 152 N.J. Super. 191) and
federal law.

(f The construction of electric generating facilities using
renewable forms of energy such as solar radiation, wind,
and water, including experimental and demonstration
projects, is encouraged in the coastal zone provided that
the facilities do not significantly adversely affect
scenic or recreational values.

Rationale

The siting of an electric generating station is an extraor-
dinary event with far-reaching impacts, when compared with the
typical day-to-day decisions made under the State's coastal
management program. Such siting decisions therefore require
special scrutiny using: (a) the State's authority in its
management of state-owned tidelands and submerged lands con-
templated as sites for all or part of an electric generating
station, (b) the State's regulatory authority, and (c) the
State's influence in federal proceedings on aspects of the
siting process.

New Jersey's coastal zone, and especially the Bay and Ocean
Shore Segment has experienced the consequences of several major
siting decisions in the past decade and already has a diverse
mix of existing, proposed, and potential fossil fuel and
nuclear generating facilities, both onshore and offshore.

For example, in 1978 two nuclear generating units are in
operation in the coastal zone; Salem Unit I on Artificial
Is land on the Delaware River in Salem County and at Oyster
Creek near Barnegat Bay in Ocean County. Four additional
nuclear generating units are under construction in the Bay and
Ocean Shore Segment and have received the appropriate federal
and state approvals, including Forked River on the Oyster Creek
site in Ocean County, and Salem 2 and Hope Creek I and 2 on
Artificial Island. The Hope Creek project, which DEP approved
under CAFRA in 1975, had its genesis in a project contemplated
at Newbold Island in the Delaware River, less than five miles
south of Trenton. In 1973, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
(the predecessor to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission), acting
in accord with the view of New Jersey, recommended that Arti-
ficial Island would be a more suitable site than Newbold Island
because of population density concerns. New Jersey's coastal
zone is also the site of the proposed floating nuclear plant,
the Atlantic Generating Stat ion, Units I and 2, at a site in
the Atlantic Ocean east of Little Egg Harbor; however, the.
sponsor of the project, Public Service Electric and Gas

134

Company, announced in 1978 a delay of at least three years in
the. timetable for this unprecedented project. The Bay and
Ocean Shore Region also includes generating stations that have
used various fossil fuels depending upon the price and avail-
ability of fuel as well as well as upon the applicable air
quality rules.

New Jersey recognizes the interstate nature of the electric
power system. Some electricity is produced in New Jersey at
facilities owned partially by utilities in other states and
exported to those states. New Jersey also imports electricitiy
produced in adjacent states. In short, New Jersey is an
integral part of the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland inter-
connecting grid system, importing and exporting electricity
from the system at different times of the day, season and year
in order to generate electricity efficiently and achieve the
lowest achievable cost to electricity users throughout this
multi-state region.

New Jersey also recognizes that most electric generating
facilities may not be coastal-dependent but do require access
to vast quantities of cooling waters, a siting factor that,
from the perspective of utilities, increases the attractiveness
of coastal locations. This siting policy strikes a balance
among various competing. national, regional, and state interest
in coastal resources, and recognizes some of the differences in
the siting requirements of fossil fuel and nuclear generating
stations.

The policy directs fossil fuel stations toward built up areas
in order to preserve and protect particularly scenic and
natural areas important to recreation and open space purposes.
New Jersey has articulated this policy with a conscious recog-
nition of the state's progress in attaining and maintaining
high air quality. Given the use of appropriate control tech-
nology, coal-fired generating stations, for example, appear
feasible at various coastal locations. The siting of coal-
fired power plants in urban areas also promotes efficient
energy use due to the proximity of power plants to load centers.

The nuclear siting policy recognizes public concern for the
disposal of spent fuel, as mandated in 1973 by the New Jersey
Legislature in CAPRA.

4.4.14 Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities

Policy

New marine terminals and associated facilities for tra~ns-
ferring, tranforming and storing liquefied natural gas, prior
to distribution by pipeline, are discouraged in the Bay and
Ocean Shore Region unless the proposed facility is located or
constructed so as to neither unduly endanger human life nor
property nor otherwise impair the public health, safety and

,135

welfare, as required by N.J.S.A. 13:19-10f, and complies with
the Coastal Resource and Development Policies. In determining
the acceptability of proposed LNG facilities, DEP shall also
consider siting criteria such as: (a) applicable federal
siting criteria, (b) the risks inherent in tankering LNG along
New Jersey's water ways and rivers, (c) the risks inherent in
transferring LNG onshore, and (d) the compatibility of the
facility with surrounding land uses, population densities, and
concentrations of commercial or industrial activity.

Rationale

New Jersey's policy on LNG facility siting recognizes �he
responsibilities of various federal agencies, including the
Coast Guard and Office of Pipeline Safety Operations in the
U.S. Department of Transportation, the Economic Regulatory
Administration in the U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE), and
the independent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission within
USDOE, for management of various aspects of the siting and
operations of LNG facilities. New Jersey seeks and welcomes
rigorous and consistent federal LNG siting standards. In fact,
the State of New Jersey petitioned the former Federal Power
Commission in May 1976 for the issuance of such siting cri-
teria. The petition (RM76-13) is still under consideration by
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

LNG facilities have been proposed in the 1970's in New Jersey's
coastal region along the Delaware River at sites in Logan
Township (Transco) and West Deptford Township (Tenneco) in
Gloucester County, as well as on Staten Island, New York
(Distrigas and Eastcogas), with a proposed natural gas pipeline
connection to New Jersey under the Arthur Kill. As of mid-
1978, none of these proposals have received the required
federal approvals. The New Jersey policy on LNG policy is
based in part on the results of the Federal Power Commission
staff alternative LNG terminal site analysis and recommendation
that the West Deptford site not be approved (see Federal Power
Commission, Bureau of Natural Gas, Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Construction and Operation of a Liquefied
Natural Gas Import Terminal in West Deptford, New Jersey,
Docket No. CP 76-16, Tenneco LNG, Inc., December 1976). The
tankering, transfer, and storage of LNG pose significant risks
to public health, safety and welfare and may cause serious
adverse environmental impacts which may not be restricted to
one state, given the likely potential locations of LNG ter-
minals along interstate waterways. New Jersey therefore
recommends that the siting of LNG facilities be treated as a
regional issue on an interstate basis, ideally by the adoption
of consistent federal siting criteria. At the same time, NJDEP
and NJDOE will continue to explore the potential and likely
impacts of onshore and offshore sites for LNG facilities.

136

4.5 Public Facility Use Policies

4.5.1 Definition

I ~~Public Facilities includes a broad range of public works for
the production, transfer, transmission, and recovery of water,
sewerage and other utilities, as well as public transportation
facilities. The presence of an adequate infrastructure makes
possible future development and responds to the needs created
by present development.

4.5.2 General Public Facilities

Policy

New or expanded public facility development is conditionally
acceptable provided that:

(a) The public facility would serve a demonstrated need that
cannot be met by an existing public facility at the site
or region,

(b) Alternate technologies, including conservation, are an
impractical or infeasible approach to meeting all or part
of the need for the public facility, and

(c) The public facility would not generate significant second-
ary impacts inconsistent with the Coastal Resource and
Development Policies.

Rationale

Public facilities provide important public service, but can
also adversely affect the coastal environment and economy if
improperly located, designed, or constructed. in particular,
the secondary impacts of new public facility construction and
the -aeed for the facility require scrutiny.

4.5.3 Roads

Policy

Proposals to build new roads or expand existing roads must
demonstrate a need, and indicate why alternate solutions,
including, as appropriate, upgrading existing roads and/or
the use of public transportation are not feasible.

Rationale

Only minor road improvements are likely to take place in the
more densely populated coastal regions, which have adequate
road systems. Selective road improvements should always be
evaluated in the context of public transportation alternatives.
New or expanded roads should facilitate public transportation
and pedestrian and bicycle use.

137

4.5.4 Public Transportation

Policy

New and improved needed public transportation facilities,
including bus, rail, air, and boat travel and related parking
facilities, are encouraged.

Rationale

A basic premise of the coastal management program is concen-
trating the pattern of development, in part to facilitate
public transportation. While new.air transportation facilities
appear unlikely, bus facilities and parking systems appear
appropriate, particularly as a solution to the transportation
problems of barrier island resorts.

4.5.5 Bicycle and Foot Paths and Fishing Platforms

Policy

The construction of bicycle and foot paths, in residential
projects, and fishing catwalks and platforms on new or improved
bridges, is required, to the maximum extent practicable.

Rationale

Paths for pedestrians and bicycles provide active outdoor
recreation and may lead to reduced dependency on cars, par-
ticularly with increasingly compact settlement patterns.
Fishing platforms also provide for outdoor recreation and must
be seriously considered in the design process for new or
improved bridges.

4.5.6 Solid Waste

Policy

Solid waste conservation techniques such as recycling, resource
and energy recovery and volume reduction, must be explored and
proved infeasible before a solid waste disposal facility,
preferably at a regional scale, is deemed acceptable.

Sanitary landfills that locate in the upland must demonstrate
that the leachate will not adversely impact the ground or
surface waters, by using a lining and/or a leachate filtration
plant. Acceptable plans for restoring the site must be sub-
mitted with the original proposal.

Rationale

Solid waste is a resource whose potential for recovery must be
evalauted before locating new sanitary landfills. Further,
regional solutions to solid waste management are mandated under

138

State law. In addition, the development of new landfills is
subject to the regulations of DEP's Solid Waste Administration.

4.5.7 Wastewater Treatment

Policy

(a) Coastal developments that do not employ the most energy-
efficient wastewater treatment system practicable are
discouraged. Energy efficient systems are encouraged.

(b) On-site sewage disposal systems are encouraged where
the design, installation, operation, and maintenance will
be consistent with applicable ground and surface water
quality statutes and regulations.

(c) Wastewater treatment systems that recharge the ground-
water with highly treated effluents are encouraged,
provided that consistently high quality effluents and
acceptable recharge techniques are demonstrated.

Rationale

Wastewater treatment systems range in scale from on-site
sewage disposal systems to regional treatment systems with
centralized plans, major intercepters, and ocean outfalls.
In the past decade considerable wastewater treatment
system construction has taken place or been authorized, in
the more developed parts of the *Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment, with corresponding improvements in water quality.
New wastewater treatment systems must be carefully eval-
uated in terms of water quality impacts and secondary
impacts.

4.6 Industry-Commerce Uses Policies

4.6.1 Definition

Industry-commerce uses includes a wide variety of industrial
processing, manufacturing, storage, distribution, service
sector, retail and similar uses.

4.6.2 General Industry-Commerce

Policy

New or expanded coastal dependent industrial or commercial
development is encouraged at or adjacent to existing sites,
to the maximum extent practicable'. Marine resource dependent
industry, such as commercial fishing, is encouraged and shall
have priority over other waterfront uses, except for recrea-
tion. if existing sites are demonstrated to be impractical or
the development is not coastal-dependent, then new sites may be
acceptable provided that:

139

(a) The development can demonstrate a high ratio of jobs
created to the acres of the site used for the development,
and

(b) the development poses no conflict with resort-recreation
uses of the coast and is compatible with adjacent uses.

Rationale

The sensitive land and water features of the Bay and Ocean
Shore Segment, the relatively small amount of available land,
and the significant adverse impacts of many forms of industrial
development mandate a restrictive policy. At the same time,
new and expanded light industrial parks and waterfront fish
processing activities are desirable uses at appropriate loca-
t ions.

4.6.3 Mining

Policy

New or expanded mining operations on land, and directly related
development, for the extraction and/or processing of construc-
tion sand, industrial sand, gravel, ilmenite, glauconite, and
other minerals are conditionally acceptable, provided that the
following conditions are met (mining is otherwise exempted from
the Land Areas policy, but shall comply with the Special Areas,
Water Areas, and Water's Edge Areas policies):

(a) the location of mining operatio ns, such. as pits, plants,
pipelines, and access roads, causes minimal practicable
disturbance to significant wildlife habitats, such as
lowland swamp forests and stands of mature vegetation,

(b) the location of new or expanded mining operations is
generally contiguous with or adjacent to sites of existing
mining operations, or probable locations of mineral
resources on nearby sites, in order to concentrate and not
scatter the location of mineral extraction areas within a
region, recognizing that mineral resources occur only in
certain limited areas,

(c) adequate buffer areas are provided, using existing vegeta-
tion and/or new vegetation and landscaping, to provide
maximum feasible screening of new on-land extractive
activities and related processing from roads, water
bodies, marshes, and recreation areas,

:(d) the mine development and reclamation plan, including the
timetable, phasing, and activities of the new or expanded
mining operations, has been designed with explicit and
adequate consideration of the ultimate reclamation,
restoration, and reuse of the site and use of its sur-
rounding region, once the mineral resource is depleted,

140

(e) the mineral extraction areas shall be reclaimed, contoured
and replanted, to ensure slope stability, control erosion,
afford adequate drainage, provide as natural an appearance
as possible, and increase the recreation potential of the
restored site,

(f) the mining operations control a-ad minimize to the maximum
extent practicable adverse impacts from noise and dust,
surface water pollution, disposal of spoils and waste
materials and conform to all applicable federal, state,
and local regulations and standards,

(g) the mineral extraction will not have a substantial or
long-lasting adverse impact on coastal resources including
local economies, after the initial, adverse impact of
removal of vegetation, habitat, and soils, and not includ-
ing the long term irretrievable impact of use of the
non-renewable mineral resource.

Rationale

New Jersey's coastal zone includes important deposits of
minerals. Mining these non-renewable resources is vital to
certain sectors of the economy of selected regions of the
coastal zone, the entire state and in some cases the nation,
depending upon the specific type of mineral. For example, the
high quality silica sands of Cumberland County supply an
essential raw material for New Jersey's glass industry. Other
industrial sands mined and processed in Cumberland County serve
as basic ingredients in the iron and steel foundry industry.
Ilmenite deposits in Ocean County produce titanium dioxide
which is used in paint pigment. Construction grade sands are
used in virtually all construction activity.

The extraction and processing of minerals from mines on land
also produces short and long term adverse environmental
impacts. For example, open-pit mining removes all vegetation
and soil, destroys wildlife habitat, changes the visual quality
of the landscape, and irretrievably consumes the depletable
mineral resource. Many of thse impacts can be ameliorated by
incorporating proper, imaginative and aggressive reclamation
and restoration planning into the mine development process.
However, the location of mineral deposits is an unquestionably
limiting factor on the location of mining operations. Reason-
able balances must therefore be struct between competing and
conflicting uses of lands with mineral deposits.

Depending upon the diversity and strength of a local economy,
depletion of mineral deposits through extraction may lead to
serious adverse long term economic consequences, particularly
if the planned reclamation does not replace the direct economic
comtribution of the mining industry. The non-renewable nature
of mineral resources must also be considered carefully in light
of the uses of some of the mined minerals. For example,

141

certain high quality silica sands, coupled with another non-
renewable resource, natural gas, are used to make non-return-
able glass bottles.

4.6.4 Parking Facilities

Policy

Major parking lots, structures, garages and large paved areas
serving industrial-commercial complexes are conditionally
acceptable, provided that the extent of paved surfaces is
minimized, the development does not cause unacceptable air
or water quality degradation and the development is compatible
with its surroundings and satisfies the Location Policies.

Rationale

Parkinc, facilities provide a necessary transportation facility,
but one that may cause air and water impacts.

4.7 Ports Uses

Policy

Port-related development and marine commerce [shall be] is
acceptable only in established port areas. Water dependent
development shall not be preempted by non water dependent
development in these areas.

New major port facilities will only be permitted when there is
a clear demonstration of the inadequacy of an existing port.
In such cases, expansion may only occur adjacent to an existing
built-up port.

Rationale

-New Jersey's port areas are a regional, national and inter-
national resource. The existing ports, located largely north
a-ad west of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, contain unused and
underused areas which can be ref urbished to meet increases in
demand. The state must nevertheless allow for possible
unanticipated future needs for part areas. Also, limited
water-dependent, port-related activity is acceptable at the
small comercial ports of harbors in the Bay and Ocean Shore
Region, such as commercial fishing support facilities and
emergency oil spill clean up storage.

4.8 Coastal Engineering Use Policies

4.8.1 Definition

*Coastal Engineering includes a variety of structural and
non-structural measures to manage water areas and the shoreline
for natural effects of erosion, storms, and sediment and sand
movement. Beach nourishment, sand fences, pedestrian control
on dunes, stabilization of dunes, dune restoration projects,

142

and dredged spoil disposal are all examples of coastal engi-
neering. The policies on Water Areas and Special Areas are
directly relevant to most coastal engineering uses.

4.8.2 Shore Protection Priorities

Policy

Non-structural solutions to shoreline erosion problems are
preferred over structural solutions. The infeasibility and
impracticality of a non-structural solution must be demon-
strated before structural solutions may be deemed acceptable.

Rationale

Past reliance on costly structural shore protection measures,
such as groins and jetties to retard the longshore transport of
sand by the littoral drift, and seawalls, bulkheads and revet-
ments to prevent waves from reaching erodible materials has
proven to be au inadequate and incomplete solution. Bulkheads
are deteriorating. Groins are starving the natural longshore
transport of sand. Man has modified and destroyed dunes that
provide natural protection against storm surges. Inlets
frequently develop shoals which prevent safe navigation. The
natural processes along the shoreline must be carefully eval-
uated over reaches or regions of the coast to determine the
likely long term effects of shore protection measures. Non-
structural measures realistically recognize the inevitability
of the ocean' s advancement and the migration of barrier
islands. Yet this concern must be balanced against the short
term benefits of structures to protect the present intense
recreational use of the narrow strip of oceanfront land
in New Jersey.

4.8.3 Dune Management

Policy

Dune restoration and maintenance projects as a non-structural
shore protection measure, including sand fencing, revegetation,
additions of non-toxic appropriately sized material, control of
pedestrian and vehicular traffic, are encouraged.

Rationale

A natural dune field provides a strong measure of natural
protection for adjacent land uses.

4.8.4 Beach Nourishment

Policy

Beach nourishment projects, as a non-structural shore protec-
tion measure, are encouraged, provided that: (a) the particle
size of the fill material is compatible with the existing beach

material to ensure that the new material will not be removed to
a greater extent than the existing material would be by normal
tidal fluctuations, (b) the elevation, width, slope, and
form of proposed beach nourishment project are compatible with
the characteristics of the existing beach, and (c) the sediment
deposition will not cause unacceptable shoaling in downdrift
inlets and navigation channels.

Rationale

Beach nourishment depends upon an adequate quantity and suit-
able quality of beach nourishment material, otherwise the
material may quickly return to the ocean.

4.8.5 Structural Shore Protection

Policy

The construction of new shore protection structures, to retard
long shore transport or prevent waves from reaching erodible
material, including jetties, groins and seawalls, and the
modification, repair or removal of existing structures, is
acceptable only under the following conditions:

(a) The structure is essential to protect heavily used public
recreation beach areas in danger from erosion,

(b) The structure is essential to protect coastal-dependent
uses,

(c) The structure is essential to protect existing structures
and infrastructure in built-up, urban shorefront areas in
danger from erosion,

(d) The structure is designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse
impacts on local shoreline sand supply,

(e) The structure will not create net adverse shoreline sand
movement conditions downdrift, including erosion or
shoaling,

(f) The structure will protect and enhance public access to
the shorefront, including fishing and other recreation
opportunities,

(g) The structure will cause minimum feasible adverse impact
to living marine resources, and

(h) The structure is an essential element of a regional
shoreline management plan.

144

Ratijonale

Structural solutions to shore protection are appropriate and
essential at certain locations, given the existing pattern of
urbanization of New Jersey's shoreline. However, the creation,
repair, or removal of publicly-funded shore protection struc-
tures must serve clear and broad public purposes and must be
undertaken only with a clear understanding of the regional
consequences of natural shoreline sand systems.

4.8.6 Dredged Spoil Disposal

Definition

Dredged spoil disposal is the discharge on Land, Water's Edge,
or Water Areas of sediments, known as spoils, removed during
dredging operations.

Policy

The acceptability of a site for dredged spoil disposal depends
first upon the extent of contamination of the spoil material.
If the dredge spoils are contaminated typically with heavy
metals and other toxic materials, and not decontaminated, then
the dredge spoil disposal is conditionally acceptable at only
approved and established land based disposal areas, new land
sites or ocean sites, under the following conditions: (a)
ocean sites may be used only a land disposal site is not
feasible, (b) sediments disposed in the ocean will not be
carried by currents inland of the 18' contour, (c) the mater-
ials disposed in the ocean will cause minimal feasible inter-
ference with living marine resources, and (d) sediments dis-
posed on land, such as borrow pits are covered with appropriate
clean material that is similar in texture to surrounding
soils.

If the dredge spoils are not contaminated, or are decontami-
nated, then disposal in the deep ocean (depth greater than 18')
is conditionally acceptable provided that a land disposal site
is not fesible. The use of uncontaminated dredge material of
appropriate quality and particle size for beach nourishment is
encouraged. The use of uncontaminated -dredge material for
purposes such as restoring landscape, enhancing farming areas,
building islands, creating marshes, capping contaminated spoil
areas., and making new wildlife habitats will be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis.

Rat ionale

Dredge spoil disposal is an essential coastal land and water
use that is linked inextricably to the coastal economy and has
serious impacts on the coastal environment. Evolving state and
federal policies on protection of the marine and estuarine
coastal environment have sharply limited the creation of new

145

dredge spoil disposal areas in the past decade. Yet selective
dredging must continue if inlets and navigation channels are to
be maintained. The coastal policy recognizes the importance of
this use of coastal resources.

146

5.0 RESOURCE POLICIES

5.1 Purpose

The third step in the screening process of the Coastal Resource and
Development Policies involves a review of a proposed development in terms
of its effects on various resources of the built and natural environment
of the coastal zone, both at the proposed site as well as in its sur-
rounding region. These policies serve as standards to which proposed
development must adhere.

5.2 Marine Fish and Fisheries

5.2.1 Policy

Coastal actions are conditionally acceptable to the extent that
minimal feasible interference is caused to the natural func-
tioning of marine fish and fisheries, including the reproduc-
tive and migratory patterns of estuarine and marine estuarine
dependent species of finfish and shellfish.

5.2.2. Rationale

Finfish (freshwater, estuarine, and marine) and shellfish
resources provide significant recreation experiences for
residents of New Jersey and interstate visitors. These
resources also help the State's economy, by leading to expen-
ditures approximately $375.8 million per year, with fishing
yielding aproximately $217.2 million and shellfishing yielding
$158.6 million. DEP also estimates that 1,868,000 people
participated in marine/estuarine recreational fishing in 1976
in New Jersey. Commercial landings for all finfish and shell-
fish in New Jersey during 1976 were 226,988,000 lbs., valued at
$34.55 million dockside and an estimated $86.3 million retail
value, according to Department of Commerce statistics.

Interference with fish resources includes blockage of ana-
dromous finfish spawning runs, reduction in the critical
capacity of estuaries to function as finfish nursery areas,
reduction of summer dissolved oxygen level below 4 ppm (leading
to anoxic phytoplankton blooms), introduction of heavy metals
or other toxic agents into coastal water, rise in ambient water
temperature regime especially during summer and fall periods,
unacceptable increases in turbidity levels, siltation, or
resuspension of toxic agents, and introduction of untreated
effluents from domestic and industrial sources.

5.3 Water Quality

5.3.1 Policy

Coastal development shall conform with all applicable surface
and groundwater quality statutes, regulations and standards, as
established and administered by DEP's Division of Water
Resources (see N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.0 et seq.).

147

5.3.2 Rationale

Most of the natural, commercial, recreational, industrial, and
aesthetic resources of the coastal zone affect or are affected
by surface and ground water quality. Specific coastal zone
water quality problems include pollution by nutrients, patho-
genic organisms, toxic and hazardous wastes, thermal dis-
charges, suspended sediments, and saline intrusion into fresh-
water resources. These pollutants can lower water quality
sufficiently to prevent desired water uses. This policy
incorporates by reference New Jersey's water quality related
statutes and regulations adopted as required by the federal
Clean Water Act of 1977.

5.4 Surface Water Use

5.4.1 Policy

Coastal development shall demonstrate that the anticipated
surface water demand of the facility will not exceed the
capacity, including phased planned increases, of the local
potable water supply system gr reserve capacity and that
construction of the facility will not cause unacceptable
surface water disturbances, such as drawdown, bottom scour, or
alteration of flow patterns.

5.4.2 Rationale

The surface waters of the New Jersey coastal zone are an
invaluable natural resource. Fresh waters maintain the pro-
pagation of established and natural biota. They serve as
commercial, recreational, industrial, agricultural, and aes-
thetic resources. Any development that affects surface water
quantity and quality will have a negative impact on these
uses.

5.5 Groundwater Use

5.5.1 Policy

Coastal development shall demonstrate, to the maximum extent
practicable, that the anticipated groundwater withdrawal demand
of the development will not cause salinity intrusions into
present potable groundwater well fields, significantly lower
the water table, or significantly decrease the base flow of
adjacent water courses.

Coastal development shall conform with all applicable DEP
requirements for groundwater withdrawal and water diversion
rights.

5.5.2 Rationale

Groundwater, defined as water beneath the land surface, is
a primary source of water for drinking and industrial use. In

1.48

some areas of the coastal zone, especially areas in Monmouth,
Salem and Cape bay Counties, excessive amounts of groundwater
are being withdrawn. The problem stems from the overpumping of
groundwater and reduction of aquifer recharge caused by
increased development and population. This has led to a
lowering of the water table that may change the base flow
conditions of streams, or increase salt water intrusion into
the groundwater.

5.6 Runoff

Policy

(a) Coastal development shall minimize off-site storm water runoff,
increase on-site infiltration and simulate natural drainage systems,
to the maximum extent practicable, depending upon the soil, land,
vegetation, topography, existing drainage system and other site
characteristics.

(b) The quantity of off-site storm water runoff, both during the con-
struction and operation of a development, shall not exceed the
quantity of runoff that would occur under the existing pre-develop-
ment conditions of the site, to the maximum extent practicable. For
some sites, with existing pre-development conditions such as culti-
vated land, bare earth, or partial paving, the requirement to reduce
runoff to the maximum extent practicable means to achieve the runoff
standard for good condition pasture land (SCS TR-55 Curve Number 39)
which may result in a greater quantity of on-site retention and
infiltration than under the existing pre-development conditions.

(c) If the site is in a built-up urban area, or if the coastal runoff
policy conflicts with runoff management requirements of local
governmental agencies, then the acceptable quantity of off-site
stormwater runoff may exceed the standard of existing pre-develop-
ment site conditions, provided that DEP can determine, on a case-by-
case basis, that the following requirements are met:

(i) the runoff policy of (a) and (b) of existing pre-development
site conditions has been met using the best available tech-
nology authorized by local regulations,

(ii) the off-site stormwater sewers do not discharge into sanitary
sewer systems,

(iii) the amount of pollutants in the stormwater runoff discharge
to surface water bodies is minimized and the discharge satis-
fies, to the maximum extent practicable, the applicable DEP-
established surface water quality standards of the receiving
water body using measures such as sediment traps, oil skimmers
and vacuum street cleaners, and

(iv) the volume of stormwater discharged offsite will not cause
significant adverse impacts to the receiving water body, and
must conform with the requirements of the DEP Stream Encroach-
ment Permit Program (N.J.S.A. 58:1-26 and rules).

149

(d) Coastal development shall maximize the time of concentration of
runoff and maximize the recharge of runoff onsite, to the maximum
extent practicable, using measures such as retention or detention
ponds, recharge trenches, , porous paving, contour terraces, and
swale-lagoon systems. Groundwater infiltration areas shall be sited
as far horizontally from surface water and as far vertically from
groundwater as is practicable, and should avoid soils with a
seasonal high water table of less than 3 feet with high percoation
rates.

(e) In designing the site plan, including detention and retention
facilities, the stormwater runoff calculations shall be based on 24
hour storm of 25 years and 100 years (where appropriate) frequencies,
using standard methods of calculation, such as the so-called
"Rational Method" or the SCS Tabular Method of Determining Peak
Discharge, as defined in U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, Tech-
nical Release No. 55, January 1975.

Rationale

Stormwater runoff is a natural process of surface hydrology. Development
changes this process as the volume and rate of runoff increase as the
natural landscape is modified and replaced by impervious surfaces.
Unless managed properly, stormwater runoff may adversely affect the
coastal environment in several ways: increased erosion, increased storm
surges in streams, destruction of flood plain vegetation, degraded water
quality from contaminants in runoff from paving, increased turbidity,
decreased aquatic productivity, lowered water tables, reduced groundwater
quality supply. The policies anticipate these concerns and treat a
development site as a closed system within which drainage systems must be
designed to interfere as little 'as possible with the natural process of
surface and groundwater hydrology. The policies intentionally provide a
measure of flexibility in stormwater runoff management that recognizes
differences in both site conditions and approaches to runoff management
by governmental. agencies. Examples of stormwater runoff management
techniques may be found in two source books: J. Tourbier and R. West-
macott, Water Resources Protection Measures in Land Development - A
Handbook (Newark, Delaware: University. of Delaware, Water Resources
Center, April 1974) and New Jersey State Soil Conservation Committee,
Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey (Trenton,
New Jersey: State Soil Conservation Committee, 1972).

5.7 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation

5.7.1 Policy

Coastal development is required to restrict soil loss and
control soil erosion and sedimentation during the construc-
tion of development to the standards specified in the Soil
Erosion and Sediment Control Act (Chapter 251, P.L. 1975), as
administered by the State Conservation Committee and local Soil
Conservation Districts under the joint authority of DEP and the
N.J. Department of Agriculture.

150

5.7.2 Rationale

Erosion is the detachment and movement of soil or rock par-
ticles by water, wind, ice or gravity. Erosion can be signi-
ficantly increased by human activities including construction
practices such as the clearance of vegetation, excavation,
grading, and stockpiling, agricultural cultivation and silvi-
culture (timber harvesting).

Erosion and sedimentation causes numerous adverse environmental
impacts, such as loss of productive soils, destabilization of
slopes, increased flooding due to reduced capacity of storm
sewers and natural drainage channels, increased turbidity and
siltation of streams, and decreased wetland productivity. BY
controlling the erosion generated on a site within the site
boundary, these adverse impacts are contained and prevented
from reaching and affecting coastal waters.

Many techniques are available to control sediment loss, includ-
ing minimizing the area of soil exposed at one time, baling
and contour terracing the edge of construction, mulching and
using swale lagoon drainage systems, and building wet and dry
detention basins. Other illustrative techniques are found in
Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey
available from the State Soil Conservation Committee.

5.8 Vegetation

5.8.1 Policy

Coastal development shall preserve, to the maximum extent
practicable, existing vegetation within a development site.
Coastal development shall plant new vegetation, particularly
appropriate native coastal species, to the maximum extent
practicable.

5.8.2 Rationale

The steady loss of vegetation is a nearly inevitable result of
urbanization. Terrestrial vegetation stabilizes soil, retards
erosion and runoff, promotes infiltration of surface water,
reduces the force of wind, provides foods, shelter and breeding
sites for wildlife, and adds to aesthetic values for recreation
and domestic life. Trees release life-giving oxygen, filter
particulate pollutants, provide foods and fuel, with no energy
input necessary by man. Because each site is unique, the
degree of vegetative preservation required will depend upon the
environmental conditions within and adjacent to the development
site. In general, the greater the intensity of development
permitted, the less vegetation preservation required.

"Appropriate native coastal species" means that species selec-
tion must reflect the natural physiological limitations of
species to survive in distinct habitats, which include all
environmental processes (natural and artificial) that operate
within a site. Non-suitable species plantings will do poorly

151

or die, or, if preserved through an intensive maintenance
program of 'ph' adjustment fertilization and irrigation, will
cause unacceptable ground and surface water impacts.

New vegetative plantings should reflect regional geophysical
suitability. Illustrative appropriate species can be grouped
into three categories:

(a) Barrier Beach Sites - Plants tolerant of salt spray and
occasional saline flooding, such as American holly, red
cedar, black cherry, beach pluma, beach grass, bayberry,
beach heather, etc.

(b) Pine Barrens Sites - Plants tolerant of infertile sandy
soils, frequent fires, and acidic water, such as pitch and
short-leaf pines, Atlantic white-cedar, dogwood, American
holly, oaks, blueberry, etc.

(c) Inner Coastal Plain and Southern Outer Coastal Plain -
Plants compatible with fertile, well drained soils;
such as oaks, beach, hickory, dogwood, black cherry, white
pine, gray birch, laurel, etc.

Within these regional groupings, the selection of individual
species should take into consideration the depth to seasonal
high groundwater table. Species which provide food for wild-
life or other desirable traits are favored for new planting.

5.9 Wildlife

5.9.1 Policy

The design of coastal development shall incorporate management
techniques which favor or maintain native wildlife habitats,
diversity, and numbers, to the maximum extent practicable.

tlevelopment that would significantly restrict the movement of
wildlife through the site to adjacent habitats and open space
areas is discouraged.

5.9.2. Rationale

Wildlife isAimportant natural resource of the coast. Desirable
on-site wildlife management techniques which could mitigate
adverse impacts, and favor minimal feasible interference
include preservation and dedication to open space of-sensitive
habitats of sufficient width, especially along drainageways
and waterways, to preserve wildlife movement corridors, place-
ment of nesting boxes, and planting of vegetative wildlife food
species.

1 :~2

5.10 Air

5.10.1 Policies

Coastal development shall conform to all applicable state and
federal emissions regulations, ambient air quality standards,
prevention of significant deterioration criteria, nonattainment
criteria, and other regulations and guidelines established to
meet requirements of the federal Clean Air Act as amended in
1977.

5.10.2. Rationale

The attainment and maintenance of high air quality is vital for
the health of and welfare of New Jersey's residents and visi-
tors. The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 require
almost all states to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
to attain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
photochemical oxidants.

Since the principal source of hydrocarbons and oxides of
nitrogen, the precursors of oxidants, is the automobile, the
strategies to attain the NAAQS must include, in addition to
emission control on vehicles and industrial sources, measures
to reduce vehicle miles travelled, by inducing a shift to car
pools and other modes of transportation. The Coastal Program
policies on transportation address these objectives, as do the
policies concerning concentration of development.

Furthermore, new major stationary sources of hydrocarbons will
continue to be subject to restrictions, such as the current
requirement to offset emissions. Emission tradeoffs may allow
for the siting of new facilities in non attainment areas of
the coastal zone. The severity of the restrictions will depend
on the progress made in reducing emissions during the next
decade.

The problem of attainment and maintenance of carbon monoxide
NAAQS in urban areas such as Atlantic City and Toms River is
one primarily of traffic congestion.

DEP's Division of Environmental Quality administers the State's
air quality program and determines compliance with the coastal
policy on air quality.

Also, under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, major wild-
erness areas of over 5,000 acres are mandatory Class I-Preven-
tion of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or Pristine Areas. In
New Jersey's Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, this designation
applies to the wilderness areas of the Brigantine National
Wildlife Refuge, and restricts industrial activities within the
region that could significantly affect the air quality of the
wilderness areas. This may pose conflicts in the future as the
pace and intensity of the development of the Atlantic City
region increases.

5.11 Public Services

5.11.1 Definition

Public services include a variety of essential facilities
provided by either public or private institutions. Health,
education, welfare, fire, police and community facilities are
principal examples. Others such as child care and home
services for the elderly may be important for certain develop-
ments.

5.11.2 Policy

Coastal development shall insure, to the maximum extent prac-
ticable, that adequate levels of public services will be
provided to meet the additional demands for public services
likely to be generated by the proposed development.

5.11.3 Rationale

New development places additional demands on public services.
Unless the existing supply can satisfy these demands or exten-
sions to the supply can be available when development is
complete, the deficiencies may adversely affect the health,
safety, or welfare of the proposed new users,

In coastal areas there are special problems associated with the
high seasonal population fluctuation and the relatively high
percentage of senior citizens who typically make greater
demands on health services. These coastal issues make the
demonstration of adequate service supply during peak demand
periods an especially critical issue.

5.12 Public Access to the Shorefront

5.12.1 Policy

Coastal development adjacent to coastal waters shall provide
maximum practicable public access to the shorefront, including
both beach and built-up waterfront areas and both visual and
physical access. Shorefront development that limits public
access and the diversity of shorefront experiences is discour-
aged.

5.12.2 Rationale

New Jersey's coastal waters and adjacent shorelands are valu-
able public resources which are limited in area. They are
protected by New Jersey's Shore Protection and Waterway Main-
tenance Program and patrolled by the New Jersey Marine Police
which are both financed by all state residents.

154

Past developments have often blocked the waters from public
view and/or made physical access to the waterfront difficult or
impossible. In addition, some municipalities which own land
immediately inland of the state-owned riparian land have
enacted laws or regulations making waterfront access incon-
venient, expensive or impossible for non-residents. These
policies have served to limit the opportunity of inland resi-
dents for waterfront recreational activities.

Projects such as the experimental Beach Shuttle operated by DEP
in the summer of 1977 to Island Beach State Park from Toms
River serve to carry out the policy of providing maximum
practical public access to the shorefront.

The basis for the Shorefront Access policy camne in part from
the research in the report entitled Public Access to the
Oceanfront Beaches: A Report to the Governor and the Legis-
lature of New Jersey. April 1977, prepared in part by DEP-OCZM.

5.13 Scenic Resources and Design

5.13.1 Policy

New coastal development that is visually compatible, in terms
of scale, height, materials, color, texture, and geometry of
building and site design, with surrounding development and
coastal resources, to the maximum extent practicable, is
encouraged. Coastal development that is significantly dif-
ferent in design and visual impact than existing development
is discouraged, unless the new development upgrades the scenic
and aesthetic attributes of a site and its region.

5.13.2 Rationale

inappropriate design that ignores the coastal landscape and
existing patterns and scale of development can degrade the
visual environment and appearance of communities. New Jersey's
coastal regions have strong architectural traditions which
should be encouraged.

5.14 Secondary Impacts

5.14.1 Policy

Coastal development that induces further development shall
demonstrate, to the maximum extent practicable, that the
secondary impacts of the development will satisfy the Coastal
Resource and Development Policies. The level of detail and
areas of emphasis of the secondary impact analysis are expected
to vary depending upon the type of development. Minor projects
may not even require such an anaylsis. Transportation and
wastewater treatment systems are the principal types of devel-
opment that require a secondary impact analysis, but major
industrial, energy, commercial, residential, and other projects
may also require a rigorous secondary impact analysis.

155

Rationale

Further development stimulated by new development and the
cumulative effects of coastal development, including develop-
ment not directly managed by DEP, may gradually adversely
affect the coastal environment. The capacity of existing
infrastructure does, however, limit the amount and geographic
extent of possible additional development. Secondary impact
analysis, particularly of proposed infrastructure, enables DEP
to ascertain that the direct, short term effects, and the
indirect or secondary effects of a proposed development will be
consistent with the basic objectives of the Coastal Management
Program. Secondary impact analysis enables DEP to evaluate
likely cumulative impacts in the course of decision-making on
specific projects.

Secondary impact analysis must include, to an appropriate level
of detail, an analysis of the likely geographic extent of
induced development, an assessment of likely point and non-
point air and water quality impacts, and evaluation of, the
induced development in terms of all the applicable Coastal
Resource and Development Policies. A study by the New Jersey
Department of Community Affairs, Division of State and Regional
Planning., Secondary Impacts of Regional Sewer Systems (1975)
provides one model for carrying out secondary impact analysis.

5.15 Buffers and Compatibility of Uses

5.15.1 Policy

Development shall be compatible with adjacent land and water
types, as defined in the Location Policies, to the maximum
extent practicable. In particular, development that is likely
to adversely affect adjacent or surrounding Water's Edge
Areas or Special Areas is discouraged.

Developments that are incompatible with adjacent developments
shall provide vegetated and other types of buffers at the site
boundary of sufficient width to reduce the incompatibility, to
the maximum extent practicable.

5.15.2 Rationale

The juxtaposition of different uses may cause various problems.
One activity may cause people to experience noise, dust,
fumes, odors, or other undesirable effects. The most common
incompatibility of this type in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment
are housing developments adjacent to industry, high-speed roads
or railroads. The juxtapositions of very different housing
densities or of housing and agriculture also have potential for
conflict. Vegetated buffer areas between uses can overcome, or
at least ameliorate, many of these problems, especially if

156

earth berms are included. Buffers can benefit users of both
areas. Where farms operate near a residential area, for
example, a buffer can protect the residents from the noise and
smells of farming, while protecting the farmers from local
regulations controlling the hours in which machinery can
be used.

5.16 Solid Waste

5.16.1 Policy

Coastal development shall recover material and energy from
solid waste, to the maximum extent practicable, as required by
the New Jersey Solid Waste Management Act (N.J.S.A. 13:lE-1 et
seq.) and the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(P.L. 94-580). If resource and energy recovery are imprac-
tical, solid waste, including litter, trash, refuse, and
demolition debris shall be handled and disposed of in a manner
acceptable to the standards of DEP's Solid Waste Administration.

5.16.2 Rationale

Solid waste is a valuable resource to be recovered and managed
on a district-wide basis. The review of individual projects
in terms of solid waste will consider the waste type and volume
expected, disposal method employed, and effects on disposal
sites.

5.17 Energy Conservation

5.17.1 Policy

Coastal development shall incorporate energy conservation
techniques, including passive and active solar power, to the
maximum extent practicable.

5.17.2 Rationale

This policy assists the Departments of Energy and Community
Affairs in implementing New Jersey's Energy Conservation
Plan, State Energy Master Plan, and the energy subcode of the
Uniform Construction Code (N.J.S.A. 52:27D-119 et seq.).
New Jersey's 1977 Energy Conservation Plan administered by the
New Jersey Department of Energy derives from the federal
Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. The plan contains
22 measures to reduce the state's energy use by 6% by 1980.
The measures include thermal and lighting efficiency standards,
provision of car and van pools, and waste oil recycling. These
measures are intended to save New Jersey approximately 110
trillion British Thermal Units annually (or the equivalent of
5,000 barrels a day). The Department of Community Affairs is
responsible for the implementation of the energy subcode of the
state building code. Possible energy conservation techniques

157

include the siting of buildings with an understanding of the
micro-climate conditions of a site, use of clustering, provi-
sion of bicycle paths, and the location of housing close to
public transportation.

5.18 Neighborhoods and Special Communities

5.18.1 Policy

Coastal development that protects and enhances the physical
coherence in neighborhoods and special communities is encour-
aged. Development that would adversely affect neighborhoods
and special communities is discouraged.

5.18.2 Rationale

Neighborhoods, small towns, and communities are discrete
districts and areas along the coast with a degree of social
stability as well as special architectural, ethnic, cultural,
aesthetic, or historical qualities that distinguish these
places from other areas along the coast. The diversity of the
coast is in part due to the existence and vitality of various
small towns, communities, and neighborhoods within larger urban
areas. These neighborhoods that display a strong sense of
community should be valued, reinforced, and preserved.

5.19 Traffic

5.19.1 Policy

Coastal development that induces marine and/or land traffic is
conditionally acceptable provided that it doescause unaccept-
able congestion and safety problems.

5.19.2 Rationale

The improper location of development may exacerbate existing
traffic problems or produce new difficulties in the marine
and/or land traffic system. Coastal development should be
designed and located in a manner to cause the least possible
disturbance to traffic systems, or be rejected.

5.20 High Percolation Wet Soils

5.20.1 Definition

High Percolation Wet Soils are soils with a depth to seasonal
high water table less than or equal to five feet and with a
loamy sand or coarser soil, as indicated in National Cooperative
Soil Surveys prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service, and contiguous with stream channels.

158

5.20.2 polic~Y

Coastal development shall avoid filling, building, paving,
disturbing soil, or discharging effluent to groundwater on High
Percolation Wet Soils, to the maximum extent practicable. In
particular, coastal development shall be designed such that
onsite roads, parking lots, structures, subsurface sewage
disposal areas, and discharge basins avoid High Percolation Wet
Soils, particularly in the proximity of surface water bodies
and wells. Development that is determined by DEP to be accept-
able in these areas shall conform to the wet soils policy.

5.20.3 Rationale

Soils with shallow seasonal high water tables and sandy or
gravelly textures facilitate percolation, the vertical and
horizontal movement of groundwater. Coarse sediments, however,
have a limited capacity to trap and filter contaminants.
Further, the high lateral transmissibility along the top of
shallow seasonal high water tables aggravates the problems of
water borne pollutants eventually reaching surface water bodies
or wells. New Jersey's standards for subsurface sewage dis-
posal systems (so-called Chapter 199, N.J.A.C. 7:9-2.1 et seq.)
recognize this concern by requiring that the bottom of the
trench or bed of disposal fields be at least four feet above
the seasonal high groundwater table.

5.21 Wet Soils

5.21.1 Definition

Wet soils are soils with a depth to seasonal high water table
less than, or equal to, three feet, as delineated by the U.S.
Soil Conservation Service in a National Cooperative Soil
Survey.

5.21.2 Policy

Development in wet soils is discouraged unless the following
conditions are met:

(a) Basements are prohibited.

(b) +.Effective engineering techniques are used to ensure the
stability of foundations and protect them from movement,
including excavating organic substrates and backfilling
with less compressible sediments, short-bore piles,
special footings and floating slabs. Techniques that
minimize interference with natural ground and surface
water movement, such as short-bore pile and suspended slab
techniques, are encouraged.

-I r, Q

(d) The stability of roads and paved areas assured, using
techniques such as removal of compressible sediments and
replacement with a firmer substrate and thicker than
normal road base.

(e) Subsurface pipes are stable and waterproofed to avoid
contamination of groundwater, using dewatering of trenches
during construction, extra pipe base thickness, waterproof
gaskets, sealed joints and other techniques as necessary.

(f) Porous concrete is prohibited, although other porous pave-
ments such as lattice concrete or gravel are acceptable.

(g) The lowering of the water table by pumping that would
disturb adapted vegetation is prohibited.

5.22 Fertile Soils

5.22.1 Definition

Fertile soils are soils that have Agricultural Capability
Ratings, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service in the National Cooperative Soil Surveys
of I, II, Mle and a K value of less than 0.20, and II1w if
well drained, or Woodland Suitability Rating of 1.

Policy

Coastal development shall avoid disturbing fertile soils, to
the maximum extent practicable, and shall carefully remove,
stockpile and reuse the topsoil when onsite fertile soils
cannot be preserved.

5.22.2 Rationale

Fertile soils are the producIt of millenia of soil forming
processes and, once paved, are irreperably lost. The Farm Con-
servation Special Area. policy preserves large contigious
acreages of fertile soils for commercial production of food and
fiber, but smaller areas of fertile soils in the open spaces
between development are a natural resource of considerable
value.- The landscaping of development is promoted by fertile
soils but,.more importantly, the preservation of fertile soils
near development offers the opportunity of home gardens.
Applicants shall show the distribution of fertile soils rela-
tive to proposed structures and paving in site plans. If these
development elements are shown on fertile soils, applicants
shall demonstrate why alternative positions are not feasible.

160

4.23 Flood Hazard Areas

4.23.1 Definition

Along rivers and streams, the flood hazard area (fluvial)
consists of the floodway and any additional portions of the
flood plain inundated during flood periods where the flow
exceeds the capacity of the channel. The floodway consists of
the stream channel and portions of the adjacent flood plain
necessary to carry and discharge the flood water or flood flow
of any natural stream. Floodways can carry waters of 100 year
flood without increasing the water surface elevation by more
than 0.2 feet at any point.

Fluvial flood hazard areas are delineated by DEP by a complex
engineering method. The resulting water surface profile
elevations are superimposed on topographic maps to identify
areas of inundation. DEP is presently delineating all flood
hazard areas. Delineations have been completed for the entire
Raritan River Basin, outside of the Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment. Of 6,500 mile of streams in New Jersey, 618 miles
have been delineated 'and an additional 216 miles are scheduled
for completion by the end of 1978. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers has defined, for certain streams, the water surface
profiles which have been developed for both the floodway and
the flood hazard area design floods. However, the delineation
of the flood hazard area must be determined on a case by case
basis due to lack of accurate elevation maps. A complete list
of streams affected by this delineation can be found in the
N.J.A.C. 7:13-1.11 et seq. In areas where the delineation of
flood hazard areas using this engineering method is not com-
plete, DEP determines the flood hazard areas on a case by case
basis using detailed elevation and stream profile information
submitted by the applicant as required by DEP. Where data gaps
exist, flood hazard areas can be preliminarily identified by
the use of U.S. Geological Survey Flood Prone Areas maps (scale
of 1:24,000), supplemented with alluvial soil information for
the small watersheds in the upland alluvial flood plains.

In the tidal areas, 100 year tidal elevations have been
identified for most municipalities within the Bay and Ocean
Shore Segment by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and are
known as the Intermediate Regional Tidal Flood. The geographic
extent of tidal flood hazard areas are indicated on USGS
topographic maps as "flood prone" areas (there are no floodways
in tidal flooding).

Figure 14 depicts fluvial and tidal flood hazard areas.

4.23.2 Policy

(a) In general, coastal development is discouraged in flood
hazard areas.

161

Figure 14

r~~. PLCCD I4AZARD AREA

LFR)NGa ~LOt'

/ll f ILOODWAV-

FLU VIAL FLOOD0
HIAZARD AREA
~JPL/~Nfl FLA-rs

_ _ _ _ _ _ 1~~~~~~~~~00 'IA

/ A IL 4 LJ

NVI, I ULI

WETLANDS w
OR FLAT(S It\-

CO;TL I~LO
HAZARD AREA,~ ~~~~I

FLOO HAARD REA

(b) Certain land uses are prohibited, under State Flood Plain
law and rules, in the floodway portion of fluvial flood
hazard areas, including uses such as placing, depositing
or dumping solid wastes on the delineated floodways;
processing, storing or disposal of pesticides, domestic
or industrial wastes, radioactive materials, petroleum
products or hazardous materials; erection of structures
for occupancy by humans or livestock or kennels for
boarding of domestic pets; storage of materials or
equipment or construction of septic tansk for residential
or commercial use (see N.J.A.C. 7:13-1.2 et seq.). Not
affected by this policy are hazard-free activities such
as recreation, agriculture, soil conservation projects
and similar uses which are not likely to cause obstruc-
tions, undue pollution, or intensify flooding. According
to N.J.A.C. 7:13-1.4(c), any lawful, pre-existing prohi-
bited uses may be maintained in a delineated floodway
provided, that if expanded or enlarged, they do not
increase the flood damage potential. Property owners in
delineated floodways may rebuild damaged structures,
providing that any expansion or enlargement will not
increase the flood damage potential.

(c) Most land uses are also regulated, under State Flood
plain law and rules, in the flood fringe. Structures for
occupancy by humans are conditionally acceptable provided
that : (a) the first habitable elevation is one foot
above the 100 year flood prone line established by HUD
Flood Insurance Maps, and (b) the structure will not
increase flood damage potential, by obstructing flood
waters.

(d) Construction acceptable in flood hazard areas must
conform with applicable flood hazard reduction standards,
as adopted by the Federal Insurance Administration in HUD
(Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 207, Part II, October 26,
1976), as amended.

4.23.3 Rationale

Past development of lands susceptible to flooding in New
Jersey has led to flood damages, with sometimes tragic social,
economic and ecological consequences. Intensive development
of flood plains leads to increased runoff, reduction in flood
storage capacity, increased size and frequency of downstream
flooding, erosion of stream banks and downstream deposition of
sediments with consequent reduction in estuarine productivity.
Flood plains serve as important wildlife habitat for endan-
gered and threatened species, game and fur-bearing species,
and rare species of vegetation.

Chapter Five: MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - POLICIES ON DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

Introduction
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
Division of Marine Services
Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA)
Wetlands Act
Riparian Statutes
Shore Protection Program
Other Programs in DEP
Divis3ion of Water Resources
Division of Environmental Quality
Division of Parks and Forestry
Division of Fish., Game and Shellfisheries
Solid Waste Administration
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Energy
Other State Departments
Department of Agriculture
Department of Community Affairs
Department of Labor and Industry
Department of the Public Advocate
Department of Transportation
Municipal and County Government
Regional and Interstate Agencies
Public Part ic ipat ion
Conflict Resolution - Appeals

Introduction

The Coastal Resource and Development Policies defined in Chapter Four will be
implemented primarily through the State legal authority administered by the Depart-
metof Environmental Protection (DEP), particularly the Division of Marine
Services, which administers the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA), Wet-
lands,' and Riparian permit programs and the State's Shore Protection Program.
Other Divisions within DEP will act consistently with the.Program policies to the
maximum extent permitted by their enabling legislation (see Commissioner's letter)
wiith respect to any activity that may have a direct and significant effect on
.coastal resources. This will assure consistency between the Coastal Management
.Program and State plans dealing with air quality, water quality, solid waste, water
.supply and outdoor recreation. Energy siting decisions will be made jointly by DEP'
.and the New Jersey Department of Energy. The actions of other State agencies will
also follow the Coastal Policies to the maximum extent permitted by law. The
enforcement of the Coastal Policies is assured by their formal adoption as sub-
stantive administrative rules and regulations.

The New Jersey approach to coastal decision making corresponds to manage-
ment technique B - "Direct state land and water use planning and regulations"-
described in Subsection 306(e)(1) of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. The
Coastal Policies also will form the basis for New Jersey's discussions with, and
responses to, local governments, regional and interstate agencies, and agencies
from other states with an interest in the coast.

.164

This chapter describes New Jersey's coastal management system. The public
role, which is described in a section of the Chapter, is an integral part of all
coastal decisions. The chapter concludes with an analysis of potential decision-
making conflicts and the methods for their resolution.

Department of Environmental Protection

The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is responsible for imple-
menting the New Jersey Coastal Management Program, and for continued coastal
planning. Created by the Legislature in 1970, the Department was given broad
authority to "formulate comprehensive policies for the conservation of the natural
resources of the State..." (N.J.S.A. 13:1D-9). Specific authority for the coastal
program was delegated by the Governor when he designated DEP as New Jersey's
coastal planning agency under Section 305 of the federal Coastal Zone Management
Act. DEP will also serve as New Jersey's lead agency to administer the federally
approved program, under Section 306 of the Act.

Division of Marine Services

The Department's Division of Marine Services is specifically responsible for
the development and implementation of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program.
In the Division, the Office of Coastal Zone Management (DEP-OCZM) is the lead
agency for coastal planning. DEP-OCZM also administers Coastal Area Facility
Review Act (CAFRA) permit program. The Division's Office of Wetlands Management
administers the Wetlands permit program. The Division's Office of Riparian Lands
Management administers the waterfront development permit and riparian real estate
programs. Decisions made under all three coastal permit programs are signed by the
Director of the Division of Marine Services. The "90-Day Construction Permit
Regulations" (N.J.A.C. 7:1C-1 et seq.) apply to all three permit programs, insuring
that coastal permit decisions will be made in a timely manner. The Division also
regulates water activities such as clamming, skin diving, and vessel anchoring to
protect human health and safety. Failure to comply with these laws results in
fines and injunctions. Violations are reported to the Department by inspectors of
the Division of Marine Services and concerned citizens.

DEP has adopted Chapter Four of this document as rules in furtherance of
the Department's specific coastal management powers under CAFRA, the Wetlands
Act, and the riparian statutes. The adopted rules bind DEP to issue decisions
under the three permit programs consistent with the Coastal Policies.

The principal legal authorities and their corresponding procedures for imple-
mentation of the coastal policies in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment involve
several DEP-administered laws. The Coastal Area Facility Review Act, the Wetlands
Act, and the Department of Energy Act are reprinted in Appendix H. Copies of all
other laws and regulations referred to in this chapter are available from DEP upon
request. Figure 16 illustrates the CAFRA, Wetlands and Waterfront Development
permit review processes. The Figure is admittedly complex primarily as a result of
the multiple opportunities for requesting additional information which serves to
incorporate the suggestions of other agencies and of the public and to improve
designs for projects.

Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) - The Coastal Area Facility Review
Act, (N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 et seq.) provides a list of selected facilities which must
be reviewed and approved by DEP before they can be constructed within the sta-
tutorily-defined "Coastal Area", which includes the entire area of the Segment

165

Figure I51s:~~T-
1\IW T~~~~~~~~~~7b RIPARIM4
?Eemrr

op 2.S v N k-r5 c-r0 _ MOPAeI t

// ~~~~ 1P~~~~.kMITEMI

Pr, P, M I 1~CT TO 1

CA LAPP, A
CA1~~~.i GOU KR'-
I// ~ ~ ,DCD6A PeE~RMT JURSDCTIONSi
RMIT~~~~~-
/~~~~~~~~~~EIMNS
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~GI

CD
H

CAFRA PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS

full- L~~~~~~~AXIMUMAS j DAYS MAXIMUM

30 D.Va MAXIMUMSLICAOADAYS -rcPbi
.11 TE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ �ollor D~~OLL".

---- -IOINSAAS A

H~~~IY~l lLlII��~I�O1III

ON0 ~ s lsI lr oor

WETLANDS AND WATERFRONT (RIPARIAN) DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESSES

REQUEST ADDITIONAL
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
INFORMATION RECEIVED

APPLICATION l_ OR
STILL DEFICIENT I

I OPTIONAL DE P OR APPLICATION OPTIONAL DECISION
PRE--APPLICATION RECEIVES COMPLETE FOR PUBLIC
CONFERENCE APPLICATION 20 WORKING DAYS MAXIMUM REVIEW HEARING

RETURN 1 90 DAYS MAXIMUM
PUBLIC COMMENTS | APPLICATION
WITHIN FIVE DAYS UIIACCEPTABLE
OF DEP WEEKLY
BULLETIN NOTICE. FOR FILING

NOTE T
A WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
IS NOT DECLARED COMPLETE FOR REVIEW WITHOUT
A LAWFUL RIPARIAN OCCUPATIONAL OR USE
INSTRUMENT SUCH AS A RIPARIAN GRANT, LEASE,
OR LICENSE.

INDICATES THAT THE TIMETABLE IS
SET BY THE APPLICANT.

except for approximately six square miles of regulated wetlands. The list, which
is available in detail in the Act, and also in the CAFRA Procedural Rules and
Regulations (N.J.A.C. 7:7D-2.0 et seq.) includes all facilities proposed for the
following purposes:

1) Electric power generation, including oil, gas, coal fired, or nuclear
facilities;

2) Public facilities and housing, including housing developments of 25 or
more dwelling units, roads and airports, parking facilities with 300 or
wuore spaces, waste water treatment systems, and sanitary landfills;

3) Food and food by-products production, paper production and agri-chemical
product ion;

4) Mineral products, chemical processes, metallurgical processes and inor-
ganic salt and salts manufacture;

5) Marine terminals and cargo handling facilities, and storage facilities.

The application process begins with an optional pre-application conference at
which an applicant and DEP staff will candidly discuss the applicability of the
Coastal Resource and Development Policies to the contemplated project, and possible
revisions or alternatives which would increase the likelihood of permit approval.
DEP staff then send the applicant a letter reiterating the conclusions of the
conference.

-An application for a GAFRA permit must include twenty copies of an environ-
mental impact statement (EIS). Often discussion at the pre-application conference
can lead to a reduction in the amount of information required in the EIS. The
twenty copies are necessary so that other appropriate state and local agencies can
review and comment upon the application. Copies of the application are distributed
to offices within the Departments of Community Affairs, Energy, Labor and Industry,
Transportation and other agencies within DEP, as well as to the relevant county and
municipal planning boards and environmental commissions, soil conservation dis-
tricts, and regional planning agencies. DEP-OCZM staff review the responses of the
commenting agencies, analyze the project and issue a staff preliminary analysis.
.Next a public hearing is held near the site of the proposed project. The Director
of DEP's Division of Marine Services then issues the permit decision based upon the
Coastal Resource and Development Policies. The decision incorporates public
comments submitted to the Department at the hearing and in writing, and comments of
other governmental agencies. The permit decision can be appealed as described in
the last section of this chapter.

In addition to the facilities managed under CAFRA, the Coastal Management
Program will manage a more extensive range of facilities proposed on coastal
wetlands and riparian lands. These activities are described in detail in the
.Procedural Rules and Regulations (N.J.A.C. 7:7A-1 et seq.) adopted under the
authority of the Wetlands Act of 1970 and the state's riparian statutes, and are
.summarized below. The application process for 'these two permit programs is similar
to that for CAFRA permits, except that a public hearing is held only for major
projects.

1 69

Wetlands Act - New Jersey's authority to regulate activities on wetlands is
derived from the Wetlands Act of 1970 (N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 et seq) and the Procedural
Rules and Regulations adopted in 1972. The Act defines "coastal wetlands", and
maps of the regulated wetlands are available from DEP's Office of Wetlands Manage-
ment. The activities on wetlands regulated by the Act include virtually any form
of development or disturbance, except for mosquito control and continued commercial
production of salt hay or other agricultural crops or activities.

Riparian Statutes - Riparian lands, defined as lands now or formerly flowed by
the tides, are owned by the State of New Jersey. An individual or municipality
wishing to develop or improve these lands in any way must first receive the
approval of the Natural Resource Council to buy or lease the tidelands from the
State. The Council is composed of twelve citizens appointed by the Governor with
the advice and consent of the State Senate. The Coastal Resource and Development
Policies will be the basis for DEP staff recommendations to the Council. If the
Natural Resource Council makes a real estate decision inconsistent with the Coastal
Program, the Commissioner of DEP will block the action by refusing to sign the
minutes of the Council meeting.

After applicants receive a lease or license from the Natural Resource Council,
they must obtain a Waterfront Development Permit for any planned development from
DEP's Office of Riparian Lands Management. The types of development construction
generally contemplated on riparian lands includes dredging or the construction or
alteration of a dock, wharf, pier, bulkhead, bridge, pipeline, or cable.

While the Natural Resource Council will use the Coastal Resource and Develop-
ment Policies in making its real estate decisions, the consistency of riparian
actions with the Coastal Program will be assured by DEP's authority to approve,
condition, or deny the Waterfront Development Permit applications.

Shore Protection Program - The fourth element of New Jersey's authority to
implement the Coastal Program is the State's Shore Protection and Waterway Mainte-
nance Program. This program is administered by the Office of Shore Protection,
which is also in DEP's Division of Marine Services. The Office is the lead agency
for beach erosion control programs and efforts to maintain state waterways. This
Office also establishes priorities for spending shore protection and harbor cleanup
funds, including the $20 million five year shore protection bond issue approved
by New Jersey voters in 1977. The Department has pledged publicly to prepare a
shore protection master plan to assure that the funds from the bond issue are used
wisely. The Plan will delineate a "spark line" indicating an area within which
dunes must be protected and public access must be assured. -DEP will enforce the
plan by allocating shore protection funds and issuing riparian and CAFRA permits
only to areas where such policies are in effect.

Other Programs In DEP

The other divisions in the Department of Environmental Protection will contri-
bu,te to the Coastal Program in three ways. First, like a private developer, any
development project they initiate, sponsor, or propose which is regulated by
CAFRA, the Wetlands Act, or riparian statutes will have to be consistent with the
Coastal Resource and Development Policies to receive the appropriate permit. The

170

Division of Parks and Forestry, for example, would need a Wetlands Permit before
a structure could be built on regulated wetlands within a state park. This is
likely to be the most significant type of involvement in the coastal program for
DEP's other divisions.

Second, the actions of the Department's other divisions will be consistent
with the Coastal Policies, to the maximum extent permissible under their enabling
statutes. Permit programs administered by the Division of Water Resources, for
example, may be able to apply some of the Coastal Policies to facilities or areas
not regulated by the Coastal Program. Strictly speaking, this consistency is not
necessary for federal approval of New Jersey's program, since the three permit
programs administered by the Division of Marine Services provide authority suffi-
cient to enforce the program. Such consistency, however, is desirable within New
Jersey to insure that decisions by the different parts of DEP are coordinated and
predictable.

Third, the other divisions in DEP will help the Division of Marine Services
to suggest and carry out projects which can be funded with federal Coastal Manage-
ment Program Administration grants. Such a grant could, for example, fund selected
studies by the Division of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries.

The sections which follow summarize the functions of DEP's divisions most
likely to affect, or be affected by the Coastal Program. Although other divisions
also have planning responsibilities, the Coastal Program is one of the first
major plans to be completed and, therefore, can serve as a focal point for more
specific discussions to insure consistent and cooperative planning.

Division of Water Resources - The Division of Water Resources is responsible
for water quality planning and maintenance, and flood plain management. The Divi-
sion is the designated water quality planning agency under Section 208 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) and, under the New Jersey Water Pollu-
tion Control Act (N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 et seq.), has the authority to administer the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits once US EPA dele-
gates this responsibility to DEP. The standards set by the Division under the
FWPCA are incorporated into the coastal policies as required by Section 307(f) of
the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. The Division also has the authority to
regulate the building or alteration of structures within stream areas under the
Stream Encroachment Act, (N.J.S.A. 58:1-26), and to regulate development and land
use in designated floodways under the Flood Hazard Areas Act, (N.J.S.A. 58:16A-50
et seq.).

Within the seventeen New Jersey counties with coastal waters, area-wide water
quality planning (also known as 208) is being conducted by county planning boards
in four counties, by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission in four
counties, and by the Division of Water Resources in the remaining nine counties.
The plans are being completed between 1978 and 1980 in different parts of the
state. Through a federal agreement between the Department of Commerce and the
Environmental Protection Agency, and through a working relationship at the state
level between the Office of Coastal Zone Management and the Division of Water
Resources, the policies of the two programs will be coordinated and made consistent
for both point and non-point sources of pollution. The water quality planning
seeks institutional and technical alternatives to control and abate water pollu-
tion. The key policies of the program are to protect the sources of potable water
supply, control toxic and hazardous substances, control pollution from areawide

171

sources, and protect environmentally sensitive areas. Water quality planning
programs may utilize and refine the Coastal Location Acceptability Method for
activities not esssential for program approval, and in parts of the state outside
the coastal zone. The method could, for example, be modified and used in making
land and water use decisions on and near non-tidal portions of the Delaware River
and in other areas of the State where a decision-making method is needed to protect
water quality.

The Division of Water Resources is also responsible for supervising the
development of a Water Supply M~aster Plan. The plan, financed by the State Water
Conservation Bond Fund, will assess near and long-term water needs, evaluate
various alternatives for meeting those needs, and provide a framework for the
future planning and management of the State's water supplies. Specific recom-
mendations will be made including those for near-term water supply development
projects, conservation and management policies, interconnection programs, and
drought and emergency response plans. The plan is expected to be completed by
December of 1979. The Office of Coastal Zone Management will continue to work with
the Division of Water Resources to assure consistency between the Water Supply
Master Plan and the Coastal Policies.

Division of Environmental Quality - The Division of Environmental Quality is
responsible for air quality planning and monitoring and is the agency designated to
administer the federal Clean Air Act in New Jersey. The Division also is respon-
sible for the State's radiation, noise, and pesticide control programs. Under the
requirements of the Clean Air Act, the Bureau of Air Pollution Control in the
Division has enacted and is developing programs to attain National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. The attainment of standards for photochemical oxidants for the
entire state, for carbon monoxide 'in central business districts, and for particu-
lates in Camden and Jersey City, and the maintenance of clean air levels throughout
the state are the Iiiajor problems to be addressed. The strategies for the attainment
of standards and the analysis of maintenance issues are required to be submitted to
EPA by the end of 1978.

DEP-OCZM will work closely with the Division of Environmental Quality as it
develops programs directed toward attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Coordination will assure consistency between Coastal Policies and the
State Implementation Plan for air quality. in addition, attention will be given to
the impact of Coastal Policies on air quality outside of the Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment. Coordination with the Division of Environmental Quality should result in
the use of Coast~al Policies to help attain statewide air quality goals as well as
use of the State Implementation Plan to further Coastal Management Program goals.

Division of Parks and Forestry - The Division of Parks and Forestry manages
the state's parks and is responsible for acquiring, operating and maintaining
historic sites. The Division reviews CAFRA permit applications in addition to
coordinating with'DEP-OCZM on park and recreation policies. The Office of Historic
Preservation within the Division evaluates the potential impact of CAPRA permit
applications on cultural resources. This Office also maintains the State Register
of Historic Places and recommends to the Commissioner state nominations to the
National Register of Historic Places.

172

Green Acres and Recreation - The Green Acres Program determines where and
how state funds should be spent for park and open space acquisition, development
and maintenance. DEP can purchase land under this program and through the Division
of Parks and Forestry, by condemnation if necessary. DEP-OCZM reviews expenditures
of Green Acres funds proposed in the coastal zone.

The New Jersey Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), prepared
by the Green Acres Program, addresses the adequacy of open space for existing and
projected demands, and the accessibility of recreation resources for all segments
of the population. The plan will qualify New Jersey for funding under the Federal
Land and Water Use Conservation Fund Program. In addition to studying recreation
needs and uses, SCORP will also include inventories of federal, state, county,
municipal and private recreation resources. The major policies in SCORP include
emphasizing open space in urban areas, recreation facility development, increasing
public access to recreation resources through mass transit, and developing barrier
free recreation facilities.

Division of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries - The Division of Fish, Game and
Shellfisheries is responsible for managing the fish and wildlife resources of the
State. This includes research and educational programs as well as enforcement of
state fish and game laws and maintenance of state fish and wildlife management
areas. The Division also administers the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973
which provides funds for the purchase or management of land for research and for
other activities to protect wildlife.

Solid Waste Administration - The Solid Waste Administration (SWA) in DEP is
responsible for the development of a statewide plan to maximize use of resource
recovery and minimize the adverse environmental impacts of solid waste. The state
has been divided into twenty-two districts (21 counties and the Hackensack Meadow-
lands Development Commission District). Each district is responsible for develop-
ing a ten-year plan to meet the solid waste needs for each municipality within the
region. The SWA is responsible for coordinating the district planning through the
development of a statewide plan and for providing guidelines, especially in the
area of hazardous waste, for use by the twenty-two planning districts. Coordi-
nation between DEP-OCZM and the Solid Waste Administration will assure consistency
between the Coastal Policies and the district and statewide solid waste planning.

Office of the Commissioner - Lastly, the Office of the Commissioner in DEP
conducts a number of functions relating to the Coastal Management Program. First,
the Office of Environmental Review coordinates the review of major development
proposals likely to require more than one DEP-administered permit, as well as
applications circulated through the A-95 Project Notification and Review Process.
This coordinated review helps speed the permit review process and insures the
application of consistent policies. This Office reviews CAFRA applications in
terms of possible archaeological impacts. In addition, the office serves as staff
to the Commissioner in the capacity as the State Historic Preservation Officer.

DEP's Assistant Commissioner for Science administers the New Jersey Spill
Control and Compensation Act (N.J.S.A. 58:1-23.11 et seq.) In addition, under his
direction, the Office of Cancer-Causing and Toxic Pollutants is conducting research
with the assistance of computer facilities funded by the U.S. Council on Environ-
mental Quality. The information produced by this research will be incorporated

'173

into the Coastal Policies, and could conceivably alter certain siting policies.
In addition, this computer project is serving as a model for DEP to test the
feasibility of digitizing much of the information necessary to apply the Coastal
Policies.

The Tidelands Delineation Program, conducted by the Office of Environmental
Analysis also under the direction of the Assistant Commissioner for Science, is
a multi-year project to map the extent of State-owned tidelands by delineating the
mean high tide line. The program will require several years to complete because of
the complex issues of land ownership to be resolved.

Department of Energy

While serving as the lead coastal agency, DEP will continue to work closely
with other state agencies. The most important of these is the Department of
Energy (DOE). The Costal Resource and Development Policies on Energy in both the
Draft EIS and in their final document were formulated and agreed to by both DOE and
DEP.

The Department of Energy Act (N.J.S.A. 52:27F-1 et seq.) provides that the
Department of Energy (DOE), has, at a minimum, a shared authority over every energy
related decision in the State, including the siting of facilities. Recognizing
this coextensive jurisdiction over energy facility siting in the coastal zone, and
also recognizing the importance of such siting decisions to a successful coastal
managment program, the Departments of Energy and Environmental Protection have
entered into a memorandum of understanding (Appendix G). The memorandum has three
important features: a procedure for DOE review of coastal permit applications, a
commitment by DEP and NJDOE to make their findings on the basis of the state's
Coastal Resource and Development Policies as well as on the State Energy Master
Plan, and a procedure for resolving disagreements between the two agencies.

The New Jersey Department of Energy is also the lead agency for the Coastal
Energy Impact Program (CEIP). The 1976 Amendments to the federal Coastal Zone
Management Act created Section 308, the CEIP, to provide financial assistance to
help coastal states respond to the growth and impacts of new energy exploration and
development. A second objective of the CEIP is to balance the two national goals of
encouraging development of domestic energy resources to further energy self-
sufficiency, and protecting and managing the nation's coast in a manner consistent
with the objectives of a state's Coastal Management Program. To be eligible for
assistance under the CEIP, a coastal state must be receiving a grant under Section
305 of the Act, have a coastal management program which has been approved under
Section 306, or be making satisfactory progress which is consistent with the
policies set forth in Section 303 of the Act. New Jersey meets these criteria.

As the lead agency for CEIP, the New Jersey Department of Energy is respon-
sible for administering the program, including soliciting applications, providing
technical assistance, and evaluating and approving project applications to distri-
bute funds according to the program's intrastate allocation process. Since CEIP
assistance is to be administered in close harmony with the purpose and spirit of
the state's Coastal Management Program, DEP-OCZM will work closely with DOE in
reviewing and approving applications for CEIP assistance. DOE and DEP coordi-
nation is further required by the federal CEIP regulations which state that CEIP

174

assistance cannot be granted without DEP-OCZM certification of compatibility with
the goals and policies of the developing Coastal Management Program or consistency
with the approved Coastal Management Program.

To facilitate such a finding, and to satisfy the requirement that the state's
coastal planning agency review CEIP applications, the memorandum of understanding
provides that all such applications will be forwarded to DEP for consistency
review.

In addition, the Department of Energy has prepared a State Energy Master Plan.
This plan considers the production, distribution, consumption and conservation of
energy in the state and surrounding region. The Plan and the more specific
reports it promises will become a primary resource for energy facility siting
decisions by DEP. The State Energy Master Plan is expected to be formally adopted
in October 1978.

The Board of Public Utilities, which is in, but not of, the Department of
Energy, has broad regulatory authority over public utilities. Included in this
authority is the power to supercede local zoning decisions when necessary if the
service conveniences the welfare of the public (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-19). This author-
ity comes into play only when a proposed utility facility has received required
state permits (including coastal permits) and is denied required local permit.
The potential role of the Board in coastal decisions is discussed in "Uses of
Regional Benefit" in Chapter Five.

Other State Departments

In addition to the Departments of Environmental Protection and Energy, five
other state departments have important responsibilities which relate to the Coastal
Program. These are the Departments of Agriculture, Community Affairs, Labor and
Industry, the Public Advocate, and Transportation. Coordination between the
departments provides greater consistency of state policy, as well as opportunities
to test the application of the Coastal Policies on activities and areas not regu-
lated under the Coastal Program. In addition, DEP will, as appropriate, work with
other agencies, including the State Health Planning Council and the Mortgage
Finance Agency, which can contribute to the Coastal Program.

Department of Agriculture - This Department shares with DEP the regulatory
responsibility of the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act (N.J.S.A. 4:24-39 et
seq.). The Act is administered by the State Soil Conservation Committee, which
includes the Commissioners of the two Departments, and local Soil Conservation
Districts. The law controls erosion and sediment during the construction phase of
development. The Coastal Resource and Development Policies pertaining to soil are
based on the Act, thereby assuring conformity between the two.

Department of Community Affairs (DCA) - The Department of Community Affairs
will continue to participate in the review of CAFRA permit applications, as it has
since the beginning of the permit program. Although this review is not required by
law, as it now is for the Department of Energy, DCA can provide valuable informa-
tion on the potential impact of a proposal on nearby social services. In addition,
because DCA is responsible for the development of a State Development Guide Plan
(Preliminary Draft - September 1977) under Section 701 of the Federal Housing and
Community Development Act, it can evaluate the consistency of a permit application
with that plan. The major policies of the Guide Plan are to maintain the quality
of the environment, preserve the open space necessary for an expanding population,

175

provide space and services to support continued economic expansion and enhance the
quality of life in urban areas. These policies are consistent with the Coastal
Management Program.

Lastly, the Department of Community Affairs has developed, under Executive
Order No. 35, a fair share state allocation process for low and moderate income
housing. DEP will continue to work with DCA officials to promote such housing in
the Bay and Ocean Shore Region.

Department of Labor and Industry - The Department of Labor and Industry also
participates in the review of CAFRA permit applications. In addition, the Office
of Business Advocacy in the Department plays a particularly important role during
the pre-application phase of the CAFRA permit process in helping to guide industry
to appropriate locations. The Department's Division of Travel and Tourism shares-a
common goal with DEP-OCZM of seeking to promote the resort and tourism industry of
the coast. Lastly, the Economic Development Authority, which arranges low interest,
long-term financing for commercial and industrial development, can help stimulate
the revitalization of coastal cities.

Department of the Public Advocate -This Department has taken positions on the
appeal of several CAFRA permit applications. in addition, the Public Advocate has
a particular interest in planning for the -coastal zone and offered extensive
comments on the Coastal Management Strategy and on the Draft EIS. DEP will con-
tinue to include the Public Advocate in coastal planning activities.

Department of Transportation (DOT) - The principal involvement of DOT in
the Coastal Program is as an applicant for a permit for the construction of roads,
highways, or airports. All but minor transportationi projects in the Bay and
Ocean Shore Segment require a CAFRA permit, and projects crossing wetlands or
riparian lands requite the appropriate additional permit as well.

DOT administers additional permit programs for transportation facilities
as well as having grants for transportation projects and eminent domain powers.
As part of its responsibility for long-term planning for the state's transpor-
tation needs, DOT has a working relationship with DEP to meet the transportation
requirements of Atlantic City and other coastal areas.

Municipal and County Government

Municipal and county land use authority will continue without change under the
New Jersey Coastal Management Program. Development proposed in the coastal zone
will be subject to all applicable local regulations as well as to state standards
or permits. A locally approved proposal cannot be constructed without receipt of
relevant state approvals, and likewise, a state-approved project must receive
appropriate local approvals with certain exceptions (see Chapter Six, Regional
Benefit 'Decisions). All municipalities in the Segment, and in the proposed coastal
zone, will have an opportunity to comment on the draft .program for the entire
coastal zone and on any proposed policy or procedural amendments or additions to
the program for the Segment. DEP-OCZM will solicit local comment, at least in part
through use of its mailing list which includes the Mayor, Planning Board, and
Environmental Commission of each municipality and county in the Segment. (see
Appendix D for a discussion of local government participation in the coastal
planning process, including an analysis of possible conflicts between state and
regional plans.)

176

In addition, as required by the CAFRA Procedural Rules and Regulations, DEP
will continue to offer CAFRA permit applications for comment to county and muni-
cipal planning boards and environmental commissions.

DEP is also sponsoring a state-county coastal coordination project for a
second year. Using funds made available to New Jersey under the federal Coastal
Zone Management Act, DEP has contracted with every county in the Segment and
several in other parts of the proposed coastal zone for the provision of informa-
tion and analysis to be used for continuing program development. The next task in
this program is an assessment by the counties of the consistency of local plans and
ordinances with the Coastal Resource and Development Policies. The final reports
of the project will include summaries of each county's findings on state-local
coastal policy consistency and recommendations for future state-county relation-
ships.

After the contract is completed, DEP may choose to adopt the county and
municipal plans which adequately address coastal issues and do not conflict with
the state policy as specific elements of the State Coastal Program.

The New Jersey Coastal Management Program can influence other levels of
government with coastal responsibilities, even though it may have no direct statu-
tory power over their decisions. Municipal and county governments, and regional
and interstate agencies have significant planning and, in some cases, regulatory
roles in the Segment. DEP and other state agencies will use the Coastal Resource
and Development Policies as a basis for advice, discussion and debate with these
other governmental agencies. This advisory role must be distinguished from the
already mentioned regulatory tools which will be used to implement the Coastal
Program, but it is, nevertheless, important for the long-term improvement and
acceptance of the Coastal Policies.

Regional and Interstate Agencies

Thirteen interstate and regional agencies have jurisdictions which include
part of the coastal zone. Some have largely a planning and advisory function,
while others have significant decision-making responsibility. The past and future
decisions and sharing of draft and final documents with these agencies, together
with DEP's regulatory authority in the coastal zone, will ensure that regional
agency actions will not be inconsistent with the Coastal Management Program. These
agencies are only discussed briefly here because their jurisdictions are largely in
the parts of the coastal zone outside the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. Each of the
agencies has been invited to play a role in designing the program for the remainder
of the coastal zone, and their roles will be described in greater detail in the
Draft EIS for those regions.

The planning agencies and organizations include the Mid-Atlantic Regional
Fishery Management Council, the Wilmington Metropolitan Area Planning Coordinating
Council (WILMAPCO), Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, the Delaware Valley
Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC), and the South Jersey Resource Conservation
and Development Council. These agencies have professional planning staffs and a
strong interest in the future of the Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New
York region. DEP-OCZM will continue to solicit and welcome their comments and
advice. The Tri-State Regional Planning Commission has specific responsibility for
assessing consistency between state plans funded by the U.S. Departments of Housing
and Urban Development, and Transportation, and federally funded state Coastal
Management Programs.

177

Other agencies with administrative and regulatory responsibilities will be
more formally integrated into the implementation of the New Jersey Coastal Manage-
ment Program. Memorandums of understanding between DEP-OCZM and selected regional
agencies may be desirable or necessary to insure consistency between state and
regional coastal policies. These agencies include the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey. Interstate Sanitation Commission, Palisades Interstate Park
Commission, 'Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission, Delaware River and Bay Authority,
Delaware River Port Authority, South Jersey Port Corporation and Delaware River
Basin Commission. As appropriate, specific agreements will be made with each
agency during the preparation of the program for those parts of the coastal zone.

Public Participation

The Department of Environmental Protection will work to involve the many
individuals and public and private groups concerned about the coast-in decisions on
proposed development and in continued coastal planning.

The three coastal permit programs (CAFRA, wetlands, and riparian) all have
public notice and hearing requirements, providing the opportunity for public
participation in the implementation of the coastal policies. DEP will ensure
public notice of pending applications through notification of the appropriate
county planning board, county environmental commission, municipal planning board,
county environmental commission, soil conservation district, and the Delaware
Valley Regional Planning Commission and Tri-State Regional Planning Commission for
proposals in Burlington or Monmouth and Middlesex Counties respectively. In
addition, owners of land adjacent to the site proposed for .development will be
informed of the application. .All pending applications are also listed in the DEP
Weekly Bulletin which is distributed free and has a current circulation of 1,600
people. The Department is also cooperating with the "coast watch" program, spon-
sored by the American Littoral Society, to inform more people about pending coastal
decisions and other events.

DEP holds a public bearing near the site of a proposal for every CAFRA permit
application, and for major Wetlands and Waterfront Development permit applications.
in addition, any interested person can review DEP's file on a pending application
and submit written comments. Decisions to lease or sell riparian lands are made by
the Natural Resource Council at meetings which are open to the public.

DEP will continue to involve coastal residents, workers and visitors in
planning for the future of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and the other parts of
the coastal zone. This involvement will take several forms, and the Department
will remain open to additional public participation techniques which may be sug-
gested. Substantive changes in the Coastal Management Program and its policies
will be subject to the notice and hearing requirement of both the federal regula-
tions and the New Jersey rule-making process.

The Office of Coastal Zone Management will continue to publish The Jersey
Coast several times each year to inform interested people of future public meetings,
av~Tiable reports, and coastal planning and regulatory activities. DEP-OCZM staff
will continue to make themselves available to meet with interested groups and the
office will continue to convene a series of public meetings throughout the coastal
zone at least twice a year. In addition, DEP-OCZM staff will continue to meet
periodically with the leaders of statewide environmental groups, builders groups,
and other representative groups which express interest.-

-178

Part of public participation is public education, and DEP will continue to try
to prepare and to assist others in preparing informative, understandable publica-
tions about the coast and the coastal zone management program. The Department will
supplement governmental publications with the use of newspapers, magazines, radio
and displays in public places such as libraries, shopping areas and conventions.

Conflict Resolution - Appeals

The permit decisions made under the New Jersey Coastal Management Program, as
described in this chapter, can be appealed administratively. A CAFRA permit
decision can be appealed by any interested person within 21 days of the final DE?
action, to the DEP Commissioner or to the Coastal Area Review Board composed of
the Commissioners of Environmental Protection, Community Affairs, and Labor and
Industry. The decision of the Commissioner or of the Review Board can be further
appealed through the courts. A Wetlands permit decision may be appealed to the DEP
Commissioner and then to the courts. A Waterfront Development permit decision may
be appealed to the Natural Resource Council, and then to the courts.

The Department of Energy (DOE) may appeal decisions affecting the construction
or location of an energy facility to the Energy Facility Review Board described
previously. Under the Department of Energy Act, the Board will be called into
existence by the Department of Energy if it disagrees with the decision of any
state agency to grant or deny a permit for an energy facility. The Memorandum of
Understanding in Appendix G explains this process.

The Management System of the Coastal Program does not appear likely to raise
other conflicts which will require a resolution mechanism. If a proposal requires
approval under several laws with different sets of criteria, the applicant will
have to meet them all. A project managed by the Coastal Program and encouraged by
the plans or actions of another agency could not be constructed unless it received
the required coastal permits. At the same time, a project which conforms with all
the Coastal Resource and Development Policies could not be constructed until the
applicant received all other required state, federal, and municipal approvals.

The next chapter describes how the New Jersey Coastal Management Program will
avoid the exclusion from the coastal zone of "uses of regional benefit". The
chapter also discusses Federal Consistency and New Jersey's consideration of
national interests.

179

CHAPTER SIX.: MANAGING THE COAST: NATIONAL INTERESTS, CONSISTENCY
OF FEDERAL ACTIONS, AND REGIONAL BENEFIT DECISIONS

Introduction
National Interests
Consistency of Federal Actions
Regional Benefit Decisions

Introduction

This chapter describes the national interests which were considered during
program development, how various conflicts between the national interests are
balanced in the program, and the process to assure the continued considerations of
such issues. The Chapter then describes the process of assuring that federal
actions are consistent with the Coastal Program to the maximum extent practicable.
The third part of this Chapter describes how the New Jersey program ensures that
uses of regional benefit are not excluded from the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment.

National Interests

The federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires that the State's program
provide "for adequate consideration of the national interest involved in planning
for, and in the siting of, facilities ... which are necessary to meet requirements
which are other than local in nature." (Subsection (306) (c)I Although this
document focuses only on the first segment of the Coastal Program, this section
describes New Jersey's consideration of the national interest for the entire
coastal zone.

The "national interest" is a collection of the diverse, and occasionally
conflicting, interests of the 13 United States departments, councils, and commis-
sions with involvement in the preservation or development of New Jersey coastal
lands and waters. To determine and balance the national interests, New Jersey has
met with representatives of the federal agencies with responsibilities affecting
the coastal zone. The comments of those agencies choosing to submit written
statements and comments or testimony at public meetings on New Jersey's evolving
coastal program have contributed to New Jersey's understanding of the national
interests. Contacts with federal agencies are summarized in Appendix C. In addi-
tion to the. comments of federal agencies, the New Jersey program used Presidential
statements, federal legislation and federal, state, and interstate agency reports to
help its consideration of the national interests.

The New Jersey program recognizes that national, as well as state, interests
and priorities may shift in response to new and/or unforseen circumstances. Under
an approved'program, New Jersey will, therefore, continue to seek and evaluate
information from the same sources. Changes in the national interests will be
reflected in the Coastal Program through administrative action including amendments
to the substantive rules and regulations which incorporate the Coastal Resources
and Development Policies.

180

The Process for Continued Consideration of National Interest Issues

The process for balancing the national interests in the coastal zone will be
the employment 'of the three-step decision-making process of Location Policies,
Use Policies, and Resource Policies described in Chapter Four. Decisions made
under the program will follow the four Basic Coastal Policies: (1) Protect the
coastal ecosystem, (2) Concentrate rather than disperse the pattern of coastal
residential, commercial, industrial, and resort development and encourage the
preservation of open space. (This does not apply to nuclear and LNG facilities);
(3) Employ a method of decision-making which allows each coastal location to be
evaluated in terms of both the advantages and the disadvantages it offers for
development; and (4) Protect the health, safety and welfare of people who reside,
work and visit in the coastal zone. The decisions will reflect the first Congres-
sional finding enunciated in the Coastal Zone Management Act that "there is a
national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection and
development of the coastal zone" [Section (302)(a)].

The New Jersey program has considered, and will continue to monitor, the
national interests raised'by the planning and siting of four types of uses and the
treatment of twelve categories of resources. An annual review of the Coastal
Resource and Development Policies in Chapter Four and the coastal permit appli-
cation procedures described in Chapter Five will serve as the processes for assur-
ing continued consideration of the national interests in the planning for and
siting of facilities which are necessary to meet requirements which are other than
local in nature.

All of the facilities identified below (national defense, energy production
and transmission, recreation and transportation) are of sufficient size to require
a CAFRA permit if they occur on non-federally controlled land. Furthermore, these
facilities and any other development which would significantly effect the eleven
resources described below as in the national interest, (e.g. water, air, etc.) are
required to receive a CAFRA permit. Although other state permits would be needed
in some resource areas, i.e., wetlands, the CAFRA per-mit would cover all these
issues and thus has been identified as the single process during implementation of
the Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment for assuring the
continued consideration of identified national interests.

The CAFRA law states that the Commissioner of DEP "shall issue a permit
only if he finds that the proposed facility ... is located or constructed so as to
neither endanger human life or property nor otherwise impair the public health,
safety and welfare." (N.J.S.A. 13:19-10f) The Commissioner has interpreted "public
welfare" to include a full consideration of national interests as described in this
program. This interpretation is contained in Chapter Four of this document which
has been adopted as regulations. In addition, the Department of Energy will
interpret its mandate "1... to contribute to the proper siting of energy facilities
necessary to serve the public interest.. ." (N.J.S.A. 25:27f.2) as sufficient
authority to. consider the national interest in the siting of coastal energy facili-
ties.

The following have been defined as facilities or resources which may be
in the national interest. Greater specificity on the policies described below can
be found in Chapter Four.

181

National Defense

National defense is of obvious importance to all states. To define the
national interest in national defense, DEP-OCZM shared reports, received comments
from, and met with the designated representatives of the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy,
U.S. Army, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The New Jersey Coastal Program excludes from the coastal zone all federally
owned or leased lands, where defense operations are concentrated. The Coastal
Program will actively consider defense activities only when agencies of the Depart-
ment of Defense propose to buy additional land or to build new facilities with~
potential impacts beyond the borders of the federally owned land. The New Jersey
program will not question the national security justification for such proposals.
Rather, DEP will review the proposal for consistency with the Coastal Program, and
will approve it if it can make one of two findings:

1. The proposal is consistent with the Coastal Resource and Development
Policies, or

2. The proposed facility is coastal dependent and will be constructed with
maximum possible consistency with the Coastal Resource and Development
Policies.

In addition, the New Jersey program will seek to involve local Depart ment of
Defense representatives in planning the use of lands and waters surrounding mili-
tary installations. The only current or projected defense activity addressed by
the Coastal Program is the possible purchase of land by the U.S. Navy in the
vicinity of the Leonardo-Earle Naval Ammunition Depot. DEP has reviewed with Navy
representatives the uses of this site that would be acceptable under the Coastal
Program.

Energy Production and Transmission

In determining the national interest in energy production and transmission,
the following plans and federal agencies were consulted:

- The National Energy Plan, April 29, 1977
- U.S.Department of Energy (formerly ERDA and FEA)
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (formerly Federal Power Commission)
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission'
-U.S. Department of Interior
- Bureau of Land Management
- U.S. Geological Survey
- U.S. Department of Transportation
- U.S. Coast Guard
- Office of Pipeline Safety
- Department of Defense
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
- Maritime Administration
- Environmental Protection Agency

The most useful articulation of the national interest in energy is found in
the National Energy Plan, which has three overriding objectives:

-as an immediate objective that will become even more important in the
future, to reduce dependence on foreign oil and vulnerability to supply
interruptions;

182

- in the medium term, to keep U.S. imports sufficiently low to weather the
period when world oil production approaches its capacity limitation; and
- in the long term, to have renewable and essentially inexhaustible sources
of energy for sustained economic growth. (Plan Overview, page IX)

The salient features of the National Energy Plan are:

- conservation and fuel efficiency,
- national pricing and production policies,
- reasonable certainty and stability in Government policies,
- substitution of abundant energy resources for those in short supply; and
- development of nonconventional technologies for the future (Plan Overview,
page IX-X)

Elements of the National Energy Plan with particular application to the New
Jersey Coastal Management Program Segment are as follows:

Conservation - "The cornerstone of the National Energy Plan is conservation.'"
(Page 35 of the PFlan).

New Jersey's recognition of the need for energy conservation was one factor
leading to the second Basic Coastal Policy which states: "Concentrate rather
than disperse the pattern of coastal residential, commercial, industrial, and
resort-oriented development, and encourage the preservation of open space"
Specifically, the Coastal Program encourages the clustering of development within a
site, the use of renewable and recoverable sources of energy, mass transportation,
and the incorporation of energy conservation techniques into all proposed coastal
development in accordance with the Energy Conservation Plan being administated
by the N.J. Department of Energy pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act of 1975.

Oil and Gas Facilities

Given the national interest in recreational and resourc'e protection in the
Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, pipelines, and pumping and compressor stations
will be permitted in the coastal zone to the extent. that they can meet existing
federal and state requirements, although non-coastal dependent facilities which are
not part of a pipeline system will be encouraged to locate outside of the Segment.
This position has been reached as a result of weighing the competing and conflict-
Ing national interest in recreation and resource protection with energy as called
for in the CZMA. The decision to discourage oil and gas facilities other than
pipelines in the Segment was reached in part because areas of the state outside the
Segment already house many oil and gas production facilities including five refi-
neries, one of which is out of operation, and New Jersey believes these areas will
be better able to support needed additional facilities than will areas within the
Segment. A study undertaken for DEP by Rutgers University Center for Coastal and
Environmental Studies (Onshore Support Bases for 005 Oil and Gas Development:
Implications for New Jersey, 1977) contributed to this decision by concluding that
possible sites for oil and gas facilities exist along the Raritan Bay and River
which may be acceptable to industry, DEP and local officials.

Onshore Support Bases - are necessary to support off-shore oil and gas explor-
ation and development. New Jersey encourages the storage of emergency oil clean-up
*equipment in the Segment and location of onshore support bases in built-up urban
areas of the state outside of the Segment. Applications for the siting of such
bases must comply with all applicable laws and are reviewed in the same manner as
other facilities of similar impact and size.

183

oil Refineries - could be necessary to process oil and gas discovered through
current exploration in the Baltimore Canyon. The Coastal Program prohibits the
location of refineries in the Segment. Application for oil refineries outside the
Segment will be subject to all applicable laws and will be handled in the same
manner as other facilities of similar impact and size. While New Jersey was
assured by the Department of the Interior, on page 17 of the Final Environ-
mental Statement (FES) for OCS Lease Sale No. 40 that the state's existing refinery
capacity is sufficient to handle the likely output from the Baltimore Canyon,
the Draft Environm~ntal Statement for OCS Lease Sale No. 49 (May 1978) indicates
that additional refinery capacity might be needed in the event of a high find.

Pipelines - New Jersey expects to identify petrochemical pipeline corridors
through the intergovernmental offshore oil and gas transportation planning process
being established by the1 Department of the interior's Bureau of Land Management.
At a minimum New Jersey will require the following conditions to be met: that the
number of pipelines be limited to the maximum extent feasible; that the pipelines
use existing rights of way to the maximum extent feasible; that they avoid the
undeveloped regions of the Pine Barrens; that any pipeline proposal be evaluated in
terms of the entire new potential pipeline corridor; and that the pipeline avoid to
the maximum extent feasible offshore munitions, chemical and waste disposal areas,
heavily used waterways, geologic faults and significant fish or shellfish habitats.
Although many possible pipeline routes have been proposed, New Jersey expects no
new pipelines to be proposed until the potential yield from the Baltimore Canyon is
better known. (See Chapter Four, Sections 4.4.8 and 4.4.10)

Electric Power - The Coastal Program directs additional fossil fueled generat-
ing stations away from particularly scenic or natural areas that are important for
recreation and open space purposes, and directs that they be, consistent with
applicable air and water quality standards. (See Chapter Four, Policy 4.4.13).

In considering the national interest in the development of nuclear power,
New Jersey found applicable the following two quotes from The National Energy
Plan:

"The United States will need to use more light-water reactors to help meet its
energy needs. The Government will give increased attention to lightwater
reactor safety, licensing, and waste management so that nuclear power can be
used to help meet the U.S. energy deficit with increased safety." (page
70)

"In addition, the President is requesting that the (Nuclear Regulatory)
Commission develop firm siting criteria with clear guidelines to prevent
siting of future nuclear plants in densely populated locations, in valuable
natural areas, or in potentially hazardous locations." (page 72)

New Jersey was one of the first states to recognize the potential of nuclear
power to meet U. S. energy needs. The State has six operating or fully approved
nuclear plants, including the Hope Creek I and 11 Generating Stations which
received a CAFRA permit from DEP in 1975.

The most recent application for a nuclear facility filed in New Jersey was a
1974 application to construct two floating plants, which has been postponed by the
applicant. The New Jersey Coastal Program states in Chapter Four, Section 4.4.13,
that:

184

"New or expanded electric generating facilities facilities (for base load,
cycling, or peaking purposes) and related facilities are conditionally acceptable
subject to the following conditions:

(a) The construction and operation of the proposed facility shall comply with
the Coastal Resource and Development Policies, with special reference to
air and water quality standards and policies on marine resources and
wildlife,

(b) NJDEP and NJDOE shall find that the proposed location and design of the
electrical generating facility is the most prudent and feasible alterna-
tive for the production of electrical power that NJDOE has determined is
needed, including a consideration, evaluation, and comparison by the
applicant of alternative sites within the coastal zone and inland,

(c) Fossil fuel (coal, oil or gas) generating stations shall not be located
in particularly scenic or natural areas that are important to recreation
and open space purposes,

(d) Nuclear generating stations shall be located in generally re-mote, rural,
and low density areas, consistent with the criteria of 10 CFR 100 (U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules on siting nuclear generating stations
and population density) and/or any other related federal regulations. In
addition, NJDEP shall find that the nuclear generating facility is
proposed for a location wherd the appropriate low population zone and
population center distance are likely to be maintained around the nuclear
generating facility, through techniques such as land use controls or
buffer zones,

(e) The construction and operation of a nuclear generating station shall not
be approved unless DEP finds that the proposed method for storage and
disposal of the spent fuel to be produced by the facility: (i) will be
safe, (ii) conforms to standards established by the U.S. Nuclear Regula-
tory Commission, and (iii) will effectively remove danger to life and the
environment from the radioactive waste material. This finding is
required under present state law (N.J.S.A. 13:19-11) and will be made
consistent with judicial decisions (see Public Interest Research Group
v. State of New Jersey, 152 N.J. Super. 191) and federal law,

(f) The construction of electric generating facilities using renewable forms
of energy such as solar radiation, wind, and water, including experi-
mental and demonstration projects, is encouraged in the coastal zone
provided that the facilities do not significantly adversely affect
scenic or recreational values.

Liquified Natural Gas - The National Energy Plan contains the following
statements applicable to New Jersey:

"Due to its extremely high costs and safety problems, LNG is not a long-term
secure substitute for domestic natural gas. It can, however, be an important
supply option through the mid-1980s and beyond, until additional gas supplies
may become available..-The previous Energy Resources Council guidelines are
being replaced with a more flexible policy that sets up no upper limit on LNG
imports. Under the new policy, the Federal Government would review each

185

application to import LNG so as to provide for its availability at a reason-
able price without undue risks of dependence on foreign supplies:- This
assessment would take into account the reliability of the selling country, the
degree of American dependence such sales would create, the safety conditions
associated with any specific installation, and all costs involved." (p. 57)

LNG facilities have been proposed in recent years for West Deptford and Logan
Townships in Gloucester County, and on Staten Island, New York from where the
LNG would be pipelined to New Jersey. The New Jersey Coastal Program states that
LNG terminals are discouraged unless they are constructed so as to neither unduly
endanger human life nor property nor otherwise impair the public health, safety and
welfare, and comply with the Coastal Resource and Development Policies. Because
the tankering of LNG could pose potential risk to life and property adjacent to New
Jersey's waterways which also serve as boundaries with the states of Pennsylvania
along the Delaware River and the state of New York in the Port of New York and New
Jersey, the state considers decisions concerning the siting of LNG terminals to be
an interstate matter. New Jersey is still awaiting a response in this regard to the
petition (RM 76-13) it filed, along with its neighboring states, to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Administration (former Federal Power Commission) in May 1976 (See
Section 4.4.14 of Chapter Four).

Recreation

The New Jersey coast is a national recreational resource. in cons idering
the national interest in recreation, New Jersey reviewed the Nation-wide Outdoor
Recreation Plan, the evolving New Jersey State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan (SCORP), the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, and the Historic Preser-
vation Act of 19 66 as amended. In addition, New Jersey offered draft coastal
documents including the Coastal Management Strategy (September 1977) for review
to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and its
successor Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Park Service and staff of Gateway National Recreational Area-Sandy Hook,
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Major objectives of the national interest in recreation are:

- To consider recreation as an equal among competing uses of the coastal
region.
- To provide high quality recreational opportunities to all people of the
United States, while protecting the coastal environment.
- To increase public recreation in high density areas
- To improve coordination and management of recreation areas.
- To protect existing recreation areas from adverse contiguous uses.
- To accelerat~e the 'identification and no-cost transfer of surplus and under-
utilized federal property.

New Jersey will consider the recreational potential of a site in each decision
under the Coastal Program. The highest priority for use of waterfront sites
will be recreation, and residential and industrial projects will include recreation
areas to the maximum extent practicable. The Policies are consistent with the New
Jersey State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), which was also prepared
by DEP.

186

Recreation is particularly important in New Jersey where tourism is the
state's second largest industry. The recreational use of the ocean waterfront has
long been recognized, while the use of bay and river waterfront, particularly in
urban areas is of growing importance in New Jersey. (See Chapter Four, Sections
4.3 and 5.12) DEP provides for the national interest in recreation through its
ability to acquire and manage state parkland and recreation areas and through the
state Green Acres program which makes funds available to local governments for
acquisition and development of recreation and open space. The federal government,
which owns and operates a public beach and open space area at Gateway National
Recreation Area (Sandy Hook), further provides for the national interest in
recreation in New Jersey.

Transportation and Ports

The need for adequate transportation both to, and within, the coastal zone is
an important national interest. To determine the national interest in transporta-
tion, and ports, New Jersey consulted the U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S.
Coast Guard, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Highway Administration,
Federal Railroad Administration, Urban Mass Transit Administration, Maritime
Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The maintenance of existing
transportation facilities is unaffected by the New Jersey Coastal Program. New
public transportation facilities will be encouraged while additional roads will be
permitted only if a need for them is demonstrated and alternative solutions are not
feasible. In addition, other types of proposals, such as residential projects
and development in Atlantic City, will be evaluated in terms of their potential
impact on transportation.

New Jersey's ports also contribute to the national transportation interest.
Ports will be encouraged only in established port areas. New facilities will be
permitted when there is a clear demonstration of the inadequacy of an existing
port. In New Jersey, the existing ports contain unused and under-used areas which
can be refurbished to meet increases in demand. The Coastal Policies nevertheless
allow for possible unanticipated future needs for port areas. (See Chapter
Four, Sections 4.4.12, 4.5.3, 4.5.4, 4.7 and 5.19)

Water

The New Jersey Coastal Program has been designed to support the attainment
of national water quality goals. New Jersey has considered the national interest
in water quality by review of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended
and consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and the Council on Environmental
Quality. These goals, and the other resources in which there is a national inter-
est which follow in this section, are recognized by the first Basic Coastal Policy
,which states "Protect the coastal ecosystem"', as well as by other more specific
policies. Water quality is addressed by the-Location Policy on Water Areas and
Special Areas, by Use Policies on Wastewater Treatment, and by Resources Policies
.on Soil Erosion, Runoff, Ground and Surface Water Use,-Water Quality, and Marine
Fish and Fisheries. DEP's Division of Marine Services has a close working rela-
tionship with DEP's Division of Water Resources. The former has responsibility for
the Coastal Zone Management Act in New Jersey and the latter administers New
Jersey's participation under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1977, as
amended (Clean Water Act). (See Chapter Four, Sections 3.2, 3.3, 4.5.7, 5.4, 5.5,
5.6 and 5.21)

187

Air

The New Jersey Coastal Program supports the attainment and maintenance of
clean air. The State has considered this national interest through review of the
federal Clean Air Act and consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Council on Environmental Quality. A policy on Air in the Resources Policies
section of the Coastal Resource and Development Policies requires that all develop-
ment subject to the Coastal Program must conform with the Clean Air Act and other
applicable air regulations and standards. DEP's Division of Environmental Quality
is responsible for improving and maintaining air quality in New Jersey. (See
Chapter Four, Section 5.10)

Wetlands

The New Jersey Coastal Program has considered the national interest in wet-
lands through review of the President's Executi ve Order 11990 on Protection of
Wetlands of May 24, 1977, Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
and the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as through consultation with the
Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Council
on Environmental Quality.

The major-objectives of the national interest in Wetlands are:

-To protect basic values of wetlands as habitat and food sources for water-
fowl and aquatic life;
- To protect the functioning of wetlands for flood prevention, storm buffer-
ing, water supply, and nutrient exchange, and as a recreational resource.
- To regulate alteration of wetlands and the disposal of dredged materials in
U.S. waters and associated wetlands.

The New Jersey Coastal Program addresses the national interest in protection
of coastal wetlands through their designation as a Geographic Area of Particular
Concern. Wetlands are also addressed in a Use Policy on Housi~ng discouraging
lagoon development, a Resource Policy on "Buffers"' which states that adjacent
development must allow a buffer to protect sensitive areas such as wetlands, and
the Location Policy which specifically identifies wetlands as areas where develop-
ment proposals must meet very high standards. The use of New Jersey's Wetlands Act
of 1970 in the Coastal Program will allow enforcement of these policies. In New
Jersey, considerable wetlands acreage was being lost to development each year until
the Wetlands Act was passed. (See Chapter Four, Sections 3.2.11, 3.2.23, 3.4.1,
5.8.1 and 5.15.1)

Endangered Flora and Fauna, and Wildlife Refuges and Reserves

New Jersey has addressed the national interest in endangered flora and fauna,
and wildlife refuges and reserves by reviewing the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
and the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act of 1938 (Pittman-Robinson), and by
seeking the advice and comments of the U.S. Forest Service, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service and the Council on Environmental Quality.

The major objectives of the national interest in endangered flora and fauna
are'

188

-To provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered and threat-
ened species depend may be conserved.
-To provide a program for the conservation of such endangered and threatened
species.
-To take steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of treaties and
conventions in which the United States has pledged its support for the
worldwide conservation of wild flora and fauna.

The national importance of wildlife is addressed in the Coastal Program by the
Special Areas Policies on "White Cedar Stands", "Endangered or Threatened Species
habitats" and "Critical Wildlife Habitats" and by Resource Policies on "Vegetation",
"Wildlife", and "Buffers" which state that development must protect and. preserve
vegetation and wildlife by use of buffers and other techniques to the maximum
extent practicable. The Coastal Program also discourages development of sites with
endangered species. (See Chapter Four, Sections 3.2.17, 3.2.18, 3.2.19, 3.2.23,
5.8, 5.9, and 5.15) New Jersey has four National Wildlife Refuges located on
excluded federal land in the coastal zone. in addition, the State operates several
fish and wildlife management areas within the coastal zone.

Living Marine Resources

In determining the national interest in living marine resources, the following
documents, specific legislation, and agencies were consulted:

- Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976.
- A Compilation of Federal Laws relating to Conservation and Development
of our Nation's Fish and Wildlife Resources, Environmental Quality, and
Oceanography. The Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service.
January, 197.5.
- Living Coastal Resources; A Marine Fisheries Program for the Nation. U.S.
Department of Commerce/NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; July, 1976.
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
- National Marine Fisheries Service
- Marine Mammal Commission

The major objectives of the national interest in living marine resources
are expressed as follows:

- To conserve, enhance and manage in a rational manner commercial fishing
which constitutes a major source of employment and contributes significantly
to the food supply, economy and health of the nation.
- To strengthen the contribution of marine resources to recreation and other
social needs.
- To develop and protect all species' of wildlife and their habitat, and to
control losses by damage to habitat areas through coordination with other
features of water resource development programs.

The key features of the national interest in living marine resources are,
therefore:

- emphasis on commercial fisheries
- relationship of marine resources to recreation
- protection of marine resources
- protection of wildlife habitat

.189

The Coastal Program addresses these issues in the Location Policies and
Resource Policies in Chapter Four. Development will be discouraged in shellfish
beds, submerged vegetation, surf clam areas, navigation channels, finfish migration
pathways, and prime fishing areas. In addition, development will be required to
cause minimal feasible interference with marine fish and fisheries. In addition to
continuing coordination with the appropriate federal agencies, DEP is working with
NOAA to identify and pian for the management of marine sanctuaries in the state.
(See Chapter Four, Sections 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 3.2.8, 3.2.9,
3.2.11, and 5.2)

Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Areas

New Jersey has considered the national interest in flood plains and erosion
hazard areas through review of the Flood Disaster Protection Act (P.L. 93-234),
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the President's Executive Order of May 24,
1977 on Floodplain Management, and through consultation with the Federal Insurance
Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, Federal
Disaster Assistance Administration and the National Heritage Program. The major
objectives of the national interest in these areas is to avoid the long and short
term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains.

The national interest in flood control is reflected in the Coastal Program's
restrictive designation of the Water's Edge land area in the Location Policies in
Chapter Four, Section 3.4. Flood plains protection is also addressed by the
Resource Policy on Flood Hazard Areas. (See Chapter Four, Section 4.23)

Barrier Islands

The national interest in barrier islands was considered through consultation
of the same sources noted under "Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Areas" as well as
participation in the efforts of the national Barrier Island Task Force. This
national interest is directly reflected in the Coastal Program through the Special
Areas designated as High Risk Beach Erosion Areas, Dunes, and Central Barrier
Island Corridor which restrict or prohibit major development, and through the Use
Policy on "Shore Protection" which gives preference to non-structural over struc-
tural approaches to shore protection. The protection of barrier islands is par-
ticularly crucial in New Jersey after the damaging winter storms of 1977-78. (See
Chapter Four, Sections 3.2.12, 3.2.13, 3.2.14, and 4.8)

Historic Sites and Districts and Areas of Unique Cultural Significance

The national interest in historic sites and districts and areas of unique
cultural significance, including shipwrecks, was considered through review of the
Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-291) and National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and consultation with the National Park Service,
the Heritage Conservation and Recreat'ion Service and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation.

The major objectives of the national, state and local interests in archaeo-
logical historic sites and districts are:

- To afford protection from adverse impacts to designated historic and
archaeological sites.
- To consider cultural resources in assessing the environmental impacts of
proposed activities.

190

Thle New Jersey Coastal Program recognizes the national interest of preserving
representative and unique archaeological, historical and cultural resources of the
coast. The Program reflects this recognition, through the designation of Historic
Places as a Special Area whi'ch encourages the protection of historic and cultural
resources. (See Chapter Four, Sections 3.2.8, 3.2.15, and 5.18)

Minerals

New Jersey has considered the national interest in minerals through consulta-
tion with the U.S. Bureau of Mines and the U.S. Geological Survey. Although mining
is not a major industry in New Jersey, its national importance is reflected by the
Use Policy on "Mining" which spells out conditions on the acceptability of mining.
DEP will continue to coordinate with U.S. Bureau of Mines on the Coastal Management
Program. (See Chapter Four, Section 4.6.3)

Prime Agricultural Lands

New Jersey has considered the national interest in agriculture through con-
sultation with the Soil Conservation Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The national importance of prime and unique agricultural lands is reflected in the
Coastal Program by the Location Policy on Farmland Conservation Areas in Chapter
Four which discourages development of prime farmland unless continued farming is
infeasible or incompatible with surrounding land uses. The Location Policies also
consider, soil fertility as an important variable in determining the acceptability
for development of a site.- (See Chapter Four, Section 3.2.22)

Forests

New Jersey has considered the national interest in forests through consul-
tation with the National Forest Service. The state's major forest -- the Pine
Barrens -- is located in the central portion of New Jersey, most of which is
outside the coastal zone. The Coastal Program, through the Location Policies and
the "Secondary Impact" Resource Policy in Chapter Four, encourages the protection
of prime forest areas. (See Chapter Four, Sections 3.2.17 and 3.5.4)

FEDERAL CONSISTENCY

Federal agencies play a significant role in the coastal zone. They issue
permits 'and licenses for activities such as dredging and the construction and
operation of nuclear power plants, as well as activities associated with explora-
tion and development of the Outer Continental Shelf. They also provide financial
assistance such as grants for watershed protection and flood prevention, and
undertake direct activities and development projects such as national parks and
highway construction.

* The federal consistency provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act, Section
307(c)(l) and (2), require federal activities and development projects to be
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the State Coastal Zone Managemnt
* Program. Section 307(c)(3)(A), 307(c)(B) and 307(d) require federal licensed and
permitted activities, federally licensed and permitted activities described in
detail in OCS plans and Federal assistance to State and local governments to be
consistent with the State coastal program.

191

New Jersey will use the goals, objectives and policies of the New Jersey
Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment as the basis for making
consistency determinations. Specifically, New Jersey will consider a federal
action consistent if it does not inherently conflict with the Coastal Resource and
Development Policies as stated in Chapter Four, and is the available alternative
most supportive of the New Jersey Coastal Program.

General Guidelines on Federal Consistency

The federal consistency requirements outlined in the Bay and Ocean Shiore
Segment follow the requirements set forth in the federal consistency regulations,
15 CFR 930. Following aproval of the Segment, New Jersey will prepare working
papers with guidelines for the procedures it will use to make federal consistency
operational.

Geographic Scope

New Jersey will review federal actions conducted within the boundary of the
New Jersey coastal zone (Bay and Ocean Shore Segment) for consistency with the
state program. However, certain federal actions conducted outside the boundary of
the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment of the coastal zone may significantly affect
coastal resources, and therefore, require state review for consistency. New Jersey
may request a consistency review by a federal agency (for federal activities and
development projects) or by an applicant (for licenses, permits, and financial
assistance) for certain actions conducted outside the coastal zone. For example,
federal actions outside the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment of the coastal zone subject
to a state consistency review may include, but are not limited to actions concern-
ing chemical or petroleum processing, transfer or, storage facilities, deepwater
ports, OCS leases and exploration, development, and production plans, sewage
treatment and disposal, solid waste disposal facilities, and transportation
projects.

Contents of a Consistency Determination or Certification

A federal agency or applicant for a federal license or permit or federal
assistance is encouraged to consult the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Office of Coastal Zone Management as early as possible for its views
and assistance regarding the means for insuring an activity will be conducted in a
manner consistent with New Jersey's coastal program.

A consistency determination or certification should include: 1) a detailed
.description of the activity and its associated facilities which is adequate to
permit an assessment of their probable coastal zone effects, 2) a brief assessment
relating the probable coastal zone effects of the proposal and its associated
facilities to the relevant elements of the management program and 3) findings based
on the assessment indicating whether the activity is consistent with the provisions
of the management program.

General Procedural Requirements

New Jersey will provide public notice on pending consistency determinations
through the same mechanisms used for the three state coastal permit programs:
CAFRA, wetlands, and riparian. Written notice will be sent to landowners adjacent
to the site proposed for development, appropriate municipal and county agencies and
newspapers. Each project requiring a consistency determination will also be listed

192

in the DEP Weekly Bulletin. The public notice will state that more detailed
information is available from DEP and that comments to DEP on the proposal are
welcome.

In addition, a public hearing will be held in the local area concerned on all
projects requiring a CAFRA permit and on major projects requiring a Wetlands or
Waterfront Development Permit. A public hearing will also be held in the event of
a serious disagreement between DEP and a federal agency concerning a federally
licensed or permitted activity described in OCS oil and gas production and develop-
ment plans.

DEP will work with each Federal agency to provide joint written notices and
public hearings on proposals whenever possible.

Both DEP and the New Jersey Department of Energy (DOE) will participate
in the decision of the State of New Jersey to issue a determination of consis-
tency on coastal energy facilities. As required by federal regulation (15 CFR
930.18), DEP shall receive, and forward promptly to DOE, all materials necessary
for consistency determination on coastal energy facilities. In the event of a
disagreement, the Energy Facility Review Board will be convened to make a recom-
mendation to the Governor, who shall make the final determination within the
applicable time limits. As required by federal regulations (15 CFR 930.18), DEP
will then transmit the final federal consistency determination to the appropriate
federal agency.

Below are lists of federal activities and development projects, federally
licensed and permitted activities, federally licensed and permitted activities
described in OCS Plans, and federal programs providing assistance to state and
local governments likely to occur in, or affect, New Jersey's coastal zone.
Preceeding each list are the procedures New Jersey will employ to enhance state-
federal cooperation and to insure consistency. New Jersey will use the federal
consistency procedures described in 15 CFR 930. (Federal Register, Vol. 43, No.
49, March 13, 1978, pp. 10510-10533).

Federal Activities and Development Projects

Federal activities and development projects which are located in or signifi-
cantly affect the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment must be consistent to the maximum
extent practicable with the State Coastal Management Program. New Jersey will
consider an activity consistent to the maximum extent practicable if it does not
conflict with the Coastal Resource and Development Policies and is the available
alternative most supportive of New Jersey's coastal program unless compliance with
New Jersey's program is prohibited based on existing law applicable to the Federal
agency's operations. Ongoing federal activities initiated prior to management
program approval will require a consistency determination.

The federal agencies shall notify the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Office of Coastal Zone Management as early as possible of all proposed
activities and development projects to be located in or significantly affecting the
coastal area in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. The agencies will also notify DEP
of all proposed activities or projects on federal lands which may have an impact on
water quality, air quality, noise levels, visual amenities, transportation and
infrastructure network, or the need for housing and support services in the coastal
area. The federal agency can notify DEP directly of a pending action or when

193

possible, the federal agency can use the existing State A-95 process. The notifi-
cation will include the federal agency's consistency determination for the proposed
action. The State will respond within the time designed in the regulations (15
CFR 930.41).

The following federal activities and development projects will be subject to
the federal consistency provisions:

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

-Location and design of proposed federal government property acquisition and
building construction.

-Disposal of surplus federal lands.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Army Corps of Engineers

- Proposed project authorization for dredging, channelworks, breakwaters,
other navigation works, erosion control structures, reservoirs., dams, beach
nourishment and other public works projects in the coastal zone or with the
potential to impact coastal lands and waters.

Air Force, Army and Navy

- Location, acquisition and design of new or enlarged defense installations.
Actions conducted on federal lands with potential impact on coastal lands
and waters.

U~.S- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Mangement

- OCS Leases (New Jersey reserves the right to review proposed OCS Lease Sales
when the question whether lease sales are eligible for consistency has been
resolved.)

Fish and Wildlife Service

- Management of national-wildlife refuges and proposed acquisition.

National Park Service

- National Park and seashore management and proposed acquisition.

- Preservation of historic and cultural sites.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

-Highway construction.

194

Federally Licensed and Permitted Activities

Applicants for federal licenses or permits for activities ignificntly
affecting the coastal zone shall provide to DEP a certification thatthe proposed
activity is consistent with the coastal policies. An applicant may demonstrate,
for a federally licensed or permitted activity, consistency by eceipt of an
approved CAFRA, Wetlands, or waterfront development permit.

Prior to or concurrent with submission of the application o the federal
agency, the applicant must submit to DEP the appropriate state penit application
and a detailed description of the proposed activity and associated facilities
including maps, diagrams and technical data sufficient to allow )EP to evaluate
independently the proposal's consistency. The applicant should inlude an assess-
ment relating the probable coastal zone effects of the activities and their assoc-
iated facilities to the relevant elements of the management preram. From the
assessment, the applicant should indicate how the proposed activities and assoc-
iated facilities are consistent with the management program.

DEP will circulate the list of permits and licenses which are subject to a
state consistency certification to all federal agencies. Ths will enable the
federal agency to alert all potential applicants of the neel to obtain a DEP
consistency certification. DEP will adhere to the same schedub for responding as
described for Federal Activities and Development Projects. If DEP finds the
proposal inconsistent with the Coastal Management Program, the federal agency will
not issue the requested permit or license, unless and until theproposal is revised
to eliminate the inconsistencies.

In addition to the permits and licenses listed below, DP reserves the right
to review and comment on the consistency of other federa. permit and license
applications which may significantly affect the coastal zoie. DEP will request
appropriate information on the proposal within 45 days from the notice date of the
federal application. DEP will make a consistency determination within six months
as required by federal regulation, following commencement cf review of the appli-
cation according to procedures outlined in the federal consistency regulations.
DEP will attempt to shorten this time period whenever possile.

DEP will review renewals and major amendments to federal licenses and permits
which significantly affect the coastal zone as defined b7 the federal regulations
15 CFR 930.51.

The following federal permits and licenses will te subject to the federal
consistency provisions:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Army Corps of Engineers

- Permits to regulate construction of any dam o: dike across any navigable
water of the U.S. under Section 9 of the Rivdrs and Harbor Act of 1899.

- Permit to regulate the obstruction or altera'ion of, the construction of
any structure in or over, and the excavation from or depositing of material
in any navigable water of the U.S. under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor
Act of 1899.

195

- Permits and licenses to regulate transportation of dredged material for the
purpose of dumping it in ocean waters under Section 103 of the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.

Permits and licenses for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into the
waters and adjacent wetlands of the U.S. at specified disposal sites under
Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and amend-
ments unless such permitting activity has been delegated to the State.

FEDERAl ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

- Licenses required for non-federal hyrdoelectric projects and associated
transmission lines under Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act.

- (rtificates required for the construction and operation of natural gas
ppeline facilities, defined to include both interstate pipeline and ter-
miial facilities under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act.

- Peinission and approval required for the abandonment of natural gas pipe-
lin facilities under Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act.

UgS. DEPARTMENT)F THE INTERIOR

U.S. Giological Survey

- Permiys and licenses for geological and geophysical exploration.

U&S. DEPARTMENT OS TRANSPORTATION

U.S. Coait Guard

- Permits for construction and operation of deepwater ports under the Deep-
water P(rt Act of 1974 (PL 93-627).

- Permits Wor construction of bridges under 33 USC 401, 491, 525.

Federal Avition Adminstration

- Permits aid licenses for construction, operation, or alteration of airports.

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROECTION AGENCY

- National Pillutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972.

- Decisions uider Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations
under the Clean Air Act of 1976.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 6CMMISSION

- Permits and lIcenses required for the construction and operation of nuclear
facilities under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Sections 6, 7, 8 and 10.

Uts. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Economic Regulato-y Administration

- Opinions and orders for permission for delivery of imported LNG.

196

Federally Licensed and Permitted Activities Described in OCS Plans

The 1976 Amendments to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act added Section
307(c)(3)(B), stating in part that:

it.. any person who submits to the Secretary of the Interior any plan for the
exploration or development of 3 or production from any area which has been
leased under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ... and regulations under
such Act shall ... attach to such plan a certification that each activity
which is described in detail ,in the plan complies with such state's approved
management program and will be carried out in a manner consistent with such
program."

Applicants for federal licenses or permits, described in detail in OCS explor-
ation or, development plans, which significantly affect the coastal zone must
supply to DEP a detailed description of all proposed federally licensed or per-
mitted activities and facilities for OCS activities including, but not limited to,
construction and operation of drilling platforms, other structures in navigable
waters, waste and dredged material disposals, temporary or permanent service bases,
repair and maintenance yards, steel or concrete platform fabrication yards, steel
platform or pipeline installation service bases, pipelines and landfalls, pipe
coating yards, partial processing facilities, gas processing and treatment plants,
marine terminals and tank farms, and petrochemical complexes.

DEP will review OCS plans in accord with the procedures set forth in Subpart
E of the Federal Consistency Regulations. DEP will require consistency certifica-
tion for the following:

- OCS exploration, development and production plans.

- Federally licensed and permitted activities described in detail in 005 plans
including, but not limited to:

u~s. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Army Corps of Engineers

- Permits for artificial islands and fixed structures located on the Outer
Continental Shelf under the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899 as extended by 43
U.S.C. 1333(f).

u~.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of 'Land Management

-Permits and licenses for rights-of-way for common carrier pipelines.

U.S. Geological Survey

- Permits to drill

- Permits and licenses for other post-leasing activities related to 005
exploration, development, and production will be subject to a consistency
certification (refer to section on federally licensed and permitted activi-
ties).

197

Federal Assistance to State and Local Governments

Federal assistance to state and local governments for projects significantly
affecting the coastal zone may be granted when DEP certifies that the activity will
be consistent with the coastal program. DEP will use the A-95 review process to
monitor proposed federal assistance projects in the coastal zone. The State
also reserves the right to comment on other federal assistance projects brought to
its attention through the media and other avenues.

When such monitoring indicates a potentially significant impact on the state's
coastal zone, DEP will notify the applicant agency, involved federal agencies, and
the federal Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management of its intention to
make a consistency determination and will request the applicant to provide DEP with
a consistency certification if the applicant has not included it in the application.
At that time, DEP will aslo ask the applicant agency for any additional information
necessary for the consistency determination.

DEP will notify the applicant agency and the New Jersey Department of Commu-
nity Affairs, in its role as State A-95 Clearinghouse, of its objection, if any, to
proposed projects. The Department of Community Affairs is required to forward
notification of any consistency objections to appropriate federal agencies. The
DEP comments will describe how the proposed project is inconsistent with specific
Coastal Resource and Development Policies and, where possible, will recommend
alternatives which would alleviate the inconsistencies. The DEP comments will also
refer to the appeal procedures set forth under Subpart G of the adopted NOAA
regulations on federal consistency published (15 CFR 930, Federal Register, Vol 3,
No. 49, March 13, 1978).

NJDEP will monitor state and local federal assistance applications affecting
the coastal zone including, but not limited to the following programs:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Soil Conservation Service

- Watershed protection and flood prevention, and Resource Conservation and
Development.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Economic Development Administration

-Economic Development Planning Grants, and Economic Development Grants for
Public Works and Development Facilities.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

- State Energy Conservation Program

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

- Housing Assistance Grants, Community Development Block Grant, and Section
701 Planning Assistance Grants

198

U..DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service

- Land and Water Conservation Fund

Fish and Wildlife Service

- Endangered Species Act of 1973.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

-Airport Development Aid Program

Federal Highway Administration

-Federal Aid Highway Program

Urban Mass Transportation Administration

- Urban Mass Transportation Grants

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-Air Pollution Control Program Grants, Construction Grants for Wastewater
Treatment Works, State and Interstate Program Grants for Water Pollu-
tion Control. Demonstration Projects under S 144 of the Safe Drinking Act,
and Solid Waste Facilities Program under S. 3254(b) of Solid Waste Disposal
Act

REGIONAL BENEFIT DECISIONS

The federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires that states provide a "method
of assuring that local land and water use regulations within the coastal zone do
not unreasonably restrict or exclude land and water uses of regional benefit."
(Subsection 306(e)(2)).

In New Jersey, uses of regional benefit include energy generating and distri-
bution facilities operated by public utilities (not refineries and tank farms),
water and sewer facilities, solid waste collection and disposal systems, roads and
highways, parks, housing for people with low or moderate incomes, facilities
necessary for state or national defense, and the use of wetlands and wet beach
areas.

Local governments are prevented from unreasonably excluding these uses by
one or more of three factors. The most significant factor is the State's power to
overrule a local decision denying approval to any public utility.

199

The Board of Public Utilities in the Department of Energy has broad regulatory
authority over public utilities, which comprise the bulk of the defined uses of
regional benefit. This authority includes the power to supercede local zoning laws
when necessary if the service conveniences the welfare of the public (N.J.S.A.
40:55D-19). The standard of necessity has been defined by the courts as that
service "reasonably requisite to service public convenience". (Petition of Public
Service Corordination Transport, 103 N.J. Super 505, 1968). The term public
utility includes roads, street railway, traction railway, autobus, canal, express
subway, pipeline, gas, electric light, heat power, water, oil, sewer, solid waste
collection, solid waste disposal, telephone or telegraphic system, or plant or
equipment for public use (N.J.S.A. 48:2-13). This override authority can be
applied only to projects that have received all required state approvals.

The authority of the Board of Public Utilities to override local siting
decisions can be invoked at the request of the aggrieved utility whenever "reason-
ably requisite to service public convenience". This is an effective method of
protecting uses of regional benefit from reasonable restriction or exclusion by
local governments. The agreement between NJDEP and NJDOE on the energy siting
policies and processes for resolving conflicts ensures that the coastal management
program's policies concerning uses of regional benefit will be recognized by the
Board, because the NJDOE intervention authority may be used in proceedings before
the Board.

Under the Solid Waste Management Act, (N.J.S.A. 13:lE-1 et seq.), DEP also has
authority to override the local exclusion of a solid waste facility.

Second, the State of New Jersey has the power of eminent domain for any
facilities necessary for state or national defense (N.J.S.A. 20:1-3.1), Airports
(N.J.S.A. 20:1-3.1), State highways (N.J.S.A. 27:7-44.6) and parks and open space
under the Green Acres Program (N.J.S.A. 13:8A-24).

Third, New Jersey has addressed the regional benefit provided by housing for
people with low and moderate incomes largely through the Judiciary since low and
'moderate income housing often does not provide great economic benefits to a muni-
cipality and cannot be required by a state agency. The New Jersey Supreme Court
has established in Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel, 67
N.J. 151 (1975) that municipalities must "presumptively make realistically possible
an appropriate variety and choice of housing ... at least to the extent of the
municipality's fair share of the present and prospective regional need ...". The
Department of Community Affairs is developing guidelines to implement this ruling.
A developer whose application is denied local permits to build such housing has
legal standing to appeal the denial on the grounds that the municipality has not
provided its fair share of low cost housing. A recent Superior Court decision in
New Jersey, though not in the coastal zone, has demonstrated the validity of this
technique. (Round Valley Inc. v. Clinton Township, Superior Court (January,
1978).

200

Chapter Seven: SPECIAL COASTAL RESOURCE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY REQUIREMENTS OF
THE FEDERAL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT

Introduction
Geographic Areas of Particular Concern
Areas of Preservation and Restoration

Introduction

The federal Coastal Zone Management Act contains five requirements relating- to
specific uses or areas of the coastal zone. This chapter describes how the New
Jersey Coastal Program meets the requirements for Geographic Areas~ of Particular
Concern and for Areas of Preservation and Restoration. The other three requi~re-
ments, relating to Energy Facility Siting, Shorefront Access Planning and Shoreline
Erosion Planning, were added to the Act by the Amendments enacted in 1976. New
Jersey will describe how its coastal program meets these requirements for the
entire coastal zone in its program to be submitted for the other parts of the
coastal zone; states are not required under federal law to include these elements
in a management program until after October 1978.

The New Jersey Coastal Program addresses many of the issues raised by all
five requirements in other Chapters. For this reason, the sections which follow
liberally refer the reader back to other parts of the document, particularly
Chapters Four and Five.

Geographic Areas of Particular Concern

section 305 (b)(3) of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires that
the state provide "an inventory and designation of areas of particular concern
within the coastal zone." A draft paper prepared by NOAA-OCZM (May 24, 1976)
indicates that the designation must lead to "specific recognition and action within
the framework of the management program"

New Jersey has designated Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (GAPC) on the
basis of the following three criteria:

A. Regional or state-wide significance of the area;

B. Need for special attention based on threat to the preservation of the
area or obstacles to its development consistent with the policies of the
New Jersey Coastal Program, and

C. Availability of State legal- authorities to promote desired uses of the
areas.

Using the criteria, New Jersey proposes two generic GAPCs and nine specific
CAPCs. Clearly, many other areas in the coastal zone are important, but designation
of them as GAPC's would not be meaningful or feasible, due to criteria C above.
The New Jersey Coastal Program, therefore, relies primarily upon the Coastal
Resource and Development Policies in Chapter Four and the Management System
in Chapter Five to promote the wise use of each site in the Coastal Zone Segment.

201

When DEP-OCZM asked the public to nominate areas of particular concern,
virtually every possible site in the potential coastal zone was mentioned.
DEP used the public nominations to confirm and refine the Coastal Resouce and
Development Policies. In addition, the Department distributed a report entitled
Nominated Areas of Public Concern in the New Jersey Coastal Zone to other State,
municipal, county and federal agencies. The Department is preparing a supplement
to this report describing how each nominated area is addressed by this coastal
program. Copies of both the report and the supplement are available from DEP-OCZH.

New Jersey's Geographic Areas of Particular Concern are the following:

1. All Coastal Wetlands - Wetlands are valuable to New Jersey because they serve
as natural flood controls, water purifiers, and essential nurseries for marine
creatures. (See also the rationale for the Wetlands policies in Chapter
.Four). The threat to wetlands posed by development was recognized by the
Governor and Legislature in 1970 when they enacted the Wetlands Act. This
Act has effectively reduced the average annual loss of wetlands to development
from 1900 acres to 55 acres. Under the Coastal Program, New Jersey will
continue to u'se. the Wetlands Act to preserve coastal wetlands.

The priority of uses in coastal wetlands is as follows;

(a) open Space (No development or disturbance).

(b) Development which (1) requires water access or is water oriented as
a central purpose of the basic function. of the activity, (2) has no
prudent or feasible alternative on a non-wetland site, (3) will result in
minimum feasible alteration or impairment of natural tidal circulation,
and (4) will result in minimum feasible alteration or impairment of the
natural contour of the-natural vegetation of the wetlands.

Cc) Other development has lowest priority.

2. Higbee Beach - Pond Creek Meadow Area - This unique area of 440 acres, in
Lower Township in Cape May, includes five mini-ecosystems of bayshore beaches,
dunes, wooded uplands, fields, and freshwater and tidal meadows. The area is
valued by residents of, and visitors to southern New Jersey as a place to
sunbathe and swim, and to observe wildlife. Over 200 species of birds have
been recorded in the area. The area has been threatened by repeated efforts.to
build a campground within it. New Jersey has used the CAFRA permit program
and funding from the Green Acres Program and the Endangered Species Act
administered by the Division of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries described
in Chapter Five, to protect the area exclusively for recreation and wildlife.
Figure 17 indicates that boundary of the area which has been purchased by the
State of New Jersey.

The set of uses with priority *in the Higbee Beach-Pond Creek Area includes
only recreation'compatible' with protection of the area's wildlife. All other
uses have lowest priority.

3. Wet Sand Beaches - New Jersey's 127 miles of ocean shorefront form a natural
resource which is valued directly by residents and indirectly as the mainstay
of the state's tourism industry. The wet sand beach area seaward of the mean
high water line is known as Public Trust Land and is a Geographic Area of
Particular Concern. This area is owned by the State of New Jersey unless the
State has conveyed a "riparian grant" for the tide-flowed land. In all parts

202

/ igure 17-
i~~~~~~~\;'~~~~~~~ -fba -~9 - - - ' - -.. - - -C-

inal Entrance - ---------
J,,th Jett~y Light~\~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--. .....---

-7- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~

* Lao6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6~~~t--~ -

.y Point ~ ',*l s ~I ~ \ 1

,-. _3

I ~~~--'3 HIGBEE BEACH GAPC P

.27 PROPERTY PURCHASED BY

I ~~~~~~~~~~STATE OF NEW JERSEY

\v,~&.~ SITE OF HIGBEE BEACH
CAMPSITE CAFRA PERMIT
322 ~ 2 DEN IED

~~~~ / 3�~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-~~~~~~~ ~~27

of the area, whether or not it is owned by the State, public access must be
provided for navigation, commerce and recreation, and any new development
requires a riparian "waterfront development" permit, as described in Chapter
Five.

The priority, of uses in the wet sand beaches areas is:

(a) recreation

(b) navigation and commerce

(d) all other uses have lowest priority.

In addition to the three GAPCs listed above, eight specific state-owned areas
in the coastal zone have been labelled "natural areas" under the Natural Areas
System Act of 1976, N.J.S.A. 13:lB-15.12(a) et seq., and its regulations (N.J.A.C.
7:2-11.1 et seq.). A natural area is defined as "an area of land or water which
has retained its natural character, although not necessarily completely undisturbed,.
or having rare or vanishing species of plant and animal life or have similar
features of interest which are worthy of preservation for the use of present and
future residents of the State." N.J.A.C. 7:2-11.2(A).

The Department of Environmental Protection, Green Acres Program, on July 13,
1978, designated 38 state owned areas to be preserved and managed as natural
environments. The nine areas which are in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment are
also designated GAPCs under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. Two of the
areas are parts of Island Beach State Park, an oceanfront natural barrier island.

The Natural Areas system regulations divide the areas into three types for
management purposes (7:2-11.5.B):

Class I Natural Areas: a) The Department shall manage such areas for eco-
logical research, and study. When compatible with other uses they may be
used for guided nature tours;rand b) All of Class I natural areas shall be
restricted to entry by permit or with a designated Department employee.

Class II Natural Areas: a) The Department shall manage Class II areas for the
specific purpose of interpretation, of natural processes, flora and fauna of
this State. Class II areas may be used for ecological research and study;
and b) Use of Class It areas shall be limited to interpretive purposes or
shall be restricted to entry by permit for research purposes.

Class III Natural Areas: a) The Department shall manage Class III areas for
recreational use, interpretive study, wildlife propagation, and succession
control; and b) Use of Class III shall be limited to interpretative purposes,
swimming, canoeing, rowboating, hiking, trailside camping, and recreational
hunting, fishing and trapping as provided in the natural areas system rules
and regulations.

The nine geographic areas of particular concern in the Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment, and descriptions from the Natural Areas regulations are listed below:

204

4. Cape May Point Natural Area: An area of 100 acres in Cape May State
Park, it demonstrates typical southern New Jersey sand dune and fresh-
water marsh habitats, and is a bird sanctuary. The beach area is classi-
fied type III, the rest type II.

5. Cape May Wetlands Natural Area: An area of 2,000 acres acquired through
the Green Acres program, it demonstrates the ecosystem complex of salt-
marsh habitats, and is a sanctuary for colonial nesting and migratory
birds. It is classified type III.

6. Strathmere Natural Area, Corson Inlet, Cape May County. An area of 80
acres, it demonstrates dune habitat and the erosion effect of tidal
movements confluent with outwash currents. Type 1II.

7. North Brigantine Natural Area: An area of 968 acres acquired with Green
Acres funds and adjoining the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge, it
demonstrates both sand dune and salt marsh habitats and serves as a
refuge for coastal birds. Beach area is type III, remainder type II.

8. Great Bay Natural Area, Bass River, Ocean County. An area of 330 acres,
it is a salt marsh habitat and an excellent example of New Jersey Bay
ecosystem. It is a highly productive oyster area, and is a resting area
for coastal birds. Type I.

9. Island Beach State Park: Island Beach State Park has been statutorily
recognized by the New Jersey State Legislature as is one of the few
natural expanses of barrier beach remaining along the eastern edge of
North America; that Island Beach State Park is highly valued for its
topography, flora and fauna; that Island Beach State Park serves the
citizens of this State as a unique recreational and educational resource
(N.J.S.A. 13:6-2 et seq.). This Act, requiring the park's continued
preservation, further provides that the Park "shall be preserved, main-
tained and improved in such a manner as the Division of Parks and
Forestry in the Department of Environmental Protection determines will
best perpetuate the park's present physical state.

Through state ownership of Island Beach State Park and the terms of the Law,
New Jersey will manage the entire Park as a Geographic Area of Particular Concern.
In addition, two parts of the park are designated "Natural Areas" under the Natural
Areas System Act of 1976. Permissible uses of these areas are defined more speci-
fically below:

(a) Island Beach Research Area and Wildlife Sanctuary: An area of 1,200
acres encompassing the width of Island Beach Sta te Park and running
north for 3.3 miles, it demonstrates a sand dune habitat, it is a
wildlife sanctuary, and will serve as a research area. Beach area
type III, remainder type II.

(b) Island Beach Natural Area: An area of 1,000 acres of the State
park, encompassing its width and running 3.3. miles south (excepting
maintenance area and official residence), it demonstrates dune
habitat and is a botonical preserve. Beach area type III, remainder
type 1I.

10. Swan Point Natural Area, Brick Township, Ocean County: An area of 104
acres acquired through the Green Acres program, it demonstrates salt
marsh habitat, and is a part of the Barnegat Bay ecosystem. Type 1I.

205

11. Manahawkin Natural Area: An area of 64 acres and a national natural
landmark, it demonstrates a mature bottomland hardwood forest. Type
Ill.

(Maps of designated natural areas are available from the Green Acres
Program, New Jersey, DEP, Box 1389, Trenton, N.J. 08625)

Areas of Preservation and Restoration

Section 306 (c)(9) of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires that
the state establish "procedures whereby the specific areas may be designated for
the purpose of preserving or restoring them for their conservation, recreational,
ecological or esthetic values". This is a requirement that a-process to identify
areas for preservation or restoration, rather than a list of areas themselves, be
.available to the state coastal agency.

The 'Department of Environmental Protection administers several approved
programs through which areas can be designated for preservation or restoration.
Because these programs are all in the same Department, administrative procedures
are already in place to insure their coordination with the coastal program.

Through the Green Acres Program (N.J.S.A. 13:8A-35 et seq.), DEP can purchase
land or provide grants to local governments for land purchase and park development.
The amount of money available is established by voter approved bond issues and
legislative appropriations.

The Green Acres Program also administers two other programs which provide 1)EP
with the ability to indicate concern for the preservation or restoration of an area
without the absolute certainty of success provided by land purchase. Under the
Natural Areas Systems Act (N.J.S.A. 13:lB-15.12a et seq.) described in the Geo-
graphic Areas of Particular Concern section, DEP c-an identify additional natural
areas within DEP-owned and managed. lands in need of preservation or protection and
available implementation options. The Wild and Scenic Rivers System Act, passed in
1977, requires that DEP classify, designate, and administer river areas as wild,
scenic, recreational, or developed recreational rivers. The rules and regulations
for these two programs further describe the process for designation.

The Division of, Fish, Game and Shellfisheries can apply funding available
under the federal Endangered Species Act to the preservation of species habitats
through land purchase or management. This is one of the major tools being used to
preserve the Higbee Beach -Pond Creek Geographic Area of Particular Concern.

Another procedure for the designation of areas for preservation or restor-
ation is through the ~New Jersey Register of Historic Places and the National
Register, of Historic Places. The Commissioner of DEP, as the State Historic
Preservation Officer, may approve nominations to the keeper of the National
Register of publicly or privately owned areas and sites for inclusion on the
Register. Such inclusion prohibits any federal, state, county or municipal agency
from undertaking a project which would harm the historic place, without the
approval of DEP, and, in the case of the National Register, the approval of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. These historic places are also iden-
tified as a Special Land Area in the Location Policies of Chapter Four.

206

Chapter Eight: NEXT STEPS IN COASTAL MANAGEMENT IN NEW JERSEY

Managing the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment
Completing the State's Coastal Management Program
Changing the Coastal Management Program

Managing the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment

Federal approval of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program -Bay and
Ocean Shore Segment by 1NOAA-OCZM is a major, but not the final step toward com-
pleting coastal planning.

While the Coastal Program for the Segment is completing the federal review
process, New Jersey has submitted its first Coastal Zone Management Program
Administration (Section 306) Grant Application to NOAA-OCZM. The application
defines a series of projects for the twelve months following Program approval, to
add increasingly greater specificity to the Coastal Resource and Development
Policies, as well as improved coastal awareness and monitoring of coastal deci-
sions. Greater specificity will come in part from mapping programs, and will build
upon the environmental sensitivity and development potential studies to be carried
out as part of the further development of the Coastal Location Acceptability Method
(CLAM).

DEP will also work with the NJDOE, the Attorney General of New Jersey and
NOAA-OCZM in the next year to resolve boundary issues between New Jersey, Delaware
and New York. To resolve the New Jersey-Delaware issues, DEP will work particu-
larly closely with Salem County officials and representatives of affected muni-
cipalities.

DEP also plans to explore many other possible uses of the funding available
under Program Administration Grants. A special coastal zone management grant in
the summer of 1977, for example, enabled DEP to run a Beach Shuttle to Island Beach
State Park. Similar projects might be feasible in the future. The Division of
Marine Services and the Division of Fish, Came and Shellfisheries will work with
the Mid-Atlantic Regional Fisheries Management Council to promote interstate
coordination of plans for the management of fishery resources. Specifically, DEP
will identify and establish priorities for a set of fishery management tasks
including preparation of an inventory of living coastal resources, and may then
request funding from NOAA-OCZM under the Coastal Fisheries Assistance Program.

DEP and NJDOE have received funding under the Coastal Energy Impact Program to
conduct a joint Major Energy Facility Study, to specify appropriate energy facility
development potential criteria and candidate areas for use in the Coastal Manage-
ment Program's Location Policies. DEP will also continue its analysis of coastal
land and water features and development opportunities, in cooperation with State
and local planning agencies, in order to articulate increasingly specific coastal
policies, concerning the appropriate function and character of various coastal
regions. DEP will continue the elaboration of a prospective concept of the coast
outlined in Chapter Three, providing a context for decision-making that recognizes
the appropriate and desirable differences between regions and communities of the
coast.

207

DEP will continue in its efforts to make the management system for the coastal
progran increasingly equitable-, understandable and efficient. This will involve
consideration of administrative changes such as further permit coordination and
simplification, and legislative changes such as permit consolidation, as well as
preparation of handbooks and other publications to make the permit application and
review processes more clear.

The expertise and insights of the coastal planning agencies participating in
the 1978 cooperative DEP-County Coastal Planning project is providing valuable
information for this prospective effort. The 1978 project involves three major
elements. First, the counties are responsible for reviewing the coastal management
program and recommending county-specific revisions. Second, the counties are
submitting comments and recommendations on specific coastal permit decisions
pending before DEP. Third, the counties are acting as regional coastal clearing-
houses to the public, thereby increasing public participation and promoting inter-
governmental coordination.

During the next year, DEP will also prepare a "critical resource report"
analyzing the extent to which cumulative impacts on critical coastal resources are
adequately managed, and recommending appropriate administrative or legislative
action.

At the conclusion of the county contracts in November 1978, DEP, with county
officials and othe r interested citizens, will evaluate the results and recommenda-
tions. in particular, DEP will consider the recommendations made by the counties
for future coastal activities including studies, pilot projects, and admini-
strative functions, to be funded under the Program Implementation Grant.

Lastly, the Department of the Public Advocate has strongly encouraged a
program to fund people wishing to actively participate in the permit review of
particular applications. DEP will work with the Public Advocate and other inter-
ested people to explore whether this idea would be workable and beneficial.

Completing the State's Management Program

Federal approval of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment marks a major achievement,
but the entire management program for New Jersey's coastal zone must also be
completed promptly. DEP will continue its coastal planning efforts under the
Fourth Year Coastal Zone Management Program Development Grant. In particular, DEP
will complete a major Estuarine Study to increase the specificity of the environ-
mental sensitivity factors considered in the Program's Location Policies. Also,
DEP will initiate a Development Potential Study, complementing the Estuarine Study,
by identifying the key siting factors for a wide range of coastal development
activities from the developer's perspective. The study will concentrate on the
conventional types of development that take place in the coastal zone. The results
of these projects should markedly increase the level of detail of the standards in
the Location Policies.

The second major DEP-OCZM staff-coastal planning effort in 1978, in addition
to work on the Segment, is preparation of the management program for the Delaware
Waterfront, Northern Waterfront and Hackensack Meadowlands portions of the pro-
spective coastal zone, as defined in Appendix E. Considerable coastal planning
has taken place in these more built-up, urbanized coastal regions, and many of the

208

coastal policies in Chapter Four are equally applicable to these areas. However,
detailed coastal planning in terms of the boundary, policies, and management system
will be carried out in order to prepare a draft coastal management program for the
entire state's coastal zone, incorporating the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment by
1979.

DEP's contract with coastal counties will produce results contributing to
the program for these areas since Hudson, Union, Middlesex, Camden, Gloucester and
Salem Counties are among the participants. In addition, as part of the development
of the coastal program for the Northern Waterfront area, DEP-OCZM will be under-
taking an analysis of the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission's (1-MDC)
master plan to determine consistencies with the coastal management program. The
study will help define an appropriate coastal zone boundary, based in part on water
quality, wetlands, and aerial photographic analyses.

New Jersey's Fourth Year Coastal Zone Management Program Development Grant
Application to NOAA-OCZM defines the specific tasks and budget for DEP's coastal
planning for 1978 and early 1979. DEP has requested that NOAA extend this grant
through June 1979. Copies of the grant application are available from DEP-OCZM.
If funding is available, DEP may request an additional program development grant to
complete preparation of the New Jersey coastal program.

New Jersey will follow the following timetable for preparation of the parts of
.the coastal zone outside the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and integrate these
elements into a single state-wide program.

August, 1978 DEP, with NOAA, completed Final Environmental Impact Statement
for Bay and Ocean Shore Segement, which the Governor has
submitted to the NOAA for review.

Early
September, 1978 NOAA review (Rest of timetable assumes approval.)

October, 1978 New Jersey anticipates receipt of first Program and Administra-
tion (Section 306) Grant for Bay and Ocean Shore Segment,
estimated to be $800,000 in federal funds.

December, 1978
(approx.) DEP publishes preliminary working draft, for public comment, of
Coastal Management Program for entire state, and holds work-
shops and meetings.

March, 1978
(approx.) DEP and NOAA publish Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
entire Coastal Zone and DEP and NOAA hold public meetings and
hearings.

July, 1979
(approx.) Governor submits complete State Coastal Management Program Final
Environmental Impact Statement on the Coastal Zone to NOAA.

September, 1979 New Jersey receives Program Administration Grant for entire
coastal zone, estimated to be $1.4 million.

209

Changing the Coastal Management Program

The last five years of coastal planning in New Jersey have amply demonstrated
the dynamic nature of the issues and opportunities that confront the coast.
Onshore planning for offshore oil and gas activities, sound management of barrier
islands, revitalization of all New Jersey's urban areas, including the special case
of Atlantic City, and other policy areas have moved to the top of the coastal
management agenda in 1978, but the future may bring new management needs. The
federal Coastal Zone Management Act wisely recognizes the importance of change and
flexibility and provides mechanisms for states to refine or amend approved coastal
management programs.

In the short term, changes to the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment will be con-
sidered and proposed, as appropriate, in the course of drafting. the management
program for the Delaware River, Northern Waterfront and Meadowlands regions of the
coastal zone, and integrating the boundary, policies, and management system for
those regions with the initial Coastal Program for the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment.
In the long term, New Jersey will seek federal approval, for major changes in the
management program when such changes seem imperative to maintain a responsive,
coherent, and up-to-date approved coastal management program. Any changes will be
incorporated into the Coastal Program according to NOAA regulations 923.81.
Federal consistency would not be applicable to such changes until these processes
would be completed.

210

PART IlIl

PROBABLE IMACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Introduction
Section I - Summary of Environmental Impacts
Section 2 - Summary of Socio-Economic Effects and their Associated
Environmental Impacts
A) Impacts on New Development and Land Values
B) Resorts/Recreation
C) Social Effects and their Associated Environmental Impacts
D) Institutional Impacts
Section 3 -Impacts of the Coastal Resource and Development Policies
A) Location Policies
1. Special Areas
2. Water Areas
3. Water's Edge Areas
a) Natural Water's Edge
b) Retained Water's Edge
c) Filled Water's Edge
4. Land Areas
B) Use Policies
1. Housing
2. Resort/Recreation
3. Energy
4. Public Facilities
5. Industry-Commerce
6. Ports
7. Coastal Engineering
C) Resource Policies

INTRODUCTION

.Significant environmental, social and economic impacts will result from
federal approval of the New Jersey Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. In order to
fully understand the impacts associated with federal approval, it is necessary
to evaluate the probable impact of program implementation by the State of New
Jersey. The following description of program impacts is divided into three sec-
tions. Section One summarizes the environmental impacts associated with program
approval. Section Two summarizes the socio-economic effects and their associated
environmental impacts associated with program approval. Section Three is a more
detailed analysis. of the Coastal Resource and Development Policies and their
probable impacts.

Section I - SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The DEP's regulation of activities in the Segment's coastal waters, as
strengthened by the Segment policies, will continue to minimize many of the detri-
mental environmental'effects associated with coastal development and will have a
positive long range impact on the productivity of natural resources. Dredging
activities in port areas will be conditioned to minimize possible adverse effects
on water quality and aquatic habitats. Transportation of oil and transfer of gas

211

and oil in coastal water will be conditioned to reduce the possibility, of oil
spills. Pipelines on land are specifically prohibited from being located in
sections of the Segment where routes would lead through the Pine Barrens; and
pipelines must also avoid sensitive areas where possible.

The Segment policies will facilitate protection and management of certain
natural resources of the coast, such as salt marshes, beaches, barrier islands,.
fish and shellfish spawning grounds, endangered species habitats and prime agri-
cultural land. The policies will help preserve the coast's aesthetic qualities for
public enjoyment and promote the various types of recreational opportunities
available along the shore. By preserving these valuable natural resources, Segment
policies will discourage further inappropriate development in hazardous areas which
could result in destruction of property and loss of life. Costs associated with
these policies include short term increases in construction costs for new develop-
ment and long term changes in land values depending on the level of development
considered appropriate under the Coastal Policies.

Of particular note are the policies related to wetlands, beaches and barrier
islands. In general, development is discouraged in wetlands. Some exceptions are
outlined in Chapter Four of Part 11. Dumping solid or liquid wastes and storing
pesticides on wetlands are prohibited. The benefits of preserving wetlands
accrue to the major coastal industries. Fish and shellfish industries depend
directly on wetlands which are the main support of estuarine and marine food webs
and provide spawning grounds for valuable commercial and sport species of fin and
shellf ish. Since filling is required to build in wetlands, avoiding wetlands on a
project site can reduce the development costs. Prohibiting wetlands development
reduces land available for new growth in the coastal area and reduces the value of
real estate with large areas of wetlands. However, the value of land adjacent to
wetland areas may be enhanced.

Paving and structures are prohibited on beaches unless the proposed develop-
ment is publicly funded and has no prudent or feasible alternative elsewhere. This
policy provides vital support to maintaining the recreational assets of the shore-
line. Since beaches are subject to coastal storms and erosion from offshore
currents, prohibiting development protects property as well as public health and
safety. The short term costs associated with restricting development on beaches
will be the same as those associated with the restrictions on wetlands.

Barrier islands, which are composed entirely of various Special Areas, are
identified as one of ten different regions of the coast. The policies specific to
barrier islands address the problems of the tourist industry, energy siting, and
the natural functions of the islands with their associated water bodies. The
tourist industry has produced a highly developed set of islands on which the
extensive private investments are not easily protected from the ravages of the
ocean. The policies for barrier islands prohibit construction of oil refineries,
petrochemical facilities and crude oil storage facilities on 'the islands.

Other policies relevant to the barrier islands address high risk erosion
areas, dunes, and the central Barrier Island Corridor. The first two policies
discuss the vulnerability of the islands and the need to protect them, while the
third discusses where location of uses can occur with minimal expected damage.
Also, the housing and resort/recreation sections identify desired uses on the

212

islands like water dependent uses, public access, and special Atlantic City devel-
opment. The shore protection policies attempt to protect the existing development
and non-structural land uses through dune restoration where possible and through
structural means where necessary.

The policies addressing barrier islands and dunes will apply to those develop-
ments which require a coastal program permit. The cumulative effect of small scale
development on barrier islands is not addressed by the program. However, the
program recognizes that cumulative effects could have some long term environmental
impact on barrier islands. The program will provide some control over barrier
island development.

The Segment policies are intended to preserve natural processes and resources;
however,, DEP also recognizes that the coast will continue to experience significant
new growth. Water dependent energy development, off-shore mineral mining, and port
and harbor development with their attendant dredging, spoil disposal and bulk-
heading activities will be permitted in certain locations and under certain condi-
tions. The impacts of these activities include lowering water quality, reducing
fishery productivity as a result of habitat destruction and increased water tur-
bidity, deterioration of coastal aesthetic amenities, and potential interference
with recreational uses of the beaches. Policies used for evaluating the costs and
benefits of proposed developments are designed to mitigate these impacts.

The Location Policies include a methodology for determining the acceptability
of a site for development. Implementing these policies should have a positive long
term environmental impact by preserving unique, exceptionally productive or
irreplaceable resources and assuring that development will be compatible with the
environment in which it is located. In particular, development will be restricted
in areas with a high potential to degrade water quality. The costs associated with
these policies will be a trade-off of relatively scarce coastal natural resources
for inland natural resources, which are more abundant. Thus, the location of
activities inland will require commitment of resources in other parts of New Jersey
outside the Segment.

Under the Use Policies, most types of major development located in the Segment
will be regulated by the State of New Jersey. However, the Segment leaves land use
decisions of predominantly local impact to the discretion of local governments.
For example, community character and regulation of housing development for projects
of 24 units, or less, outside of riparian lands or wetlands locations, will remain
the responsibility of local governments. Thus, residential or commercial develop-
ments that may not be detrimental individually and are not regulated by the State
could well have cumulative adverse impacts on the coastal zone. This problem is
not addressed by the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment.

The Resource Policies address prevention or mitigation of adverse environ-
mental impacts on both natural and cultural resources. Implementing these policies
should result in long term beneficial environmental impacts related to protecting
water quality and water supply, preventing the loss of prime agricultural land
through erosion, protecting air quality, protecting historic sites and other
recreational attractions, and increasing effective management of fisheries and
wildlife resources. The costs associated with these policies would include the
potential for adverse impacts on air and water quality or natural resources outside
the coastal zone as a result of shifting development pressures inland.

213

Section 2 - SUMMARY 'OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS

Within the context of a statewide coastal zone management strategy, the
New Jersey Bay and Ocean Shore Segment has been developed to conserve and protect
key renewable natural resources and recreational amenities that form the economic
base of the area. Under these policies, large scale energy production and storage
facilities, heavy industrial uses and most additional port development must'
locate outside the Segment.

Other types of new development will be encouraged to locate in the already
developed areas. Implementing the Segment policies will not reduce either develop-
ment pressures or the rate of growth in New Jersey, especially regarding housing
development. However, policy implementation may shift some development activity,
such as energy storage facilities, to more suitable inland locations. Short term
costs of energy development may increase as a result of these policies, but, over
the long term, concentrating development near existing infrastructure and away from
coastal flood prone areas will be more cost effective.

Implementing the Segment policies will improve the process for determining
coastal land and water uses, siting facilities in the national interest and for
predicting what types of development will be allowed in the coastal region.

The Segment plan concentrates development in or adjacent to developed areas
and existing infrastructure. Thus, over the long term, as land suitable for
development along the coast is committed to that development, public sector
investments in infrastructure will increasingly determine the location of new
growth in the coastal zone. The need for these investments can be anticipated and
planned for in an efficient way. Also, development may occur in higher densities
and in fewer places, reducing the long term costs for infrastructure to support
this development. Short terms costs to developers, such as land prices, may
increase.

A. Impacts on New Development and Land Values

Managing sensitive coastal resources will enhance the desirability of some
coastal areas for future development, while limiting the use of other land for
development. Property owners with land designated as acceptable for development
which is also located adjacent to protected amenities like open space, recreation
areas, or historic places will realize an increase in the value of their property.
Owners of land which include other special areas like endangered species habitat,
productive wetlands, prime agricultural land or high risk beach erosion areas may
not be able to realize the level of financial gain they had anticipated. Examples
of these patterns in New Jersey can already be seen in wetlands areas, where the
resale price of land declined markedly after passage of the Wetlands Act of 1970,
and in~ Atlantic City, where land values rose dramatically after passage of the
Casino Referendum in November 1976. Long term effects on property values are
harder to predict. For example, the value of property in areas designated for
preservation by the Segment policies may decline initially, but may later rise on
selected parcels either because of increased tourism or because acceptable develop-
ment techniques may become economically feasible.

214

Requirements to minimize environmental disruption during construction of
new developments may increase the short term costs of housing and increase infra-
structure investments. The long term benefits of avoiding construction on haz-
ardous sites and preventing shoreline erosion will be a reduction in destruction of
property and loss of life. Other long term economic benefits include maintenance.
of viable recreation, agriculture and fisheries industries in the coastal zone.

B. Resorts/Recreation

Recreation and tourism will continue to be the largest industry in the Bay and
Ocean Shore Segment of New Jersey's coastal zone and will perhaps expand as a
result of development in Atlantic City. Other industries will be located in inland
parts of the coastal zone or outside 'the Segment boundaries altogether. Single
family detached housing will continue to be common, but the Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment will have increasing numbers of cluster development which will contribute
to more efficient settlement patterns for recreational and year round use.

The ocean waterfront from Sandy Hook to Cape May will be devoted almost
exclusively to recreational uses and commercial fishing. An exception may be made
for limited areas near developed coastal areas to serve as onshore support bases
for oil and gas exploration and development of outer continental shelf resources.
The inland areas of the coastal zone nearest the ocean will continue to provide
housing and commercial services for seasonal and year round residents. Portions of
the coast further inland will accommodate housing and agricultural operations as
well as some industries.

As the Segment policies are implemented, some of the benefits will be immedi-
ately visible, such as a halt in the indiscriminate high-rise construction along
the Atlantic Ocean shoreline. Other changes will occur over a longer period of
time, but will ultimately have greater benefits for recreational uses of the shore,
such as improved water quality to permit resumption of swimming in areas currently
designated as unsuitable for water contact sports, and reduction of condemned
shellfish areas. In addition to the land value changes discussed above, imple-
menti.ng policies in the Segment will have other costs related to recreational
development. There will be a need for public infrastructure investments for
transporting people to and from recreation areas., providing water and sanitary
facilities and maintaining the land and facilities under the pressures of increased
public use.

C. Social Effects and their Associated Environmental Impacts

Several Segment policies require that public and private developments provide
both physical and visual access to the shorefront. Use policies related to
transportation address the need for alternatives to automobile dependence in
.coastal areas. Also, clustered facilities, which are encouraged in the program,
are more amenable to public transportation than scattered development. The cumula-
tive benefits of these policies will be to open more coastline for public use and
to provide better access to it with less public cost for infrastructure such as
roads and parking facilities. The costs associated with these policies include the
potential for overuse of some shore areas and an increase in public costs for
maintenance of the beaches, water and sanitary facilities to accommodate more
users.

215

Policies requiring barrier free design for large scale housing developments
and beach access pathways will have long term benefits for handicapped persons and
residual benefits for society by increasing their productive participation in the
economy. Short term increases in construction costs to provide these facilities
will also be an impact'of implementing this policy.

Policies which encourage development of campgrounds in appropriate locations
will offer the benefit of low cost shelter for families who otherwise might not be
able to vacation within the coastal area as well as a residual benefit to the
coastal economy. Costs associated with these policies include the potential for
overuse of natural areas opened for recreation and increases in local public
investments for maintenance of infrastructure and campground facilities.

D. Institutional Impacts

The use of federal money in the program will allow the state to provide:

- Implementation of the new policies in Chapter 4 promulgated as rules and
regulations of DEP
- Greater enforcement of existing regulations
- increases in the permit staff of programs comprising the BOSS program
- Increases in technical studies on coastal processes
- Federal consistency
- New equipment to managing coastal resources

Adjusting to the new regulations may cause some temporary delays in permit
review and program development. In the long run, however, coastal regulatory and
management decisions should be made more efficiently and with better coordination
among state agencies. All agencies within DEP will be required to act consistently
with the coastal program. This should lead to better and more consistent expendi-
ture of state funds in the coastal zone. Improvements in the decision-making
process which will reduce the time for permitting and licensing procedures will
have positive long term environmental and economic impacts to both state and local
governments land private industry.

Section 3 - IMPACTS OF THE COASTAL RESOURCE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES

The Coastal Resource and Development Policies form a three-stage screening
process designed to increase the predictability of coastal decision-making.
The policies are based on the three key regulatory authorities - CAFRA, the Wet-
lands Act, and the riparian statutes, as well as the Shore Protection Program.
This discussion is divided into three parts to coincide with the three-stage
screening process. (See Part II, Chapter Four for greater detail on this process).

A. Location Policies

One of the basic goals of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment policies is to aid
decision makers in determining the acceptability of locations for development.
The location policies were developed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages
of sites for development, and to determine the types and intensities of development
suitable for a site.

Basically, the method integrates an analysis of the natural and cultural
features of a coastal area site along with its growth and development potential.
The system is generally outlined as follows:

216

1. Identify and map site and surrounding region.

2. Identify and map Spe cial Areas.

3. Identify and map Water Areas.

4. Identify and map Water's Edge Areas.

5. Identify and map Land Areas.

6. Determine Location Acceptability

a. Identify coastal region in which site is located.
b. Determine development potential and environmental
sensitivity of the site.
C. Consult land acceptability table.
d. Compare proposed intensity with acceptable intensity.

7. Make the decision on the project.

This process works within the framework of the Location Policies which address the
Special, Water, Water's Edge and Land Areas of the ocean and bay area of New Jersey
discussed below.

1. Special Areas

These are land and water areas with a resource value so great that special
policies are merited. These areas are listed below:

Shellfish Beds Central Barrier Island Corridor
Surf Clam Areas Historic Places
Prime Fishing Areas Specimen Trees
Finfish Migration Pathways White Cedar Stands
Submerged Vegetation Endangered or Threatened Wildlife
Navigation Channels or Vegetation Species Habitat
Shipwrecks and Artificial Reefs Critical Wildlife Habitats
Marine Sanctuaries Public Open Space
Beaches Steep Slopes
Coastal Wetlands Farmland Conservation Areas
High Risk Beach Erosion Areas Bogs and Freshwater Wetlands
Dunes Ephemeral Stream Corridor
Special Hazard Areas Excluded Federal Lands
Borrow Pits

Location of any development in these areas is discouraged if the development
would harm the special values associated with these areas. Most of these special
areas have unique properties or provide basic needs of the fishing and recreation
industries which require protection. They are described in more detail in Chapter
Four of Part II.

If all the areas listed in the Segment functioned within their assessed
resource capacity, the waterways would be corridors of vegetation, wildlife, and
water, with limited, concentrated development for water dependent uses; the land
prime for farming in contiguous acreages would grow food; the dunes would be

217

preserved or restored to enable them to protect beaches and inland areas against
the storms; unique places would remain undisturbed; and food-producing water areas
would be managed for increased productivity and recreation.

Protection of special natural and cultural resources will have positive
environmental, economic and social benefits depending on the resource protected.
The costs and tax loss resulting from non-development of an area will be shared by
the developer and the local municipality in the short-term, but the long-term
cumulative gain by protection and enhancement of the resources should offset the
immediate loss.

2. Water Areas

Within the Coastal Location Acceptability Method, various types of water
areas are identified:

Ocean Man-Made Harbor
Open Bay Large River
Semi-Enclosed Bay and Back Bay Medium Rivers, Creeks and Streams
Intermittent Streams Inland Basins
Guts Inleti
Canals

Specific policies address certain water uses and are incorporated on a Water
Acceptability Table which indicates whether a use is prohibited, discouraged,
conditionally acceptable, encouraged or impractical within the type of water area.
Policies sensitive to resource protection and development potential specify condi-
tions for acceptability and govern the following uses:

Aquaculture Piling
Boat Ramps Mooring
Retaining Structures Sand and Gravel Extraction
Bridges Cable Routes
Docks and Piers Overhead Transmission Lines
Dredging - Maintenance Pipeline Routes
Dredging - New Dams and Impoundments
Dredged Spoil Disposal Pipes
Dumping (Solid Waste or Sludge) Miscellaneous
Filling

The conditions are discussed in detail in Part II, Chapter Four. Short and
long term environmental, economic and social benefits should be derived from these
policies by the protection of productivity of marine flora and fauna and their
sensitivity to the importance of water quality. The short term costs to developers
or units of government should be offset by the long termi gains.

3. Water's Edge Area

a) Natural Water's Edge

In general, development within the jurisdiction of the Segment is prohibited
in Natural Water's Edge Areas. (Exceptions are outlined in Chapter Four of Part
II.) This area includes contiguous, undisturbed land and water features, marine
wetlands and beaches. It is one of the most sensitive parts of the coastal
ecosystem. When left undeveloped the area serves several important functions. It

218

can act as a buffer which would provide natural water purification to protect
surface water quality from the adverse effects of erosion, and contaminated surface
runoff. The vegetation provides stream channel stabilization by reducing bank
erosion, thereby preserving water quality. These zones also provide natural flood
control by reducing the variations in water flow during heavy rains thereby reduc-
ing property loss. Other benefits include detritus production which is the base of
estuarine food webs, provision of habitat for wildlife, and provision of open space
greenways for public recreation. The costs are the same as those for not develop-
ing wetlands.

b) Retained Water's Edge

Development is acceptable in Retained Water's Edge Areas providing that it
is either water dependent or is proposed for public recreation or resort use.
Certain conditions for uses in Retained Water's Edge Areas are outlined in Chapter
Four, Part 11. This policy will have long term positive environmental, economic
and social benefits by restricting uses that would not be water dependent and
reserving the water's edge for public recreation.

c) Filled Water's Edge

Filled Water's Edge Areas occur when existing filled areas lie immediately
adjacent to Water or Natural Water's Edge Areas. Development of these areas along
water bodies is generally discouraged except under certain conditions outlined in
Chapter Four of Part TI. Filled land areas adjacent to Water Areas represent
potential problems in water quality so the policy to assure their sound management
represents a positive environmental impact.

4. Land Area

The specific location policies regarding Land Areas are based upon the deter-
mination of the acceptability of a site for the proposed development. Development
acceptability is determined by analyzing the soils, vegetation and other accepta-
bility factors, along with the regional growth and development considerations which
dictate the most suitable areas to build. The policies encourage consolidation of
growth within the limits of existing public facilities. These policies should have
numerous beneficial impacts as well as certain adverse impacts. The benefits
include reduced pressure for development of outlying critical environmental
resources, such as wetlands and flood plains; possible preservation of open space
and agricultural land; revitalization of urban or community centers; improved
efficiency of prior public investments; and improved energy efficiency. For
example, air and water quality may be degraded if too many industrial sources of
pollution are concentrated in one area or if clustering does not reduce vehicular
use.

The Program's policies, including those relating to public investments, are
not expected to reduce the rate of development in the coastal zone. However, it is
expected that new development will be concentrated to at least some degree in
already developed areas. As a result, while some landowners may receive unexpected
profits, others might receive smaller profits from commercial or residential
development than they might otherwise have received.

-2 19

Conformance to the standards which outline the allowable intensity of use
will have long and short term positive impacts by protecting and conserving the
land resource in question and the surrounding areas, especially by minimizing
development in areas where impacts on surface or groundwater may degrade coastal
water quality.

B. Use Policies

Use policies describe how decisions will be made for various types of develop-
ment permits. Decisions will be made to prohibit, discourage, conditionally
accept, accept, or encourage a use. The criteria for determining the acceptability
of a proposed use are described in detail in Chapter Three of Part II and sum-
marized below.

(1) Housing

The Bay and Ocean Shore Segment policies will control decisions on all new
development of 25 or more dwelling units and on all housing in coastal wetland and
riparian areas. Housing managed by the program will be located and constructed to
minimize disruption of coastal environmental resources. Most new housing will be
located within or close to existing developed areas. Housing developments of
greater than 250 units must include barrier free public space and some barrier
free units to accommodate handicapped persons. New high rise housing will be
constructed only where it will be in character with surrounding transitional
heights and residential densities. Near the water's edge, high rises will be
constructed only if they can provide the public physical and visual access to the
water and avoid casting shadows on the beach areas. New development involving
construction of lagoons, or other bulkheading, or the filling or dredging of
wetlands is prohibited.

The Segment policies also encourage, but do not require, certain other housing
considerations: clustering dwelling units; constructing housing for low and
moderate income families, providing for the needs of senior citizens by locating
housing near services such as shops and health care facilities and locating housing
on sites suitable for public transportation, and providing on-site energy generation
from sun and wind.

The impacts of the housing policies can best be seen from the pattern of past
decisions under CAFRA. In the four years from September 1973 through September
1977, CAFRA permit decision on 95 proposals used many of the policies contained in
the Segment program. Eighty proposals for a total of 13,314 units were approved,
while 15 proposals for 3,309 units were denied. Many of the approvals were contin-
gent on meeting specified conditions. Since the passage of the Wetlands Act in
1970, twelve residential Wetland permit applications have been approved for a total
of 134 units, 9 have been withdrawn by the applicants and none have been denied.

The policies regarding concentration of development and barrier free design
were not in effect before September 1977, and can be expected to alter the location
and design of new housing developments.

The housing policies reinforce the location policies in preserving open
space by encouraging concentrated development. Other benefits include preserving
shorefront views and water access which increase the attractiveness of the coastal
area for recreation. The prohibitions on certain types of development may limit

220

the number of new housing units in the coastal area which would increase the price
of housing. This cost should be offset by the policy encouraging construction of
low and moderate income housing.

The Segment policies will not regulate housing developments of less than 25
units except in coastal wetland and riparian areas. Adverse impacts could result
over the long term if developers choose to build in increments of 24 units. The
costs would be uncontrolled sprawl development with its attendant water quality
problems, destruction of special land and water areas, and increases in demand for
public services. The local governments must bear the major responsibilty for
ensuring that these impacts do not occur as a result of their decisions. The
secondary impact analysis required for the construction of roads and utilities, as
well as the resource policies, will also help to control cumulative impacts.

(2) Resort/Recreation

The Bay and Ocean Shore Segment indirectly manages the use of some land for
recreation through its direct authority over facilities regulated under CAFRA and
its coordination with funding decisions made under the Green Acres Program.

Under Segment policies, more waterfront land will be allocated for recrea-
tional use. No new development regulated by CAFRA, the Wetlands Act or riparian
statutes will block visual or physical access to the water. In addition, new
residential and industrial development will include recreational use areas whenever
possible. New amusement and theme parks will be limited. Dredging to maintain
existing navigation channels will be encouraged. New marinas for recreational
boating will be allowed if the demand cannot be met by expanding existing facili-
ties, in which case the new marinas will be adjacent to existing waterfront
development. Campgrounds will be prohibited from locating in sensitive areas
defined by the Location Policies or in areas which would contribute to traffic
congestion and air pollution. All resort/recreation facilities are required to be
consistent with the Resource Policies.

The benefits of these policies are related to concentrating new recreational
development in already developed areas. In addition to preserving open space and
natural habitat, the costs for public services and infrastructure investments can
be kept to a lower level so the costs to year round residents of expanding recrea-
tional uses of the coastal zone may be offset by the economic benefit of bringing
more tourists into the area. Impacts of water runoff from roads and parking lots,
disposal of dredge spoil, air quality degradation and local costs for wastewater
treatment facilities can be reduced by concentrating recreational activities in
already developed areas. The policies also provide the long term benefit of
preserving public access to the water. The costs associated with these policies
are related to imposing limits on the use of waterfront land. Private land owners
may not realize the economic gains from development or resale of their land they
had anticipated as a result of implementing these policies. As use of facilities
increases, the concentration may lead to further air quality problems. In addition,
costs of maintaining the public areas will increase with increased use; these costs
must be borne by the communities where the facilities are located. These communi-
ties are usually the ones which also realize the economic benefit of tourism.

221

(3) Energy

The Segment policies direct the location of major energy development and
production facilities and their support facilities, such as storage tanks and
construction yards, to already built up areas outside the Segment area to protect
the environmental and recreational values of the bay and ocean shore region. Only
marine terminals and pipeline landfalls which are coastal-dependent, and gas
processing plants and pumping stations, which may need to be sited in the coastal
zone for technical and economic reasons, will be permitted. Crude oil refineries
are prohibited from barrier islands and liquified natural gas (LNG) storage tanks
can be built only at sites remote from concentrations of human population. Since
existing refineries have unused capacity and New Jersey has five of the ten refin-
eries in the region, requests for new refinery permits are not anticipated,
although gas processing is a possibility. The DEP and New Jersey Department of
Energy will both review applications for new facilities to ensure they are also
consistent with the state energy master plan, being developed to direct orderly
growth to the most suitable sites.

Pipelines and associated facilities will be subject to a number of conditions.
Since New Jersey has 40 percent of the oil refineries and storage facilities in the
region, the number of pipeline corridors will be limited and must be located along
existing rights-of-way whenever possible. New pipeline corridors will be routed to
avoid undeveloped areas and will be prohibited from locating in certain parts of
the Pine Barrens.

Tanker terminals will be encouraged to locate in either the New York/New
Jersey port or the Camden/Philadelphia port where induced growth and new support
facilities can be accommodated. Location of terminals will be discouraged from
other parts of the coast.

Since there are six nuclear facilities existing or under consideration in the
Segment, no further facilities will be approved until DEP and the Department
of Energy have had time to investigate the feasibility of alternative energy
production methods. Location of fossil fuel stations will be discouraged in
Special Areas and environmentally sensitive areas.

Concentrating major, energy facilities inland of the coastal region will benefit
both the coastal environment and the inland employment centers which have a ready
work force. Resort areas would be unable to provide schools, hospitals, fire and
police protection and other public services to the influx of population associated
with energy development, while these services are already in place in many inland
urbanized areas. The cost is that of trading off protecting natural resources in
the coastal area at the expense of potential loss of natural resources inland.
Other environmental costs, such as water quality and air quality degredation
associated with energy facility development, will be borne by inland communities.

(4) Public Facilities

New and improved public transportation and related facilities will be encour-
aged. Bike and footpaths as well as fishing catwalk construction are encouraged.
Transportation facilities will be prohibited if they block physical or visual
access to the waterfront. These policies should have positive long-term and social
impacts by fostering alternative transportation and by making the coast more
accessible to a greater number of people.

222

Public utili ties, such as sewer lines and railroads, will be allowed in
environmentally and culturally sensitive areas provided that special impact control
measures are used assuring that these facilities do not create short or long term
negative impacts.

(5) Industry-Commerce

Industrial or commercial development is encouraged at or adjacent to existing,
sites. Marine resource dependent industry, particularly commercial fishing has
priority over other waterfront uses. The small amount of land available for
industrial development and the sensitive land and water features of the Bay and
Ocean Shore Segment provide the basis for a restrictive industry-commerce policy.
However, new and expanded light industrial parks and waterfront fish processing
activities are recognized as desirable uses at appropriate locations.

(6) Ports

Port related development and marine commerce will be located adjacent to
already developed waterfront areas, and will be allowed only when a need is
demonstrated. Non-water dependent development shall be allowed only if water
dependent marine commerce uses are not pre-empted. Dredging of existing navigation
channels will continue to take place as necessary, and dredging elsewhere will
occur only in selected situations where the bottom disturbance is acceptable.
Subaqueous disposal is generally discouraged.

By concentrating port development and controlling dredging activity, positive
long term environmental impacts will accrue by preserving marine life and the
undeveloped coastline. Long term economic and social benefits will be derived by
the concentration of marine commerce in high employment and industrial areas.

(7) Coastal Engineering

Coastal engineering includes a variety of structural and non-structural
measures to manage water areas and the shoreline. Shoreline erosion and sand and
sediment movement are problems addressed in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. The
Segment's policies give preference to non-structural rather than structural solu-
tions to shoreline erosion problems. Non-structural measures recognize the inevi-
tability of the ocean's advancement and the migration of barrier islands. However,
the program's policies recognize that the short term benefit of structures to
protect the intense recreational use of New Jersey's oceanfront must be balanced
against the costs of trying to perpetually control the natural and inevitable
forces of the ocean.

The Bay and Ocean Shore Segment policies encourage dune restoration and
beach nourishment projects. Construction of new shore protection structures,
including jetties, groins, and seawalls is acceptable under certain conditions
listed in Chapter Four, Section Two. Because of the existing pattern of urbani-
zation of New Jersey's shoreline, structural solutions to shore protection are
essential and appropriate.

C. Resource Policies

The Resource Policies stand in partners hip with the Location and Use Policies
previously discussed -- a third filter through which a permit application must
pass. They form a body of policies which serve as performance standards, designed

223

to mitigate the adverse impact of coastal development on the natural and built
environment and thus, taken as a whole, have positive long and short term imipacts
on the environment. In many instances, negative economic impacts will fall on the
party who must pay for the added protective measures. Very often the developer
pays, but equally as often the cost is passed on to the consumer. By encouraging a
more healthful and viable environment', these policies should have positive social
benefits.

Policies which address the problem of soil erosion and sedimentation and run-
off call for development to control the adverse impacts to the maximum extent
practicable by adherence to specified performance standards. The need to protect
ground and surface water is articulated. Coastal development must conform with all
applicable effluent and ambient air quality and deterioration standards. Vegetated
and other types of buffer must be provided to protect sensitive natural features,
screen impacts and separate incompatible uses. Design which considers energy
conservation is encouraged. Where practical, solid waste should be recycled.

Flora and fauna are protected by the policies calling for the preservation
of existing vegetation, and for the planting of new vegetation appropriate to the
site area where development occurs. To protect habitats and spawning areas,
coastal development shall incorporate techniques which preserve wildlife and
maintain diversity of species.

Public and private actions and developments adjacent to coastal waters must
provide for public access (both physical and visual) to the shorefront. This
policy has beneficial social impacts as it assures public access to the shorefront
and prevents exclusionary practices. In the short-term land owners who must
forfeit desired building dimensions will experience negative economic impacts. in
the long run, however, increased access and the overall enhancement of the environ-
ment created by the Segment policies will increase property values.

The visual compatibility of new development sensitive to scenic resources
and design in terms of scale, height, materials and color is stressed. The protec-
tion of historical and cultural resources is called for. Measures taken to protect
these values will result in positive social and economic impacts by preserving the
integrity of the built environment and the cohesiveness of the area's heritage.
The short term negative economic impacts will be offset in most cases by increased
property values, and by commercial and residential interest in areas as well as
by the multiplier effect that restoration activity generates. Development is
encouraged that protects the special features of neighborhoods and communities.

The probable secondary impacts of a development will be considered along with
the proposed development itself.

224

PART IV

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION

This Part describes the five most likely reasons the Assistant Administrator
might deny or delay program approval, as well as the five most likely State
alternatives to submitting the proposed program. In order to determine the
full implications of these alternatives, the reader should consider the impacts
described under each Federal alternative.

The proposed action is Federal approval of the New Jersey Coastal Management
Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. The essential alternative to be considered
by the Assistant Administrator is whether to approve the Segment. He must determine
whether or not to approve the Segment as submitted. Iri-deciding whether to approve_--
the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment he must -determine whether the Program meets the
requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act as specified in the twenty-six-
findings needed for Program approval. This determination ultimately requires that
.discretion be used in interpreting the intent of Congress as expressed in the Act.
This environmental impact statement and public comments are intended to assist the
Assistant Administrator in deter-mining the adequacy of the proposed program.

A variety of alternatives are available to the State, represented by all
possible amendments to the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment that might be adopted.
Clearly, however, the alternatives that will be considered by the State will depend
on what action is taken by the Assistant Administrator. In particular, if the
Assistant Administrator delays or denies approval the State will be required to
consider a wide range of options. If the Segment is approved, the State is unlikely
to consider alternatives to Program implementation.

These Federal and State alternatives could be carried out in several different
ways. As indicated, Federal approval would probably lead to implementation of the
Segment under Section 306. On the other hand, a decision by the Assistant Admini-
strator not to approve the Segment as submitted could lead New Jersey to withdraw
from the Federal Program and wait to submit an entire State Coastal Zone Management
Program.

A. FEDERAL ALTERNATIVES

1. The Assistant Administrator could delay or deny approval if the State
does not have the authority necessary to implement the Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment at the time of segment approval.

The Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management has made an initial determina-
tion that the authorities that will be in place at the time of Segment approval
will be adequate to carry out the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment management program
and meet the objectives of the CZMA. This impact statement solicits the views of
the public and affected government agencies on the specific issues outlined below.

The Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) 'of 1973 (N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 et
seq.) is New Jersey's major coastal law. In CAFRA, the Legislature entrusted th~e
Department of Environmental Protection with the responsibility to regulate the
location and construction of housing developments of 25 or more units and most

225

major industrial, sewer and energy producing facilities in a defined "Coastal Area'"
stretching from Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook to Cape May and from Cape May to the
Delaware Memorial Bridge. The inland boundary established by the Legislature
varies from several thousand feet to 24 miles. This coastal area includes 17
percent of the land and more than 75 percent of the-waters in New Jersey, including
coastal waters out to the three mile limit of the State's jurisdiction in the
Atlantic Ocean. Other relevant laws that apply include the Wetlands Act, Riparian
Statutes and Shore Protection Statutes.

If the Assistant Administrator determines that these authorities were not
adequate to meet the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act, he could
delay or deny approval until the State 1) submitted the entire State program,
2) unified through legislation the Wetlands Act, Riparian Statutes and CAFRA, or
3) waited until new legislation was passed for the entire coastal zone of New
Jersey.

The implications of this alternative include a delay in Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment implementation, no increase in Federal funds for New Jersey under Section
306, and the possibility that Federal actions affecting the New Jersey Segment
might be inconsistent with the policies of the Segment. Therefore, under this
alternative, the monetary and Federal consistency benefits of Federal approval
would be deferred for some period of time. Improved environmental protection
anticipated under a Federally approved program would not be achieved as rapidly.
Momentum for effective protection of the State's coastal resources, gained through
preparation of this Bay and Ocean Shore Segment might be lost.

2. The Assistant Administrator could delay or deny approval of the New
Jersey Bay and Ocean Shore Segment if the segment does not adequately achieve
the goals of the Coastal Zone Management Act as expressed by Congress in
Section 303 of the Act.

Section 303 of the Coastal Zone Management Act states that it is national.
policy

"..to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone
giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic and esthetic
values as well as to needs for economic development."

The initial determination of approval on this issue was based on the policies
adopted pursuant to this program regarding housing, major facility policies,
recreation, performance standards and case law under CAFRA (i.e. Toms River Condo-
minium high rise case CA #P73-003 decided July 10, 1974, CAFRA Opinion No. 1).

The majority of visual and cultural concerns are left to the discretion of
local governments if they do not involve major facilities as defined by CAFRA.
However, the Department of Environmental Protection will have a direct role in
determining the visual aspects of the New Jersey coast by precluding certain major
facilities in some areas, while encouraging development in other areas.

The implications of selecting this alternative include a delay in Segment
implementation, no increase in Federal funds for New Jersey under Section 306, and
the possibility that Federal actions affecting the New Jersey coast might be
inconsistent with the policies of the Segment. Therefore, under this alternative,
the monetary and Federal consistency benefits of Federal approval would be deferred
for some period of time. Improved environmental protection anticipated under a
Federally approved coastal program would not be achieved as rapidly.

226

3. If the national interest in the siting of facilities in the Bay and
Ocean Shore Segment were not adequately considered, the Assistant Admini-
strator could delay or deny approval of the Program Segment.

The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act states that prior to granting approval
of a segmented management program the Secretary shall find "the segmented management
program provides for adequate consideration of the national interest involved in
planning for, and in the siting of, facilities (including energy facilities...)
necessary to meet requirements which are other than local in nature."

Chapter Four of the revised program document will serve as the process for
balancing the national interests in the coastal zone, through the use of the three
step decision process outlined in the program. The Commissioner of DEP has inter-
preted the "public welfare" clause of CAFRA (C13:19-10f) to include a full con-
sideration of the national interest as desct-':L-ed in the-program. In addition, in.-
the MOU between DEP and DOE, the Department of Energy has interpreted its mandate
"to contribute to the proper siting of energy facilities necessary to serve the
public interest" (Section24:27F-2) as sufficient authority to consider the national
interests in the siting of coastal energy facilities.

No major facility is excluded from the coast through the CAFRA permit appli-
cation program However, each facility must be consistent with the policies and
performance criteria established by the Department of Environmental Protection.
If it is shown that New Jersey has not adequately considered the national interests
in the planning for and siting of facilities which are other than local in nature,
then the Assistant Administrator could delay or deny the Program.

This Federal alternative could result in a delay in Program implementation,
loss of Federal funding that would otherwise be available, and allow Federal
actions in the coastal zone to be inconsistent with the management program.

4. The Assistant Administrator could deny or delay approval of the Bay and
Ocean Shore Segment if the Segment could not be unified with the entire State
program.

This alternative would encompass a finding by the Assistant Administrator
that a delay in Segment approval was necessary until it was unified into the entire
State program, so that all necessary authorities were in place.

The Assistant Administrator could find that the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment
could not be unified - into the entire State program due to a lack of adequate
authorities outside the Segment area.

15 CFR 923:61 outlines the requirements for approval as a segment under the
CZMA. Each segment of a management program must demonstrate that:

(1) The segment includes a geographic .area on both sides of the coastal
land water interface;

(2) A timetable and budget have been established for the timely completion of
the remaining segment(s); and

227

(3) The State will exercise policy control over each segment of its manage-
ment program prior to and following its integration into a complete State
management program. Demonstration of this control will include (i)
completion of the management boundary determination for the entire
coastal zone throughout the State and (ii) consideration of the national
interest throughout the State's entire coastal zone in the planning for
the siting of facilites cited in S 923.52.

If it was shown that the program has not met the requirements of 923.61, the
Assistant Administrator could deny or delay the program.

The three primary impacts of a negative decision would be that New Jersey
would not receive necessary funds to implement the Program; Federal consistency
would not apply to Federal agencies' activities in the coastal zone; and national
interest would not be taken into account. .

In addition some delay in Program implementation would occur; the length of
the delay would depend on the type of Program deficiency that was found and the
types of remedial action taken by the State.

5. The Assistant Administrator could delay formally approval for the BOSS
Program under the requirements of Section 305(d).

This alternative would encompass a finding by the Assistant Administrator that
the entire State program could receive preliminary approval under Section 305(d).
This finding would include a determination that:

(1) The program will be sufficiently developed, designed and described to
warrant consideration for preliminary approval at the time described;

(2) There are elements of the State's management program eligible for imple-
mentation funding as part of preliminary approval;

(3) The content and detail of the EIS which must accompany the State's pre-
liminary approval submission; and

(4) And EIS will be necessary prior to granting preliminary approval.

15 CFR 923.74(f) does not allow segments to receive preliminary approval
under Section 305(d) of the CZMA. However, the Assistant Administrator could find
that the entire State was eligible for section 305(d) funding and provide this
funding until a unified State program was submitted for approval.

The positive impacts of this alternative would be that, 1) management for the
Segment program would not be delayed, and 2) the entire State program would be
submitted as a unified document.

The negative impacts of this decision would be 1) loss of Federal consistency
review under an approved segment, 2) reduction in the amount of funding available
to the State between FY 78 and FY 79, in both Section 305 and 306 funding.

228

B. STATE ALTERNATIVES

1. The State would withdraw its application and not seek Federal assistance.

The State could withdraw its application and not seek Federal assistance.
The Department of Environmental Protection would continue to manage that area of
the New Jersey coast under its regulatory jurisdiction. The State has spent $1.2
million in Federal money in preparation of its State coastal zone management
program. Without Federal assistance, the DEP would continue to operate the coastal
program but at reduced funding levels. The State under this alternative would rnot
be subject to Federal regulations in the management of the Segment...

The coastal management efforts in New Jersey began prior to the passage of the
Coastal Zone Management Act and will contift-cr&- even 'if-.Federal approval is not-:
received. However, the State would not receive (1) Federal money to assist in the
day to day management of the program. (2) the provisions of the Federal consistency
section of the Coastal Zone Management Act and (3) loan guarantees and credit
assistance to help mitigate onshore impacts of outer continental shelf development.
Federal funding support will greatly help in the DEP's implementation of the
Segment.

2. The State could wait to submit the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment as part
of the entire State Coastal Program.

The State could wait until 1979 to submit a unified State coastal zone
management program including the areas outside CAFRA jurisdiction, along the
Delaware River and in Northern New Jersey and the area under the Hackensack Meadow-
lands Development Commission. Section 306(h) allows a state to submit a segment of
the management program as long as it is consistent with the state's coastal program.
This will allow Section 306 funds to be used in managing the Bay and Ocean Shore
portion of the coastal zone. Tasks for this area have been completed under
Section 305, and the State can now implement the policies and plans in this region
of the coast. The negative impact of this alternative include: (1) the State will
lose Section 305 funding by December, 1978, and (2) the effects of federal con-
sistency would not apply to this critical area of the state.

3. The State could wait until new legislation is passed combining the
three key coastal laws.

The State could submit legislation recodifying the present Wetlands Act,
Riparian Statutes and CAFRA into one unified Act. This alternative might eliminate
any conflicts which might develop between these three Acts. The negative impacts
include: (1) the uncertainty of legislative action and (2) the State will lose
Section 305 funding by December, 1978.

4. The State could diminish the CAFRA boundary and then submit a segmented
management program.

The area under CAFRA permit jurisdiction was established by the New Jersey
Legislature in 1973 on the basis of the location of coastal resources. (See
Appendix E).

229

A change in this boundary would require that an amendment be passed by the
Legislature. Depending on its formulation, such a change might not meet the
requirements of the CZMA for federal approval of a State program.

5. The State could seek legislation delegating authority for major facility
siting in the coastal zone to the local governments.

The State could seek legislation which would delegate authority for major
coastal facilities to local governments. The coastal program could wait until this
legislation was passed and then submit an expanded program. The 'Legislature chose
in 1973 not to delegate this authority to local governments, but to give this
authority to the DEP.

23 0

PART V

PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH
CANNOT BE AVOIDED

The probable effects of New Jersey Bay and Ocean Shore Segment implementation
will, on the whole, be environmentally beneficial. However, there will probably be
a number of adverse impacts to both the natural and socio-economic environments
which cannot be avoided.

Numerous adverse impacts will continue to be associated with the siting of
major facilties for purposes of defense, transportation, energy requirements and
others in which both the State and Federal governments have interest. The Program
makes provisions for consideration of the sIting of facilities which are in th..
national interest. It is important to note, however, that under the federal Coastal
Zone Management Act and related Federal Acts (e.g., National Environmental Policy
Act), each such project will be evaluated as to the impacts on the natural coastal
environment. That is, investigations will be made, alternatives considered,
etc.

231

PART VI

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM, USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT
AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TEMM PRODUCTIVITY

While approval of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean
Shore Segment will restrict some local, short-term uses of the environment, it will
also provide long-term assurance that the natural resources and belief its provided
by the Bay and Ocean Shore Region will be available for future use and enjoyment,
by more effectively administering existing resource protection laws.

The New Jersey Bay and Ocean Shore Segment does the following:

A. Short-Term Uses

1. Does not prohibit future development but encourages medium-high
intensity growth to occur in existing developed areas or areas
contiguous to them.

2. Recognizes that some energy facilities and coastal-dependent devel-
opments have adverse environmental consequences, but that they may
still have to be located in the coastal zone to protect'the inland
environment as well as help provide for orderly economic develop-
ment, and meet national interest.

B. Long-Term Usesq

1. Recognizes the coastal zone as a delicately balanced ecosystem.

2. Establishes a process of balanced management of coastal resources.

3. Allows growth to continue while protecting key resources.

4. Provides for a framework which can protect regional State and
national interests by assuring the maintenance of the long-term
productivity and economic vitality of coastal resources necessary
for the well-being of the public, and to avoid long-term costs to
the public and a diminished quality of life resulting from the
misuse of coastal resources.

231

PART VII

IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES THAT WOULD

BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEM4ENTED

The approval of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean
Shore Segment will not in itself lead to the loss of resources, while resources
might be lost if a specific development proposal were approved under the program.
Trade-offs will have to be made based on the policies of the program. For instance,
some urbanized areas or less intensive industrial areas may receive greater develop-
mnent pressures and a commitment of the surrounding resources because of the policy
to concentrate development of sewer projects to serve. already developed areas.

Also, the program provides that priorlffy~will bd-given to coastal-dependen't--
development (certain energy facilities, port and harbor development, etc.) which in
turn is often the most damaging to the environment and is located in the coastal
zone to utilize its resources. Most of the nine environmentally critical develop-
ments will occur outside the Bay and Ocean Shore area and are encouraged to do so.
However, the Segment establishes standards 'for siting and requires that alterna-
tives be considered and mitigation measures be taken in the Segment area itself.
The New Jersey Bay and Ocean Shore Segment will continue to channel such activity
toward environmentally suited land areas.

Without the implementation of rationally based land and water uses management
programs, some intense short-term uses and gains, such as provided by residential
or industrial development might be realized in natural resource areas of the
coastal zone. However, such uses would most likely result in long-term limitations
on coastal resource use and benefit because of degradation of the environment.
Without proper management, the traditional conflicts between shoreline resources
uses -- residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and wildlife -- could be
expected to occur.

Implementation of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment will result in minimization
of the social costs which-inevitably accompany environmentally destructive develop-
ment, the mitigation of which requires public investment.

235

PART V1II

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Extensive consultation, coordination, and input has been received in devel-
oping the New Jersey Coastal Management Program. Because the Program was developed
with the natural and human environment in mind, many alternatives have been con-
sidered.

The Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management requires that a State conduct an
environmental impact assessment on its coastal management program prior to any
approval of the Program. This assessment was used in developing the draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement. Additional input 11.a,,-_been r~Lce.ived from various Federal...
agencies throughout the duration of the State's Program development period, on such
things as the impact of the Program on the Federal agency program, as well as an
analysis of the Program.

Coordination with all local, State, public, and private interests remains
a key component of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program. The Program will
provide for the public notice of major State actions, provide technical assistance
to coastal communities as to how local plans may be made consistent with the
Coastal Management Program. assist the private sector through the publication of
handbooks and other means of communication on meeting coastal management policy
requirements, and continue coordination with Federal. agencies to resolve potential
conflicts during implementation.

234

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: SECRETARIAL FINDINGS INDEX

The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1451 et
seq.) and the program approval regulations adopted as an interim final rule by
NOAA-OCZM (15 CFR Part 923, Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 41, March 1, 1978, pp.
8378-8432) define twenty-six required findings that must be made before the Sec-
retary of Commerce may approve a state's coastal management program. This appendix
identifies these requirements and provides an index to the appropriate section or
sections in Part II where the New Jersey Coastal Management Program, Bay and Ocean
Shore Segment presents the information required for the secretarial findings.

241

ASSOCIATED SECTION(S) SEGMENT
SECTION OF THE FEDERAL COASTAL MANAGEMENT ACT OF PROGRAM APPROVAL REGULATIONS SECTION

305(b)(1) boundaries 923.31, 923.32, 923.33, 923.34 Chapter Two, Appendix E
305(b)(2) uses subject to management 923.11, 923.12 Chapter Four
305(b)(3) areas of particular concern 923.21, 923.23 Chapter Seven
305(b)(4) means of control 923.41 Chapter Five
305(b)(5) guidelines on priorities of uses 923.22 Chapter Four
305(b)(6) organizational structure 923.45 Chapter Five
305(b)(7) shorefront planning process 923.25 Not Included
305(b)(8) energy facility planning process 923.14 Not Included
305(b)(9) erosion planning process 923.26 Not Included

306(c)(1) notice; full participation; consistent with
section 303 923.58, 923.51, 923.55, 923.3 Appendix B,C,D,M
306(c)(2)(A) plan coordination 923.56 Chapter Five
306(c)(2)(B) continuing consultation mechanisms 923.57 Chapter Five
306(c)(3) public hearings 923.58 Appendix B,M
306(c)(4) gubernatorial review and approval 923.47 Cover Letter
306(c)(5) designation of recepient agency 923.46. 923.47 Chapter Five
306(c)(6) organization 923.45, 923.47 Chapter Five
306(c)(7) authorities 923.41, 923.47 Chapter Five
306(c)(8) adequate consideration of national interests 923.52 Chapter Six
306(c)(9) areas for preservation/restoration 923.24 Chapter Seven

306(d)(1) administer regulations, control development;
resolve conflicts 923.41 Chapter Five
306(d)(2) powers of acquisition, if necessary 923.41 Chapter Five
7i'
306(e)(1) technique of control 923.41, 923.42 Chapter Five
306(e)(2) uses of regional benefit 923.13, 923.41, 923.43 Chapter Six

306(h) segments 923.61 Chapters Two, Six.
Eight and Appendix E
307(f) incorporation of air and water quality
requirements 923.44 Chapter Four and Five

APPENDIX B: THE COASTAL PLANNING PROCESS: 1973-1978

The New Jersey Coastal Management Program Bay and Ocean Shore Segment is based
on DEP-OCZM staff research, contractual studies by private consultants, university
research teams, and state and local government agencies, and considerable public
debate, suggestions, questions, and comments over the past five years. The most
tangible evidence of the coastal planning process is this document, together with
numerous studies and reports published by DEP-OCZM. Many of the planning reports
produced and widely distributed by DEP-OCZM are available upon request, while
others, intended as in-house working documents, are available for review by inter-
ested people. Other evidence of the coastal planning process may be less visible,
but just as significant as printed documents. This appendix sketches some of the
highlights of the coastal planning process to date, both the clearly tangible
reports and the public participation efforts.'--_

Major Planning Documents

Since 1975,. DEP-OCZM has prepared six major coastal planning reports which
were widely shared with public groups, individuals, and agencies. These reports
and the reaction to them have shaped the direction and policies of the Coastal
Program.

In September 1975, DEP published an Inventory of the New Jersey Coastal Area
which defines and discusses the diverse resources, problems and opportunities of
New Jersey's coast in order to indicate the range of issues that constitute the
agenda for coastal zone management.

In July 1976, DEP released Interim Land Use and Density Guidelines for the
Coastal Area of New Jersey, prepared with the assistance of Rivkin Associates of
Washington, D.C. This document classifies land and water features in the coastal
area in terms of relative suitability for development. The Interim Guidelines-and
the companion publication, Guiding the Coastal Area of New Jersey -- The Basis and
Background for Interim Land Use and Density Guidelines, provided an advance indi-
cation to developers, municipal officials, and others, of the likely decision on
CAFRA permit applications, and have also served as a focal point for discussion and
debate in the development of the Coastal Management Strategy (September 1977) and
the Coastal Mangement Program for the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment.

In October 1976, Alternatives for the Coast - 1976 was published to indicate
the scope of policy alternatives DEP-OCZM was evaluating for the coastal zone,
their implications and the principles that helped shape them. DEP-OCZM expanded
upon the policy alternatives in twenty-two issue papers published between November
1976 and early 1977. The topics covered were: Agriculture and the Coast, Air
Resources, Cultural Resources, Flooding, Groundwater Quantity and Quality in the
New Jersey Coastal Zone, Housing, Ocean Resources (Living, Mineral, and Physical
Resources), Sand Movement and the Shoreline, Solid Waste and the Coast, Surface and
Coastal Water Resources of New Jersey, Upland Living Resources (Endangered, Threat-
ened and Rare Animals, Endangered and Rare Vegetation, and Upland Wildlife Habi-
tats), and Upland Mineral Resources and the Coast. A separate paper on the value
of Atlantic White-Cedar Stands was completed in May 1976.

In December 1976, DEP-OCZM released Alternative Boundaries for New Jersey's
Coastal Zone. This report presented ten possible coastal zone boundaries and
served as a basis for debate on the issue.

213

DEP submitted the Coastal Management Strategy, for New Jersey-CAFRA Area
to the Governor, Legislature, and public in the fall of 1977. The Strategy
introduced the Coastal Location Acceptability Method (CLAM), a method of coastal
resource management developed by DEP-OCZM in 1976-1977 using a pilot study area in
Lower Cape May County. Prepared in part to satisfy the statutory mandate of the
Coastal Area Facility Review Act of 1973 that called for the selection of an
environmental management strategy for the coastal area in four years, the document
also served as a discussion draft of the Coastal Management Program for the Bay and
Ocean Shore Segment. DEP distributed 3,000 copies of the Coastal Management
Stategy, conducted eight public meetings throughout the state to discuss and debate
the coastal program, held twenty additional informal meetings with public agencies
and received nearly one hundred written statements with comments on the Strategy.
DEP then revised the Strategy substantially in the course of preparing the Draft
EIS for the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment document.

The formal federal approval process fQEr-,_New Jersey's coastal program began
in May 1978 with the publication of the Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean
Shore Segment and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. DEP distributed more than
3,000 copies of the draft document, and held numerous meetings with various
interest groups to discuss and debate the coastal program. In addition, DEP with
NOAA-OCZM convened three public hearings to receive testimony on the DEIS. This
final Environmental Impact Statement is the result of revisions made to the May
1978 document, based on public comment gathered at the hearings, in informal
meetings, and in written statements. Publication of the draft EIS also initiated
the process for the adoption of the Coastal Resource and Development Policies of
the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment as agency rules and regulations according to the
provisions of New Jersey's Administrative Procedures Act.

Public Shorefront Access and Erosion

DEP's Office of Coastal Zone Management served as staff to the Commissioner of
DEP in his capacity as an active ex-officio member of the New Jersey Beach Access
Study Commission. In 1976-1977, DEP-OCZM staff helped prepare the Commission's
report to the Governor and Legislature'on beach access in April 1977. This report,
entitled Public Access to the Oceanfront Beaches, examined beach use, budgets, and
fees and ownership.

A study on shoreline erosion was prepared under contract to DEP-OCZM by
Rutgers University - Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies. The Coastal
Geomorphology of New Jersey, in two volumes printed in December 1977, deals with
the management techniques, strategies, and the technical basis and background for
shoreline erosion management strategies. The study was a large step forward in
understanding how to make decisions regarding development along the shoreline. Its
influence is seen in many of the policies (high risk erosion, shore protection,
dune protection) of Chapter Four of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment.

Energy

In December 1975, the Department of Environmental Protection invited energy
industry representatives to provide basic information on coastal energy siting to
be used in preparing the energy facility element of New Jersey's coastal zone
management program. The results of this "Call for Information" were published by
DEP-OCZM in March 1977. The state's three major electric utilities responded in
considerable depth to the "Call".

244

DEP-OCZM's concern with the development of energy facilities is further
reflected in two contractual studies undertaken by research groups at Princeton and
Rutgers Universities. The study by Princeton's Center for Environmental Studies,
entitled Who's in Charge? - Governmental Capabilities to Make Energy Siting Dec i-
sions in New Jersey, received financial support from the Federal Energy Admini-
stration, which sponsored a similar effort in each of the states associated with
the Mid-Atlantic Governors Coastal Resources Council (New York, New Jersey,
Delaware, Maryland and Virginia). It was published in September 1977. The Rutgers
study, prepared by the Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies and entitled
Onshore Support Bases for Offshore Oil and Gas Development: implications for New
Jersey, was released in February 1978. In addition, DEP-OCZM staff completed a
report entitled Energy Facility Siting Issues in New Jersey's Coastal Zone, which
was released for distribution in December 1977. Most recently, DEP-OCZM staff
prepared a brief "Fact Sheet on Offshore Drilling in New Jersey"~ in June 1978.

Legal Framework

In June 1976, DEP-OCZM compiled "An Inventory of Environmental Law in New
Jersey", which includes a description of major New Jersey land use, water quality,
air pollution, and living resources laws related to coastal zone management. This
is an in-house document which is continually updated.

In June 1977, DEP-OCZM completed "Areawide (208) Water Quality Planning and
the New Jersey Coastal Zone Management Program: Opportunities for Interagency
Coordination," a paper detailing the relationship between coastal zone management
planning and water quality planning being conducted in New Jersey under Section 208
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Economics and Land Use

DEP-OCZM had contracts in 1975 and 1976 with the New Jersey Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) and the Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) to prepare
background land use and socio-economic studies about the coast. DCA produced.
information concerning: "Coastal Zone Housing Issues", County Land Use issues in
Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland, Monmouth, Ocean and Salem Counties (six papers),
"Growth Centers and Their Implications", "Sewerage Facilities", "Transportation
Systems", and "Water Supply".

The Department of Labor and Industry prepared the following papers: "Back-
ground Paper: Economic Perspectives on New Jersey Tourist Industry", "Economic
Inventory", "Economic Issues and Problems in Northeastern Region of New Jersey
Coas tal Zone", "Some Taxes"~, "Economic Profiles" on Atlantic, Burlington, Camden,
Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Monmouth, Ocean, and Salem Counties (nine papers),
and "Municipalities in Burlington and Middlesex Counties".

Information Systems and Public Participation

In February, 1975, in cooperation with the American Arbitration Association,
DEP began an experiment to validate the environmental data for the Coastal Program.
This experiment involved two large public meetings and several subsequent workshops.
By January 1976, agreement was reached on data in nine natural resource categories.
The categories are: bathymetry, flood areas, geology, groundwater, land use,
slope, soils, tidal wetlands and vegetation.

245

DEP-OCZM also tested the development of information packages on an automated
basis, in cooperation with the American Arbitration Association, Rockefeller
Foundation, Rutgers University, and Princeton University. The 1976-1977 project,
called the "Intuitive-Interactive Model", produced draft information packages on
air pollution, construction noise, physical impact, industrial energy demand, odor
pollution, residential energy demand, solid waste and waste demand, and urban
runoff. One distinctive feature of the model is the ability of interested users
such as developers or municipal officials to work directly, or "interact", with the
computer. The findings of the project will be used by DEP in considering the
ultimate design of an information system to assist coastal and perhaps statewide
land and water use decision-making.

Nominated Areas of Particular Concern

In December 1977. DEP-OCZM completed a report for public release entitled
Nominated Areas of Public Concern in the New Jersey Coastal Zone. The report
describes 176 areas of the state nominated'-by 140 interested individuals and-"
organizations in 1976-1977, in response to DEP's invitation that the public suggest
sites and areas for preservation, development, historic, recreation, visual, or
other purposes.

The enthusiastic public response to this invitation led to detailed and wide
ranging nominations, which were used in part to confirm and refine the DEP-OCZM
staff recommendations on Special Land Areas and Special Water Areas in preparing
the Location Policy of Chapter Three. Also, the Geographic Areas of Particular
Concern identified in Chapter Seven were among those areas nominated by the public.
DEP also distributed its report describing the nominations to other state, county
and municipal agencies which can make decisions affecting the sites. Finally, the
information DEP-OCZM gained about specific sites through the Nominated Areas of
Particular Concern program has been used in the past and will be used in the future
as supplemental information to be reviewed in individual coastal permit decisions.

Coastal Awareness

Rutgers University Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies, under con-
tract to DEP-OCZM, produced four booklets on coastal issues for public distribution
in 1976-1977. The booklets, which are available from DEP are: "State Government
and Coastal Zone Management", "Coastal Zone Legislation", "Oil Spills Reaction and
Responsibility in New Jersey", and "New Jersey's Fishing Industry".

Mapping

During 1976-1978 DEP-OCZM published several map series, which are available to
the public. The Inventory of the New Jersey Coastal Area - 1975 describes where
these maps are located and how to use them. The Third Year Coastal Zone Management
Program Development Grant Application provides a detailed list of the mapping in
the first two years of the program. During the third year (1976-1977), extensive
mapping was also done as part of DEP-OCZM's pilot study in Lower Cape May County.
Samples can be found in Appendix Four of the Coastal Management Strategy (September
1977).

The Interim Land Use and Density Guidelines also includes maps of developed
and selected environmentally sensitive areas in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment.
Wetlands maps are on file with each county recording officer and are also available
for public inspection or purchase in DEP's Office of Wetlands Management. Flood
hazard area maps, as delineated by DEP's Division of Water Resources, are available
for public inspection.

246

In addition, DEP-OCZM funded a study by Rutgers University - Center for
Coastal and Environmental Studies to develop an underwater aerial photographic
methodology suitable for surveying submerged vegetation in the coastal estuaries of
New Jersey. The study culminated in the report, entited Analysis and Delineation
of the Submerged Vegetation of Coastal New Jersey: A Case Study of Little Egg
Harbor (January 1978), which describes the aerial underwater photographic method,
identifies and maps distributions of species, and discusses the ecological func-
tions and associated problems of each of the dominant species.

In July 1978, DEP-OCZM released a staff working paper entitled Definition of
the Preliminary Coastal Zone Boundary for the Delaware River and Northern Water -
front Regions of New Jersey's Coastal Zone. This paper identifies the process used
by DEP-OCZM to prepare an initial boundary for the coastal zone outside of the Bay
and Ocean Shore Segment.

Public Part icipation

DEP's Office of Coastal Zone Management is committed to wide public partici-
pation by law, by practicality, and by principle. DEP-OCZM's involvement efforts
have two objectives, to raise the level of public awareness regarding both threats
to, and attributes of the coast, and to identify and meet with individuals and
groups who can contribute knowledge and opinions to coastal planning efforts.

DEP-OCZM works to involve people early in the planning process and continues
to encourage such involvement. Draft documents are made available. Possible
policies are discussed in public Iona before they are even formally proposed, much
less adopted. The objective is for the DEP-OCZM staff to be exposed to as much
information as possible,'and for initial staff ideas and work products to receive a
wide and critical reading. The reason is simple: a coastal zone management
program cannot be prepared just from Trenton. The state's coastal zone is too
large and too diverse. Public input and feedback is critical. Ideas which appear
attractive on a planner's desk may be impossible to apply.

DEP-OCZM uses varied forums and publications to hear and explore varied
information and viewpoints. To attract coastal residents, DEP-OCZM convene~d
several series of public meetings in coastal counties during 1975-1977. The first
meetings, held in Toms River and Trenton in February and May 1975. were focused on
introducing the program and DEP's Data Validation Project. A second series of
meetings were held in the summer of 1976 following publication of the Interim Land
Use and Density Guidelines for the Coastal Area. A third series of seven meetings
were held in the early winter of 1976 after release of Alternatives for the Coast.
A fourth series of eight public meetings took place around the state fin November-
December 1977. following public release of the Coastal Management Strategy. These
public meetings often began with a slide presentation and talk by a DEP-OCZM staff
member and then turned to the specific concerns of the assembled. Discussion at
these meetings flows from the questions, and many topics are each discussed rela-
tively briefly. In addition, DEP-OCZM holds periodic workshops focused on specific,
pre-announced subjects. Workshops on Agriculture, for example were held in
October 1976 in two locations (Bridgeton and New Brunswick). Additional workshops
were held in February 1977 in Trenton and Toms River an Biological Resources,
Physical Resources, Housing, Air Resources and Transportation, and Recreation
and Boating.

Upon publication and distribution of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
on the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment in May 1978, DEP-OCZM held numerous workshops
throughout the state with municipal officials, environmentalists, and industry and
trade representatives prior to the document's more formal review at public hearings
in June. The workshops were held primarily to further acquaint participants with
the Coastal Location Acceptability Method (CLAM). DEP staff used a step-by-step
process with illustrations to work through a CLAM case study. The workshops also
provided a forum for additional comments about the document, so that interested
parties could receive clarification on specific points within the document, or
suggest and discuss particular issues in greater detail than is possible at hear-
ings. DEP-OCZM, in conjunction with NOAA-OCZM, then held three public hearings on
the Coastal Management Program in June 1978 in Bridgeton, Toms River, and Trenton.
Approximately 180 people attended the hearings at which a total of 35 persons
offered testimony. DEP presented a slide sho9w at the start of each hearing to-
serve as an introduction to the coastal prograim.7

DEP also meets regularly with representatives of builders and environmental
groups. Officials of the New Jersey Builders Association and leaders of New
Jersey's environmental groups hold regular meetings with the Commissioner. which
are often focused on coastal management. DEP-OCZM has-.shared and discussed with
these groups early drafts of several coastal reports including the Interim Land Use
and Density Guidelines, CAFRA Procedural Rules and' Regulations and the Coastal
Management Strategy. Prior to the May 1978 publication of the Coastal Management
Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
DEP-OCZM distributed 150 copies of a pre-publication version of the document for
quick review and comment by other state agencies, coastal county planning boards,
builders, and energy, industry. and environmental group representatives who have
been active in the coastal planning process. Recipients of the pre-publication
draft were also invited to. a special Saturday review working session.

Since November 1976, DEP-OCZM has held monthly meetings with an Environmental
Advisory Group composed of leaders of statewide civic and environmental groups.
These meetings have been regularly attended by representatives of the American
Littoral Society, American Association of University Women, League for Conservation
Legislation, Sierra Club, Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions,
Natural Resources Defense Council, and the League of Women Voters, and occasionally
by the Citizens Association to Protect the Environment, New Jersey Audubon
Society, New Jersey Conservation Foundation, New Jersey Public Interest Research
Group, and the Youth Environmental Society.

DEP-OCZM also convened a series of workshops on energy involving oil and gas
industry representatives from Louisiana and Texas, as well as from the New Jersey
Petroleum Council and the American Petroleum Institute in Washington, D.C., county
energy planning representatives, researchers from Rutgers and Princeton, fishing
groups, representatives from several state agencies and representatives from
environmental groups. As the Newark Star Ledger noted on April 24, 1977, "It comes
as somewhat of a surprise to find many of the combatants meeting across tables to
discuss the issue informally, almost casually, in New Jersey."

248

The hearings held by DEP-OCZM on each CAFRA permit application provide another
forum for public input. The hearings are held near the site proposed for develop-
ment, and range, depending on the interest aroused by the application, from five
minute meetings attended only by the applicant to four hour sessions with up to 300
people.

The coastal meetings and workshops are announced primarily through The Jersey
Coast, the DEP-OCZM newsletter. This periodical is mailed to all interested
persons and organizations known to DEP-OCZM. The mailing list currently includes
more than 5,000 names. Meetings are also announced through press releases and the
DEP Weekly Bulletin.

DEP-OCZM recognizes that reliance on a mailing list may neglect many poten-
tially interested persons. To expand interest and knowledge of coastal management
issues, the DEP-OCZM staff have spoken before'a-wide variety of municipal, county,-
state, and regional agencies, and civic, interest and professional groups in New
Jersey and in other states. This provides an opportunity to talk with many people
who may be well aware of some of the problems, but unaware of the coastal zone
management program and possible solutions. Through these meetings, proposed
policies are debated, interested individuals identified, and new people added to
the mailing list who may later contribute to an element of the program.

DEP-OCZM also participates in other events to raise public awareness of
coastal issues and again to identify more people who are interested in partici-
pating in the coastal management process. In June, 1976, for example, the DEP
Commissioner led federal, state and local officials, interested citizens, and
reporters on a six day walk along New Jersey's 125 mile ocean shoreline. This
innovative event sparked considerable publicity and interest in the coast both in
New Jersey and nationally. The Beach Shuttle experiment operated by DEP in the
summer of 1977, and the return of the service in 1978, have provided another
vehicle for probing public views on selected coastal management issues. In
addition, DEP-OCZM has had exhibits at boat shows and county fairs. In May
1978, DEP developed a portable display describing New Jersey's coastal management
program. This display can be easily updated as DEP progresses through the Federal
approval process and begins to emphasize different areas of the State's coastal
zone. The exhibit has been placed at several environmental and ecological fairs
around the state, in libraries, and in the rotunda of the State House.

249

APPENDIX C: FEDERAL AGENCY PARTICIPATION: 1975-1978

Sections 306 and 307 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act require that
the state coordinate coastal management program development and implementation
efforts with all interested federal agencies. This Appendix documents New Jersey's
compliance with this requirement. New Jersey recognized the importance of having
policies and plans well integrated with all levels of government at the start of
the coastal planning process. Early federal involvement in New Jersey's program
can be traced to public meetings held in 1975 and to the request for responses to
the Call for Information in early 1975. The chart on the following page, Figure
16, summarizes federal agency participation since 1975.

Intensive effort to seek federal participation in New Jersey's coastal program
began with DEP-OCZM's meeting with federalYagencies 'potentially interested in-
coastal zone management in New Jersey in August 1976. Following the August meeting,
DEP-OCZM sent a questionnaire to thirty-one federal agencies identified as having
an interest in New Jersey's coast, requesting them to indicate their activities and
level of involvement in a broadly defined New Jersey coastal area. All but three
federal agencies responded to the questionnaire by March 1977.

In November 1976, DEP-OCZM invited all federal agencies to attend a meeting to
discuss the Alternatives for the Coast, a compilation of the issues to be addressed
in the evolving coastal program. In addition, through late fall and early winter
1976-77 each federal agency was invited to attend six series of workshops conducted
on numerous issues concerning coastal zone management. To stimulate discussion,
DEP-OCZM forwarded to each federal agency copies of the particular staff issue
papers pertinent to its interests and work.

Throughout the process, representatives of federal agencies have been encour-
aged to contact and meet with DEP-OCZM staff. On several occasions, DEP-OCZM staff
arranged and attended meetings with individuals or groups of agencies including the
Federal Regional Council (Summer 1976), Department of the Interior (September
1976), Environmental Protection Agency (December 1976), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
(February 1977) the U.S. Navy (July 1977) and the U.S. Coast Guard (July 1978) to
discuss special issues and policies. In addition, a DEP-OCZM staff person was
designated as the federal coordinator to maintain open communication with each
of the federal agency representatives and notify them of all New Jersey coastal
program developments.

In September 1977, each of the federal agencies received a copy of New
Jersey's Coastal Management Strategy. New Jersey encouraged federal comment on the
Strategy to provide further input into the document DEP-OCZM was preparing to
submit to NOAA-OCZM as the first New Jersey Coastal Management Program. In addi-
tion to providing written comments, the federal agencies were invited to attend a
meeting with DEP-OCZM in Trenton in November 1977 to discuss the Strategy in
general and to meet with individual staff responsible for preparing various parts
of the document. As a result, DEP-OCZM received comments, which have been incor-
porated into the New Jersey Coastal Program, from the following 14 agencies:

250

Figure ~3 2Federal Agency Pa-ticipatLnn.. o4

0~~~~I M '0 - I -
'0 04 ON ' ~ 40 0 440 044 00 12 a3 0 a- 04 oa
Oi riG' 000 05 >,N 0 -4 0044.-I Ci '.4 44C0 > 00la 00a w

(40~ ~~~ 0 0 0- 440 02 44 0 Di 0 (-4 '40 w 440 0
0~~~~~~~~~ F30 0.0w 1 01 0 a H4 C v4 00
04~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 01 i Ho.
0-4~~~~~P l a 004w
Q ~ ~ C 000 0'04 00 444 .0 00 4--4 0 044 0 0> 044 (04 00 0

OI. 0 H . 0 0 4C '-4 hai4 -0> -41 O 0 - f -'4 IC 040

02 4-h a a i.. U;3 14 5 0.Z 44 a41 0 00 8>. -n N wo 00 i
"9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~'0 PI4 -'4 .1 la,4 0U 004 001- 004 w0XCKP

Dent, of Aerienit-r
Soil Conoervation Srv"ice N X X X 0
Dear, of Conmmerce X

National Marine Pioheries Service X N X X N N
Economic Develonmer Ad- X

Atmy CarpasL.f-ngiera...... it X X

-j t-on&Z ne r M _ _ _ _ _- X__ _ _ _ - -X_. - _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _- _ _
.Sa o 'erly �1 0 -V __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
?:ame l S A it N X V0N- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
FederalEnrgy Regulatory Comms. it it 0 N N X _
Dept. of Health1 Education,

Dept. of Housing and Urban I
D.v.olo.i.ae N N- N N I X X X______
D-qnartMejjt of Labor
.Deprfloart of Tntero-i 00N-
Bureau of Land Man.....ent N N it it 0 N N N
--oureawuofLMine. 0 0 X A N N (
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation x x it N N N X
Fish and Wildlife Servire N N X m X N N N i1 N N
Nat flnal Park Service N N N X X N
U.S. Ceoloelcal Survey N N N N it N X __
Qgpjt of Transoortation X X X X --I X X

IeFtdereL Ayjtat . 4AAm -X
_Sdc a Jlghw.'y 4A m~ X _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
2�1lsaL~i I oadAdm. X X ___
National Hown. Traffic Saferv X X
UrbanojdoeBas a s Tr , - A dm X X _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Jletigulatnrv Com X X X X -
--GfLocr" L~ervin' Ad-Am X X X0
Envi'ronmental Protection Ao-nc X C X X X X X X X X X
C~ouncilof Bo.-fa Ift-v X X X
Advisory Council an HistoricI
Preservation X_____________
Marine Mammal Commission Xo

Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Department of Commerce
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Department of Defense
US Air Force
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Navy
Department of Energy
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Mines
Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of Transportation
US Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
Environmental Protection Agency

Comments from the Federal agencies touched on all sections of the Coastal
Management Strategy from use and resource policies, to particular questions. on
federal consistency and excluded federal land. The comments and DEP responses are
summarized in detail in a separate document entitled Coastal Management Strategy
for New Jersey - CAFRA Area; Public Comments and DEP Responses, available from
DEP-OCZM.

After releasing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bay and Ocean
Shore Segment in May 1978, DEP received comments on the document from the following
federal agencies:

Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Department of Commerce
National Marine Fisheries Service
Department of Defense
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Navy
Department of Energy'
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Commission

As with the comments on the Strategy, federal agenc y comments on the DEIS
covered all elements of the program. DEP met with DOE, FERC and NRC to discuss
their concern with the energy policies. Other comments praised the program's
recognition of the importance of protecting valuable coastal resources for fish,
wildlife and recreational purposes. Comments on the management section expressed
concern over the effort. being made to coordinate with other water and air quality

252

planning in the State. The revisions to the final EIS have considered all of these
coi;ment. In addition, responses to all federal agency comments on the DEIS,
prepared by NOAA-OCZM and DEP, are in Appendix M.

In addition to submitting written comments, federal agencies were provided
with the opportunity to discuss and comment on the DEIS at a meeting conducted by
NOAA-OCZM with DEP staff in Washington on May 25, 1978. The New Jersey Coastal
Management Program for the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment was also included on the
agenda for the Federal Regional Council meeting, in New York in May at which staff
from NOAA-OCZM and DEP attended the meeting to explain the program and receive
comments.

253

APPENDIX D: LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION: 1975-1978

DEP-OCZM has worked to involve county and municipal officials in coastal
planning for New Jersey. The involvement has taken many forms, including sharing
draft documents, convening and attending meetings in many localities and conducting
many one-on-one conversations.

County governments have participated largely through the offices of the county
planning directors. In particular, the New Jersey County Planners Association
organized a Coastal Committee to work closely with DEP-OCZM on coastal zone manage-
ment. The major product of this cooperation to date has been a special state-
county partnership to study and plan for possible onshore impacts of offshore oil
and gas exploration and development, and coastal program policies and implementa-
tion in general. ==

In 1977, DEP contracted with twelve coastal counties, including all eight
counties in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, to provide assistance to DEP in
developing the energy facility siting element of the New Jersey Coastal Program.
Each county was awarded $15,000, for the 12 month study. The joint State-county
projects had three main objectives. The primary prupose was for counties to become
familiar with oil and gas industry operations and the other energy facilities
likely to locate in the coastal area. A second objective was for counties to
identify sites that might be potentially suitable or non-suitable for energy
facilities and provide documentation for their findings. The study also became a
learning experience for both DEP and the counties. DEP,- for example, invited
representatives and arranged field trips for the study team to visit energy facili-
ties. DEP also held monthly meetings with the county representatives around the
state, in order to increase communications between the two levels of government.

The final reports submitted by the counties reflected this learning process
and showed an increasing grasp of the greater than local issues involved in
energy facility siting. While not all the county reports were site specific, the
counties did demonstrate an understanding of the concepts involved in coastal
energy facility siting. This knowledge provides a useful background for further
energy siting studies and specific siting decisions. As expected, counties
with local economies largely based on tourism showed a greater concern for the
environment than did other counties.

In 1978, DEP has continued this cooperative relationship by passing through
funds to most of the same coastal planning boards to allow them to contribute
county and municipal input to the entire range of issues addressed by coastal
management. The counties will comment on state coastal planning documents, eval-
uate their consistency with municipal plans and ordinances, and comment on specific
coastal permit applications. DEP has continued to meet monthly with the County
representatives who are participating in coastal program development efforts. As
part of the county work in coastal management, some of the counties are conducting
meetings with their municipal governments to discuss coastal issues identified in
the program.

254

DEP-OCZM relied heavily upon county planning directors in the preparation of
the Interim Land Use and Density Guidelines for the Coastal Area, particularly
in the period from October 1975 through March 1976, for critical review and comment
on drafts of working papers. County officials have also commented on Alternatives
for the Coast, Alternative Boundaries for New Jersey's Coastal Zone, selected issue
papers, the Coastal Mangement Strategy in both draft and final form, the prepubli-
cation draft of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment (DEIS) and the published DEIS.

At the municipal level, DEP-OCZM has worked closely with the mayor, planning
board and environmental commission of the municipalities in which CAFRA permit
applications or other coastal issues have been particularly prominent. Dover
Township in Ocean County is the location of considerable CAFRA permit activity and
was also the site used for DEP-OCZM's demonstration project on coastal decision-
making called the "Intuitive-Interactive Model". Lower Township was the site used
for DEP-OCZM's pilot study of Lower Cape May County. Atlantic City has been
subjected to many potentially conflicting aevelopment 'initiatives, and DEP-OCZM -
staff have participated in many meetings with city officials. In addition, DEP-OCZM
staff have met with officials from many other municipalities both within, and
outside the proposed coastal zone, to discuss the coastal program in general and in
terms of its local implications.

County and municipal groups and officials in the coast are included on the
DEP-OCZM mailing list. They have each received copies of the CAFRA Rules and
Regulations, Interim Land Use and Density Guidelines, Alternatives for the Coast,
Coastal Management Strategy, Bay and Ocean Shore Segment-DEIS, and issues of The
Jersey Coast.

DEP-OCZM has intentionally held and attended public meetings in varied loca-
tions so that officials and other citizens of many municipalities would have an
easy opportunity to learn about, and comment on the evolving coastal program. From
1975 to 1978, DEP-OCZM staff attended public meetings in in more than 50 munici-
palities, in addition to holding public hearings on CAFRA permit applications in
more than 60 municipalities. Officials from neighboring municipalities also
attended many of these meetings.

Prior to the public hearings on the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, in early June
1978, DEP held three workshops in Ocean City, Neptune Township and Salem to discuss
the draft with county and municipal officials.

DEP-OCZM's implementation of CAFRA has created a working relationship with
many county and municipal governments. With the county energy facility planning
project and planning for the remainder of the program, this direct involvement
has spread beyond the CAFRA boundary to include jurisdictions covering all of the
potential coastal zone.

Conflicts Between Coastal Program and Local Governments, Regional and Interstate
Agencies

This section of Appendix D indicates New Jersey's compliance with Section
923.56(a) of the Federal Regulations for the federal Coastal Zone Management
Act.

Local governments designated pursuant to regulations established under Section
204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 aad
regional and interstate agencies with plans affecting the Segment are listed on the
next page. Coordination has been carried out with each of these agencies in
development of Coastal Policies. Agencies and counties submitting comments on the
draft Coastal Management Program are listed in Appendix N.

The county governments have limited authority to regulate development in
accordance with their plans. There is no conflict between their use of this
authority and coastal zone management. Coordination of county policies with
Coastal Policies is discussed in Chapter Five. The three regional planning
agencies with A-95 review functions have no regulatory authority. Each was given
an opportunity to comment on possible Coastal Policies presented in the draft
Coastal Management Program and plans for their regions. The Delaware River Basin
Commission holds significant regulatory authtority fdr-implementing its Compre-
hensive Plan. NJOCZM is proposing a coordination project with DRBC to determine if
there are any inconsistencies between the DRBC Comprehensive Plan and the Coastal
Policies. The use of DRBC regulatory authority for the implementation of mutual
policies is to be considered in 1978-1979.

Local Governments Which Function
as A-95 Clearinghouses and Re- Conflicts with Plans
gional and Interstate Agencies Plan Regulatory Authority of a Regulatory Nature

County of Atlantic County Master Plan Authority to review None
County of Cape May County Master Plan all subdivisions of None
County of Cumberland County Master Plan land within the county None
County of Ocean County Master Plan and to approve those None
subdivisions affecting
county roads or drain-
age facilities N.J.S.A.
40:27-6.2

Delaware Valley Regional Land Use Plan None None
Planning Commission Open Space Plan
Housing Allocation Plan
Water Supply Plan
Transport at ion Plans

Tri-State Regional Planning Regional Development None None
_Q Commission Guide, 1977-2000

Wilmington Metropolitan Area Regional Land Use Plan None None
Planning Coordination Council

Delaware River Basin Commission Comprehensive Plan for Intrastate Allocation of No clear conflicts.
the Delaware River Delaware River Basin Possible inconsistencies
Waters to be explored through
Review authority over, coordination project
proposed facilities with with DRBC.
the potential for signi-
ficant impact on water
quality in the Basin
Enforcement authority
over effluent standards
required to attain water
quality standards
described in the Compre-
hensive Plan.

APPENDIX E: COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY

Introduction
History of CAFRA Boundary
Municipalities within the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment
Wetlands Landward of the CAFRA Boundary
Preliminary Boundary of the Coastal Zone - Entire State
Municipalities within the Preliminary Boundary of the Coastal Zone
of the Entire State

Introduction

One of the fundamental requirements of tfi~efederal:C6~astal Zone Management Act~
is the definition of the state's coastal zone for purposes of the federal law. 'In
December 1976, DEP-OCZM released a staff working paper entitled Alternative Bound-
aries for New Jersey's Coastal Zone, which began public discussion on New Jersey's
approach to addressing this requirement. That discussion has culminated in the Bay
and Ocean Shore Segment boundary presented in Chapter Two. This Appendix describes
the background of the CAFRA boundary, lists the municipalities within the CAFRA
Area, *identifies the coastal wetlands considered part of the Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment, and presents the preliminary boundary for the coastal zone of the entire
state.

History of the CAFRA Boundary

New Jersey defined the present CAFRA boundary in 1972-1973 by a-process
of combining scientific analysis, public hearings, and legislative compromise. In
early 1972, a bill was introduced in the Legislature (A-722) proposing a "Coastal
Area" from the head of tide -of the. Delaware River around the state's shoreline to
the center line of the Raritan River at its mouth, with an inland boundary at the
10 foot contour interval above mean sea level and a seaward boundary at the mean
high water line. An alternative inland boundary, recommended by DEP, was included
.in a substitute bill (A-1429) introduced in mid-1972. The DEP prepared the recom-
mended "Coastal Area" boundary by analyzing the geography of New Jersey in terms of
five criteria:

(1) Limit the Coastal Area to the Coastal Plain geological province,

(2) Include Wetlands,

(3) Include tidal portions of streams, and their adjacent fast lands,
that empty into the Raritan Bay, Atlantic Ocean, Delaware Bay, and
Delaware River,

(4) Include areas with soils limitations such as poor drainage, propensity
for flooding, poor septic tank suitability, poor landfills suitability,
limited agricultural value, regions with muck, tidal marsh, swamp, and
bog soils, and areas with depth to seasonal high water table,

(5) Include densely populated areas whose sanitary wastes could affect
water quality.

DEP then interpreted aerial photography and soil surveys to delineate a recommended
inland boundary by using fixed, legally-describable cultural features such as roads
and railroads to define the land area that met the boundary criteria. This recom-
mended boundary also extended along the Delaware River from Trenton around the bay
and ocean shorelines to the Raritan River.

Various legislators, local government officials, business interests, organized
public interest groups and citizens expressed strong and often conflicting views on
the DEP-prepared inland boundary for the "Coastal Area"t during the legislative
process of hearings and debate in 1972-1973. In June 1973, after numerous amend-
ments to the bill revising the boundary, the Legislature passed what is now-known
as the Coastal Area Facility Review Act. The revised and final "Coastal Areal'
boundary deleted the Delaware River waterfront, excluded a small area around the
Cape May County Airport to facilitate economic development, and reduced the scope
of the Coastal Area in Middlesex and Monmouth xeounties.

Eight of New Jersey's 21 counties are represented in the CAFRA Area, including
parts of Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Burlington, Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland,
and Salem. The portions of each county within the area vary considerably from less
than one percent of Middlesex to 57 percent of Ocean and 93 percent of Cape May. A
total of 127 municipalities, as diverse as urban Asbury Park in Monmouth County,
suburban Dover Township in Ocean County, and rural historic Greenwich Township in
Cumberland County, are wholly or partially within the statutory Coastal Area.
This appendix lists these 127 municipalities.

Municipalities Within the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment

All or parts of 127 of New Jersey's 567 municipalities lie within the CAFRA
Area, and are included within the geographic scope of the Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment. In addition, part of Alloway Township in Salem County is included in the
Bay and Ocean Shore Segment as it contains coastal wetlands inland of the CAFRA
boundary. The 127 municipalities included, in whole or in part, within the Bay and
Ocean Shore Segment are listed below, by county:

Atlantic County
Absecon City Longport Borough
Atlantic City Margate City
Brigantine City Mullica Township
Corbin City Northfield City
Egg Harbor City Pleasantville City
Egg Harbor Township Port Republic City
Estell Manor Township Somers Point City
Galloway Township Ventnor City
Hamilton Township Weymouth Township
Linwood City

Burlington County
Bass River Township Washington Township

259

Cape May County
Avalon Borough Stone Harbor Borough
Cape May City Upper Township
Cape May Point Borough West Cape May Borough
Dennis Township West Wildwood Borough
Lower Township Wildwood City
Middle Township West Wildwood Crest Borough
North Wildwood City Woodbine Borough
Ocean City
Sea Isle City

Cumberland County
Bridgeton City Hopewell Township
Commercial Township Lawrence Township
Downe Township Maurice River Township
Fairfield Township Miliville City
Greenwich Township Stow Creek Township

Middlesex County
Old Bridge Township (Madison)

Monmouth County
Aberdeen Township (Matawan) Loch Arbour Village
Aberdeen Borough (Matawan) Long Branch City
Allenhurst City Manasquan Borough
Asbury Park City Middletown Township
Atlantic Highlands Borough Monmouth Beach Borough
Avon-by-the-Sea Borough Neptune City
Belmar Borough Neptune Township
Bradley Beach Borough Ocean Township
Brielle Borough Oceanport Borough
Deal Borough Red Bank City
Eatontown Borough Rumson Borough
Fair Haven Borough Sea Bright Borough
Hazlet Township Sea Girt Borough
Highlands Borough Shrewsbury Borough
Holmdel Township South Belmar Borough
Interlaken Borough Spring Lake Borough
Keansburg Borough Spring Lake Heights Borough
Keyport Borough Union Beach Borough
Little Silver Borough Wall Township
West Long Branch Borough

Ocean County
Barnegat Light Borough Jackson Township
Barnegat Township (Union) Lacey Township
Bay Head Borough Lakehurst Borough
Beach Haven Borough Lakewood Township
Beachwood Borough Lavallette Township
Berkeley Township Little Egg Harbor Township
Brick Township Long Beach Township
Dover Township Manchester Township
Eagleswood Township Mantoloking Borough
Harvey Cedars Borough Ocean Gate Township
Island Heights Borough Ocean Township

260

Ocean County - Cont.
Pine Beach Borough Ship Bottom Borough
Point Pleasant Beach Borough South Toms River Borough
Point Pleasant Borough Stafford Township
Seaside Heights Borough Surf City Borough
Seaside Park Borough Tuckerton Borough

Salem County
Alloway Township (not in CAFRA Area) Pennsville Township
Elsinboro Township Quinton Township
Lower Alloways Creek Township Salem City
Mannington Township Upper Penns Neck

Wetlands Landward of the CAFRA Boundary

Parts of 47 of DEP's wetlands maps in&1i-de wetlands areas considered to be----
within the inland boundary of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, as defined in
Chapter Two. The numbers of these maps are listed below:

133-1932 224-1980 294-1788
140-1920 231-1788 294-1794
140-1926 245-1782 294-1998
161-1902 252-1788 301-1776
168-1908 259-1788 301-1782
168-1914 266-1776 301-1788
175-1914 266-1782 301-1794
175-1980 266-1788 308-1776
182-1902 266-1794 539-2154
182-1914 273-1782 546-2160
189-1902 273-1794 553-2160
203-1890 280-1782 574-2118
217-1836 280-1788 574-2154
224-1788 280-1794 581-2106
224-1794 287-1752 588-2106
224-1800 294-1746

Figure 16 shows the approximate locations of these wetlands, by map number.

Preliminary Boundary of the Coastal Zone - Entire State

While New Jersey is submitting only the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment for
federal review and approval at this time, federal regulations [15 CFR 923.61(a)(3)]
require the coastal zone boundary to be determined initially for the entire coastal
zone throughout the state at.the time of segment submission. The Coastal Manage-
ment Strategy for New Jersey - CAFRA Area (September 1977) defined an initial,
proposed state-wide "coastal zone", under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
That proposal included the entire CAFRA Area, as well as all coastal waters to the
limit of tidal influence, a narrow strip of adjacent shorelands, and the Hackensack
Meadowlands Development Commission District. Figure 17 depicts generally this
proposed coastal zone, and its four regions. Figure 18 presents an index map
followed by eight maps at a scale of 1:250,000 showing this boundary. This pro-
posed "coastal zone" is based on a definition of coastal waters, an inland boundary
drawn along easily-recognized roads and railroads immediately landward of the
defined coastal waters, and the jurisdiction of the Hackensack Meadowlands Develop-
ment Commission.

261

Figure 19,

N EW J ERSEY

BAY AND OCEAN

SHORE SEGMENT /

BOUNDARY-.-

WETLANDS 4

LANDWARD '24v-

OF CAFRA . R 7/~ 35j

BOUNDARY ~-T~t

. ~~~~55O..2160

~~~~~~~~~921

-I~~~~~~~~~-

OELAWARE

-~~~~19 ---A90
294-174: 9
Za7-!752 :- 94-1794 17\-

260-1788-4-~L ~ ~ N

.~~~ .-'e~~~~~ ~~ NOTES THE NUMBERS
REFER TO
420 l~~a-I93a SPECIFIC DEP
WETLANDS
M APS

Qw~ -('

The coastal waters of New Jersey include: the Atlantic Ocean to the limit of
New Jersey's seaward jurisdiction; the Hudson River, Upper New York Bay, Newark
Bay, Arthur Kill, and Raritan Bay to the New York boundary; Delaware River and Bay
to the State of Delaware boundary; Delaware River to the Pennsylvania boundary; and
the tidal portion of the Delaware Raritan, Passaic, and Hackensack Rivers, includ-
ing the tidal portions of their tributaries and other tidal streams of the Coastal
Plain.

The landward extent of coastal waters can be defined either by the limit of
waters containing a specified percentage of salinity, the extent of the salt wedge,
or tidal influence. Figure 19 displays selected salinity levels at various points
along New Jersey's coastal waters, using the limited available data. Salinity
levels are highly variable geographically throughout the seasons and from year-
to-year, and therefore not appropriate for fixed boundaries, given the complexity
and diversity of New Jersey's estuaries. ~:---he landward penetration of tidal-._
influence in a watercourse does, however, provide a readily measurable dividing
line for coastal and non-coastal waters. (The tidal limit also coincides with the
extent of State-owned tidelands and permit regulation under the riparian lands
management program).

Two methods have been used to define the upstream limit of tidal activity.
First, the approximate tidal limits specified in the annual Compendium of New
Jersey Fish Laws, published by DEP's Division of Fish, Game, and Shellfisheries
have been used where available. These limits are typically defined as bridges or
dams. Second, the point where the 20 foot contour interval crosses the water
course is used to define the approximate limit of tidal influence along other tidal
water courses. In the future, DEP's completed tidelands delineation maps, prepared
by the Office of Environmental Analysis in the Office of the Commissioner, will
precisely and legally define New Jersey's tidal limits. These delineations will
become part of the official boundary of the coastal zone.

This proposed coastal zone includes at least a small part of a total of 243
municipalities in seventeen of New Jersey's tw enty-one.. counties, including munici-
palities in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. The-next section of this appendix
lists these municipalities. Only Hunterdon, Morris, Sussex, and Warren counties
have no coastal waters and are excluded fropi the coastal zone. This relatively
large zone, united by the presence of coastal waters, is quite diverse, stretching
from the port at Camden to the vast wetlands along Delaware Bay, to the beaches of
the barrier islands along the ocean, to the industrialized waterfront of northern
New Jersey.

Tidal influence makes the Delaware River region immediately adjacent to these
waters ''coastal'' in the sense intended by the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
Although the CAFRA boundary stops south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, the tidal
influence on the Delaware River extends 60 miles further north to Trenton. Because
of the flat topography of the Coastal Plain, tidal tributaries from the Delaware
River extend up to 10 miles inland. NOAA-0CZM does not require inclusion of the
Delaware River within New Jersey's coastal zone as the quantity of seawater is less
than 5 parts per thousand. However, the State of New Jersey does today manage the
wetlands and riparian lands along this part of the coast and prefers to include
these areas within the proposed coastal zone for the second phase of New Jersey's
coastal management program under federal law.

263

Figure 20

NEN .JERSEV HACKENSACK MEADOVLANDS
DISTRICT

I REGIONS-

PROPOSED "-' ....

COASTAL

ZONE C R ~~~~~~NORTHERN
ZON ERI
-.~--' ; WATERFRONT
1977 "'-AREA

Dv-LAWARE RIVER -
.. .......-
'~/-~~~~~~:~: 'L
25.~.

,'?~~~~~~~~~........ v..-'....._

I-'-.

,~~~~~U..6.......
r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.nf...e7-... --. . ......
$~~~~~~~~ __

. .... ..
":_.... %....

~~~~~~~~~~....* . ....... .'* -.
~~~~~~~~~~/ o4 - ~
...~~~~~~~~~ .. .: .....

.... ....c..
v. ,o.**........I ,
. . ................. . ........ t~tl
..........~~~~~~~~~i ~e o i !
..,. . ... . .. . ..~
......~~~~ . e ....ee . ...

Figure 21

NEW JERSEY7
COASTAL ZONE
BOUNDARY

MAP

T 2oo

LGND '
PENNYLVAIA

DELAWARE D~~26

i~~~;~;�~~)~~fP~~f~t~M:ajs a~ck

ALIA4
m A i~fJ;-;Y;;~��f~; MAT

;,gg~~~~~~~~

S~' "d>
* Xsp VP�rlJ;j=COASTAL ZONE

BD M A

8e!W M

OUSD FCOASTAL ZONE ~ .�

OBOUNDA.RY
SCALE 1: 250,000

Souce.USGS 71 minute Topo
tf auodguadi NJDEP Wetlands
Maps. County Road Maps.
I RsdRed Tax Maps.
~~~; �- i-
1901~ ~ ~ ~~~~~rlpOjI '&~t��"�:

Jno

7~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oe Is, a

arbo b eILI

or Ar54~

462- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~512108 46
WETLANDS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- M tt APat
LANDWARD~~~~~~~~~~~~~7428 O F ghCAFdA

OUTSIDE 'OF COASTAL ZONE~57-211

BONAR

Source USG 7 Too miusTp

Quads, NBDEP etlnd
/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ mp.ConyRa as

d.1~~~ Tax Map

!am ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~a ~l ST'*~-kATE

\Av~p *t:*Cssft

q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

W E ~ s

d ~~ark

--34

27,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -9

Di
f

ki,

IaM El-h

F011
C

,-v 434

en
vi 433

11.1sht,
478
d, 17
BrIMANTINE
N-r
P.;.t
2 522

and v NUMNAL 57210
FE R&FUGE

64 56
0 566
secon
COASTAL ZONE
BOUNDARY MAPS
ganti
462- 2168
f WETLANDS MAP,
h
Light LANDWARD OF CAFRA
c'.' NTIC ci:r'i
OUTSIDE OF COASTAL ZONE
inwo

argate City BOUNDARY
mer
gport SCALE 1: 25
0,000
T
N
'A 1 2 3 4
CAP .MAY .1164
P
Source:
a 7 Li S G S7i. minute Tape

Quads. NJDEP Wetlands
Maps. County Road Maps,
Rod! Tax Maps.
0

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .Iol- ...... Ty. ..:-

22 4--9

0 me

6 An .A City

K-Y P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~~edIIt 7'

PtY TP ..t D.72
C~~~~~~~~~~OASA'~ ZO'-- N~ E J

~0 f~I~n. LP'rt 8 7-1752

~~~~~~~:::~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~9 -'#
de~wa~ec, ID

o~~~~~~~~~~~~t C-orimk L E \~., 2617 9 Ii 26 74

\~~~~~1' or? Pen

X- <en

-4 Gr10d

COASTAL ZONE
BOUNDARY MAPS

402- 2166
'r[] WETLANDS MAP,
L.J LANDWARD OF CAFRA -

I~~~'~-i~ OUTSIDE OF COASTAL ZONE

SCALE 1: 250,000

-' N 3 4

Source: -6
MI1~~~~~~ ~USGS 71 minute Topo -\~
Quads. NJDEP Wetlands C, q6
Maps. County Road Maps. 6 i A '4
Redl Tax Mops. "'

5-1~~~~~~~~~~-

Mol~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~42 2165

0 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~WTAD .MA P,

Ct ~ ~ A N WR OFCAR

Ls6. -?0 2 la

.lin~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~h
4Z*(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LII - Shource: 0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~UG 7i iuITp
- - - -,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4" uds J
'V~~~~~~~~~~a s Cont .'R s
I~~~~~~~~~e T a x Maps.8

I f22 W~~~ghts 29?2

1D \

The preliminary inland boundary of the proposed coastal zone in this region
is, therefore, the first road or cultural feature (such as a railroad or transmis-
sion line) that is parallel to the coastal watercourse, usually a river or stream.
This definition includes wetlands and transitional areas between the tidal waters
and the appropriate road or cultural feature. Moreover, this area should be part
of the coastal zone under federal law because several land use activities are
dependent on coastal waters, such as marine terminals. In addition, the area' s
coastal location provides certain attributes for recreation and industry. The
Delaware River Area includes parts of Camden, waterfront residential communities
such as Riverside, historical areas in Roebling and Bordentown, and two oil refin-
eries in West Deptford and Greenwich Townships.

Tidal influence in New Jersey also extends north of the Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment on the east side of the state. The t~ixtally infiaenced water bodies in this-
region includes the Hudson River, Upper New York Bay, Newark Bay, Kill van Kull,
Arthur Kill, Passaic River, Hackensack River, and Raritan River and Bay, and their
tributaries. The proposed inland coastal boundary in the Northern Waterfront Area
would be the first road or cultural feature along the Hudson River. This narrow
preliminary boundary is appropriate because the highly developed state of this area
confines direct coastal impacts. This region includes the industrialized water-
front with outmoded docks, abandoned piers, and closed industrial plants, as
well as modern container ports, refineries, tank farms, shipyards, and new indust-
rial facilities. The area also includes the developing Liberty State Park and
other waterfront sites which could one day accommodate future parks.

The Hackensack Meadowlands Development District is a '19 600 acre area in
Bergen and Hudson counties defined by the 1968 legislation establishing the Hacken-
sack Meadowlands Development Commission (N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et seq.), an autonomous
agency associated with the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. The
District includes a large undeveloped expanse of salt marsh, disturbed land and
built-up areas covering parts of 14 municipalities. The District also includes the
New Jersey Sports Complex. Inclusion of some portion of the shorelands of the
Meadowlands District within the coastal zone is required under the federal Coastal
Zone Management Act because the salinity level of some of the tidal waters of the
District is above the NOAA-OCZM threshold of 5 parts per 1000. Also, DEP already
exercises coastal management responsibilities in the Meadowlands District in the
riparian lands management program, as much of the District includes land now or
formerly flowed by the mean high tide. Further, DEP's present riparian lands
management and tidelands delineation programs in the Meadowlands are already
carried out in close coordination with staff of the Hackensack Meadowlands Develop-
ment Commission.

In conclusion, the inland boundary of the coastal zone beyond the boundary of
the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment is a proposal to be debated and refined as DEP
conducts further coastal planning in 1978. The final boundary for the entire
coastal zone will depend in part upon the legal authority to carry specific coastal
policies to be defined for these regions of the coast. At this stage, however, the
most important boundary is the one defined in Chapter Two for the Bay and Ocean
Shore Segment.

274

Figure 22

NEW JERSEY
SELECTED]
SALINITY9
DATA p.#/37

~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~ pp.7 / 3 7

13 ppt/ 7/23/72

AVERAGE 1973

~~~~~~~~~~~'~~~~~~~~~~ Elzbt Ip pt //7/23/72

Eiaeh-.04Oppt 18/17/73
Raritan River near
~South Bound Brook-.026ppt.
Manville -0 10 ppt.
V ~~~~~~~~~~~8/17/73

SUMMER 1973

Neshaminy Creek
to Trenton .0O8-0OI0ppt
Lower Bucks County
.012 -.O14 ppt.
Torrsdale .OI21Ppt
Ben Franklin Bridge
.Ol4ppt.
Philadelphia Nav
Yard.014 -.O16 pp
South Border of
Philadelphia .016ppt
Chester City
.OIsppt.

15 ppt PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

2. DELAWARE BAY REPORT SERIES
VOL. 4 1973 ~~~~~~~STATE OF NEW JERSEY
3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ASSESSMENT :WATER ANALYSIS

4"SALT MOVEMENT PA.TTERNS IN
THE LOWER HUDSON', HUDSON
RIVER ECOLOGY_____
5. WATER QUALITY IN A RECOVERING
AUGUST195 ECOSYSTEM H MD C 1973
S. SURFACE WATER QUALITY PART
2. USGS 1973

Municipalities Within the Preliminary Boundary of the Coastal Zone of the Entire
State

All or part of 238 of New Jersey's 567 municipalities are included in the
preliminary state-wide coastal zone. These municipalities, in addition to those
listed above for the Segment, are listed below, by county, by regions, either
Delaware River Area or Northern Waterfront Area (which includes the Hackensack
Meadowlands District). It is important to note that this is only a proposal at
this stage. The definition of the state-wide or the coastal zone will become final
only after the Governor's submission of the coastal management program for the
entire State to NOAA-OCZM, which is expected to take place in 1979.

DELAWARE RIVER AREA

Burlington County
Beverly City Lumberton Township
Bordentown City Mansfield Township
Bordentown Township Maple Shade Township
Burlington City Medford Township
Burlington Township Moorestown Township
Chesterfield Township Mount Holly.Township
Cinnaminson Township Mount Laurel Township
Delanco Township Palmyra Borough
Delran Township Riverside Township
Edgewater Park Township Riverton Borough
Fieldsboro Borough Southhampton Township
Florence Township Westhampton Township
Hainesport Township Willingboro Township

Camden County
Audubon Borough Laurel Springs Borough
Barrington Borough Lindenwold Borough
Bellmawr Borough Magnolia Borough
Brooklawn Borough Mount Emphraim Borough
Camden City Pennsauken Township
Cherry Hill Township Runnemede Borough
Gloucester City Somerdale Township
Gloucester Township Stratford Borough
Haddon Township
Hi-Nella Borough

Gloucester County
Deptford Township Swedesboro Borough
East Greenwich Township Wenoah Borough
Greenwich Township West Deptford Township
Mantua Township Westville Borough
National Park Borough Woodbury City
Paulsboro Borough Woolwich Township

276

Mercer County
Hamilton Township Trenton City

Salem County
Olmans Township Pennsville Township
Penns Grove Township Pilesgrove Township

NORTHERN WATERFRONT AREA

Bergen County
Alpine Borough Lyndhurst Township
Bogota Borough Moonachie Borough
Carlstadt Borough New Milford Borough
East Rutherford Borough North Arlington Borough
Edgewater Borough Oradell1 Borough
Englewood Cliffs Borough Ridgefield Borough
Fairview Borough River Edge Borough
Fort Lee Township Rutherford Borough
Garfield City Teaneck Township
Hackensack City Teterboro Borough
Little Ferry Borough Walington Borough

Essex County
Belleville Town Nutley Town
Newark City

Hudson County
Bayonne City Jersey City
East Newark Borough Kearny Town
Guttenberg Town North Bergen Township
Harrison Town Secaucus Town
Hoboken City West New York Town

Middlesex County
Carteret Borough Perth Amboy City
East Brunswick Township Piscataway Township
Edison Township Sayreville Borough
Highland Park Borough South Ainboy City
New Brunswick City South River Borough
Old Bridge Township Woodbridge Township

Passaic County
Clifton City Passaic City

Somerset County
Franklin Township

Union County
Elizabeth City Rahway City
Linden City

277

APPENDIX F: EXCLUDED FEDERAL LANDS - BAY AND OCEAN SHORE SEGMENT

Under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, lands that are owned, leased,
held in trust or whose use is otherwise by law subject solely to the discretion of
the Federal Government, its officers, or agents are excluded from New Jersey's
coastal zone. Several large-scale federal holdings are located within New Jersey's
statutory "Coastal Area" and are excluded from the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment
under federal law. Below is a list of all major federal lands located entirely or
partially in the area defined by the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. "Major" is
defined as greater than 100 acres. These areas are also indicated in Figure
27. In addition to the areas noted, numerous Coast Guard stations and smaller
federal land holdings are excluded from the Bay and Ocean Shore Segmnent. The
listing below notes the federal agency responsible for the land and the county in
which it is located.

Army Corps of Engineers

Artifical Island Disposal Area (Salem)
Cape May Canal (Cape May)
Kilcohook Spoil Disposal Area (Salem)

Army

Fort Monmouth (Monmouth)
Highlands Army Air Defense Site (Monmouth)

Navy

Leonardo-Earle'Naval-Antmunit ion Depot (Monmouth)

Fish and Wildlife Service

Barnegat National Wildlife Refuge (Ocean)
Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge (Atlantic)
Kilcohook National Wildlife Refuge (Salem)
Supawana Mea'dows National Wildlife Refuge (Salem)

National Park Service

Gateway National Recreation Area - Sandy Hook (Monmouth)

Coast Guard

Coast Guard Receiving Center-Cape May (Cape May)
Coast Guard Electronic Engineering Center (Cape May)

The State of New Jersey considers the acquisition of new federal lands to be a
direct federal action subject to the consistency provisions of Section 307 of the
federal Coastal Zone Management Act. AlsoI federal actions on excluded lands that
have spillover impacts that significantly affect coastal resources subject to the
jurisdiction of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment must also be consistent with State
coastal policies. Chapter Six discusses the Program's federal consistency provi-
sion in greater detail.

2 7 8

Figure 23

MAJOR FEDERAL

LANDS EXCLUDED

FROM THE BAY " .

AND OCEAN , SUSSEX

SHORE PASSAIC

SEGMENT BERGEN

\ '', ,' I,' ', i'

WARREN / MORRIS

ESSEX *
5' / SO

f !,,� ),UNION
-?SOMERSET.'
_.UNTERDON..... , . J LEONARDO - EARLE NAVAL
/ z AMMUNITION DEPOT
V t/./
( ~\ _./~ + < - GATEWAY NATIONAL
-___j\ jMIDDLESEX ,. ) RECREATION AREA

-j\, 'HIGHLANDS ARMY AIR

- BAY AND OCEAN 'FORT MONMOUTH.
SHORE SEGMENT . ,..
BOUNDARY . \'>.
\ OCEAN

BURLIN6TON
KILCOHOOK SPOIL \
DISPOSAL AREA \

KILCOHOOK \ N\
NATIONAL
NTIOAL .CAMDEN BARNEGAT NATIONAL
WILDLIFE . . .-,,OUCESTER . / WILDLIFE REFUGE
REFUGE
V
SUPAWANA SALEM
NATIONAL DF ATLANTIC
WILDLIFE ,/
REFUGE J',. -i . f s.91 \ g BRIGANTINE NATIONAL
ARTIFICIAL UMBERLAND WILDLIFE REFUGE
ISLAN D
DISPOSAL
AREA
CPEMY
_SI-TE oSN h AI AtS
NVOIPONAEI~rt POOEt'O.

CAPE MAY CANAL COAST GUARD
ENGINELECTRONIC
ENGINEERING
COAST GUARD ' CENTER
RECEIVING AREA 279

APPENDIX G: DOE-DEP MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Memoranduip of Understanding
Between
New Jersey Department of Energy
and
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
on
Coordination of Permit Reviews

A. Purpose

This Memorandum of Understanding sets forth the areas of responsibilities and
operating procedures to be followed effective immediately by the Department of
Energy (DOE) and Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) under the State of
New Jersey's coastal management program, as developed and as to be administered
under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1451 et
seq.).

The DOE and DEP agree to the procedures and responsibilities that follow,
recognize the statutory limitations of both agencies, and do not intend this
Memorandum of Understanding to expand or limit their existing statutory powers in
any way.

B. Definitions

As used in the Memorandum of Understanding, the following words and defini-
tions shall have the following meanings unless the context indicates or requires
another or different meaning or intent.

1. Complete for Review means that supplemental information requested by
either the Department of Environmental Protection and Department of
Energy on permit applications has been submitted ,and both agencies are
satisfied as to form and content of such information.

2. Energy Report means the report in form and content specified by the
Department of Energy Act N.J.S.A. 52:27F-13(c) or as further specified by
Administrative regulation of the Department of Energy.

3. Energy Facility means any facility which produces, converts, distributes
or stores energy or converts one form of energy to another consistent
with applicable statutory authority and regulations of the DOE and
DEP.

4. Final Agency Action means a final decision of the Commissioner of Envi-
ronmental Protection or designated representative on a pending permit
application except as noted in Section F.

5. Permits means administrative regulatory instruments issued by the
Department of Environmental Protection on the construction or location of
energy facilities, under the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (N.J.S.A.
13:19-1 et seq.), Wetlands.Act (N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 et seq.), and waterfront
development permit program (N.J.S.A. 12:5-3). The definition of "Permits"
may be extended by mutual agreement between DEP and DOE.

C. Statement of Existing Agency Responsibilities

1. The DEP is responsible for formulating comprehensive policies for the
conservation of the natural resources of the State, promoting environ-
mental protection, and preventing pollution of the environment (N.J.S.A.
13:1D-9).

2. The DEP is the agency designated by the Governor to develop and admini-
ster the State's coastal management program under Sections 305 and 306 of
the federal Coastal Zone.Management Act.

3. The DEP has selected and presented to the Governor and Legislature the
Coastal Management Strategy for New Jersey - CAFRA Area -(September 1977)
as required by the Coastal Area F=acility Review Act (hereafter CAFRA)
(N.J.S.A. 13:19-16).

4. The DEP exercises regulatory responsiblity over the construction of
energy facilities in the coastal zone under three coastal permit pro-
grams: the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 et seq.),
the Wetlands Act (N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 et seq.), and waterfront development
permit program (N.J.S.A. 12:5-3).

5. The Coastal Area Review Board (hereafter CARB), in but not of DEP, may
hear appeals of CAFRA permit decisions by DEP (N.J.S.A. 13:19-13,
N.J.A.C. 7:7D-1 et seq.). DEP also provides a plenary hearing appeals
procedure complying with the Administrative Procedures Act for CAFRA
(N.J.A.C. 7:7D-2.8), Wetlands (DEP Administrative Order No. 12, December
8, 1977), and waterfront development (N.J.A.C. 7:1C-1.9(b)) permit
decisions by DEP's Division of Marine Services.

6. The DOE is responsible for the coordinated regulation and planning of
energy-related matters in the State (C. 146, L. 1977, N.J.S.A. 52:27F-1
et seq.).

7. The DOE, through its Division of Energy Planning and Conservation, is
preparing the State Energy Master Plan for the production, distribution,
consumption, and conservation of energy in the State, which will include
the siting of energy facilities in the coastal zone (N.J.S.A. 52:27F-12).

8. The DOE, Division of Energy Planning and Conservation is empowered and
directed to intervene in any proceeding and appeal from any decision of
DEP with respect to the siting of energy facilities in the coastal zone.
The DOE is a party of interest in any proceeding before DEP on coastal
energy facility siting (N.J.S.A. 52:27F-13(a)).

9. The DOE has coextensive jurisdiction with DEP over permit applications on
the siting of any energy facility in the State, including the coastal
zone. The DEP must solicit the views of DOE prior to making a decision
on the siting of an energy facility in the coastal zone. DOE's views
must be transmitted to DEP in a report (hereafter Energy Report) within
90 days of DOE's receipt of the application. If the Energy Report
differs from the decision of DEP, the conflict shall be referred for
resolution to the Energy Facility Review Board (N.J.S.A. 52:27F-13(c)).

-281-

10. The DOE is the agency designated by the Governor to administer the
State's participation in the Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP) under
Section 308 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. DEP, as the
state coastal management agency, must be involved in the CEIP Intrastate
Allocation Process.

D. Coastal Planning and Energy Planning

DOE and DEP agree to work together, to the maximum extent practicable, to
formulate, review, and revise plans, policies, and guidelines on the siting of
energy facilities in the coastal zone, including but not limited to planning
documents such as the State Energy Master Plan, Coastal Mangement Strategy for New
Jersey - CAFRA Area, and New Jersey Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean
Shore Segment.

E. Joint DEP-DOE Coastal Permit Applicationircocessing Sequence

DEP and DOE agree that coastal permit applications, for energy facilities
over which DOE has coextensive jurisdiction shall be processed according to the
following sequence of steps and timetable.

1. DEP receives energy facility permit application and begins internal
DEP permit application review process.

2. When complete for review, DEP promptly refers a copy of the energy facil-
ity permit application to DOE, Division of Energy Planning and Conserva-
tion for its review. The Division shall submit an Energy Report on the
application to DEP within 90 days of DOE receipt of the complete applica-
tion. The DOE Energy Report shall be transmitted to DEP at least thirty
(30) days prior to the'application statutory or regulatory deadline for
decisions by DEP on CAFRA, Wetlands, or waterfront development permits
(see the 90 Day Construction Permits Law, C. 232, L. 1975, N.J.A.C.
7:1C-1.8) in order to insure both timely consideration by DEP of DOE's
views as well as expeditious decision-making on energy facility permit
applications. The time period may be extended by mutual consent of both
agencies and the applicant as deemed appropriate. Consistent with the
provisions of the 90 Day.Construction Permits Law C. 232, L. lC5, no
decision will be made on energy facility permi't applications until the
DOE Energy Report or a memorandum from the DOE Commissioner that such a
report will not be issued, is received by DEP.

3. For CAFRA permit applications, DEP shall request additional informa-
tion from applicants, as reasonably requested in a timely manner by
DOE, prior to declaring an application complete for filing (N.J.A.C.
7:7D-2.3(e)l.), at the required public hearing (N.J.A.C. 7:7D-2.3
(e)5.iv.), or within 15 days after the public hearing (N.J.A.C. 7:7D-2.3
(e)6.i.), prior to declaring the application complete for review (N.J.A.C.
7:7D-2.3(e)6.iii.), to insure that DOE has adequate information to
prepare its Energy Report. At its discretion, DOE may submit a Prelim-
inary Energy Report to DEP at least 15 days prior to the date of a
scheduled public hearing on a CAFRA permit application, in order to
assist DEP in preparing its Preliminary Analysis of the application
(N.J.A.C. 7:7D-2.3(e)4.).

-282-

4. For Wetlands and waterfront development permit applications, DEP shall
request additional information from applicants, as reasonably requested
in a timely manner by DOE, before declaring an application complete
(N.J.A.C. 7:lC-l.7(a)2.), to insure that DOE has adequate information to
prepare its Energy Report.

5. For proposed coastal energy facilities that require a CAFRA permit
and either or both of a Wetlands and waterfront development permit,
DEP shall coordinate the review process, including review of the adequacy
of submitted information, public hearings, and decision documents, under
the auspices of the review process for the CAFRA permit application,
including its information requirements. Specifically, a Wetlands or
waterfront development permit application shall not be declared complete,
triggering the 90 day permit decision period under the 90 Day Construc-
tion Permits Law (C. 232, L. 1975), until the CAFRA permit application is
declared complete for review (N.J.A-~.-G 7:7D-2,3(e)6.iii.).

6. DEP issues decision on the energy facility permit application. If DOE
has submitted an Energy Report in a timely manner, the DEP decision
document shall refer to the Energy Report and indicate DEP's reasons
for differences, if any, between the DEP decision and the DOE Energy
Report.

F. Appeals of DEP Coastal Energy Facility Permit Application Decisions

DEP's decisions on CAFRA, Wetlands, and waterfront development permit applica-
tions may be appealed administratively by an applicant or an interested third
party. DOE shall refer a DEP decision that differs with DOE's Energy Report to the
Energy Facility Review Board for a decision binding upon DEP. Since multiple
possible avenues of appeal exist on DEP coastal energy facility permit applica-
tions, DEP and DOE agree that appeals shall be heard according to the following
procedure, to be incorporated by appropriate regulations of DEP: the Coastal Area
Review Board, the Natural Resource Council and the Energy Facility Review Board.

1. DOE may convene the Energy Facility Review Board only if its Energy
Report submitted to DEP differs with the DEP decision.

2. If an applicant and/or an interested third party appeals a CAFRA permit
decision to the Coastal Area Review Board, or appeals a CAFRA or Wetlands
decision by DEP's Division of Marine Services to the Commissioner for a
plenary (quasi-judicial) hearing, or appeals a waterfront development
permit decision by DEP's Division of Marine Services to the Natural
Resource Council (N.J.A.C. 7:lC-1.9(b)), DOE shall be a party of interest
at the appeal. If the final decision on appeal of either the Coastal
Area Review Board, Commissioner, or Natural Resource Council differs with
the DOE Energy Report submitted to DEP before the initial administrative
decision, then DOE shall convene the Energy Facility Review Board.

3. The Energy Facility Review Board may affirm, reverse, or modify the
initial DEP administrative decision or the decision on appeal. The
DOE and DEP members of the Board agree that DOE shall, by September 28,
1978, promulgate regulations to establish the operating procedures of the
Board, including, but not limited to a provision binding the Energy
Facility Review Board to limit its review to the DEP decision and the

-283-

Energy Report, prepared pursuant to Section G of this Memorandum of
Understanding, and to follow the New Jersey Administrative Procedures
Act.

4. Appellant parties may seek judicial relief as appropriate.

G. Basis of Energy Report

1. DOE and DEP agree to accept the New Jersey Coastal Management Program -
Bay and Ocean Shore Segment (and subsequent segment), as approved by the
Governor, and particularly its Coastal Resource and Development Policies,
and the State Energy Master Plan, as the basis for the formulation of the
DOE Energy Report with respect to the siting of energy facilities in the
coastal zone.

2. DOE and DEP agree that the DOE En'i-gy Reporf'�hall include an evaluati6n'-
of the need for the proposed energy facility, considering local, state,
regional, and national interests, as one of many factors to be considered
in preparation of the Energy Report and decision, respectively.

H. Coastal Energy Impact Program

1. DOE and DEP agree to work cooperatively in DOE's administration of
the federal Coastal Energy Impact Program in New Jersey.

2. DEP will participate fully in the New Jersey CE.IP Intrastate Allocation
Committee's deliberations, as the designated lead state agency for
coastal zone management.

3. One copy of all CEIP applications submitted to DOE shall be referred
by DOE to DEP for an initial review of the application's compati-
bility or consistency, as appropriate, with the State's developing
or approved coastal management programs (15 CFR 932.26(a)(3), Federal
Register, Vol. 43, No. 37 - February 23, 1978, p. 7554).

4. One copy of all final work products and reports prepared with financial
assistance under the Coastal Energy Impact Program shall be transmitted
to DEP, as a standard condition of CEIP grants passed through to state
agencies and units of local governments by DOE.

I. National Interests in Energy Facility Siting

DEP and DOE agree to consider the national interests in New Jersey's coastal
zone, as defined in the New Jersey Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment, as approved by the Governor, in the DEP permit application processes and
the DOE Energy Report preparation process and the DOE State Energy Master Plan.
DEP agrees to interpret the opportunity under CAFRA to consider the "public
health, safety and welfare" (N.J.S.A. 13:19-4) as sufficient authority to con-
sider these national interests. DOE agrees to interpret its mandate to "...
contribute to the proper siting of energy facilities necessary to serve the public
interest ..." (N.J.S.A. 25:27F-2) as sufficient authority to consider the national
interests in the siting of coastal energy facilities.

-284-

J. Federal Consistency

DEP and DOE agree that both agencies shall participate in the State's decision
to issue a determination of consistency under Section 307 of the Federal Coastal
Zone Management Act for coastal energy facilities. As required by federal regula-
tions (15 CFR 930.18), DEP shall receive, and forward promptly to DOE, all mater-
ials necessary for consistency determinations on coastal energy facilities. In the
event of a disagreement between DEP and DOE, the Energy Facility Review Board shall
be convened and shall make a recommendation to the Governor, who shall make the
final determination within the applicable time limit. As required by federal
regulations (15 CFR 930.18), DEP will then transmit the final federal consistency
determination to the appropriate federal agency.

K. Effective Date

This Memorandum of Understanding shall take effect on September 28, 1978.
DOE and DEP agree to continue discussions and a e to agreeln a revision of this
Memorandum of Understanding to extend its scope tO other DE 7p'rmits.

/ .-1 ./ i _!

J e'/R. Jacob/on
iosissioneri
e'partment if Energy

AUG 22678

Date

Daniel _. 'Hern
Commi ier
Depart nt of Environmental
P'otection

AUG 2 278

Date

-285-

APPENDIX H: LEGAL AUTHORITIES

Introduction

The New Jersey Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment
relies upon certain New Jersey State laws and adopted rules for its legal authority
and the enforceability of its Coastal Resource and Development Policies. This
Appendix briefly describes these key legal authorities and gives the appropriate
citation reference to either the New Jersey Statutes Annotated (N.J.S.A.) or the
New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C.). In addition, this Appendix concludes by
reprinting three laws in their entirety: the Coastal Area Facility Review Act,
the Wetlands Act; and the Department of Energy Act. The CAFRA Procedural Rules and
Regulations and regulations governing the wetlands and riparian permit processes
are also published in the New Jersey Administrative Co6de and are available upon
request from DEP.

Coastal Area Facility Review Act

Law

N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 et seq. enacted June 20, 1973; effective September 19, 1973
(reprinted in this Appendix).

Rules

N.J.A.C. 7:7D-l.O et seq. - Coastal Area Review Board; effective November 18,
1975. These riuls establish the procedures of the Coastal Area Review
Board, a body composed of three cabinet members and created by N.J.S.A.
13:19-13, and which may hear appeals from decisions on CAFRA permit
applications by the Director of the Division of Marine Services.

N.J.A.C. 7:7D-2.0 et seq. - CAFRA Procedural Rules and Regulations; effective
April 5, 1977. These rules establish the permit application and exemp-
tion request procedures of DEP under the Coastal Area Facility Review
Act.

Administrative'Order

No. 32, November 3, 1975, by DEP Commissioner David J. Bardin; effective
November 10, 1975. This Administrative Order delegated decision-making
authority on CAFRA permit applications from the Commissioner to the
Director, Division of Marine Services.

No. 35, December 4, 1975, by DEP Commissioner David J. Bardin, effective
December 8, 1975. This Administrative Order established the Office of
Coastal Zone Management in DEP's Division of Marine Services. Under the
Administrative Order, the Chief of the Office of Coastal Zone Management
reports directly to the DEP Commissioner with respect to planning under
N.J.S.A. 13:19-16 and under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, but
reports to the Director of the Division of Marine Services with respect
to the CAFRA permit program.

-286-

Wetlands Act

Law

N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 et seq.; effective November 5, 1970 (reprinted in this
Appendix)

Rules

N.J.A.C. 7:7A-l.l et seq.; effective April 13, 1972. The New Jersey Wetlands
Order Basis and Background, adopted in 1972, defined the rationale for
the regulation of coastal wetlands. Independent contractors for DEP
prepared maps of wetlands at a scale of 1:2,400 (one inch = 200 feet).
DEP then adopted the Wetlands Order, including the maps delineating
wetlands areas, on a county-by-county=rule-making process, with notice to
affected property owners, from 1972-1977 (N.J.A.C. 7:7A-1.2). The order
defines regulated activities, and prohibits certain activities on wet-
lands, while the Procedural Regulations (N.J.A.C. 7:7A-1.3 et seq.)
establish permit application procedures and project review criteria, and
list the wetlands maps,

Administrative Order

No. 12, December 8, 1977, by DEP Commissioner Rocco D. Ricci; effective
December 8, 1977. This Administrative Order delegated decision-making
authority on Wetlands permit applications from the Commissioner to the
Director, Division of Marine Services and specified that appeals of the
Director's decision shall be submitted to the Commissioner.

Riparian Statutes

Law

N.J.S.A. 12:3-1 through 12:3-71; enacted at various dates beginning 1869.
These laws define the procedures and standards for leases, grants, and
conveyances of riparian lands.

N.J.S.A. 12:5-1 through 12:5-11; enacted at various dates .beginning 1914.
These laws define the procedures and standards for the management of
waterfront and harbor facilities, including waterfront development
permits.

N.J.S.A. 13:lB-10, 11, 12; enacted at various dates beginning 1948. These
laws define the powers, functions, and duties of the Natural Resource
Council, which decides riparian lands management real estate matters and
reviews some waterfront development permit applications.

N.J.S.A. 13:1B-13; enacted 1948. This law defines the procedure for approval
of riparian leases and grants.

N.J.S.A. 13:1B-13.1 through 13:1B-13.51; enacted 1968. This law, part of the
statute creating the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission,
mandates tidelands delineation studies and the surveys in the Meadowlands
and defines procedures for conveyances of State-owned riparian lands in
the Meadowlands.

-287-

90 Day Construction Permits Law

Law

C.232, L. 1975 (supplements N.J.S.A. 13:ID-1 et seq., amends N.J.S.A. 12:5-2,
12:5-3, 58:1-26 and 58:1-27, and repeals N.J.S.A. 12:5-4); enacted
October 23, 1975; effective December 22, 1975. The law provides for the
approval, conditional approval, or disapproval of applications under five
DEP-administered construction permit programs within 90 days of comple-
tion of an application, otherwise the application is deemed approved.

Rules

N.J.A.C. 7:1C-l.O et seq.; effective December 22, 1975; revised October 10,
1977. These rules implement the 90 Day Construction Permits Law, and
govern the riparian permit process.;:=-

Shore Protection

Law

N.J.S.A. 12:6A-1 et seq.; enacted at various dates beginning 1940. The law
authorizes DEP to carry out structural and non-structural shore protec-
tion programs and undertake dredging of waterways and streams.

Department of Energy

Law

N.J.S.A. 52:27-1 et seq.; enacted and effective July 11, 1977. This law
created a new cabinet-level executive department, with co-extensive
jurisdiction with other State agencies, including DEP, on energy facility
siting. It should be noted that pending State legislation (s-1179) would
amend the Department of Energy Act and increase and clarify the authority
of the Commissioner of Energy.

N.J.S.A. 40:55D-19; effective August 1, 1976. This section of the municipal
Land Use Law empowers the Board of Public Utilities to supercede any
local action taken with respect to a public utility if the Board finds
the service "necessary for the service, convenience, or welfare of the
public".

Reprinted Laws

The Coastal Area Facility Review Act, the Wetlands Act, and the Department of
Energy Act are reprinted in full on the following pages.

-288-

CHAPTER 185, i.\WS OF 1973

It is further declared that the coastal area and the State will
suffer continuing and over-accelerating serious adverse economic,
social and aesthetic effects unless the State assists, in accordance
with the provisions of this nct, in the nssessment of impacts,
stemming from the future location and kinds of facilities within
CHAPTER 185 A the coastal area, on the delicrtely balancnl environment of that
area.
Aw Acv to provide for the review of certain facilities in the coastal The Legislature further recognizes the legitimate economic
area and making an appropriation therefor. aspirations of the inhabitants of the coastal area and wishes to
encourage the development of compatible land uses in order to
Ba rr ort cma by the Seotse acd Genera Assiembly of the State improve the overall economic position of the inbhabitants of that
of Neto Jersey: area within the framework of a comprehensive environmental
c. 13,19-1 sh. W design strategy which preserves the most ecologically sensitive and
1. This act shall be known and may. be cited as the "Coastal fragile area from inappropriate development and provides ade-
Area Facility Review Act." qoate environmental safeguards for the construction of any facil-
c. 1294 4-.s..s~t n of PW. itiee in the coastal area.
2: The Legislature finds and declares that New Jesevy's bays, c 13,19-3 Deaisllln.
harbors, sounds, wetlands, inlets, the tidal portions of fIesb, saline 3. For the purposes of this act, unless the context clearly requires
or partially saline streams and tributaries and thefr"hdjoining a different meaning, the following words shall have the following
upland fastlasid drainage area nets, channels, estuaries, barrier meanings:
beaches, -near shore waters and intertidal areas together constitute a. "Commissioner" means the State Commissioner of Environ-
an exceptional, unique, irreplaceable and delicately balanced phys- mental Protection.
ical, chemical and biologically acting and interacting natural en- b. "Department" means the State Department of Environmental
vironmental resource called the coastal area, that certain portions Protection
of the coastal area are now suffering serious adverse environmental _ "Faciity" includes any of the facilties designed or utilized
effects resulting from existing facility activity impacts that would - the following purposes
preclude or tend to preclude those multiple uses which support Electric power generatio n
diversity and are in the best long-term, social, economic, aesthetic (1) Electnc power genertion-
and recreational interests of all people of the State; and that, Oil, gas, or coal fired or any cmbination hereof.
therefore, it is in the interest of the people of the State that all of Nuclear faciities.
the coastal area should be dedicated to those kinds of land uses (2) Food and forul byproducts-
which promote the public health, safety and welfare, protect public Beer, whiskey and wine production.
and private property, and are reasonably consistent and compatible Fish processing, including the production of fish meal and fish oil.
with the natural laws governing the physical, chemical and bio- Slaughtering, blanching, cooking, curing, and pickling of meats
logical environment of the coastal area. and poultry.
Trimminb, culling, juicing, and blanching of fruits and vege-
tables.
Animal matter rendering plants.
Operations directly related to the production of leather or furs
such as, but not limited to, unhairing, soaking, deliming, baiting,
and tanning.
Curing and pickling of fruits and vegetables.

c o
CIIAPTER 185, LAWS OF 1973 CHAPTER 185, LAWS OF 1973

Psateurization, homogenization, condensation, and evaporation Calcium carbide production.
of milk and cream to produce cheeses, sour milk, and related Stone, rock, gravel, and sand quarrying and processing
products. Frit and glass production
Coffee bean and cocoa bean roasting. Fiberglass production.
(3) Inciner wtion or tesqa Slag, rock and glass wool production (mineral wool).
Municipal wastes (larger than or equal to 50 tons per day). Lime production, including quarrying.
Automobile body (20 automobiles per hour or larger). Oypsum production, including quarrying.
(4) Paperprodaction- Perlite manufacturing, including quarrying.
Pulp miUl Asbestos fiber production.
Paper mills. (9) Chemical processes-
Paperboerd mills, Ammonia manufacture.
Building paper mills. Chlorine manufacture.
Building board milh Caustic soda production.
(5) Pnublic facilities and housing- Carbon black and charcoal production, including channel, furnace,
Sanitary landfils. and thermal processes.
Waste treatment plante (sanitary sewage). Varnish, paint, lacquer, enamel, organic solent, and inorganic or
Boad, nirport, or highway eonstruction organic pigment manufacturing or formulating.
New housing developmenbt of 25 or more dwelling unitb or Synthetic resins or plastics manufacture including, but not
Nequinvenet limited to, alkyd resins, polyethylene, fiuorocarbons, polypropylene,
Expansion of existing developments by the addition of 25 or and polyvinylebloride.
more dwelling units or equivaent. Sodium carbonate manufacture.
(6) Agricheminical production- Synthetic fibers production including, but not limited to, semi-
Pesticides manufacture and formulation operations or either synthetics such as viscose, rayon, and acetate, and true synthetics
thereof. such as, but not limited to, nylon, orlon, and dacron, and the dyeing
inperphosphate animal feed supplement manufacture. of these semi and true synthetics.
Production of normal snperphosphate. Synthetio rubber manufacture, including but not limited to,
Production of triple superphoephate. butadiene and styrene copolymers, and the reclamation of synthetio
Production of dinmmonium phosphate. or natral rbbers,
(7) Inorganic acids and salb manufactur-- The production of high and low explosives such as, but not limited
Hydrofinori asid and common eslt. to, TNT and nitrocellulose.
Hydrochloric acid and common salts. Soap and detergent manufacturing, including but not limited to,
Nitric acid and common esbts. those synthetic detergents prepared from fatty alcohols or linear
Sunifrio acid and common salts. akyate.
phosphoric acid and common salts. Elemental sulfur recovery plants not on the premises where
Chromio acid, including chromate and dichromatb db. petroleum refining ocenrs.
(8) Mineral products- Used motor or other oil or related petroleum product reclamation
Asphalt btching and roofing operations including the prepara- operations.
tion of bituminous concrete and concrete. Petrolesun refining, ineluding but not limited to, dirtillation, crack-
Cement production, including Portland, natra, masonry, and ing, reforming, treating, blending, polymerization, isomerization,
pozzolan cements. alkylation, and elemental snlfur recovery operations.
Coal cleaning. Organic dye and dye intermediate manufacturing.
Cay, clay mining, and fly-ash eintebring. Hydrogen cyanide or cyanide salts manufaeture or use.

-~A-gi-

_CHAPTER 185, LAWS OF 1973 CHAPTER 185, LAWS OF 1973
aGle manufacturing operations. Manufacture, use, or distillation of phenols, cresol, or coal tar
Glue manufactulring operations. mtras
Manufacturing, fabricating, or processing; medicinal and phsar- materials.
mascoutical products including the grading, grinding, or milling of Manufacture of lead acid storage batteries and/or storage
~~~~~~~~~botanicals. ~batteries produced from other heavy metals, such as nickel or
botanicals. cdin
(10) Storage--
Bulk storage, handling, and transfer facilities for crude oil, gas Installation of above or underground pipeline designed to
and finished petroleum products not on the premises where petr- transport petroleum, natural gas, and sanitary sewage.
~~~~leumr ~ refining occurs. ~Operations involving the dyeing, bleaching, coating, impreguat-
leum reftslog occurs.n rgain fppr
Bulk storage, handling, transfer and manufacturing facilities of g, or glazing of papr.
gas manufactured from inorganic and organio materials including Dyeing, bleaching, and printing of textiles other than wool.
coal gas, coke oven gas, water gas, producer, and oil gases. Chemical finishing for water repelling, fire resistance, and mildew
~~(11ii~~~~) Metallurgical p ~ ~proofing, including preshrinking, coating and impregnating.
(11) ~~letallnrgicalpro~~~~aaeb Sawamill and plaonoR mill operations.
Production of aluminum oxide and aluminum metal and all corn- Sawmill and planing mill operatins.
maon alloys, such as those with copper, magnesium, and silicon. arine terminal sla cargo handling facilities. n
Production of titanium metal, salts, and oxides d. "Person" means and shall include corporations, companies,
Metallurgical coke, petroleum coke, and byproduct coke mano- associations, societies, firms, partnerships and joint stock companies
as well as individuals and governmental agencies.
factoring.
copper, least zisc, and magnesium smelting and processing. a. "OGovernmental agencies" means the Government of the United
Ferroloysa manufacture such as, but not limited to, those com- Stats, the State of New Jersey, or any other states, their political
bined with sailion, calcium, menganese and chrome. snubdivisions, agencies, or instramentalities thereof, and interstate
blued with siticon, calcium, manessa n hoe
Integrated steel and iron mill operations including, but not agencies.
limited to, open hearth, basic oxygen, electric furnace, sinter plant, C Is,1 'o~ ... .5.ed.
and rollmeltidrawing, and extruding operations. 4. The "coastal area" shall consist of all that certain area lying
Melting, smelting, refining, and alloying of scrap or other s . between the line as hereinafter described and the line formed by the
stances to produce bracn and bronce ingots. 'JfYte's seaward' (Raritan Bay and Atlantic ocean) territorial-
Gray iron foundry operations. jurisdiction on the east thereof, the State's hayward (Delaware
Steel foundry operations. Bay) territorial jurisdiction on the south and southwest thereof,
Beryllium metal or alloy production, including rolling, drawing and the State's riverward (Delaware River) territorial jurisdiction
and extruding operations. on the west thereto. Beginning at the confluence of Cheesequeake
Operations involving silver, arsenic, cadmium, copper, mercury, Creek with the Raritan Bay; thence southwesterly along the center
lead, nickel, chromiumn, and alno including, but not limited to, pro- line of Cheesequake Creek to its intersection with the Garlen
duction, recovery from scrap or salvage, alloy production, salt State Parkway; thence southeasterly along the (arden State
formation, electroplstiig, anodizing, and metaflo-organie comi- Parkway to Exit 117 at State Highway 36; thence northeasterly
pound products preparation. along State Highway 36 to the interseclion of Middle Road (County
Stripping of oxides from and the cleaning of metals prior to 516); thence easterly along Middle Road to the intersection of
plating, anodizing, or painting. Palmer Avenue (County 7); thence northeasterly on Main Street
(12) Miscellaneons-- to the intersection of State Highway 36; thence easterly on State
Operations involving the scouring, desizing, cleaning, bleaching, Highway 36 to the intersection of Navesink Avenue; thence south-
and dyeing of wooL wcueo optlmb d erly on Navesink Avenue to the intersection of Monmouth Avenue
Wood preserving processes which u s coal or petrpleum based at Navesink; thence westerly on Monmouth Avenue to its intersec-
products such as, but not limited to, coal tars and/or creosotes. tion with Browns Dock Road; thence southerly on Browns Dock

CHAPTER 185, LAWS OF 1973 CHAPTER 185, LAWS OF 1973

Road to its intersection with Cooper Road; thence southwesterly on northwesterly aluong County Road 559 to its intersection with
Cooper Road to the intersection of State Highway 35; there U. 5. 40 and 5. .50 at Maya Landing; thence westerly along
southerly on State Highway 35 to its intersection with State High- combined U. S. 40 and S. R. 50 to its intersection with S. B. 50;
way 71; thence southeasterly on State Highway 71 to its crossing thence southerly on S. R. 50 to its intersection with Bnck Hill Road
of the Central Railroad of New Jersey tracks; thence southerly near Back Hill; thence westerly along Buck Hill (River
along the Central Railroad of New Jersey tracks to its intersection Road) Road to its intersection with S. R. 49; thence south-
of 6th Avenue (Cointy 2); thence westerly on 6fith'Avenue (County easterly along S. R. 49 to its intersection with S. R. 50; thence
2) to the intersection of State Highway 33; thence westerly along southeasterly along S. R. 50 to its intersection with County
State Highway 33 to the crossing of State Highway 18; thence Road 585; thence southwesterly along County Road 585 to
southerly on State llighway 18 to its intersection of Marconi Road; its intersection with S. H. 47 at Dennisville; thence northwesterly
thence southeasterly on Marconi Road to Adrienne Road, continu- along S. K 47 to its intersection with State Road 45- at hillsille;
ing south on Adrienne Road to Belmar Boulevard; tbence easterly tlhence through MillviJle along State Road 49 to its intersection
on Belmar Boulevard and 16th Avenue to the intersection of State with County Road 555; thence southerly along County Road 553
Highway 71; thence southerly on State Highway 71 to the intersec- to its intersection with County Road 27; thence soultberly along
tion of State Highway 35; thence northwesterly along State High- County Road 27 to its intersection with County Road 70; thence
way 35 to State Highway 34 at the Brielle Circle; thence north- southerly on County Road 70 to the Center of Mauricetown;
westerly along State Highway 34 to the Garden State Parkway at thence through Manuricetown westerly on County Road 548 to
Exit 96; thence southwesterly along the Garden State Parkway to its intersection with the tracks of the Central Railroad of New
the intersection of the Monmouth, Ocean County boundary; thence Jersey; thence northwesterly on the tracks of the Central Rail-
westerly along saidl boundary to the intersection of the Central road of New-Jersey to its intersection with County Road 98;
Railroad of New Jersey tracks; thence southwesterly along tlece easterly along County Road 98 to the intersection with
the tracks of the Central Railroad of New Jersey to its jun- County Road 35; thence northerly along County Road 38 to its
tion with the tracks of the Pennsylvania Railroad near Whiting; intersection with S. FL 49 east of Bridgeton; thence westerly along
thence eastery along the tracks of the Pennsylvania Railroad to its S. R. 49 through Bridgeton to its intersection with County Road 5
intersection with the Garden State Parkway near Sooth Toms (Roadstown Road); thence westerly along County Boad , (Roads-
River; thence southerly along the Garden State Parkway to its town Road) to Roadetown; thence northwesterly along the
intersection with County Road 539 at Garden State Parkway exit Roadtown Road to County Road 47; thence southwesterly along
58; thence northerly along County Road 539 to its intersection with County Road 47 to its intersection with County Road 19; thence
Martha-Stafford Forge Bead; thence westerly along Martha- along County Road 19 northwesterly to Gum Tree Corner; thence
Stafford Forge Road to its intersection with Spur 563; thence northwesterly along County Road 19 from Gum Tree Corner
northerly along Spur 563 to its intersection with County Road 563; across Stows Creek to its intersection with Salem County Road
thence southerly along County Road 563 to its intersection with 59 (Hancock's Bridge Road); thence northwesterly along
Coonty Road542 at GreenBank; thence northwesterly along County County Road 59 to its intersection with County Road 51 at
Road 542 to its intersection with Weekstown-Pleaoant Mills Road; Coopers Branch; thence northeasterly along County Road 51
thence southeasterly along Weekstown-Pleasant Miills Road to its to itsintersection with S. It. 49 at Quinton; thence northwesterly
intersection with County Road 563 at Weekatown; thence south- along S. R. 49 to its intersection with County Road 50; thence
easterly along County Road 563 to its intersection with Clark, s,,uthwesterly along County Road 50 to its intersection with.
Landing Road lending to Port Republic; thence easterly along County Road 58; thence southerly on County Road 58 to its inter-
Clarks Landing Road to its intersection with the Garden State section with County Road 24; thence westerly along Couoty Road
Parkway; thence southerly along the Garden State Parkway to its 24 to its intersection with County Road 65; thence northerly along
intersection with Alt. 559, and thence northwesterly along Alt. 559 County Road 65 (Walnut Street) to its intersection with County
to its intersection with County Road 559 at Gravelly Run; thence Road 4; thence westerly along County Road 4 and northerly along
-290-

CHAPTER 185, LAWS OF 1973 CHAPTER 155, LAWS OF 1973

County Road 4 and thence easterly along County Road 4 to its The statement shall include:
intersection with State Road 49; thence northerlr along State Road a. An inventory of existing environmental conditions at the
49 (Front Street) to its intersection with County Road 57; thence project site and in the surrounding region which shall describe air
easterly along County Road 57 to its intersection with State Road quality, water quality, water supply, hydrology, geology, soils,
45; thence northerly along State Road 45 to its intersection with topography, vegetation, wildlife, aquatic organisms, ecology,
County Road 540 at Pointers: thence northerly and northwesterly demography, land us-, aesthetics, history, and archeology; for
along County Road 540 (Deepwater-Slapes Corner Road) to its housing, the inventory shall de.cribe water quality, water supply,
intersection with the New Jersey Turnpike; thence westerly along hydroiogy, geology, soils and topography;
the New Jersey Turnpike to its intersection with County Road 33; b. A project description which shall specify what is to be done
thence southerly along County Road 33 to ite intersection with and how it is to be done, during constrction and operation;
State Road 49; thence southeasterly along S. R. 49 to its inter- c. A listing of all licenses, permits or other approvals as required
section with County Road 26; thence northwesterly along County by law and the status of each;
Road 26 to the Killcobook National Wildlife Refuge; thence north- d. An assessment of the probable impact of the project upon all
westerly along this northeasterly boundary to the limits of the topics described in a.;
State's territorial jurisdiction on the Delaware River; provided, e. A listing of adverse environmental impacts which cannot be
however, that the coastal area shall not include all that certain avoided;
area in Cape May County lying within a line beginning at the inter- f. Steps to be taken to minimize adverse environmental impacts
section of S. R. 47 and County Road 54; thence westerly on County during construction and operation, both at the project site and in the
Road 54; to the intersection of County Road 3; thence southeasterly surrounding region;
on County Road 3 througlsthe intersection of County Road 3 with g. Alternatives to all or any part of the project with reasons for
County Road 13 to the intersection with County Road 47; thence their acceptability or nonacceptability;
easterly and northerly along Connty Road 47 to its intersection h. A reference list of pertinent published information relating to
with State Road 9; thence northerly along State Road 9 to its th project, the project site, and the surroding regio
intersection with State Road 47; thence westerly along State Road
47 to its intersection with County Road 54. C 13,19-9 D..ia.. a a .1 pi"
C. I3,51 P__12~~ t.~~ _M~~ 8 S . a. Within 30 days following receipt of an application, the
C 1511~~5 PI~i~l ~~oaaa Idlln. L;=snmmlasloner ShalL~notify the applicant in writing resarding its--
5. No person shall construct or cause to be constructed a eonisioer A notify the applicant i writing regarding t
facility in the coastal area until he has applied for and received completeness. The commissioner may declare the application to he
a permit issued by the commissioner; however, the provisions of complete for filing or may notify the applicant of specific def-
this act shall not apply to facilities for which on-site construction, ciencies. The commissioner, within 15 days following the receipt of
including site preparation, was in process on or prior to the effec- additional information to correct deficiencies, shall notify the
tive date of this act. applicant of the completeness of the amended application. The
~~~C. 15.59-16~ Ae~Pi s f ~ P~ ~application shall not be considered to be filed until it has been
C. 13tlP6 Appsllnldos d f~lae poplt m tecll.son
6. Any person proposing to constmrct or cause to be constructed declared complete by the COM sioner.
a facility in the coastal area shall file an application for a permit b. The commissioner, within 15 days of declaring the ap-
with the commissioner, in such form and with such information as plication complete for filing, shall set a date for the hearing. The
the commissioner may prescribe. The application shall include an date for the hearing shall be set not later than 60) days after the
environmental impact statement as described in this act, application is declared complete for Sling.
C. 13,19-7 Co0leu of -.-arto Irp.4 t.p-oi . 13.19.-9 HearnMl
7. The environmental impact statement shall provide the in- 9. a. The commissioner, or a member of the department desig-
formation needed to evaluate the effects of a proposed project upon mated by him, shall hold a hearing to afford interested parties stand-
the environment of the coastal area. ing and the opportunity to present, orally or in writing, both their

L
CHAPTER 185, lAWS OF 1973 CHAPTER 185, LAWS OF 1973

position concerning the application and any data they may have to an already serious and unacceptable level of environmental
developed in reference to the environmental effects of the proposed degradation or resource exhaustion, he may deny the permit
facility. application, or he may issue a permit subject to such conditions
b. The commissioner, within 15 days after the hearing, may re- as he finds reasonabnhly necessary to promote the public health,
quire an applicant to submit any additional information necessary safety and welfare, to protect public and private property, wild-
for the complete review of the application. life and marine fisheries, and to preserve, protect and enhance
GC 13~19-10 .1 cr or �ppli-tW-1 - niaithe nstural environment. In addition, the construction and opera-
tion of a nuclear electricity generating facility shall not be ap-
10. The commissioner shall review filed applications, including the proved by the commissioner unleass he shall find that the proposed
environmental impact statement and all information presented at method for disposal of radioactive waste material to be produced
public hearings. He shall issue a permit only if he finds that the or generated by auso facility will be safe, conforms to standards
proposed facilit,: established by the Atomic Energy Commission and will effectively
a. Conforms with all applicable air, water and radiation emission remove danger to life and the environment from such waste
and effluent standards and all applicable water quality criteria and material.
air quality standards. 1,-12. ppt
b. Prevents air emissions and water effluents in excess of the
existing dilution, assimilative, and recovery capacities of the air 12. The commissioner shall notify the applicant within 60
and water environments at the site and within the surrounding days after the hearing as to the granting or denial of a permit.
region. The reasons for granting or denying the permit shall be stated. In
a. Provides for the handling ad disposal of litter, trash, and the event the commissioner requires additional information as pro-
refuse in such a manner as to minimize adverse environmental vided for in section 9, he shall notify the applicant of his
effects and the threa to the public health, safety, and welfare. decision within 90 days following the receipt of the information.
d. Would result in minimal feasible impairment of the regenero- C 13,19-13 C..,. Am ! thr . t* b.,l e ,oml lM a e.~W ,o
tive capacity of water aquifers or other ground or surface water 13. There is hereby created the Coastal Area Review Board, in
snpplies. but not of the Department of Environmental Protection, which shall
a. Would cause minimal feasible interference with the natural consist of three voting members who shall be the Commissioner
functioning of plant, animal, fish, and human life processes at the of Environmental Protection or his designated representative, the
site and within the surrounding region. Commissioner of Lablor and Industry or his designated represents-
f. Is located or constructed so as to neither endanger human life tive and the Comnissioner of Community Affairs or his designated
or property nor otherwise impair the public health, safety, and representative. No vote on a permit request shall be taken unless
welfare. all voting members are present.
g. Would result in minimal practicable degradation of unique or The Coastal Area Review Board shall have the power to hear
irreplaceable land types, historical or archeological areas, and exist-apalsfodeiono the er to
ing sceni and aesthetic attributes at the site and within the Tebadappeals from decisions of the commissioner pursuant to section 12.
The board may affirm or reverse the decision of the commissioner
susn~~~~~~rrou~nding region.with respect to applicability of any provision of this act to a pro-
C. 13,19.11 cGnt. r. &,..5 d a.It .pt- ue . Ma.o., eea.,51. p-,ds* posed use: it may mslify any permit granted by the commissioner,'
rpe.a-I . .ta o.1 to s..a - . iY- g fun.is. -l grant a permit denid by him, deny a permit granted by him, or
11. Notwithstanding the applicant's compliance with the criteria confirm his grant of a permit. The board shall review filed applica-
listed in section 10 of this act, if the commissioner finds that the tions, including the environmental impact statement and all in-
proposed facility would violate or tend to violate the purpose formation presented at public hearings and any other information
and intent of this act as specified in section 2, or if the cornlis- the comnmissioner mkps available to the board prior to the affirmsa-
sioner finds that the proposed facility would materially contribute tion or reversal of n dlcision of the commissioner.

-291-

M N
CEIAITER 185, LAWS OF 1973 CHAPTER 185, LAWS OF 1973
C. 13,19-14 IC n ld. is 1 . d P iJa. the Superior Court for injunctive relief to prohibit and prevent such
14. In the event of rentl, lease, sale or other convey- violation or violations and said court may proceed in a summary
ancee by an applicant to wios a permit is issued, such permit, with manner. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this act,
any conditions, shall be continued in force and shall apply to the new rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to this act
tenant, lessee, owner, or assignee so 1ong as there is no change in shall be liable to a penalty of not more than $3,000.00 to be collected
the nature of the facility set forth in the original application. in a summary proceeding or in any case before a court of competent
C. 13a.1-15, sha in "of 'way adveppHsell jurisdiction wherein injunctive relief has been requested. If the
The d enial of an a pplationshal in noviolation is of a continuing nature, each day during which it con-
15. The denial of an application shall in no- way adversely tinnes shall constitute an additional, separate and distinct offense.
affect the future submittal of a new aippEication. The departmentis hereby authorized and empowered to compromise
C 13119-11C Fct s ,ors- etr nauea naent and settle any claim for a penalty under this section in such amount
HtIosdal Gou.; fr-bi d..ifg 1a l -bI in the discretion of the department as may appear appropriate and
16. The commissioner shall, within 2 years of the taking effect equitable under the circumstances.
of this act, prepare an environmental inventory of the environ-
mental resources of the coastal area and of the existing facilities c 13,19-19 ApplUbilUt of t.
and land use developments within the coastal area and an estimate 19. The provisions of this act shall not be regarded as to be in
of the capability of the various area within the coastal area to derogation of any powers now existing and shall be regarded as
absorb and react to man-made stresses. The commissioner shall, supplemental and in addition to powers conferred by other laws,
within 3 years of the taking effect of this act, develop from this including municipal zoning authority. The provisions of this act
environmental inventory alternate long-term environmental man- shall not apply to those portions of the coastal areas regulated
agement strategies which take into account the paramount need pursuant to enforceable orders under the Wetlands Act, C. 13:9A-1
for preserving environmental values and the legitimate need for et seq. section 16 however shall apply to the entire area within
economio and residential growth within the coastal ares. The corn. the boundaries described herein.
missioner shall, within 4 years of the taking effect of this act, select c 13,19-0 Cu io. ot .
from the alternate environmental management strategies an en- 20. This act shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose
vironmental design for the coastal area. The environmental design -=ind intent thereof -
shall be the approved enviromnental management strategy for the
coastal area and shall include a delineation of various areas appro- c. 13,19-21 PFei h.nlidie'.
priate for the development of residential and industrial facilities 21. If any provision of this act or the application thereof to
of various types, depending on the sensitivity and fragility of the any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the
adjacent environment to the existence of such facilities. The en- act and the application of such provision to persons or eircanm-
vironmental inventory, the alternate long-term environmental man- stances other than those to which it is held invalid, shall not be
agement strategies and the environmental design for the coastal affected thereby.
area shall be presented to the Governor and the Legislature within 22 There is hereby appropriated to the Department of En-
the time frame indicated herein. vironmental Protection for the purposes of this act the sum of
13,1l9-1 Rles amd rme.d-. $100,000.00.
17. The department is hereby authorized to adopt, amend and 23. This act shall take effect 90 days from the date of enactment,
repeal rules and regulations to effectuate the purposes of is act. except that section 22 shall take effect immediately.
C. 13.19 -t IS..i.dea r, rUdR lt Approved June 20,1973.
18. If any person violates any of the provisions of this act,
rnle, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to the
provisions of this act, the department may instituate a civil action in

-292-

A
CHIAPTERl 272, LAWS (WE 19741 CIIAPTYI? 27, LAWS OIF 1970
lie and private property, wildlife and marine fisheries, adopt,
CHIAPTERt 2I2 naucld, nloil'tfeor repeat br-ders regulntim-,. restricting or prohibit.
ilig dilg,1int, fitlini, retnovion or othierwise alterijig, air polluting,
.Ik- Aer concerning the panotefitio 'f elat ar~al re-olaf r's iiili,,il coastal wetlamdbi. For the pjurposes of this net the terne "coastal
seutlanails. providing fa~r thedle~it-iat iml 1.:: the I ",o~Iuvl;ins. wetlands" shalt mnean -ans' bank, raarsh, swarrp. wae:,l.,w. l~it or
Fairii-i relnet II Prottcttuil' if-h; ria iX~~t .�* ll~ I Jv sJI-- other low lard subjecut to tidal action in thle Slate of Newr Jersey
hearing, sail realtain_ I l - lriatiil tafim thle mi :i ot r pri r I&- aogteDlwr yadDtanervrRrtahy.iareat
tile dred-ging, remiovlin, filliag or otlierwi.ec aitteiiinin or 1-1t *ttIt bay, Sandy flook bay, Sherosbury river iniluding .Navegink river,
coastal wetlands. Sbark river, and the coastal inlaind waterways extendin,_- southerly
from Iankasquan Inlet to Cape May Harbor. or at any indlet,aestuiary
liE Fr ENACTE by1 the Sellate Hait Ge;,acrl .lse)ibly of the State or tributary waterway or any thereof, incrluding those areas now or
of Nev Jersey.. formserly connected to tidal wvaters whose' surface is4 nt or below an
elevati so of I foot above local extreme high water, and upon whlich
�.IiS. Lgu.l.atoo. .i~te n .do~i~ ., poli.; ti'l, '...p may grow or is capable of growing some, lbnt not necessarily all, or
pi.ff lod I1.1 ,1.oodsItna liag .1 -P. the following: Salt meadow grass (Spartine patens), spike grass
1. it. The Legislature htereby jind.- uni declares Otat ,I,ie of Its' (Disticlilis spicats), lilack grass (Juinens grerardi), snttmnarsli gross
Imust Vital andl productive &areas of our nait--at w,.rid i.4 Itho o- (Spartina alternillora), saltworts (Salicoarnai Europaea, and Sali.
catted "estuarijie 2one.'* that at-r imr htweet th Il,, a antd the land; -cornma bigelovii), Sea Las-endar (Limonium caroliniantain), salt-
Vint this urea. protects thea land froma tihe firce of the ,c's. ntrmlernte,~ marsh butruslies (Scirpus r6hustus and Scirpus paindosus var.
our weather, provides at home for weater faiwi antd for ini: of sill our atlanticus), sand spurrey (Spergultaria marine), switch grass
fish and shellltish, and assists in% altorlting lewage aisltaciarne by (Panicum vir, atum), tall cordigrass (Spartinat pectinata). higlitide
tise rivers of tile lan,[: tanil that in airder to prioniutte the liublic bush (Iva frutescons var. oraria), cattails (Typha anggastifolia, and
safety-, health and welfare, and to protect public andi private psrop- Typha. latifotia), spike rush (Eleolharis rostellata), chairmaker's
erty, wildlife, marine fisheries and the natural envirounment, it -rush (Scirpaus americana), bent grass (Agrostis palustris), sant
is necessary to preserve the ecological batance ofa this area and sweet grass (llierorhloe odorata). The term "coastal wetlands"
prevent its further deterioration will destritctio. liy re.4ulatiic Itie ..ibaTll not inelude'nay-and or real property subject to the jurisdiction'-
dredging, tilling, remoinvig or otherwise alteringt or polluting of the Hlackensack Meadowlands Development Commission pur-
thereof, all to thle extent and in the mnanner proviilcl Ilicr'la6. suantito the provisions of P. L., 1968. chapter 404, sections I through
h. The Commissioner of Environmtental Protection Chalt, iv~lliin 84 (C. :.3:17-1 through C. 1-3:17-81).
2. vents of the effective date of this act, wiake ani kiinvenory and nialis
of all taida wetlandat within thle State-. The bioundaries of licit wiet.' 13.~. lCA. dopti. isi, p.,o oe,~ I of .'t~ ]Fait, osut-. -esodto.
landls shall generally define thle areas- that. aren car hrlelow tighi water3.hecnisiorsatbfeadpnaeninmd-
a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Si. shal e cohownsone shialalefops rhei maydhorpro tingneditrdi-.o
aeriesal bep hotograpohsuitabehscimapi.ahainl tietled ithe rerdtifilc (ofrh fying or repealing ainy such order, hueld a public becarim-, thereon
contaecriali p otoraps ahbthml alb ie l h wfi e (ft- in the county in which thea coastal wetlands to be atlrected are
county renodiate officer of the conuty orenmaities in whicht thiwet located, givinz notice thereof to catch owner having a recorded
lnsidctdthereon are locatedt. Eachwetland map -haltl hear interest in such wetlands iyv mail at least 21 days lurior thereto
a certificate or thle commissioner to thle effect that -t it maide &. acdfe] drse ohsadesa hw ntemncpltxofc
puruat to hsat ohe rqieentste tofiln R. Selu.s 47:1-6 - ecords and lay piublicat ion thereof at least Itwie in each of the 2
ateet the reitniremens of It. S. 41:1-fl.weeks next precedling ttie date of such tiesrinte in a newspaper 'if
C. 13,9A.2 A.1hn.Aly I. ceota - altelin "fn51,Os ,.~nMl. - general cirvulatit-n iii thii municipality or ianaicipaitiie in whichat
2. The Conainissinner azasy from ithee ti, timae. fi.r lhii parr~irit of such c 'astal wetlands are located.
promoting, the public safemy. hevalth anal welfare, and protecting z .

CIIAPTENt 272, LAWS OF 1970 CilAL'TER 2712, LAWS OF 19709

Upoin the adoption of any such enter or a ny order amendiag, C. 13,9"1 Bn'ti *,slaan
modifying or repealing the same, ttie commissioner shall cause a , 6. Thle Superior ('outrt Sliall leave jurisdiction to restrain viola-
copy thereof, together with a hiian of thle lanils affected, including tiona of orders issued plirsuamt to, this act.
reference to the filed wetlands map or maps nit which the same are C.13.9AG F.r.I;.5 o -Vniphloi lo,,intn of tin,..stni
shown and a list of the owners of record of such binds, to be re- B . Any persont havingr At reordleal interest ilk land affec(Atedly tacy
corded in the offtre iof the county clerk or re-gister of deeds, where such order or pernait aillay. within 90 days after receiving entice
it shall to' ineli"sid Uaaid tledr as a, juilguCiett. land shalti zunit a co p thereof, file a compllainit it, thle Superior Court to determine
of such order and lilan to cacti owner of record of siuchi landls af- whether such oriler oir liertnit so restricts or otherwise affects
fected thereby, ther use of his projperty as to deparive Wll of the practical use tiacreof
C. 13i9A4 "fleg.5.a1 .,iimy da. po oat ppl~i-tnnwool s~ ~ antI i, thterefoare, nia uatri'tasoiitelal exercise of the police power be-
S.."a ofnoof~ ns -a . bo -oiid-duL cause theo order or liemaiit constitutes tlae equivalent of a taking
4. a. For purposes of this section iiregulatedl activity" includes without compensationi. If the court finds the oraler or permit to
but is not limited to draining, dredging. excavation or removal of be an ujireasouable ieiervi.,t of the police power, tile court shall
soil, mud, sand, gravel, aggregate of any kind or depositing or enter a finding, that %iacit order or permait shall not apply to thle
dumping therein any rubbish or similar material or discharging lanaIt or tile llaiaitiff; p~rovidedi, howes-cc, thant %larh lianling shall
therein liquid wastes, either directly or otherwise, and the erec- not affect nay fltair l;atd tlan~ that of the plaiattiff. Asay party to
tion of structures, drainigs of pilings, or placing of obstructions, the suit olauy cnum- it colly I)f such finding to h.. revordeil forthiwvila
whether or not changing the tidal ebb and Ilow. -lta-gulated activ- in. the office of tlac cotaty clerk or register of deeds, uvhiire it shall
ity" shall not'incluade continuance of commercial production of b e iandexed and etiled a* ajudinalimat.
salt hay or other agriceltural crops or activities conducted under The method provaided inl thisr section for the determination of the
section 7 of this act, issue sh~all be exclusive, anal saicl issue sllall not be determined in
IL No regulated activity halkl be cosadected upon any wetland sany other proceeding.
without a permit. C ~P. oat onon. ol.oam .cn~eot
c. Any ImaeE-ol proposing to coaaduct or cause to lie conducted a 7. No action by tile commaissioner under this act shall prohibit,
regulated activity upon any wetlanld shall file an application for aretitrimartexeisorpfranefthpwrsnl
permit with the commsissioner, in such form andl with such dutriesconere or impir e xesel or pefran of til Sa e lipowers neato
information as the commissioner may prescrible. Such appli- d u viesronmental[ o'rotcimonb tle attw Reore(onucili Stae armntl tof
cation shall include ta detailed description of tite prolm)4ale work E nionetate Mosquto 'ot ion t ile NatuaiResourc Cncsil Deatic ant the Sth
and a map shlowing the area, of wetlatid directly affected, with SaeMsut oto 'Brigo nsi eattot ie-th
the oestien of thle proposed work tla-reota together wTithe the namnes Department of Hecaltht, or sauy mosquito control or other project
(Of the" owners of recordl of tadjacont Isaid antI knowna elatanants of or activity operating aunder ran'aithorized by the provisions of tliulp-
rightse ins or adjacent to tlae wetlhand of whom the :aplalicant has ter 9 of Title 26 fof tlia- Rleviset Statutes.
notice. Atll applicatiomas, svitha alay mnaps and docunmenti relatin g c Ca.9IIA'a iiotu sekas -s -horltmfeo -i ~sa
thereto, shalt beo often for inspaection at the office of tlae Department S . Nothnic in this. act or uttaly pernait issuted hereunder shall afecte
of Environmental Protection. tlte rights of tlte State ill, ior thea obligations of a riparian own-nr with
d4 In grunting, denying or limiting any permit the cernt- respect to, riparian hand-it.
missioner shall consider the effect of the proposed work with
reference to the public healtha and wselfire, marine fishteries, shiell C. 13,9A.9 Uoobtir-1 i- --t~ -C -este-;tos 9-11..t
fiseries, wildlife. t1ha. prolcalioma afo life arla pnilaterty front hlood, D . Aty person whoe violaite- allay order by the comamissioaaer,
hitrricano itiati otlier nattaral ,isustant-. an.1 tilte pullblie policy set o r violates any otf thle provisiont of this act, [lasll he laith
forth in Reetioul 1. a. of tilas art. to the State fair tile vo-~t cit re~aratornli (of the: atffeted wetilandl to

CHAPTER 272, LAWS OF 1970

it,& iiiiiliblioii pi r to such,j ' ipldion iii ~lfdr n% that i-~ pom'-ible. a 'I
shall lie punishedl I) a finL' or not niore lntha ~,04j,( 00, to b.' collet It-if
in kIC( ardance is ithi the i o)! 0'.n o Iilial Pote 'naity Enfori.Cmen-, 110
(N. .J S 2A ;8-1 et seqj
L 13 9A4-10 SIo-u maiiI
It) This asit nigi' he cited as "The Welland, Aet of 1,07O."

Approved Novemnber 5, 1970

-294-

20 legithiate needs or from practices of production, distribution, and
21 coansutption detrimental to the quality of life or the environment;
22 coidrlitile to the proper siting of enlergy facilities necessary to
P. L 1977, CIUkPTER 146, approved JulyI 11. 17n A 23 set'e the public interest;' coordinate .ew Jersey's euergy policies
24 and actions with Federal energy policies; and secure for New Jer-
25 sey the mnaxi.nuuns amount of Federal funding available for energy
l977 Senate Xro. 3179 (Odicial Copy Rapfiat)
1977 Senate No. 3179 (Offcial Copy 25 relatedi research, dvelopm'nt. and demonstration projects.
concerning t~e production, cdistrihution, conservation, and 26 The Legislature fturther finds and determines that shortages of
27 energy have the potential at certain times and in certain places to'
consumption of energy, establishing a Departmnent of Euergy as I2 so seriously affect the public interest that it is necessary for
a principal department in the Executive Branch of State 29 State government to possess emergency powers sufficient to preveut
Government 'and repealing parts of the statutory law*. 30 or minimize health disasters and grave economic disruptions which
31 could occur during said times.
1 Bs Ix EBCACTE by the Senate and General .4Assembly of the State 32 The Legislature, therefore, declares it to be in the best interest
2 of New Jersey: 33 of the citizens of this State to establish a principal department
rt 34 in the Executive Branch of State Government to coordinate au-
L i This act shall be knotrn and nmty be cited as the "Department.
ofEnergy Act." 36 matters.
1 2. The. Legisldtnre hereby finds and determines that a secure, As used in this act:
2 stable, and adequate supply of energy at reasonable prices.is vital 2 "Commis er" means the Comissioner of the Department
3 to the State's economy and to the public health, safety, and welfare; o ner
4 that this State is threatened by the prospect of both near- and 3 of Energy;
long-term energy shortages; that the existing dispersion of r- 4 b. "Department means the Departent of Ener- etaished
6 sponsibilities with respect to energy and energy-related matters 5 by this set;
7 among variou1s S' daent a7 cisandor7resident or located, who imports into this State nfuels for use.
8 missions inhibits comprehensive and effective planning for our
9 future energy needs; and that the State government does not uow
9 future energy needs; and that the State government does not iiow 8 distribution, storage, or sale in this State after the same shall
O10 possess either snfficient information or adequate authority to .r-9reach this State; and also each person who produces, refines,
';=-rhanufaetnre/~,-bTnds, or compounds fuels and sells, uses, sfb'e-%,
11 provide for and insure the wise and efficient production, distriba- o i sa e t hints fe n n se, or
12 tion, use, and conservation of ener~g. 11 or distributes the same within this State. In no case, however,
123 in sadcnsraino nry 12 shall'a retail dealer be coustrued to be a oistributor;
13 The Legislature further finds and determines that only an agency 13 shall a retail denier he construed to be a distributor;
14 with comprehensive powers can collect, collate, and analyse the 14 an "Energy" means all poger derivd from, or generated by,
15 information necessary to deterpuine the amount of energy that is 1 r- natural or man-made agent, including, at t not limited to,
10 or muy be available; develop mechanisms to insure a fair and16mnrlfmaistealgdenwnoraer
16 or may be available; develop mechanisms to insure a fair and 15 petroleum products, gases, solar radiation, atomic fission or fusion,
17 equitable distribution of existing supplies; conduct the long-term 16 mineral formations, thermal gdien, ind, or ter.
1I planning and management needed to eliminate or alleviate the 17 e. "Energy facility" means any plaut or operation which
19 potential derse effects of a supply of ener insufficiet to meet 18 produces, converts, distributes or stores energy or converts one
19 form of energy to another: in no case, however. shall an operation
iu.,.n s.r 5L... s od I. hmold.,14d. h [h.n im.e d. m.- bii 1 20 conducted by a person acting only as a retail dealer be construed
1. - -.ad .d E. ,.id, t. 1 - i ltb. h 21 as an energy facility;
22 f. "Energy information" means any statistic, datum, fact, or
2.1 item of knowledge and all combinations thereof relating to energy;
24 g. "Energy information system" means the composite of energy
25 information collected by the office;

C D

26 h 'r"Encrg.y]' "'Energy' industry" means any person, con- 67 q. "Supplier of fuel" means any refiner, importer, unarketer,
27 pany, corporation, business, institution, establlshment or other 6S jobber, distributor, teradnal operator, firm, corporation, whole-
25 organization of any nature engaged in the exploration, extraction, 69 saler, broker, cooperative or other person who supplies, sells,
29 transportation, transmission, refining, procssing, generation, die- 70 consigns, transfers, or otherwise furnishes fuel. In no case, how-
3) tribution, sale or storage of energy; 71 ever, shall a retail dealer be construed to be a supplier of fuel;
31 i. "Fuel" means coal, petroleum products, gases and nuclear 72 r. "Trade secret" means the whole or any portion or phase
32 fael, including enriched uranium, U235 and U235, and plutonium, 73 of any scientific technical or otherwise proprietary information,
-3 U239; 74 design, process, procedure, formula or improvement which is used
34 j. "Gases" means natural gVs, methane, liquefied natural gas, 75 in one's business and is secret and of value; and a trade secret
3.5 synthetic natural gas, coal gas and other manufactured gases; 76 shall be presumed to be secret when the owner takes measures to
36 k. "Person" means natural persons, partierships, firms, asao. 77 prevent it from becoming available to persons other thani those
3 i estious, joint stock companies, syndicates and corporations, and 78 selected by the owner to have access thereto for limited purposes;
'�S any receiver, trustee, conservator or other officer appointed pur- 79 a. "Wholesale dealer" means any person who enguages in the
31 suant to law or by any court, State or Federal; "persoll" also o80 business of selling fuels to other persons who resell the said fuel.
40 means the State of New Jersey, counties, nunicipalities, acthori- 81 In no case shall a retail dealer he considered as a '[lwhoesale]'
41 ties, other political subdivisions, and all departments and agenucies 8'2 �wholesale� dealer.
42 within thile aforementioned governmental entities; 1 4. There is hereby established in the Executive Branch of the
43 L "Petroleum products" means and includes motor gasoline, 2 State Giovernaent a principal department which shall be hlown
44 middle cdistillate oils, residual fuel oils, aviation fuel, propane, 3 as the Department of Energy.
4. butane, natural gasoline, naphtba, gas oils, lubricating oils and any 1 5. The administrator and chief executive officer of thile depart-
46 other similar or dissimilar liquid hydrocarbons; 2 mert shall be a commissioner who shall be a person qualified lay
47 m "Public building" means anil duilding structure, facility 3 training and experience to perform the duties of Iis office. The
48 or complex used by the general public, including, but not limited 4commissioner shall be appointed by the Govenmor wvitlh the advice
49 to, theaters, concert halls, auditoriums, museums, schools, libraries, 5 and consent of thile Senate, aid shall serve at the pleasure of tilhe
50 recreation facilities, public transportation terminals and stations, 6 Governor aod until the appointment and qualiticntion of the comuis-
51 factories, office buildings, business establishments, passenger 7 siouer's successor. HIe shahll devote his entire tinme to the dities of
52 vehicle service stations, shopping centers, hotels or motels and 8 his office and slhall receive such salary as shall be provided by law.
5.3 public eating places, owned by any State, county or municipal 9 Any vacancy occurring in the offie of the commissioner shall Ie
54 government agency or instrmnentality or any private individual, 10 filled ill the same manner as the original appointment.
55 partnership, association or corporation; 11 5.1.a. Tthere is hereby cstablished is the departamet, tlie Board,
56 n. "Purchase" means and includes, in addition to its ordinary 12 of Public Utilities; prorvided, however, tltat such board shall be
57 meaning, ansy acquisition of ownership or possession, including, 13.- independent of any sapervisiao, or control by the deparliten.t or
58 but not limited to, condemnation by eminent domain proceedings: 14 by sal officer or eamployee thereof, except as othervise expressly
59 o. "Retail dealer" means any person who engages in the. busi- i5 piratoided i thbis act.
60 ness of selling fuels from a fixed location such as a service statioc:, 16 b. The Departmiaent of Public Utilities is abolished and its firte-
61 filling station, store, or garage directly to the ultimate users of 17 lions. powcers and duaties are hereby traasferrcd to the Board of
62 said fuel; 1S Public Uti!ities, except as provided in scction 25 of this act.
63 p. "Sale" means and includes, in addition to its ordinary mean- 19 e. 'The Board of Public Utility Commissioners and Ithe positiins
64 ing, any exchange, gift, theft, or other disposition. Tn such case 20 of president cad comissio,,ers thereof shalt be rontivued as the
65 where fuels are exchanged, given, stolen, or otherwise disposed of, 21 Board of Public Utilities and the presient and eoron,,,,issioners
66 they shall be deemed to have lben sold; 22 thereof in the Board of PNb!ic 7tilities. This act shall Hot afect
23 tre terms of office of, nor th solaries received by, thle present anm.
-295-

� F
24 hers of the Board of Public Utility Commneissioners, or of any 7 private consultants on a contract basis or otherwise for reuderileg
2.5 oicers or emnployees thereof. the Departmecnt of Civil Service 8 professional or technical assistance.
26 shall :o: recdussify cuy title or position transferred from the De- 1 . 'a.' The coummissioner shanll malke an annual report to the
27 parttet of Public Utlities pursuant to this act without the ap- 2 Legislature and the Governor of the department's operations and
26 proval of the board. The President oand Coenmissioners of the 3 render such other reports as they shall frotm time to time request
29 Board of Public Ulitiies shalt be appointed i: the maumer provided 4 or as may be required by law. These reports sall include, but not
30 by existitbg law for the appointumentc of tie President and Conamis- 5 be linited to, an analysis of existing problems and gouidelines re-
31 sioners of ite toarr! o Public Clitily Comm,,issioners, oand shall 6 lutling o future energy use and availability.
32 receive such salaries ts shall b' provcided by tls. 7 'b. Within 6 months of the effective date of this act, the cons-
33 d. All f[ractions, pourers and dsities oeae r'ested in the Board of S snissioner, after eossulltation wills the Director of the Division of
34 Public Utility Commissioners anid in the positions of presidecst and 9 EeTrgy Planning and Conserration, the Board of Public Utilitics,
3d coassmissioners thereof are hereby transserred to and assaised by 10 the Attorney Genseral, and the comtissioners of appropriate execu-
36 the Board of Public Utilities and the president and commlssiener. 11 tive deparlnments, includieg bhel tiot secessarily limsited to the De-
37 thereof. 12 partments of E-nfirnseneetal Protection and Transportalion, shall
33 e. Wheanever in any lawo, rule, regulation, order, contract, docie- 13 prepare and siubmit a report to the Legislature sid the Gouversor
39 mnen, jedicial or adjluinistrative proceeding or othSenise, refcrence 14 identifying (1) those fusctions and duties carraenty exercised by
40 is maicc to the Departmasent of Public Utilities or the Board of Psblio 13 othler departments, divisions, agencies, coasmeissoiss, coaucils,
41 Utility Commsissioners, the samne shall mean and refer to lthe Board 16 boards, or burreaus of State Government relatiseq to etnergy that
42 of Public Utilities. 1T mnight be appropriately txansferred to the deparlrtment; and (2)
43 5.2.a. There is hereby established in the deparhnteut the Divh:ision 1 those functioes and dusties trassfcrred to ithe departenict pursr.,it
44 of Energy Plnniinq antd Conservation. 19 to the provisions of this act that nigqht be approprinatly transferred
4.5 b. T7e Division of Energy Plaiming and Conservation shall be 20 to other departments. Sech transfers mawa be effect'ated by excccl-
46 winder the linmmediate supervision of a director wcho shall be op- 21 live order or law, as the case layn be.'
47 pointed by the Govensor, wvith tihe odvice and consent of the Senate, 1 9. The commissioner shall, 'Eby an']* on behalf of the depart-
48 and who shall serve at the pleasure of the Governor durinr. the I meat lthroughI the Division of Energy Plannitg and Conservatioes:
49 Governor's tenra of office and until the appointment and qusalifiea- 2 a. Manage the department as the central repository within the
50 lion of his successor. The director shall receive such salar!y as .3_ State Government for the collection of energy information;
51 shall be provided by lao.* -' 'b. Collect "-tnt'annlyze data relating to present and future-
1 6i. The conmmissioner shall org-anize the work of the department 5 demands and resources for all forms of energy;
2 and establish therein such administrative subdivisions as he may 6 e. Have authority to require all persons, firms, corporations or
3 deem necessary, proper and expedientL He may formulate and 7 other entities engaged in the production, processing, distribution,
4 adopt rules and retinations and prescribe duties for the efficient 8 transmission or storage of energy in any form to submit reports
5 conduct of the business, work and general administration of the 9 setting forth such information as shall he required to carry out the
6 departmenst. He may delegate to subordinate officers or employees 10 provisions of this act;
7 in the department such of his powers as he may deem desirable 11 d Htave authority to require any person to submit information
8 to be exercised under his supenrision and control. 12 necessary for determining the impact of any construction or
1 7. Swliject to the provisions of Title 11 of the Revised Statutes, 13 development project on the energy and fuel resources of this State;
2 and witlhin the limits of funds appropriated or otherwise made II e. Charge other State Government departments and ageetcies
3 availswl. tihe conwissioner may appoint such officers and en- 15 involved in energy-related aetivities', including the Board of
4 ployces of the department as he may deem necessary for the 16 Public Utilities,' with specific information gathering goals and
5 perfonnaaee of its duties. fix and determine their qunaliiefations, 16a require that said goals be fulfilled;
6 duties. mid compenusatilon and retain or employ engineers and

14.

17 f. Establish an energy information system which will provide 57 Me. iTave authority to apply for. accept, and expend grants-in-aid
18 iall data necessary to insure a fair and equitable distribution of 5.' ased assist:cee from private aerl public sources for entergy pro-
19 rvailable energy, to permit a more effieieut and effective use of u9 grams; iaotwithstnsilitig any oilter law to the contrary, tihe coam-
20 available energy, and to provide the basis for long-term planning 60 neissioller is desiguated as thle State official to apply for, receive,
21 related to eneergy needs; I'l nald expend Federal and other funding made ervaitable to the State
22 g. Delsign, implement, and enforce a program for the conservation 62 for the purposes of this act;
23 of ernergy in commercial, industrial, and residential facilities, which 63 l. Require the annual suhnmission of energy utilization reports
21 program shall provide for the evaluation of energy systems as they 04 and collascrvatioae plains by State Government departments mnd
25 relata to lighting, heating, refrigeration, air-conditioning, building 6"5 agencies, 'bcludifsg the Board of Public Utilities,' evaluate said
26 designt and operation, and appliacce manufacturing and operation; 66 planis and the progress of the dcpartutents and agencies in meeting
27 and may include, but shall not be limited to, the reqpiring of an 67 these pilauis, aind order changes in the plans or improvement in
28 annual inspection and adjusttneatt, if necessary, of oil-fired heating It. ellweeting the goals of the plans:
29 systems in residential, commercial and industrial buildings so as to �,, o. Car- ount all duties givenu him under other sections of tis nact
80 briug such systems into conformity with efficiency standards ti!) or any otheraets:
31 therefor prescribed by the department; the setting of lighting 71) p. IJave authlrity to conduct hearings and investigations in
32 efficiency standards for public buildings; the establishment of It order to carry out the purposes of this act and to issue subpenas in
33 manlatory thermostat settings acd the use of seven-day, day-night 72 fnrtloersnec of such power. Said power to conduct investigatioans
34 thermostats in public buildings; the development of standards for 73 shall inclutdeo, but not be limited to, the authority to enter without
35 efficient boiler operation; and, the preparation of a plan to insure 74 delay and at reasonable times the premises of any energy industry
36 the phlased retrofitting of existilg gas furnaces with electric igni- 73 in order to obtain or' verify any information necessary for carrying
37 tion systems and to require that new gas '[funeacesi, ranagos*],' 76 out thile purposes of this act,
38 and dryers be equipped with electric ignition systenms', and nesv 77 q. Have authority to adopt, amend or repeal, purstunt to the
38a gtas furnaces with electric ignitlon sjsletes and automatic vent- 78 "Administrative Procedure Act" (C. 52:14B-1 et seq.) suds rules
S8n dampers'; 79 acd regulations necessary and proper to carry out time purposes of
39 h. Conduct and supervise a State-wide program of education 0So tilis act;
40 including the preparation and distribution of information relating 81 r. Administer suchl Federal energy regulations as are applicable
41 to energy conservation; 82 to the states, including, but not limited to, the mandatory petroleum
42 L Monitor prices charged for energy within the State, evaluate .3 allocation regulations and State energy conservation plans.
43 policies governing the establishment of rates and prices for energy, $4 s. u-ve nutlhoritr to sue and he sued;
44 and make reconmntendations for necessary changes in such policies t5 t. Have authority to acquire by purchase, grant, contract or
45 to otherconcerned Federal and State agencies',inclhding the Board Si; eminent domain title to real property for the purpose of demon-
46 of Public Utiities," and to the Legislature; S7 strating facilities whichl improve the efficiency of energy use,
47 j. Have authority to conduct and supervise research projects $S; eoserve energr or geweerate en!rgy in nnew and efficient ways;
48 and programs for the purpose of-increasing the efficiency of energy q9 u. Hav-e natlio.itv to constnrct eand operate, on an experimcnta!
49 use, developing new sources of energy, evaluating energy conserva- -0 cr demonstration basis. facilities which improve the efficiency of
50 tion measures, and meeting other goals consistenct with the intent 91 ceiergv "se, eallservre energy or generate power in new and efficient
51 ofthisaet; 92 ways:
52 k. Have authority to distribnte and expend funds made available 9:} r. Lurve neethbority to coutraet rwithi :ny other public agency or
53 for the purpose of research projects and programs; 9 corlpo:ration ii':orpornted aeweher thile laws of this or any other state
54 1. Have authority to enter into interstate compacts in order to .51 for th,. rerforneanec of any fmetlnion utnder titis act:
55 carry out energy research and planning with other states or the i; w. l)etermile the effect of ouergy and fuel shortages upon con-
56 Federal Government where appropriate; 7i sonamers, and formulate proposals designed to encourage thle lowest

-296-

9S possible cost of energy and fuels consumed in the State cousisteut . Consider any matter relating to the production, distribution,
99 with the conservation and efficient use of energy; 5 consumption or conservation of energy;
100 . l Keep complete and accurate minutes of all hearings held 6 . From thue to time submit to the commissioner any recom-
101 before the commissioner or any member of the fdepadrtuenc]' 7 ruendations which it deeis necessary for the longtern planning
102 'Division of Energy Planning and Conscrvatiorn pursuant to the 8and management of energy;
103 provisions of this act. All such minutes shall be retained in a 9 d. Study energy programs and make its recommendations
104 permanent record and shalml be available for public inspection at 10 thereonto the conmissioner;
105 all thues during the office hours of the department. 11 e. Review, prior to their promulation, proposed rules and reau-
1 10. There is created in the L'clpartmcentj 1)iuisitons of Energy 12 lations, of the department, and make its recommendations there-
:2 Plnanlnig and Conservation' an Advisory Council on Energy 'PFnn- 13 upon, except such rules and regulations determined by the conmris-
3 dnng and Conservation* which shall consist of 'E[0O' '.15 ment- 14 siouer to he emergency measures essential to preserve the public
4 bers representing the following: the natural gas industry, the 15 health,safety, or welfare.
5 bottle gs inadustry, the Ihome heating oil and coal industry, terminal 16 f. Hold public hearings in regard to existing statutes and rcgu-
6 operators, oil refiners, gasoline retailers, electrical utilitiecs, nuclear 17 iations governing the production, distribution, consumption or con-
7 fuel suppliers, .'the Departinent of Public Utilities and the coll- 1S serration of energy.
8 suning publicJ' 'ca/rosrnennntal organizations, tine solar energy 1 12. a. The department, *througi tihe Division of Energy Plan-
Sa inndustry, sinanafaclnennng indnu/strial coensnnnnelrs, connennciol ron-- Is n1. ;ig and Conservation,� within 1 year of the effective date of this
9 stanners, residential conssirners, the transporltnion indlstary arid Ilie 2 act, shall prepare or cause to be prepared, and, after public hear-
s, academic eosnunnni!ty. teunherls shall be appointed by the Gov- 3 ings as hereinafter provided. adopt a master plan for a period of
9B ernor, with the advice and consent of the Senate, aud as practicably 4 10 years on the production, distribution, coasenplyion and conserva-
Sc as possible represent the several geographical areas of the State. tion of energy in this State. Such plan shall be revised and updated
10 The council shall elect a chairman, vice chairman and secretary 6 at least once every 3 years. The plan shall include long-term
11 from its membership. Of the members first appointed, "[tbree'" 7objectives but shall provide for tie interin implementation of
12 "fire- shall-serve for terms of 2 years, *[tlrrec]"' "fIcev' for 8 measures consistent with said objectives. The department muay
13 terms of 3 years and [Efour]" "fivee0 for terms of 4 years. 9 from time to time and after public hearings amend the master pilan.
14 Thereafter all appointments shall be made for terms of 4 years. 10 In preparing tihe master plan or any portion thereof or ameudnueat
13 Mlenbers shall serve after the expiration of their terms until their 11 thereto the department shall give due consideration to the energy
16 respective successors are appointed and shall qualify, and any &tn-eeds and supplies in the several geographic areas of the State,.nd
17 vacancy occurring in the inerubersh)ip of the council by expiration 13 shall consult and cooperate with any Federal or State agency hay.
18 of term or otherwise, shall bh filled in the sane manner as the 14 ing an interest in the production, distribution, consumption or con-
18S original appointment for the unexpired term only. 15 seration of energy.
19 5lembers of tihe council shell serve without compensation but 16 b. Upon preparation of such master plan, and each revision
20 shall be rcimhbursed for expenses actually incurred in attending 17 thereof, the department shall cause copies thereof to be printed,
21 meetings of the council and in performance of their duties as 18 shall transmit sufficient copies thereof to the Governor and the
22 members thereof. The council shall reet at least four tines each 10 Legislature, for the use of the members thereof, and shall advertise,
23 year, at the call of its ehairnina, and et such other times, at the call 20 in such newspapers as the commissioner determines appropriate to
24 of tne commissioner, as inc deenns accessnay. 21 reach the greatest possible number of citizens of New Jersey, the
1 11. The ,Advisory Council on Energy Planning and Conserver- 22 existence and availability of such draft plan from the offices of the
I. ti o is emnpowered to: 23 department for the use of such citizens as may request sanne. In
2 a. Request from thIe counmlssioner �and from tie Director of Ile 24 addition, the department shall:
3 Division of Energy Plannimg and Conservatioa* such energy in- 25 (1) Fix dates for the comnmencement of a series of public hear-
:., formation as it may deem necessary; 26 ings, at least one of which shall be held in each geographical area

K~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
;?; L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.,,
27 delineated in the master plan. Each such public hearing shirl con- s production, processing, distribution, transmnission or storage of
25 corn the overall content of the plan and those aspects thereof that 9 energy in any fonnu, when, in the discretion of the commissioner,
29 have relevance to the specific geographical area in which each such 10 such intervention is necessary to insure the proper consideration
30 public hearing is being held; 11 by such State instrumuentaliries of the State energy master plan,
31 (2) At least 60 days prior to each public hearing held pursuant 12 or any part or aspect thereof, adopted by the departrnent pursuant
32 to this section, notify each energy industry and each State depart- 13 to section 12 of this act, or any rule or regulation promulgated by
33 ment, commission, authority, council, agency, or board charged 14 the departmuent pursuant to tihe provisions of this act. To facilitate
34 with the regulation, supervision or control of any business, in- 15 the intervention provisions of this section, each such State instru-
35 dustry or utility engaged in the production, processing, distribh- 16 mentality shall consider the department a party of interest in any
36 tion, transmission, or storage of energy in any form of the time 17 proceedings before such instrumentality with respect to enemgy and
37 and place for the hearing and shall pnblish such notice in a naives- IS shall give the sauMe notice to the department as is given to evcry
38 paper of general circulation in the region where the hearing is to 19 other party of interest in such proceedings of any nuceting, public
39 be held, and in such newspapers of general circulation in the State 20 bearing or other proceeding of such instrumentality in implemnent-
40 as the commissioner determines appropriate to reach the greatest 21 ing its regulatory, supervisory or control powers, respnonsihilities
41 possible number of citizens of New Jersey. 21s and duties with respect to such busiuesocs, industries or utilities.
42 e. Upon thie coumpletion of the requirements of subsection b. of 22 b. It being the intention of the Legislatre that the actions,
43 this section, the department shall consider the testimony presented 23 decisions, detenrinatioas and ralings of the State Governmuent with
44 at all such public hearings and adopt the energy master plan, 24 respect to energy shall to the maxintuma extent practicable and
45 together with any additions, deletions, or revisions it shall deem 25 feasible conform with the energy master plan adopted by the de.
46 appropriate. 26 pertinent pursuant to section 12 of this eact, thIe departmment shall
47 d. Upon the adoption of the energy master plan, and upon each 27 prepare, periodically revise and distribute to each State instru-
48 revision thereof, the department shall cause copies thereof to be 28 mentality charged witlh the regulation, supervision or control of any
49 printed and shall transmit sufficient copies thereof to the Governor 29 business, industry or utility engaged in the production, processing,
50 and the Legislature, for the use of the members thereof, and to 30 distribution, transmission or storage of energy in any form, suein
51 each State department, commission, authority, council, agency, or 31 guidelines as the department determines to be relevant to assist
52 board charged with the regulation, supervision or control of any 32 each such instrumentality in conforming with said energy master
53 business, industry or utility engaged in the production, processing, 33 plan in implementing its regulatory, supervisory or control poiwers,
54 distribution, transmission, or storage of energy in any form. In 34 responsibilities and duties with respect to such businesses, in-
55 addition, the department shall advertise in the manner provided in 35 dustries or utilities.
56 snbsection b. of this section the existence and availability of the 36 'e. W ilt respect to the sitlb*g of any enncrp0y facility in adyI pa)rt
57 energy master plan from the offices of the department for the use 37 of New Jersey, thie departrment shall, the prois/ons of nan loae
58 of such citizens of New Jersey as may request same; provided, 38 to the contrary l;otnritllnlndbir.. have jnrisdiction coextensilv'e srit
59 however, that thIe departmhnent may charge a fee for such copies of 39 thatn of asny other S/late nsirnamentlerlity, and to that end, to Stolte
60 the energy master plan sufficientto cover the costs of printing and 40 istrnrnentalit h ni the por-cr to grant or den!/ ;tn pernit for the
61 distributing same. 41 constructison or tocation of any en~lqy facili!y slall exercise its
1 13. a. The '[department' 'Division of Energyl Planning and 42 powers rci//onn referring to the Division of Energy Planning ann
2 Conserration is *rfurther]* empowered arnd directed to intervene 43 Conserration, for its reriewr nnd conmamends, a copy of sunch appli-
3 in any proceedings before, and appeals frorn, any State depart- 44 ration and all papers, dcarneen.ts and mnaterials apprrtaennt thereto
4 meat, division.' commission, nauthority, council, agency or board 4 flifed by ite applict nilnsach Stalte Pstrnrnnalt!l. Prior to
5 (hereinafter referred to as "State instniurmtalities") 'inclnding 46 niaking a flnal decision ginl. respect to any Sirce applicalien, the
6 the Board of Public Ulililies' charged with.tbe regulation, super- 47 Stte irtnnenif ith pvner of approval over se/n applicatio
7 vision or control of any business. industry or utility engaged in the 48 snll solicit the riees of the departnent thereupon. Sach v/ers

-297-

49 shallt be colunmunicated to the State instraumentaliiy 'itlh tha power 4 to the public health, safety, or welfare. The eommissioner shall
50 of approval over such application itt the form of a report describing 5 direct all State Government departments and agencies', including
51 the f/idings of the department with respect to such application. 6 the Board of Public Utilities,' to develop, subject to his approval.
52 ,u4ch report shall be prepared bp the Director of the Division of 7 contingency plans for dealing with said emergencies.
53 Energy Planning and Conservation and shall be signed by said 1 15. a. Upon a finding by the commissioner that there exists or
54 director and by the commissioner. In tihe event that such report 2 impends an energy supply shortage of a dimension'which endan-
55 is not prepared and transmitted to the State insltrumenttality wit 3 gers the public health, safety, or welfare in all or any part of the
56 power of approval over stsch application within 90 days after the 4 State, the Governor is authorized to proclaim by executive order
57 department's receipt of stack application, suck State instrumen- 5 a state of energy emergency for a period of up to 6 months. The
53 taWlp shall act rapet such application pursuant to the lae providing 6 Governor maylimit the applicability of any such state of emergency
59 its posver of approval thereof. lt thle event that the views of the 7 to specifie kinds of energy forms or to specifice areas of the State
60 department. as contained in its report, with respect to any such S in which such a shortage exists or impends.
61 application differ front the views of the State instna.eatalitp wivth 9 h. During the duration of a state of energy emergency the cora-
62 the power of approval over sech application, there shall be estab- 10 missioner to the extent not in conflict with applicable Federal
63 lisahed an Energy Facility R'eview iBoard which shall consist of the 21 law or regulation but notwithstanding any State or local law or
64 Director of the Division of Energ. P!aniiig and Conservation, the 12 contractual agreement, shall be empowered to:
65 director or chief execcutive officer of the State instrumentality withi 13 (1) Order any person to reduce by a speeified amount the use
66 the power of approval over asuch application, and a designee of the 14 of any energy form; to make use of an alternate energy form,
(i Governor. The decision of the Energy Facility Review Board cre- 15 where possible; or to cease the use of any energ- form:
68 oted with respect to a specific energy facility application shall be 16 (2) Order any person engaged in the distribution of any energy
69 binding with respect to such facility and shall be implemenaled forth- 17 form to reduce or increase by a speefied amount or to cease the
70 cuit/i by the State instrumnentality! with the power of approval over 15 distribution of such energy form; to distribute a specified amoant
f such application. 19 and typo of energy form to certain users as specified by the
72 Is implenteiting its respmonsibilities pursuant to this subsection, 20 '[administratorj' coamuissioner'; or to share supplies of any
73 the department sheall have the potwer to adopt, by regulatioa, a fee 21 energy form with other distributors thereof;
74 schedule for rerietitg applicotions for the construction or location 2 (3) Establish priorities for the distribution of any energy form;
75 of energy facilities; procided, however, that fees shall be c/rtaed . 23 (4) Regulate and control the distribution and sale of any energy
76 to applicants for pierniits to construct or locate energy facilities 'omby: a-
77 al!! ini those instances where the nature and exteant of the proposed 25 (a) Establishing such limitations, priorities, or rationing
73 energy facility are sicht as to necessitate the employnent of con- 26 procedures as shall be necessary to insure a fair and equitable
79 sn/carts or other expert personnllel fromn without the department 21 distribution of available supplies;
SO before the depasrtment can make its deterneination writh respect to 28 (b) Establishing minimum and maximum quantities to be
$1 any such alpplication, and that sre/h fees shall in ainy event be the 29 sold to any purchaser;
82 mlinimua amonat necessal to. permait the deportment to fuill#U its 30 (e) Fx'ing the days and houlrs of access to retail dealers:
,Q3 responslbilities under this section. 31 (d) Compellngb sales to members of the general public dur-
84 The provisions of this section shall not be regarded as to Ip in 32 ing times when a retail dealer is open for the sale of an energy
i derogation of an! pourers. noea existinp and shall he reoarded as 33 form;
86 supppleetental and in addition to potwrs conferred by other Ialas, 34 (e) Establishing methods for notifying the public by flags.
$7 including municipal zoleing authority.' 35 symbols, or other appropriate means whether such retail
1 14. The commissioner shall prepare and adopt an emergency 36 dealers are open and selling the subject energy form;
2 allocation plan specifying actions to be taken in the event of an 37 (5) Direct the heads of those departments and agencies witbhin
3 impending serious shortage of energy which poses grave threats 35 State Government that were ordered to develop continlgency plans
39 pursuant to section 14 of this act to implement said plans:

40 (6) Adopt and promulgate such rules mid regulations as are 11 price and cost facto:s in reiniLg, productin, ald sale; lo nla-trn
41 necessary and proper to carry out the purposes of this section. 1 l fr lertis or additions to rening capacity; loeca;tion,
42 o. During the existence of a state of energy emergency, the Gov. 13 amount, and type of fuel toage;
43 ernor may order the suspension of any laws, mrules, regulations, r 14 (3) Stonga capacity for -ases; amount and end nacs of gascs
44 orders of any department or agency in State Government or within 15 sold; price and cost factors in the stale and se of gaes; and
45 any political subdivision whOd;Pice adex c o sth atorsInh saffec anduerofgys and
45 any political subdivision Which de-al with or affeet energy and R16 (4) Such other information as the commissioner may determine
46 which impede his ability to alleviate or terminate a state of energy IT nevesnry for carrying out the pyrposes of this act.
47 emergency. 1S b. The commissioner shall at least annually publish a report
48 d. Any aggrieved person, upon application to the commissioner 1 analyzing all energy inf tio ollce
49 shall be granted a review of whether the continuance of anyorer . Th conissioner shll have the discretion to obtai enr
ce ofany rder20 e. The commissione~r shall have the discretion to obtain ene*r.
50 issued by the commissioner pursuant to this section is unreason- . 1 infortion from n afliate of any ener industry or fr n
21 irformation from an afliliate of any energy indulstryv or front an
51 able in light of then prevailing couditions of emergency. 22 association or organization of industries of which any such e:nergy
52 e. During a state of energy emergency the commissioner may 23 industry is a nmemlier. Whenever energy informatian supplied ;by
53 require nay other department or other agency within State Gor- 24 an energy industry is so obtained by the commissioner, the cnergy
54 erinent to provide such information, assistance, resources, and 25 industry to which such information pertains shalt be promptly
53 personnel as shall be necessary to discharge his functions and 26 notified of the energy information so obtained and shall be givn
56 responsibilities under this act, rules and regulations adopted here- 2 an opportuni to correct or amplify such info tio.
27 an opportunitA- to correct ,or amplify such; information.
67 under, or applicable Federallwnu oO:atioas. VT
57 under, or applicable Federal law and regations. 2 d. Trade secrets collected under thlis sction shall be exempt
58 f. The powers granted to the Governor and the commissioner 29 from the requirements of P. L. 1963, c. 73 (. 47:lA-1 et Si.).
59I under this section shahll be in addition to and not in limitation of 30 The comrmaissioner shall promulgate rules and regulatians for tle
60 any emergency powers now or hereafter vested in the Governor, the 31 conduct of administrative hearings on the issue of whether certain
61 commissioner, or any other State Government department or 32 energ information should not be disclosed to the public.
62 agency pursuant to any other laws, including but not limited to 1 17. 'o person who is an official or employee of the deparhtent
63 any power 'rnow']' vested in the Board of Public 'j[Utility Cor- 2 shall participate in any manlier in any decision or action of the
64 missioners]' 'Utilities' to require utility companies to allocate 3 department wherein Iet has a direct or indirect dnencili interest.
65 available supplies of energy; provided, however, that upon deelar- . T o issioner iy issue upenas ruiring tire t-
66 ing a state of energy emergenceI IS. The eounanssiloner mairy issue subpenes requiring the sat-
66 lag a state of energryemergency, the Governor namy supersede any 2 tcedance and testimsony of wituessecs and the production of books.
67 other such emergency powers. 3 documents, papers, statitics, data, information, anrd records for
68 g. The state of energy emergency declared by the Governor pnr. 4 the purpose of carrying out any of his responsibilities under this
69 suant to this section shall remain in effect until the Governor 5 act. Whenever there arises a refusal to honor his sulbpen, the
70 declares by a subsequent executive order that the state of energy 6 commissioner may petition a court of competent jurisdiction for
71 emergency has terminated. an order requiring the attendance and testimony of a witness or
1 16. a. The commissioner shrall adopt rules and regulations ! tlih pIroduction of the requested books, documents, papers. statistics,
2 requiring the periodic reporting by energy industries of energy 9 data. information, and records. Aty failure to obey snuch an order
3 information which shell include but not he limited to thIe following: 10 issued by a court shall be punished by tIe court as a contenpt
4 (1) Electrical generating capacity in the State; long-range plmns 11 thereof.
5 for additions to said capacity; efficieney of electrical generation; 1 19. Upon a violation of this act or of any rulme, regulations, or
6 pice and cost factors in electrical generation; types and uluntitice 2 orders promulgated hereunder the commissionr, the county pros-
7 of fuels used; projections of future demand, consumption of elec- 3 cutor of tie county in which the violation occurs if lie Irs the
8 tricity by sectors; times, duration, and levels of peak demandu; 4 approval of the coamissioner, or any aggrieved person shall be
9 (2) Petrolounn refining capneity; amount and type of fael pro- 5 entitled to institute a civil action in a coart of competent jnri-
10 deced; amount and type of fuel sold; interstate transfers of fuel; 6 diction for injunctive relief to restrain such violation and for such

-298-

7 other relief as the court shall deel proper. The court umay proceed 24 e. All penalti:s imposed pursuant to this section shall be collected
S in a sunuunary manner. Neither the institution of such action, nor 25 in a civil action by a su:mlary proceeding under the Penalty
9 any of tihe proceedings therein shal relieve any party to such 26 Enforcement Law (N. J. S. 2A:6-1 et seq.). If the violation is
10 proceedings front other fines or penalties prescribed for such a 27 of a continuing nature, each day during which it continues shall
11 riolation by thlis act or by any rule, regulation or older adopted 2S constitute an additional and separate offense.
12 hereunder. 29 '221 The departmelnt shall transmlit copies of all rales and
1 20. Any person who fails to provide energy information in his 30 regulations proposed pars:al:!t to this act '"by or ors behalf of the
2 official custody when so required by the conunissioner shal:l be liable 31 Division of Energy Planning and Conseiration"& to the Seatsle anld
3 for a penalty of not more than $3,000.00 for each offense. If the 32 General Assembly on a day oil schich both Houses shall be ssectiasg
4 violation is of a continuing nature, each day during uwhich it coa- 33 in the course of a regular or special session. Tice provisions of the
5 tinnes shall constitute an additional and separate offense. Penalties 33a "Administrative Procedisre Act" or any other laze to the contrary
6fi shall be collected in a civil action by a smsamary proceeding under 34 aotwithstaading, uo0 stuc rale or regualatio, except a rule or regsn-
7 the Penalty Enlforcement Law (N. J. S. 2A:58-1 et seq.). 35 lation adopted pursuant to are energy emaergency declared by the
1 21. Any olfferr or employee of the State who, having obtained by 36 Governor, shall toke effect if, within 60 days of the date of its
2 reason of his emnloyment and for official use. any coafidential 37 traeasenitta! to the Semoale lad Gecieral .sseambly, the Legis!ature
3 energy information, publishes or commulicates such information 38 shisli pass a cosIclrsrent resolution stating in substance that tihe
4 for reasons not authorized by this or any other act shall be fined 39 Legislature does sot fatvor such proposed rule or retgulation.a
5 not more than $2,000.00 or imprisoned not more than 2 years or 1 23. a. All appropriations, grants, and other moneys available to
6 both. 2 the State Enlergv Office are hereby transferred to the department
1 22. a. Any person purchasing or attempting to purchase energy 3 created hereunder and shall remain available for the objects and
2 in violation of section 15 of this act or any rules, regulations, or 4 purposes for which appropriated, subject to any terms, restrictions,
3 orders promulgated thereunder, shall be subject to a penalty of, 5 limitations or other requirenments imposed hr Federal or State law.
4 not more than $25.00 for the first offense, not more than $100.00 6 b. The employees of the State Energy Office are hereby trans-
5 for the second offense, and not more than $200.00 for the third 7 forred to the department created hereunder. Nothing in this act
6 offense or subsequent offenses. S shall be construed to deprive said employees of any rights or protec-
7 b. -Any retail dealer who violates section 15 of this act or any 9 tions provided them by the civil service, pension, or retirement
8 rules, regulations, or orders pronmulgated thereunder, shall be .10 laws of this.State.
9 subject to a penalty of not more than $25.00 for the first offense, 'r-' e All files,%"obks, paper, records, equipment, amd other profpety
10 not more than $200.00 for the second offense, and not more than 19 of the State Energy Office are hereby transferred to the depart-
11 $400.00 for the third offense or subsequent offenses. 13 ment created hereunder.
12 c. Any distributor or any otlier supplier of energy who violates 14 d. The rules, regulations, and orders of the State Energy Office
13 any of the provisions of section 15 of this act or of any rules, 15 shall continue with full force and effect as the rules, regulations,
14 regulations, or orders promulgated thereunder, shall be subject to 16 and orders of the department created hereunder until further
15 a penalty of not more than $1,000.00 for the first offense, not more 17 amended or repealed.
16 than 5,000.00 for the second offense, and not more than $10,000.00 16 e. Except as otherwise provided by this act, all the functions,
17 for the third offense or subsequent offenses. 19 powers, and duties of the existing State Energy Office and its
1S d. In addition to any other penalties provided under this or any 20 administrator are herebv continued in the department and the
19 other act, the commissioner may recommend to the appropriate 21 *Econmissioner thereof 'Director of the Diatsios of Eaergy
20 agency the suspension or revocation of the license of any retail 21& Planning and Conservation' created hereunder.
21 dealer. gasoline jobber, wholesale dealer. distribntor. or supplier 22 f. This act shall not affect actions or proceedings, civil or clim-
22 of fuel. who has violated this act or any rules, regulations, or orders 23 inal, brought by or against the State Energy Office and pending
23 promulgated hereunder. 24 on the effective date of this act, but such actions or proceedings

25 may be further prosecuted or defended in the same manmer and
26 to the same effect by the department created hereunder.
2' g. Whenever in any law, rule, regulation, order, contract, docun-
28 meat, judicial or administrative proceedings, or otherwise, refer-
29 ence is made to the State Energy Office or the administrator
30 thereof, the same shall be considered to mean and refer to the
31 State Department of Energy and the '[commissioner thereof]'
32 'Director of the Division of Energy Placnsing.and. COnservatio'. 7 of the remainder of this act or the application thereof to other
33 created hereunder. S persons.
1 24. All the functions, powers and duties heretofore exercised 1 29. The object and design of this act being the protection of the
2 by the Department of Community Affairs and the Commissioner 2 public health, safety anid rvelfare by means of the coordination of
3 ' thereof relating to the adoption': 'amendment and repeal of the 3 State planning', regflrlaion� and authority in energy related mat-
4 energy subcode of the State Uniform Construction Code pursuant 4 ters. this act shall be liberally conlstrued.
5 to P. L. 1975, e. 217 (C. 52:27D-119 et seq.) are hereby transferred 1 30. This act shall take effect immediately.
6 to, and vested in the Department of Energy and the Commissioner
7 of the Department of Energy; provided, however, that nothing in
S this section shall be construed so as to interfere with the enforce-
9 ment of such energy subcode by the Commissioner of the Depart-
10 ment of Community Affairs pursuant to the aforecited P. L. 1975,
11 e. 217'; provided further, however, that this section shall not take
12 effect until 90 days after the effectice date of this act, and any
13 energy stbcode adopted by the Department of Coensnnosity Affairs
14 within said 90 days shall cosnti-nl! in force and effect until amended
15 or repealed by the department as herein provided'.
'1 25. The Bureau of Energy Resources in the Department of
2 Public Utilities, together with all of its functions, powers and
3'. duties, is hereby transferred to the 'Division of Energy Planing
4 and Conservation i? the' Department of Energy established puar
5 saant to this act.
1 26. The transfer of responsibilities directed by this act, except
2 as othterwise provided herein, shall be made in accordance with the
3 "State Agency Transfer Act,;' P. L. 1971, c. 375 (C. 52:14D-1
4 et seq.).
1 27. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent with any of the provi-
2 sions of this act are, to the extent of such inconsistency, superseded
3 anl repealed.
1 28. If any section, part, phrase, or provision of this act or the
2 application thereof to any person be adjudged invalid by any court
3 of competent jurisdiction, such judgment shall be confined in its
4 operation to the section, part, phrase, provision, or application
5 directly involved in the controversy in which sach judgment shall
6 hlave been rendered and it shall not affect or impair the validity

-29.9-

APPENDIX I - LEGAL COMMENTARY

Introduction

Judicial decisions in New Jersey courts have upheld the constitutionality of
the State's key coastal laws, the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (N.J.S.A.
13:19-1 et seq.) and the Wetlands Act (N.J.S.A. 13:9A-l et seq.). New Jersey
courts have also expanded the Public Trust Doctrine to protect beach access and
recreational uses of the waterfront, as well as the traditional navigation, com-
merce and fishing rights of the public at the water's edge. Also, the State of New
Jersey is actively establishing its claim of ownership of the riparian lands
now or formerly flowed by the mean high tide. This Appendix provides a legal
commentary to the principal recent judicial decisions involving the laws concerning
coastal management in New Jersey.

Coastal Area Facility. Review Act

In the case of Toms River Affiliates and Lehigh Construction Company v.
Department of Environmental Protection and Coastal Area Review Board 140 N.J. Super
135 (App. Div.), certif den. 71 N.J. 345 (1976), the Appellate Division of Superior
Court upheld the constitutionality of CAFRA. The case arose after DEP denied a
CAFRA permit application for a ten story, high-rise luxury apartment complex on a
9.5 acre tract of land in Toms River, Ocean County. The developer then admini-
stratively appealed to the Coastal Area Review Board. The Coastal Area Review
Board unanimously upheld the Department's decision. The applicant then filed an
appeal for relief to the Appellate Division, challenging the constitutionality of
the CAFRA statute on five points. The applicant contended that: (1) CAFRA did not
provide adequate standards for the administration of the Act prior to the prepara-
tion of the studies mandated in Section 16 of the Act; it therefore was in viola-
tion of Article III, Paragraph I of the New Jersey Constitution; (2) The Act
granted zoning powers to the DEP in contravention of the constitutional delegation
of such powers to a municipality in violation of Article IV, Paragraph II of the
New Jersey Constitution; (3) the Act created an invalid classification by desig-
nating a delineated coastal area and omitted other coastal areas in violation of
Article I, Paragraph I of the New Jersey Constitution; (4) The Act denied equal
protection of the laws in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con-
stitution of the United States; and (5) The Act constituted the taking of property
in violation of Article I, Paragraph 20 of the Constitution of New Jersey.

On the issue that the CAFRA statute lacked reasonably adequate standards to
guide the administrative agency in processing permit applications, the Court stated
that Sections 10 and 11 of the Act set forth specific criteria by which the Envi-
ronmental Impact Statement required for a CAFRA permit could be evaluated.

The Court rejected the applicant's contentions that the statutory delegation
of power to the DEP to grant or deny permits for construction of housing was in
violation of the constitutional provision authorizing the Legislature to enact
general laws under which municipalities may adopt zoning ordinances and that CAFRA
did not provide guidelines parallel to those incorporated in the Municipal Zoning
Enabling Act (N.J.S.A. 40:55-30 et seq.).

-300-

The Court stated unequivocally that the police power of the State was not
exhausted by the delegation of zoning power to the municipality. The State re-
tained a quantum of reserved police power to delegate such authority to one or
more agencies of the State government as the Legislature may deem appropriate.
The State's delegation of such authority to the Hackensack Meadowlands Development
Commission'provided a precedent on this issue. On the issue of conflict between a
local zoning regulation and CAFRA, the Court noted that the exercise of such power
by the State was a valid exercise of police power and that the conflict represents
no constitutional infirmity.

The assertion by appellants that CAFRA violated Article IV, Section 7, Para-
graph 9 of the New Jersey Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment-to the United
States Constitution because it classified one section of the coastal area and
excluded others was struck down as without substance. The Court noted that the
CAFRA Statute should be read in light of tbf_-=intentiLon_.of the Legislature which.-
recognized that the coastal area was a unique and irreplaceable portion of the
state. Its importance to the public health and welfare supports the reasonableness
of the special legislative treatment regulating that area. In view of the pre-
sumption of the constitutional validity, the court noted, the limitation of the Act
to the portion delineated by the statutory boundaries constituted a valid exercise
of discretionary power vested in the Legislature. Boundaries of areas demanding
regulations cannot be formulated with mathematical perfection. The mere fact that
the property of the appellants is subject to the Act's provision, while property in
other parts of the state is not so' regulated does not establish a Fourteenth
Amendment deprivation of equal protection. In addition, the Court stated that the
appellants presented no evidence for the claim of arbitrariness in the classifica-
tion adopted by the Legislature. If the classification is not arbitrary and all
persons within a controlled area are treated alike, the legislation is not a
special law nor violative of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court labeled the taking issue in this case as specious. A particular use
of property may be frustrated, but so long as alternative uses for development
exist, no taking of private property can be claimed by the appellants.

In the case of Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, et. al. v.
Department of Environmental Protection and Public Service Electric and Gas Co., 152
N.J. Super 191 (App. Div.), certif. den. 73 N.J. 538 (1977), the Court upheld
the decision of DEL', as upheld unanimously on appeal by the Coastal Area Review
Board, to approve a CAFRA permit for the Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station
(Units I and 2) at Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem
County. The Court rejected the appellants' procedural contention that DEP' should
'have conducted an adversarial hearing with cross-examination of witnesses and
findings of fact and conclusions of law, instead of the two quasi-legislative,
fact-finding hearings held before the DEP decision. The Court also ruled that the
DEP decision to grant a conditional permit was reasonable. The Court concurred
with DEP that Public Service Electric and Gas Co. complied with the findings
of Section 10 and 11 of the Act.

The Court also rejected the contention of appellants and the Public Advocate,
who submitted an amicus brief, that the environmental impact statement submitted by
Public Service Electric and Gas Company was legally deficient.

-301-

The Court further rejected appellants claim that the Commissioner's finding
in the method for disposal of radioactive waste, as required by N.J.S.A. 13:19-11,
was unsupported by the available data in the record. The Court noted the compre-
hensive federal legislation and regulations in the area of radiation hazards and
stated that the Commissioner must satisfy himself that the applicant has conformed
to the standards of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If such standards are met,
the Court noted, the Commissioner has no authority to impose either lower or
higher safety standards to regulate radiation (152 N.J. Super. at 216).

Wetlands Act

In the case of Sands Point Harbor, Inc. v. Richard J. Sullivan, Docket No.
A-765-73, (App. Div. 1975), the New Jersey Superior Court found that the Wetlands
Act of 1970, N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 et seq. and the regulations N.J.A.C. 7:7A-1 et seq.
adopted pursuant to the Wetlands Act did not violate the Constitutions of the State
of New Jersey and of the United States.

The applicant, a private developer, alleged that both the statute and regula-
tions both deprived him of equal protection under the law as-guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and by Article I,
Paragraph I of the New Jersey Constitution, and further that the statutes and
regulations constituted a taking of property without just compensation in violation
of Article I, Paragraph 20 of the New Jersey Constitution.

The applicant's "equal protection" argument was predicated upon the fact that
only coastal wetlands were regulated by the Wetlands Act and that wetlands subject
to the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et seq.)
were specifically excluded from the Wetlands Act. The Court tersely noted that
classification in legislation is not constitutionally prohibited, and that the
Legislature is granted a wide range of discretion to treat subject matter of
legislation differently, so long as the classification is reasonable and related to
the basic object of the legislation. The Appellate Division stated that classi-
fying coastal wetlands as a separate object of protection was reasonable, con-
sidering that wetlands north of Raritan Bay are characterized by heavy industrial,
commercial, or residential development. The only other broad contiguous area of
wetlands in the state was within the special legislatively defined Hackensack
Meadowlands Development District, and a classification by statute of this area
afforded reasonable grounds for the disparate treatment of land in these different
areas of the State.

On the so-called "taking issue", the applicant relied upon a New Jersey
Supreme Court case which struck down a municipal zoning ordinance severely restrict-
ing the use of swamp land (Morris County Land, Parsippany, Hills Township, 40 N.J.
539, 1963). The restrictions in this case, however, were of such a nature that the
only practical use which could be made of the property was as a hunting or fishing
preserve. The taking test, as defined by the New Jersey Supreme Court., was whether
no practical use could be made of. the land so as to constitute a taking without
just compensation.

The Appellate Division found in the Sands Point case that the only activities
absolutely prohibited under the Wetlands Act were the dumping of solid waste,
discharging of sewage, and storage and application of pesticides. Since the
Commissioner of Environmental Protection must consider the effect of a proposed
activity upon the public health and welfare, marine and shellfisheries, wildlife,

-302-

and the protection, of property from flood, hurricane or' other disasters, Such
criteria were reasonable and did not so restrain 'virtually all activities so as to
be in violation of the New Jersey Constitution.

In Carton et al vs. State of New Jersey, Commissioner of Environmental Pro-
tection (Docket No. A-638-73, 1978), argued before the Appellate Division of the
Superior Court in December 1977, the plaintiffs argued that the Wetlands Act
constituted a taking of private property without just compensation. The plantiffs
contended that the Act was vague, unreasonable and unconstitutional, but the Court,
citing Sands Point Harbor held that the Act was a valid exercise of governmental
power and did not constitute a taking. A petition for appeal was denied by the New
Jersey Supreme Court on Xay 16, 1978.

In American Dredging Co. v. State (Docket C-278-73 and C-1097-73), the
Chancery Division, Superior Court held, on July 31, 1978, that DEP's Wetlands Order
of 1973 was not a "taking", in a case involving-.a wetlhnds site along the Delaware-_--
River in Gloucester County.

Tidelands and Riparian Cases

Numerous issues concerning riparian or tidelands management in the coastal
zone of New Jersey are not expressly addressed or resolved in Titles 12 and 13 of
the Revised New Jersey Statutes, which contain the bulk of riparian statutory
authority. The case law decisions described in this section have established key
principles in riparian law.

The case of O'Neill v. State Highway Department 50 N.J. 307 (1967) involved
an ownership dispute of lands along the Hackensack River. The State asserted title
to these lands. in its opinion, the Court laid down several principles. First,
the State owns in fee simple all lands that are flowed by the tide up to the high
water line or mark. The high water line or mark is the line formed by the inter-
section of the tidal plain of mean high tide with the shore. In establishing this
line, the average to be used should be, if possible, the average of all the high
tides over a period of 18.6 years. Second, the State cannot acquire interior land
by its construction of artificial works such as ditching which enables the tide to
ebb and flow on lands otherwise beyond it. The riparian owner cannot, however,
enlarge his holdings by excluding the tide. Third, the party who challenges the
existing scene must satisfy the court that the tidelands status of the property was
changed by artificial measures.

Rules concerning erosion and its effect on riparian ownership were discussed
in the case of Leonard v. State Highway Department-of New Jersey, 29 N.J. Super 188
(App. Div. 1954). Where erosion is by natural means, the riparian owner loses
title to the State. The owner suffers no such loss, however, in the event of a
sudden and perceptible loss of land. The high water mark may shift from time to
time through erosion, and persons -who own or purchase tide-flowed land are well
aware of this natural process. Where there is erosion, they lose title to the
State. Where there is accretion, they gain title at the expense of the State.

The State's procedure for tidelands delineation was challenged in the case
of the City of Newark v. Natural Resources Council, 133 N.J. Super 245. (Law
Div. 1974). Two riparian statutes relevant to the State's tideland delineation
procedure provided that "the (Natural Resource) Council is hereby directed to

-303-

undertake title studies and surveys of meadowlands throughout the State and to
determine and certify those lands which it finds are State owned lands." (N.J.S.A.
13:1B-13.2.) "Upon completion of each separate study and survey the Council shall
publish a map portraying the results of its study and clearly indicating those
lands designated by the Council as state owned lands". (N.J.S.A. 13:1B-13.4) The
Natural Resource Council is a twelve member citizen body appointed by the Governor,
with the advice and consent of the State Senate.

In 1970 the State issued a grey and white map of New Jersey which designated
grey portions of the State as representing lands claimed by the State. However, in
1971 the Court held that these maps did not comply with the intent of the legisla-
tion.

The State then began a new delineation of tidelands based on aerial photo-
graphy. This mapping procedure resulted in thirty-seven panels of land, each of
approximately 964 acres, mapped at a scale'=-:f 1:2,400.- In 30 of the 37 panels
the maps produced resulted in substantial claims to the land by the State. However
in seven of the panels it was very difficult for the State to determine ownership,
and so these areas were characterised as "hatched" (areas of filled meadowlands
adjacent to virgin meadowlands). The "hatched" areas indicated a claim by the
State that the filled areas were once tide flowed, and so the State was likely to
own them. The court held that the "hatching" procedure did not conform with the
statutory requirement that the State define its interests in unequivocal terms.
(N.J.S.A. 13:lB-1 et seq.). The State was ordered to prepare new maps clearly
indicating the riparian lands. The Office of Environmental Analysis in DEP began
the mapping based on new overlay techniques. The State filed these maps with the
Court in Janaury 1978. A decision by the Court on whether to accept their validity
is now pending. If the validity of the maps is accepted, the Court will then have
to determine the claims to the land.

An appeal by an owner of a riparian grant whose application for a waterfront
development permit was denied by the Natural Resource Council was reviewed in
Kupper v. Bureau of Navigation, Council of Resources, etc., Docket No. A-737-71
(unpublished opinion of Appellate Division, decided April 9, 1976). The applica-
tion involved a request to construct a bulkhead connecting two existing bulkheads
in a substantially developed residential area. The Court observed that although
they were sympathetic to DEP's efforts to preserve the ecological balance in any
area of the State, they were equally sympathetic to the rights of individual
property owners who would be deprived of the economic use of their land. The Court
felt that the trial evidence suggested that granting of a riparian permit in this
case would lead to only a minimal effect on the immediate environment.

Public Access to Shorefront Areas

Increasing and maintaining public access to the shorefront in the coastal zone
of New Jersey is public policy evolved from the Public Trust Doctrine as defined by
New Jersey case law. (See Martin v. Waddel's Lessee 81 U.S. (PET) 367 (1842),
Arnold v. Mundy 6 NJL 1 (Sup. Ct. 1821), and Avon v. Borough of Neptune
61 N.J. 296 (1976).)

The cases concerning shorefront access have dealt with public access to
publicly owned land rather than public access to privately owned land. This latter
issue which concerns public access across privately owned land in order to reach
publicly owned land, has not been decided by the courts although the issued was
raised in Le Compte v. State of New Jersey, 65 N.J. 447, 450, (1975). The court

-304-

indicated that it would like to consider the problem at a suitable time. However,
the court is expected to discuss this issue in Mathews v. Bay H-ead Improvement
Association, (Docket No. L-23410-73).

The Avon case expanded the Public Trust Doctrine to cover recreational uses of
the shorelinY beyond the traditional public rights of navigation, commerce, and
fishing. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that tidal lands between the mean high
and mean low water marks, as well as the oceanland seaward, are owned by the
public. In this case the beach front had been dedicated to the public. The court
held that this dedication was irrevocable, and for the municipality to charge a
discriminatory fee to users of the beach was analogous to erecting a physical
barrier.

The Avon Court and the trial court in the case of New Jersey v. Borough of
Deal 139 N.J. Super 83 (Ch. Div., 1976); ry~~j' d 145NV.J. Super. 368 (App. Div.-
1-976); cert. granted 74 N.J. 262 (1976), held that the'u-pland or dry sand areas may-
be subject to the Public Trust Doctrine and, in the Deal case, that a municipality
cannot exclude a non resident from using the upland and beach area upon payment of
a reasonable non-discriminatory fee. In the Deal case there was not a clear public
dedication of land and the trial court decided the case on statutory construction.
The court held that a municipality does not have the right to exclude people from
beach front properties. However, in 1976 the Appellate Division of the Superior
Court overturned a portion of the Deal trial court opinion which stated that a
municipality's "residents-only polic~ 7with respect to the upland beach areas was
not beyond the scope of authority delegated to the municipality by State statutory
enactment. The Appellate Division did not address the a pplicability of the Public
Trust Doctrine to the dry sand area, but decided the case on whether a municipality
had statutory authority to make a reasonable differentiation between residents and
non-residents using a municipal beach, in a town which provides for equal access at
an adjoining non-restricted beach. New Jersey Supreme Court heard oral argument on
Deal in July 1978 (Supreme Court Docket No. 13,081).

The case of Allenhurst v. New Jersey A-1429-75 (1976), decided in the Appel-
late Division of Superior Court, partially modifies the Public Trust Doctrine with
respect to artificial improvements placed in the dry sand area. The Appellate
Division narrowly distinguished the Avon and Deal cases and noted that the Public
Trust Doctrine applies only to access to natural 'resources and not to man-made
improvements which may be placed upon the dry sand area. In the Avon case, there
were no man-made improvements on the dry sand area. However, the Appellate
Division left intact a section of the Allenhurst trial court opinion which required
equal fees for both residents and non-residents. Thus, the central holding of the.
Avon case remains unchanged. The New Jersey Supreme Court heard oral argument
on Allenhurst in July 1978 (Supreme Court Docket No. 13,709).

Board of Public Utilities

It has been held that the Board of Public Utilities, when exercising its
authority under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-19 to supercede local actions taken with respect to
utilities when necessary if the service conveniences the welfare of the public, may
make a finding that such service is necessary if found to be "reasonably requisite
to service public convenience" (emphasis added). Petition of Public Service
Coordinated Transport, 103 N.J. Super 505 (1968). Under the Coastal Management
Program, the Board's authority insures that key "uses of regional benefit" will not
be unreasonably excluded by actions of local governments.

-305-

APPENDIX K: DATA SOURCES FOR LOCATION POLICIES

This appendix lists sources of the data needed to apply the Location Policies
of Chapter Four of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment. Data sources are indicated by groups, according to the sequence of steps
in using CLAM, with the same reference number (in parentheses) that appeared in
Chapter Four. In some cases, different data sources are indicated for the pre-
application and application stages of the coastal decision-making process.

DATA ELEMENT PRE-APPLICATION APPLICATION

SPECIAl AREAS (3.2)

Shellfish Beds NJDEP Shellfishing Areas Charts 1-1Q.. Site survey
(3.2.2) Haskin "Distribution of Shellfish
Resources in Relation to New Jersey
Intracoastal Waterway"

Surf Clam Areas NJDEP Condemned Area Charts 1-10 Site survey
(3.2.3)

Prime Fishing B. L. Freeman & L. A. Walford The same
Areas "Angler's Guide to the United States
(3.2.4) Atlantic Coast Fish, Fishing Grounds
and Fishing Facilities, Sections III
and IV"

Finfish Migratory H. E. Zich "New Jersey Anadromous The same
Pathways Fish Inventory"
(3.2.5)

Submerged
Vegetation NJDEP "A Case Study of Little Egg Site survey
(3.2.6) Harbor of the Submerged Vegetation"

Navigation Channels NOAA/National Ocean Survey Navigation The same
(3.2.7) Charts

Shipwrecks and NOAA/National Ocean Survey Navigation The same
Artificial Reefs Charts W. Krotee, R. Krotee "Shipwrecks
(3.2.8) off the New Jersey Coast"

Marine Sanctuary (to be designated)
(3.2.9)

-317-

DATA ELEMENT PRE-APPLICATION APPLICATION

SPECIAL AREAS (3.2)

Beaches:
(3.2.10)

Lower Limit Either USGS 7 1/2 minute Quads Either NJDEP Riparian.
Mean High or NJDEP Riparian, or maps maps where available
Water Line where available or Topographic site
survey identifying
mean high water level
as established by the
National Ocean Survey
of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric .
Administration (NOAA-NOS)

Upper Limit Either NJDEP Photoquads (1972) Site survey
Natural limit or A more recent air photograph
of unvegetated or Site survey
sandy beach or NJDEP Wetlands Maps
where available

Developed Either NJDEP Photoquads (1972) Site survey
first cultural or A more recent air photograph
feature or Site survey

Coastal Wetlands NJDEP Wetlands map NJDEP Wetlands Map
(3.2.11)

High Risk Beach Rutgers University "Coastal Geomor- Site survey
Erosion Areas phology of New Jersey". Volumes
(3.2.12) I & II

Dunes Either USGS 7 1/2 minute Quads or Site survey
(3.2.13) NJDEP Wetlands Map where available

Central Barrier Either USGS 7 1/2 minute Quads or The same
Island Corridor NJDEP Wetlands map or NJDEP Photo
(3.2.14) Quad

Historic Resources NJ State Register of Historic Places The same
(3.2.15) and National Register of Historic
Places; DEP/Office of Historic Pres-
ervation, Historic Sites Inventory

Specimen Trees NJDEP-Bureau of Forestry (New Jersey Site survey
(3.2.16) Outdoors, Sept.-Oct. 1977)

White Cedar Stands Either J. McCormick and L. Jones, Site survey
(3.2.17) "The ine Barrens Vegetation Geogra-
phy", or NJDEP Bureau of Forestry Maps

DATA ELEMENT PRE-APPLICATION APPLICATION

SPECIAL AREAS (3.2) - Cont.

Endangered or Site survey Site survey
Threatened Wildlife
or Vegetation
Species Habitats
(3.2.18)

Critical Wildlife Site Survey DEP review and site
Habitats survey
(3.2.19)

Public Open Space Either REDI Tax Maps or NJDEP Major The same plus Municipal
(3.2.20) Pu-blic Open Space and Recreation Areas Planning Boards
in N.J. as of Oct. 1977.

Steep Slopes NJDEP 7 1/2 minute Slope Maps and SCS NJDEP 7 1/2 minute
(3.2.21) County Soil Survey. Slope Maps and site
survey

Farmland Conser- SCS County Soil Survey and available Site survey
vation Areas county land use maps and/or aerial
(3.2.22) photography interpretation or N.J.
Department of Agriculture Prime Open
Agricultural Lands Maps.

Bogs Either SCS County Soil Surveys in combi- Site survey
(3.2.23) nation with/or NJDEP Wetlands map where
available or NJDEP Photo Quads or site
survey.

Emphemeral Stream Either SCS County Soil Survey or Site Site survey
Corridor Survey.
(3.2.24)

Special Hazard USGS 7 1/2 minute type quads and data The same
Areas obtained from U.S. Dept. of Transportation,
(3.2.25) Federal Aviation Administration such as
flight path and horizontal air surface,
and NJDEP, Office of Radiation Protec-
tion and Dept. of Civil Defense.

Excluded Federal NJDEP Major Public Open Space and The same
Lands Recreation Areas in New Jersey.
(3.2.26)

-319-

DATA ELEMENT PRE-APPLICATION APPLICATION

WATER AREAS (3.3)

Basin Types

Ocean Either NOAA/National Ocean Survey The same
(3.3.4.1) Survey Navigation Charts or USGS 7 1/2
minute Quads or NJDEP Photo Quads.

Open Bay Either NOAA/National Ocean Survey The same
(3.3.4.2) Survey Navigation Charts or USGS 7 1/2
minute Quads or NJDEP Photo Quads.

Semi-Enclosed and Either NOAA/NOS Charts or USGS 7 1/2 The same
Back Bay minute Topo Quads or NJDE? Photo Quads.
(3.3.4.3)

Inland Basins Either NOAA/NOS Charts or USGS 7 1/2 The same
(3.3.4.4) minute Topo Quads or NJDEP Photo Quads.

Man-Made Harbor Either NOAA/NOS Charts or USGS 7 1/2 The same
(3.3.4.5) minute Topo Quads or NJDEP Photo Quads.

Channel Types

Large River Either NOAA/NOS Charts or USGS 7 1/2 The same
(3.3.4.6) minute Topo Quads or NJDEP Photo Quads.

Medium Rivers, Either NOAA/NOS Charts or USGS 7 1/2 The same
Streams, Creeks minute Topo Quads or NJDEP Phot Quads.
(3.3.4.7)

Intermittent Either SCS County Soil Survey or Site Site survey
Streams Survey.
(3.3.4.9)

Guts Either NOAA/NOS Charts or USGS 7 1/2 The same
(3.3.4.10) minute Quads or NJDEP Photo Quads or
NJDEP Wetlands Map.

Inlets Either NOAA/NOS Charts or USGS 7 1/2 The same
(3.3.4.11) minute Quads or NJDEP Photo Quads or
NJDEP Wetlands Map.

Canals Either NOAA/NOS Charts or USGS 7 1/2 The same
(3.3.4.12) minute Quads or NJDEP Photo Quads or
NJDEP Wetlands Map where available.

-320-

DATA ELEMENT PRE-APPLICATION APPLICATION

WATER'S EDGE AREAS (3.4)

Natural Water's Edge SCS County Soil Surveys and USGS 7 1/2 Site survey
(3.4.2) minute Quads and NJDEP Wetlands Maps
and a more recent aerial photograph

Retained Water's Edge Either USGS 7 1/2 minute Quads and NJ Site survey
(3.4.3) DEP Wetlands Maps where available or
NJDEP Photoquads (1972) or More
recent air photo or Site Survey

Filled Water's Edge Either USGS 7 1/2 minute Quads or NJ Site survey
(3.4.4) DEP Wetlands Maps whim available or
NJDEP Photoquads (1972) or More
recent air photo or Site Survey

-321-

DATA ELEMENT PRE-APPLICATION APPLICATION

LAND AREAS (3.5)

Coastal Regions NJDEP Coastal Regions Map The same
(3.5.3)

Definitions of Envi-
ronmental Sensitivity
Factors
(3.5.4.5)

(a) Forest.Vegetation Either NJDEP Forest Types Maps or Site survey
NJ State Museum "The Pine Barrens:
Vegetation Geography"

(b) High Soil Fertility Either SCS County Soil Survey or Site Site survey
Survey

(d) Low Depth to Either SCS County Soil Survye or Site Site survey
Seasonal High Survey
Water Table

Development Potential
(3.5.5)

High Potential
(3.5.2.2.2)

(a) Roads Either USGS 7 1/2 minute Quads or Site Site survey
Survey

(b) Sewage Either NJDEP Atlas of New Jersey The same pre-
sewer overlays or County or munici- application
pal surveys or Utility company surveys
or NJDEP Division of Water Resources

(d) Shopping Municipal Clerk The same as pre-
application

(e) Schools Municipal Clerk The same as pre-
application

-322-

APPENDIX L: USING THE COASTAL RESOURCE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES

INTRODUCTION

For the purpose of illustrating the use of the Location Policy step of the
Coastal Resource and Development Policies (See Chapter Four), this case study
assumes that either a development application has been received by DEP for a
residential development with boat launching and mooring facilities or that DEP has
initiated a prospective analysis of acceptable development of the area. The site
to be studied is located in Pine Beach and Ocean Gate Townships in Ocean county
(see location maps). This site is in the Central Region which is designated High
Growth. The site is one of those used in the DEIS, to allow for comparision.

The study area was selected because it has a good mix of Water, Water's
Edge, and Land Areas, variation of development potential and some Special Areas.
The distribution of development acceptability in the site is characteristic of the
Central Region. The policies, as revised in the FEIS, have not altered the dis-
tribution of use acceptability in the Water or Water's Edge areas, except to vary
slightly the extent of the Filled Water's Edge. The policy regarding the White
Cedar Area also remains unchanged.

On land, however, the implications of various policy revisions are illustrated
in this case. For example, forested Atsion soils adjacent to stream channels are
categorized as high environmental sensitivity areas. Also, medium development
potential does not override high environmental sensitivity in growth regions. The
area of Atsion soils near the center of the study area is thus designated for low
intensity development, whereas in the 'DEIS this area had been acceptable for
moderate intensity development constructed to wet soil standards.

In another revision, the land areas of medium development potential and
medium or low environmental sensitivity have been designated as acceptable for
high, rather than medium development intensity.

The result of these revisions in high growth areas is, therefore, to conserve
some larger areas of the most sensitive land within a more intensely developed
settlement pattern, rather than distributing open space among dispersed moderate
intensity development. The reason for this change is the general policy of promot-
ing concentrated development in high growth regions.

-323-

CLAM CASE STUDY
ILLUSTRATIVE__EXAMPLE__STUDY AREA

Lovoll

Beochiwood Seaside~

~~~~~7' ILL~~USTRATIVE EXAPE
STUDY AREA
Bekeley ---

REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
SCALE- I: 100,000
o I ~~~~~~~~3 IdILES -_ _ _
I

Fr~~~~~~~~~~~~J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3_ai=_
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0RDTI E
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EXTP

0~~~~~~~~S low 11:,1 3000

-32

GOLMCASLTD
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE'DETAIL STUDY AREA

a' '4 ~4
A17~ ~~~~.~ 7
,, - a ~~~'Am..-Zica,+-

e';> Lf
L/
f
j~~~~~~~" w~aY ,:at ;4
a'. 4a.a '>,-~ -~*~-a s ?'~,.4~! a a.
_ ' . .' ";a 4 4, .
* ~ ~ ~ ~ tr ( > a j > " '~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *a~~~~~a3-A
t~ t"N � ut'; *~ v
Ir 4K~4427~'N ~ ~ '2'-

SC*%LE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- l -240 EE

S0MC I W ELA D AI 2142
-325-' %Q & ~ K � ~ x~

Step 1: Identify Site and Surrounding Region

For the purposes of illustration, it has been
assumed that an application has been received by
DEP for residential development with boat
launching and mooring facilities on a site
adjacent to the Toms River in Ocean County.
Mill Creek diagonally cuts through the site as
it flows into the river. The site and its
surrounding region are therefore located and
mapped on the appropriate USGS topographic
quadrangle.

Step 2: Identify and Map Special Areas ... ....

There are two Special Areas located on this
particular site: an Anadromous Fishing Area
(Finfish Migratory Pathway) and an area with
White Cedar Stands.

Data Source: H. E. Zich "New Jersey Anadromous
Fish Inventory" J. McCormick and L. Jones, "The
Pine Barrens Vegetation Geography", or NJDEP
Bureau of Forestry Maps.

AF-ANADROMOV$ -tIR
W- WH ITE CEDAR STANDS

Step 3: Identify and Map Water Areas

The only Water Area present in the study site is
a small creek.

Data Source: NOAA/NOS Charts or USGS 7 1/2
minute Topo Quads or NJDEP Photo Quads. -

Water Areas

S = Small Stream
E = Harbor Area
-326-

Step 4: Identify and Map Water's Edge Area .w.

This site has Filled and Natural Water's Edge
Areas.

Data Source: SCS County Soil Survey or USGS
7 1/2 minute Quads or NJDEP Wetlands Map.

- - FiLLlb \,'A%~ 5 ~ 'F-
NW- NAT-FRAL- V,,IA]T'"$ ED:,E

Step 5: Identify and Map Land Areas

The development potential for this site is
generally medium; however, a few tracts north of
Mill Creek have high development potential. -_
.� jo -~L,
All the Land Areas on the site are medium
environmental sensitivity areas, except, for one
tract south of Mill Creek which is a high -I
environmental sensitivity area. / -- L

This site is in a High Growth Region.

Data Source: M |

(a) Roads UGSG 7 1/2 minute Quads or Site
Survey
Development Potential
(b) Sewage NJDEP Atlas of New Jersey sewer
overlays or County or municipal
surveys or Utility company surveys
or NJDEP Division of Water Resources / -

Environrrental Sensitivity

-327-

Step 6: Determine Location Acceptability

LOCATION ACCEPTABILITY MAP Photoquad of sample area

SPECIAL VALUE

1. Finfish Migratory Pathways - Development
conditional on mitigation measures.

2. White Cedar Stands - Development prohibited.

WATER'S EDGE

3. Natural - Development conditional on water
access, prudent alternatives, adjacency to
existing water development, minimum altera-
tion of on-site vegetation.

4. Filled - Development conditional on water
dependent use, and if site reclamation is
infeasible.

LAND

5. Low Intensity Development

6. High Intensity Development

CONCLUS ION

In brief, on the basis of the Location Policy, high density residential
development is acceptable in areas marked with a "6".

-328-

APPENDIX M - COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE NJCMP - BOSS AND DEIS

"fwe are going to use littoral acronyms, we may
complement CLAM with Method for Use Siting in
Suitably Elected Locations (MUSSELS), or even
Finding Industries Suitable Homes (FISH)"

Roger Thomas
Committee for Better Environment
June 30, 1978

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

LIST OF COMMENTORS

II. RESPONSE TO GENERAL QUESTIONS

A. Legal Authority
B. Segmentation Requirements
C. Socio-Economic. Impacts
D. Consideration of Cumulative lmnacts
E. Master Plan
F. National Interests
G. Geographic Areas of Particular Concern
H. Relationship Between Departments of Energy and Environmental
Protect ion

Comment Comment
Number Number

I General Questions

III. COMMENTS BY TOPIC FROM NEW JERSEY AGENCIES, GROUPS AND INDUSTRIES

COASTAL POLICIES

49 NEPA Summary 236 Prime Agricultural Area
54 General Coastal Policies 243 Bogs
84 Basic Coastal Policies 245 Stream Heads
93 Boundary 246 General Waters Edge
101 General Location Policies 247 Lower Water Edge
126 Special Water Areas 261 Upper Water Edge
154 Water Areas 267 Retained Waters Edge
157 Water Acceptability Tables 275 Filled Waters Edge
170 Water Acceptability Conditions 277 General Land Areas
190 Special Waters Edge and Land Areas 278 Depth to Sasonal High Water Table
194 High Risk Erosion Areas 280 Soil Permeability Factor
204 Dunes 284 Soil Fertility
208 Central Barrier Island Corridor 289 Vegetation Index
215 Flood Hazard Areas 283 Development Potential
219 Historic Resources 341 Regional Growth Potential
222 Specimen Trees 353 Land Acceptability Tables
224 Prime Forest Areas 375 Composite Mapping
227 Prime Wildlife Habitats 379 General Location Policies
231 Public -Open Space

-329-

Comment Comment
Number Number

386 Housing Use Policies 514 Wildlife
423 Resort/Recreational Use Policies 520 Air
454 Public Facility Use Policies 521 Public Services
465 Ports 522 Public Access to Shorefront
466 Industry Comnercial Use Policies 530 Scenic Resources and Design
476 Shore Protection Use Policies 532 Secondary Impacts
483 General Resource Policies 539 Buffer and Compatibility of Uses
485 Marine Fish and Fisheries 544 Solid Waste
488 Water Quality 546 Energy Conservation
489 Surface Water Use 547 Neighborhoods and Special Communities
492 Groundwater Use 549 Traffic
496 Run Off 550 Clam Case Appendix
513 Soil Erosion and Sedmimentation
514 Vegetation

ENERGY

552 General Energy
564 Federal Preemption
568 General Energy Facility Siting Policy
581 General Outer Continental Shelf Policy
584 Onshore Support Bases
589 Pipeline Coating Yards
590 Pipelines and Associated Facilities
596 Gas Processing Plants
599 Storage of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, -
and other Potentially
Hazardous Liquid Substances
600 Tanker Terminals
603 Base Load Electric Generating Stations
609 Nuclear Electric Generating Stations
620 Liquid Natural Gas
627 Conservation and Alternative Technologies
634 Federal Consistency

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

638 General 716 National Interest
677 Procedures 718 Participation
694 Local Authority 714 Next Steps
711 Uses of Regional Benefit 769 Detail Changes

IV. COMMENTS BY ORGANIZATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCY AND THE NATIONAL GROUPS

778 NEW JERSEY PETROLEUM COUNCIL

836 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

938 FEDERAL AGENCIES

-330-

938 Department of Agriculture
962 Department of Commerce - NOAA
965 Department of Defense

971 Department of Defense (Air Force)

974 Army Corps of Engineers

986 Department of Energy

1003 Department of Housing and Urban Development

1009 Department of Interior

1046 Department of Transportation

1055 Environmental Protection Agency

1125 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

1136 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Introduction

This appendix identifies the commentors and presents responses to the issues
raised during the public review period for the New Jersey Coastal Management
Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (May
1978), including Part II, Chapter Three, Coastal Resources and Development Policies,
which was proposed for adoption as a rule under the New Jersey Administrative
Procedures Act (See 10 N.J.R. 184, New Jersey Register, May 4, 1978, p. 4). This
appendix makes no attempt to distinguish between comments on the Coastal Management
Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, or Program, prepared by the State of New
Jersey, comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), prepared
by NOAA-OCZM, and comments on the Proposed Rules on Coastal Resource and Develop-
ment Policies, or Proposed Rules, proposed for the adoption by the Commissioner of
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, due to the combined format
of the document and the interrelated nature of the comments.

For a list of the recipients of the combined Program-DEIS, see Appendix
H of the DEIS (May 1978).

The State and Federal responses to those comments have been coordinated
between NOAA-OCZM and DEP-OCZM. The responses to the comments take one of a
combination of formats:

(1) Expansion, clarification, deletion or revision of the NJCMP-BOSS and
DEIS, including the Proposed Rules,

(2) Comments by DEP-OCZM and NOAA-OCZM in response to issues raised.

Several general issues were raised by anumber of commentors; this appendix pre-
sents detailed responses to these issues. All other comments are answered spe-
cifically, usually with reference to specific changes in the Program and revisions
reflected in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

This Appendix will be of most value if readers refer to the Draft EIS released
in May 1978 as well as the present document. Copies of the DEIS are available from
DEP.

The comments are divided into three sections. Part II includes responses to
central questions and some of the specific comments which led to the responses.
Part III lists and responds to each other comment made by all commentors not
included in Part IV. These comments are arranged by topic. Lastly, Part IV notes
and responds to the comments made by the New Jersey Petroleum Council, Natural
Resources Defense Council and federal agencies.

List of Commentors

NOAA-OCZM and DEP-OCZM received comments from public agencies, interest
groups, companies and individuals both in writing and at the three public meetings
conducted jointly by NOAA-OCZM and DEP-OCZM officials at Bridgeton (June 13),
Toms River (June 14), and Trenton (June 15). Verbatim transcripts of the three
hearings, prepared by certified shorthand reporters, may be consulted at the
NOAA-OCZM and DEP-OCZM offices. This appendix identifies all commentors, and
indicates whether the comments were made in writing or at a public hearing.
In some cases, the same source provided comments on several occasions, but is

-331-

counted as only one source. In addition, several organizations commented on behalf
of the New Jersey Builders Association and New Jersey Petroleum Council; each of
those organizations is counted separately. Comments were recieved from the
following sources:

Federal Agencies 13
State Agencies 7
Regional Agencies 4
County and Municipal
Agencies 18
Special Interest Groups 25
Private Sector 0
Individuals 9
TOTAL 85

-332-

Commentor Date Hearing Written

Federal Agencies

Department of Agriculture June 16 X
Soil Conservation Service
P.O. Box 2890
Washington, D.C. 20013
R.M. Davis, Administrator

Department of Commerce July 3 X
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Federal Building, 14 Elm Street
Gloucester, Mass. 01930
William G. Gordon, Regional Director

Department of Defense
Deputy Assistant Secretary of June 19 X
Defense
(Installations and Housing)
Washington, D.C. 20301
Perry J. Fliakas, Deputy
Assistant Secretary

Department of the Army June 16 X
Office of the Chief of Engineers
Washington, D.C. 20314
Drake Wilson, Deputy Director
of Civil Works

Department of the Air Force June 27 X
Regional Civil Engineer, Eastern
Region
526 Title Building, 30 Pryor St.,S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Robert L. Wong, Chief
Environmental Planning Division

Department of Energy
Deputy Assistant Secretary No date X
Oil, Natural Gas & Shale Resources
Washington D.C. 200461
Dobie Langenkamp

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission June 19 X
Washington, D.C. 20426
Carl N. Shuster, Jr.
Coordinator, Coastal Zone X
Management Affairs

-333-

Commentor Date Hearing Written

Federal Agencies (continued)

Environmental Protection Agency June 26 X
Region II
20 Federal Plaza
New York, New York
Michael Bonchousky, Acting Chief,
Environmental Impacts Branch

Department of Housing and Urban June 23 X
Development
Assistant Secretary for Community
Planning and Development
Washington, D.C. 20410
Robert C. Embry, Jr., Assistant
Secretary

Department of Interior June 21 X
Assistant Secretary - Policy,
Budget and Administration
Washington, D.C. 20240
Larry E. Meierotto, Deputy
Assistant Secretary

Fish and Wildlife Service June 28 X X
112 West Foster Avenue
State College, Pa. 16801
Edward Perry, Environmental
Planner

Department of Transportation No date X
Regional Representative of the
Secretary
26 Federal Plaza, Room 1811
New York, New York 10007
Norman H. Huff, Senior Staff
Officer

Nuclear Regulatory Commission June 20 X
Washington, D.C. 20555
Robert C. Ryan, Director
Office of State Programs

-334-

Commentor Date Hearing Written

State Agencies

New Jersey State Legislature June 16 X
Office of Fiscal Affairs
State House, Suite 232
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Thomas L. Bertone, Director
Budget Review

Department of Community Affairs
363 West State Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Patricia Q. Sheehan, Commissioner June 15 X

Richard A. Ginman, Director June 28 X
Division of State and Regional
Planning

Jay T. Fiedler July 11 X
Bureau of Urban Planning

Department of Education June 16 X
New Jersey State Museum
205 West State Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Karen Flynn, Registrar
Bureau of Archaelogy & Ethnology

Department of Labor and Industry
Labor and Industry Building
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
John J. Horn, Commissioner

Department of the Public Advocate June 30 X
Division of Public Interest Advocacy
P.O. Box 141
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
R. William Potter, Deputy Director

-335-

Commentor Date Hearing Written

Regional Agencies

Delaware River Basin Commission July 3 X
P.O. Box 7360
West Trenton, New Jersey 08628
J.W. Thursby, Head
Environmental Unit

Delaware River Port Authority June 30 X
World Trade Division
Bridge Plaza
Camden, New Jersey 08101
James R. Kelly, Director

Port Authority of New York and New July 3 X
Jersey
Planning & Development Department
One World Trade Center 72S
New York, New York 10048
Clayton Peavey, Deputy Director

Tri-State Regional Planning Commission June 2 X
Regional Development Division
One World Trade Center
New York, New York 10048
Stephen C. Carroll, Director

-336-

Commentor Date Hearing Written

County and Municipal Agencies

Atlantic County Executive's Office June 16 X
741 Guarantee Trust Bldg.
Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401
Charles D. Worthington, County
Executive

Camden County Environmental Agency June 30 X
Camden, New Jersey
Prepared by William G. Hengst,
Consultant to the Camden County
Environmental Agency.

Cape May County Planning Board June 13 X X
Cape May Court House, New Jersey June 19 X
08210
Elwood R. Jarmer, Director

Cumberland County Planning Board
800 East Commerce Street
Bridgeton, New Jerey 08302
John Holland, Director June 13 X

Czeslawa Zimolzak, Senior Planner June 30 X

Cumberland County Board of Chosen July 5 X
Freeholders, Freeholder Director
Charles Fisher, by James Oglive,
Public Relations for Cumberland
County
134 North Pearl Street
Bridgeton, N.J. 08302

Cumberland County Economic Development July 1 X
Board
Dr. Phillip Phelon, Chairman

Gloucester County Planning Department
Clayton, New Jersey 08312
Charles E. Romick, Coastal
Management Program Coordinator

Cumberland County Agricultural June 13 X
Extension Agent
County Court House
Bridgeton, N.J. 08302
Harry H. Fries

-337-

Commentor Date Hearing_ Written

County and Municipal Agencies (continued)

Middlesex County Planning Board
40 Livingston Avenue
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901
Douglas Powell, Director June 14 X

Deborah Malek, Staff June 30 X

Lower Raritan/Middlesex County 208 June 30 X
Water Quality Management Program
Middlesex County Planning Building
40 Livingston Avenue
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901
John Runyon, Chairman, PAC

Monmouth County Planning Board July 1 X
1 Lafayette Place
Freehold, New Jersey 07728
Robert W. Huguley, Principal
Environmental Planner June 14 X

Ocean County Planning Board June 14 X X
1 Madison Avenue
Toms River, New Jersey 08753
Alan Avery, Assistant Planner

Salem County Planning Board '-une 11 X X
Court House
Salem, New Jersey
Christopherf J. Warren, Acting
Planning Director

Borough of Carteret June 21 X
Middlesex County, N.J.

Lawrence Township Planning Board June 13 X X
Lawrence Township, N.J.
Alvin Griffith, Secretary

Middletown Township Environment Commission July 6 X
Kings Highway
Middletown, N.J. 07748
Lynden J. Kibler, Chairman

City of Ocean City
City Hall
Ocean City, New Jersey 08226
Stephen Gabriel, Mayor's Staff June 14 X
Advisor for Coastal Zone Mgt. June 21 X
Alicia Gregg, Public Relations Dept. June 14 X

Borough of Sea Bright Environmental Com. No date X
Monmouth County, New Jersey
Loretta C. Hanley, Secretary

338-

Commentor Date Hearing Written

Special Interest

American Association for University June 14 X X
Women, New Jersey Division
9 West Beardsly Avenue
Brant Beach, New Jersey 08008
Winifred D. Meyer, Legislative
Chairwoman

American Littoral Society
Sandy Hook
Highlands, New Jersey 07732
D.W. Bennett June 14 X X
Dana Rowan July 7 X
Anna Penna June 15 X X

Citizen Association to Protect the June 15 X
Environment (CAPE)
South Dennis, New Jersey 08245
Ruth Fisher

Committee for A Better Environment June 30 X
P.O. Box 209
Holmdel, New Jersey 7737
Roger Thomas

Lacey Township Chamber of Commerce . June 14 X
Joseph Heeney

League for Conservation Legislation June 15 X X
Box 205
Teaneck, New Jersey 07666
Michael Havrisko, Legislative
Agent

League of Women Voters Of New Jersey June 27 X
460 Bloomfield Avenue
Montclair, New Jersey 07042
Kathleen H. Rippere
Water Chairman

Marine Trades Association of New Jersey
P.O. Box 70
Island Heights, New Jersey 08732
Michael Redpath, Executive Director June 13 X X
June 14 X X
June 16 X
Mercedes Johnson June 15 X

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. June 15 X X
917 Fifteenth Street, N.W. July 5 X
Washington, D.C. 20005
Frances Beinecke, Atlantic Coast
Project

-339-

Commentor Date Hearing Written

Special Interest (continued)

New Jersey Conservation Foundation July 5 X
300 Mendham Road
Morristown, New Jersey 07960
Darryl F. Caputo, Assistant Director

New Jersey Independent Liquid Terminal June 22 X
Association July 3 X
60 Park Place
Newark, N.J. 07102
by Thomas V. O'Neill of Regional
Public Relations, Inc.

New Jersey Petroleum Council June 15 X X
170 West State Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08608
Leonard Ruppert, Executive Director

N.J. Builders Association

Joseph Todino, Chairman June 14 X X
CAFRA Committee

Comments prepared by
Michael J. Gross, Esq. June 14 X
Giordano, Halleran & Crahay June 22 X
1005 Hooper Avenue June 30 X
Toms River, N.J. 08753

Additional comments submitted
on behalf of the N.J Builders
Association by the seven
following builders and consultants:

Barrymor Enterprises Inc. June 9 X
81 River Avenue
Lakewood, New Jersey 08701
Barry Weshnak, Vice President

Canetic Corporation June 19 X
Taunton Avenue
P.O. Box 41
Berlin, New Jersey 08009
Craig Cunningham

Dresdner Associates June 12 X
Land Use and Environmental
Consultants
P.O. Box 624
Summit, New Jersey 07901
Allen Dresdner

-340-

Commentor Date Hearing Written

Special Interest (continued)

Fellows, Read and Weber, Inc. June 20 X
Consulting Engineers
310 Main Street
CN 25 2546
Toms River, New Jersey 08753
Joseph R. Read

Maestro Associates June 15 X
3 Spencer Lane
RD #1
Absecon, N.J. 08201
Robert Maestro

Townplan Associates June 30 X
26 Main Street
Dover Township
Toms River, New Jersey 08753
Thomas A. Thomas, President

Wilcox, Gravatt & Hacunda, Inc. June 16 X
Rt. 9 and Murray Grove Lane
P.O. Box 756
Forked River, New Jersey 08731
George A. VanSant

New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce July 5 X
5 Commerce Street
Newark, New Jersey 07102
Donald H. Scott, President

Sierra Club
360 Nassau Street
Princeton, New Jersey 08546
Diane Graves, New Jersey Chapter June 15 X X

West Jersey Group July 15 X

United States Labor Party June 15 X
Robert Bowan

Daniel O'Connor June 13 X
Save Our River Environment
Port Norris, New Jersey

-341-

Comnmentor Date Hearing Written

Private Sector

Columbia Gas System Service Corp. June 19 X
20 Montchanin Road
Wilmington, Delaware 19807
Robert W. Welch Jr., Vice
President-Environmental Affairs

Debevoise and Liberman
700 Shoreham Bldg.
806 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

On behalf of Public Service Electric June 21 X
and Gas, Jersey Central Power and
Light, and New Jersey Natural Gas;
Comments addressed to NOAA-OCZM
on NJCMP-BOSS and DEIS.

On behalf of Public Service Electric July 5 X
and Gas, Jersey Central Power and
Light, and New Jersey Natural Gas;
Comments addressed to NJDEP on Pro-
posed Rules on Coastal Resource and
Development Policies.

Jersey Central Power and Light Co.
Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Rd.
Morristown, New Jersey 07960
by Riker, Danzig, Scherer and July 5 X
Debevoise and Hyland
744 Broad Street
Newark, N.J. 07102

Jesse S. Morie and Son, Inc. June 15 X X
P.O. Box 35 Noble Street June 27 X
Mauricetown, New Jersey 08329
by Gary Caprenter, Director of
Governmental Affairs, on
behalf of Pennsylvania Glass
Sand Corp, Whitehead Brothers Co.,
George F. Petinos, Inc., and
Unimin Corporation

Public Service Electric & Gas Co. June 15 X X
80 Park Place
Newark, New Jersey 07101
James A. Schissias, General
Manager, Environmental Affairs

-342-

Commentor Date Hearing Written

Private Sector (continued)

Unimin Corporation June 30 X
Greenwich Office Park 4
Greenwich, Connecticut 06830
Kenneth Brunk, Vice President
for Technology

Individuals

Mrs. Leo B. Bicher Jr . June 14 X
Normandy Beach, New Jersey

Al Coleman June 13 X
Pennsville, N.J.

Mary and John Dowdy June 15 X X
2111 River Street
Camden, New Jersey 08105

Fred Gentile June 13 X
Fairfield Township

Thomas Henry June 13 X
Sea Isle City, New Jersey .

L.R. Hudson June 13 X
Bay Point, New Jersey

Katherine Kievitt June 14 X
Ocean and Second Avenues
S. Seaside Park, N.J. 08752

Alexander Ogden June 13 X
Port Norris, New Jersey

Alvin Wagner June 14 X
Secretary-Treasurer of
Sunrise Beach, Inc.

-343-

RESPONSES TO GENERAL QUESTIONS

Eight issues were raised by a sufficient number of commentors that they
have each been addressed in detail. This section phrases the general questions and
provides DEP's response. The specific comments from which the general questions
were formed are listed after the eight responses.

A. DOES THE STATE HAVE ADEQUATE LEGAL AUTHORITIES TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE FEDERAL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA)?

The New Jersey Bay and Ocean Shore Segment has been submitted as a direct
state control program (Section 306(e)(1) B) to meet the requiremeits of the CZMA.
This particular section of the Act allows a state to develop a program based on a
"single, comprehensive piece of legislation specific to coastal management and the
requirements of this Act, or on the basis of several different, often pre-existing
State authorities which are compatible with and applied on the basis of the coastal
management policies." [923.42(d)(1)]. For the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, the
policies of the program have been promulgated as regulations for the Coastal Area
Facility Review Act, Wetlands Act, Waterfront Development Permit Program and
Shore Protection Program, thus assuring that these programs will be operating
consistently with the program. In addition, the policies applicable to the
the Spill Control and Compensation Act and the Soil Erosion and Sedimnent Control
Act as well as to the Federal Clean Air Act and Federal Water Pollution Control Act
have been drawn directly from those acts or their existing regulations or are
incorporated by reference, thus assuring consistency with the program. Other DEP
programs such as the Stream Encroachment Act, Flood Hazard Areas Act, Waterway
Maintenance Program and the Green Acres Program will be consistent with the program
by being subject to receiving permits 'rom the CAFRA, Wetlands and riparian
programs and/or by virtue of the. Commissioner's letter at the beginning of the
FEIS which states that each agency within DEP will act consistently with the
policies of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment as outlined in Chapter Four. Spe-
cifically, Section 1.3 of the adopted rules (Chapter Four) states that the policies
of the program will apply, to the extent statutorily permissible, to all coastal
management and planning actions of DEP. Also, Chapter Five has outlined a conflict
resolution process for resolving conflicts within DEP on actions affecting th!
coastal zone. Portions of the Department of Energy Act will also apply to the
program as described in General Question H, Chapter Five and the Memorandum of
Understanding in Appendix G.

Under the requirements of Section 306(e)(1) B, the State'must demonstrate
control over a sufficiently broad range of activities that have a direct and
significant impact on coastal resources. Local governments need not be directly
involved under this option. NOAA has determined that the range of authoritites New
Jersey has outlined in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment is sufficiently comprehen-
sive to meet the requirements of Section 302 and 303 of the CZMA and to meet the
authorities requirement of Section 306(e)(1)(B). New Jersey is not required to
identify the authorities upon which it will rely outside the Segment until it
submits the second, and final, part of its program.

-344-

B. NOW DOES NEW JERSEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 306(h)-PROGRAM SEGMENTA-
TION?

Many commentators questioned whether New Jersey has met the requirements
of CZMA regulation 923.61 which establishes that states must identify the boundary
and a means for consideration of the national interest throughout the entire
coastal zone. The state has proposed a management boundary for the entire state
(see Chapter Two and Appendix E) based on:

1.) Bay and Ocean Shore Segment

The landward and seaward boundary as defined in Chapter Two of the
FEIS.

2.) Hackensack Meadowlands

The area defined by the jurisdiction of the Hackensack Meadowlands
Development Commission.

3.) Delaware River Waterfront from the Delaware Memorial Bridge
to Trenton:I

The area from the water's edge inland to the first road or cultural
feature.

4.) Northern Waterfront from Raritan Bay to the New York border:

The area from the water's edge inland to the first road or cultural
feature.

The Hackensack Meadowlands, Delaware River, and Northern waterfront areas
will be combined with the Bay and Ocean Shore to form the entire State program in
1979. The State has established a timetable and budget for completing the remainder
of the State program to meet the requirements of 923.61(a)(2), (See Chapter Eight).

There seems to be confusion by some of the commentors over the requirements
of 15 CFR 923.61(a)(3) of the federal regulations. This section recognizes that,
before a program segment can be approved, it must meet approval requirements in the
Coastal Zone Management Act and implementing regulations, just as a total program
must. It also provides that the state must demonstrate that it will exercise
policy control over each segment of its management program with respect to future
segments. This requirement refers to control to be exercised in the future, after
adoption and approval of such additional segments. If total policy control were in
effect at the present time, the whole purpose of segmented approval would be
obviated. In section 923-61(a)(3), two elements are specified which, at a minimum,
must be considered by states at the time of segment approval: (a) boundary deter-
mination and (b) national interests in major facilities. Although such elements
for future segments need not be in effect or operation at the time of approval of
an earlier segment, the state must include at such earlier time a general descrip-
tion of its consideration of at least these two elements.

New Jersey has completed the management boundary for the Bay and Ocean Shore
Segment and has proposed a management boundary for the remainder of the State's
coastal zone. The state does not need to identify the authorities upon which it
will rely in this area at this time.

-345-

New Jersey has also met the requirements defined in Section 923.61(a)(3) of
the federal regulations for consideration of the national interests in a coastal
zone segment. The state considered the national interests throughout the entire
coastal zone in preparing the program for the Segment. Such consideration is
demonstrated by the policies in Chapter Four, and is described specifically in
Chapter Six. In addition, New Jersey will continue to consider the national
interests in its preparation of a program for the rest of the coastal zone. NOAA
will not approve the second, and final, part of New Jersey's program unless such
consideration is demonstrated, and continued consideration is assured as the
program is implemented. NOAA has determined that this is adequate to meet the
requirements of Section 306(h).

C. DOES THE BAY AND OCEAN SHORE SEGMENT ADEQUATELY EVALUATE THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC
IMPACTS OF PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION?

It is not possible to discuss in an EIS the literally limitless decisions
affecting environmental, social and economic variables that may be made by indivi-
duals and organizations influenced by the implementation of the state coastal zone
management program. The program itself generally provides a broad rationale for
the more important decisions which are reached, and specific rationales for each
policy.

The principal concern of the coumientors is a more detailed discussion of
such potential socio-economic factors as the gain or loss of jobs, shifts of
economic benefits to individuals or corporations, or the increase or loss of tax
revenues to local governments which might result from program approval and imple-
mentation. The summary of Social and Economic Impacts in Part III, while general
and intentionally concise, fully satisfies any requirements that the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) may impose as to discussion of socio-economic
impacts. The impacts of a program on specific sites cannot be discussed because of
the broad range of actions by individual land owners, interest groups and municipal
and other governmental agencies. Thus, this EIS cannot be as specific as an EIS on
a particular project.

Furthermore, the purpose of NEPA is to insure that the broad range of environ-
mental factors are adequately analyzed prior to federal actions which will signi-
ficantly affect them. Courts have consistently held that socio-economic impacts
alone are not protected by the National Environmental Policy Act. Rather they
are significant only in conjunction with related environmental impacts. Neverthe-
less, it should be noted that New Jersey has used social and economic factors as
criteria for designing its coastal program. Although consideration of these
factors does not lend itself to useful quantification, the many specific policies
demonstrate the state's consideration of these issues.

D. HOW WILL THE COASTAL PROGRAM MANAGE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF SMALL PROJECTS
NOT REGULATED UNDER CAFRA AND OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT IN GENERAL?

Some commentors of the DEIS for the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment questioned
how the State would address the cumulative impacts of developments not regulated
under CAFRA. In 1973, the New Jersey Legislature established the threshold
for coastal development permits under CAFRA at 25 or more dwelling units for new
housing developments. On April 1, 1977, DEP adopted Procedural Rules and Regu-
lations under CAFRA which defined the threshold limit for CAFRA review of com-
mercial facilities at 300 or more parking spaces for motor vehicles. (N.J.A.C.

-346-

7:7D-2.2.) This definition of commercial facilities is presently under litigation
(New Jersey Home Builders vs. DEP) and any changes to this administrative rule will
require a revision to this program reflecting such changes.

The interim final federal regulations (15 CFR 923) promulgated pursuant to the
CZMA do not require that a state address the cumulative impact of a series of small
scale developments. The regulations speak instead in terms of issues of concerns
to the state in its effort to protect and manage coastal resources. Given the
developed nature of much of the shoreline of this proposed segment, NOAA believes
that the decision of New Jersey to review all subdivisions in wetlands and riparian
land and to limit review to major projects elsewhere in the Segment is a reasonable
interpretation of the program approval requirements.

This is not to say that the New Jersey program does not consider and, to a
large extent, manage cumulative impacts from a number of sources. First, the
Resource Policy on Secondary Impacts (Section 5.14 of Chapter Four) insures that
each decision subject to the Coastal Program will consider the potential impact on
future development. Furthermore, the Coastal Location Acceptability Method is
designed such that each decision will be influenced by existing development in the
area.

Second, the small developments not directly regulated by the Coastal Program
are indirectly affected by program decisions. The funding and siting of infra-
structure, such as sewers, roads, and shore protection structures, has a major
impact on future development. Similarly, the setting of air and water quality
standards by DEP influences the pattern of development.

Several commentors particularly noted the impact of the increasing number of
boa-ts using New Jersey waters. Decisions made by DEP regarding marina location and
size, dredging and maintenance of channels, and boat operation can all help control
future boat usage as necessary.

E. WHY HAS THE STATE NOT PREPARED A COASTAL MASTER PLAN? DOES THE COASTAL
LOCATION ACCEPTABILITY METHOD PROVIDE A SUFFICIENTLY REASONED AND PREDICTABLE
TECHNIQUE FOR COASTAL DECISION MAKING?

A master plan is a collection of published geographic criteria sufficient to
enable coastal policy to be determined in any location. Many commentors are uneasy
because New Jersey has not prepared the colored maps traditional to master planning.
The inclusion of a new chapter entitled "A Vision of the Coast" (Chapter Three) and
a "Coastal Region" section in Chapter Four (Section 3.5.3) have been added to the
FEIS in response to these concerns.

DEP chose not to produce a traditional "master plan" for two reasons. The
first is that experience with master plans has shown that a static two-dimensional
representation showing single use zoning cannot easily adapt to the changing
circumstances of development. The second is that master planning and zoning, in
the sense of assigning single uses to all areas within a jurisdiction, is the
responsibility of local government in New Jersey. For a state agency to pre-empt
this role to the extent of designating single use zones would be to deny the major
role individual land owners and developers, and local officials play in planning
the future of the coast.

-347-

The role of a state government should be to address regional concerns, to
identify where development should be restricted, to protect regional resources,
and to identify where development is especially appropriate because of existing
regional infrastructure distribution or desired future regional growth patterns.

In some cases, it is desirable that regional guidelines be somewhat use
specific. The New Jersey program does this, for example, in the planning of scarce
area-types such as waterfronts or mineral concentrations, or the identification of
development areas for uses with very different location criteria such as housing
and energy facilities, or the identification of uses that would bring maximum
benefit to economically depressed areas such as labor intensive industry. In
general, however, regional planning should be concerned with the patterns of growth
of different intensities without proscribing the exact positions and design of
individual projects.

The fact that the criteria detailed by Chapter Four have not been mapped
coast-wide does not mean they cannot be. DEP-OCZM has completed more than fifty
case studies in all areas of the coast. In all the cases, the application of the
Coastal Resource and Develoment Policies produced acceptability designations. This
demonstrates that the technique has general applicability as a reactive process
suitable for the permiting programs which are DEP-OCZM's implementation tools, and
that the method can be applied to hypothetical or real situations to provide
predictability.

The Coastal Policies may also be used for prospective planning. The Cape May
County Planning Board has completed sub-regional analyses and found that the
area-wide application of the geographic criteria of CLAM produces a well reasoned
and useful basis for master planning. The analysis produces a 'general idea of the
pattern and extent of buildable acreage 'available in a region without degrading
stated coastal resources or promoting extensive sprawl. The revised secondary
impact policy provides an opportunity to assess impacts on regional carrying
capacity.

Some of the commentors questioned whether the criteria of the policies are
sufficiently reasoned. Brief qualitative rationales were included throughout the
Draft EIS and these have been refined and expanded in the final EIS. Wherever
possible, DEP-OCZM has used thresholds that have gained consensus through use
elsewhere. Frequently in the FEIS the use of single numerical thresholds has been
changed to case-by-case maximizations or minimisations of certain elements to allow
for the application of new understanding and impact mitigation technology and to
allow some flexibility to address the individual variations of sites.

The language "to the maximum or minimum extent practicable" has been used
in some cases to allow this flexibility. Several commentors have expressed fear
that this phrase represents an unacceptable loophole. Experience with the CAFRA
legislation which also contains this language has shown that the flexibility in
language adds to the workability of the program without sacrificing the intent of
the policies. See the "Principles" section of Chapter Four (Section 2.2.).

Many comments have also addressed mapping. All the spatial information
necessary to make preliminary acceptability determinations under CLAM is presently
publicly available as published maps. The soil surveys, the USGS topographic
quadrangles, the wetlands maps, the tax records and the bathymetry maps are the
chief information sources. Others are specified in the FEIS. The difficulty

-348-

with this mapped information is that the scale varies widely and therefore com-
posite mapping is difficult. DEP-OCZM, in its first application for 306 funding,
is proposing mapping efforts to improve the utility of existing data. See Chapter
Eight which discusses "Next Steps".

F. HAS THE STATE ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED THE NATIONAL INTEREST IN PLANNING FOR
AND SITING FACILITIES IN THE STATE'S COASTAL ZONE?

Some comments concerned the program's adequacy in considering the national
interest in energy facility siting as required by Section 306(c) (8) of the CZMA.
The comments suggest that the program's preference for oil fired generation over
nuclear and coal-fired generation clearly conflicts with the national goal to
encourage nuclear and coal-fired generation to reduce use of oil for generation of
electric power. The comments criticized the program's failure to adequately
consider the national interest in the orderly exploration, development, and trans-
mission of domestic oil and natural gas and importation of LNG.

The coastal program as revised in the Final EIS does not express a preference
for oil, natural gas or any other type of electric generation, nor does it exclude
LNG or nuclear facilities. The program asks that facilities comply with applicable
state and federal regulations, that a need for energy facilities be demonstrated in
the State Energy Mlaster Plan, that safeguards be in place, and that the facilities
not conflict with areas of environmental sensitivity. The energy policies were
written to provide adequate consideration of national health, welfare, and economic
well-being.

The process for considering the national interest in planning for and siting
facilities includes the three step decision-making process outlined in Chapter Four
of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and utilizes the Energy Report prepared by the
New Jersey Department of Energy (DOE) in accordance with the Memorandum of Under-
standing (MOU) in Appendix G. Furthermore, Section I of the MOU indicates that DOE
will interpret its mandate to "... contribute to the proper siting of energy
facilities necessary to serve the public interest . .."' as sufficient authority to
consider the national interest in the siting of coastal energy facilities. Chapter
Four has been adopted as Administrative Rules of DEP which shall apply to CAFRA,
the Wetlands Act and the riparian statutes. Thus, whenever a facility requires any
one of these permits, the process for consideration of the national interest shall
be Chapter Four of the Bay and Ocean Shore management program. If a permit appli-
cation for an energy facility is submitted, DEP will forward copies of the appli-
cations to DOE which shall submit an energy report for consideration by DEP during
its review process. The report shall describe national interests, if any, in the
facility. DEP's decision must explain any differences with the report and, if
necessary an Energy Facility Review Board can be convened to resolve such dif-
ferences. NOAA feels this process is. sufficient to meet the requirements for
segmentation under 923.61(3)ii.

Further, under CAFRA, DEP shall issue a permit only if it finds the proposed
facility is located or constructed so as to neither endanger human life or property
nor otherwise impair the public 'health, safety and welfare. The clause "public
welfare" has been defined in Section 1.1 of Chapter Four, which has been adopted as
Administrative Rules, to include a full consideration of national interests. NOAA
feels this process fully meets the continued consideration of the national interest
requirement (923.52(3) of the CZMA.

-349-

G. HAS THE PROGRAM ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED THE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR
CONCERN REQUIREMENTS OF THE CZMA?

Some commentors have questioned the State's designation of Areas of Parti-
cular Concern (APC) as being too limited. The State has added eight areas to the
three noted in the DEIS. Each designated APC has established guidelines regarding
priority of uses in these areas which meet the requirements of 923.21(4). The 176
publicly nominated APC's have been distributed to county and local planning groups
for, incorporation in local master plans. Also, many of the publically nominated
APC's have been directly incorporated into Chapter Four as part of the management
program. Ninety percent of the nominations fall into four categories (water's edge
areas, wetlands, beaches and wildlife habitats) that are specifically addressed in
Chapter Four. The remaining to percent of the nominations fall outside the Segment
region and will be considered for designation upon completion of the entire state
program. DEP has analyzed each nominated area and will publish further analyses by
November 1978.

H. IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NJ DEP AND THE NJ DOE SATISFACTORY FOR PROGRAM
APPROVAL, AND IS THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE TWO AGENCIES
LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE?

Several commentors questioned the relationship between the Department of
Environmental Protection and the Department of Energy.

Section 305(b)(b) of the federal CZMA requires a state's management program
to include a description of the organizational structure proposed to implement the
program. Comment (c) to 15 CFR 923.45 (organizational structure) says "The main
purpose of this requirement is to provide a closer understanding of the entities
that have responsibility for administering various aspects of the management
program and the interrelationship of these entities." NOAA believes that the
memorandum of understanding in Appendix G accomplishes this.

The Memorandum outlines the decision making process to be followed and
the policies on which such decisions will be based. Because both agencies are
involved, it insures that all the various interests and needs addressed by the
federal Act will be considered in any decision. In short, it clearly outlines the
inter-relationship of the two agencies.

The procedure outlined by the memorandum has as its end product a CAFRA,
Wetlands, or riparian decision, which not only makes the decision accountable to
the coastal management policies, but also subject to appeal by affected persons.
Assume, for example, that the Energy Department's report failed to adequately
consider the national interest, and assume further that the CAFRA permit decision
was made on the basis of the Energy report and was therefore in violation of the
management policy by virtue of this failure. That decision would be subject to
appeal by any aggrieved party. Through this process, the DOE report, would be held
responsible to the program's policies.

Should a decision be referred by DOE to the Energy Facility Review Board, and
keeping in mind that DOE has committed itself to the coastal management policies as
well as the Energy Master Plan as the basis for its report, it then becomes a
matter of resolving the different interpretations of the coastal policies by DEP
and DOE. Such a procedure is recognized as valid in the federal regulations, 15
CFR 923.42 (control techniques). The revised memorandum reflects this in section
F.3.

-3�0-

Vrocedural regulations governing the Energy Facility Review Board will be
adopted during the first year of Coastal Program implementation (see revised
memorandum). Because there are no current, active proposals for energy facilities,
in New Jersey, NOAA does not believe that the short-term absence of such regula-
tions will in any way delay or otherwise affect energy facility siting in New
Jersey.

Several coimnentors also questioned the fact that the memorandum does not
appear to bind the Board of Public Utilities, which would assure state authority to
override local decisions that unreasonably restrict or exclude uses of regional
benefit (as required by the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act).

Because of the procedural posture of appeals to the Board of Public Utilities,
it is not necessary that the Board be bound to the Coastal Resource and Development
Policies by a memorandum of understanding. This is because the Board's override
authority is limited to municipal siting decisions and does not apply to state,
including coastal, decisions. In fact, binding the Board is expressly forbiden
by the Department of Energy Act, which provides that "... [the] Board shall be
independent of any supervision or control by the Department or by an officer or
employee thereof, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act" (N.J.S.A.
52:27F.6).

NOAA recognizes that the Board is not a statewide planning agency. What
it does represent however, is a State agency able to supercede local actions
restricting regional uses, and as such plays an important role as an element in the
network of state authority comprising the coastal management program.

-351-

GENtRAL QUEsTIONS COMMENTS 5 - 14 ARE ADDRESSED BY GENERAL QUESTION C:

The firet 48 comments helped form the Ceneral Questionae ddreaaed above. 5.
Printed below, therefore, are only the comment and name of the coimentokt. Most of The economic impacts of the program are more Marine Trades Association
the General Queatione were also raised by the New Jersey Petroleum Council, Natural ignificant and much longer term than predicted. of .J.
Resources 'Defense Council and Federal agencies Comente 778-1145 summarize the
comments raised by these groups, 6.
One would expect that In EIS would assess the Ciordano, Halleran & Crahay
impact of the Program upon economic development. for N.J. Builders
COMMENTS I - 3, ARE ADDRESSED BY GENERAL QUESTION A: Association
7.
New Jersey does not possess adequate legislative Debovoisq andLibrman Treatment in the EIS of the economic and social Barrymor Enterprise, Inc.
authority to implement the program. for Public Service ramifications of theme regulations is inadequate. for N.J. Builders Association
Electric & Gai Co.,
Jersey Central Power 8
and Light Co.,. nd I do not believe that the total impact upon the Wilcox, Gravatt
New Jersey Natural Gas Co. populace has been adequately determined. & Hacunda for
N.J. Builders Association
2.
The Wetlands. riparian and CAPRA laws do not Debevoise and Liberman 9.
authorize the State to exercise authority over for Public Service The economic impacts of land-use restrictions on Harine Trades Association
new houeing developments which contain lees than Electric and Ces Co., new development and land values are consistently of N.J.
15 unite or the expansion of eaisting development Jersey Centrgl Power down-played. The relationship between economic
by less than 25 units. This "regulatory gap" and Light Co., end and environmental issues in the permitting
precludes the Secretary from approving the Program New Jersey Natural Gas Co. process must be spelled out.
until comprehensive legislation has been enacted.
10.
3. The primary impact and secondary impacts of many N.J. Builders Association
The document may not satisfy two requirements CGiordano, Halleran of the policis n the DEIS are not analyzed.
of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act: a) and Crahay for N.J.
Referring to 15 CFR 9. 923.4, the program must Builders Association 11.
consider present ounerhip patterns of land and The rules and regulations could have a signifi- Dresdner Associates for
water resources including administration of cant Impact on employment, the construction industry, N.J. Builders Association
publicly owned property, as well as present housing for all income levels and the economy in
populations and further trends including assess- general.
ment of population growth, present land uses,
proposals for changes end the requirement of 12d
housing, minerel resources, transportatlon Policies should better blance other considera- Patricia Q. Sheehan
navigation and communiceatlon facilitilee; tions with the environmental o1es In evaluating N.J. Department of
acceptable uses. i' Community Affairs

COMMENT 4 iS ADDRESSED By GENERAL QUESTION B: 13.
The first Basic Coastal Policy should be revised James A. Schissias
4. to read "Protect the coastal ecosystem while permit- Public Service Electric
If a state proposes a segmented approach, it must Debevolse and Liberman for ting its beneficial use and development." 6 Gas Co.
demonstrate that: "A timetable and budget have Public Service Electric
been established for the timely completion of and Cas Co., Jersey 14.
the remaining segments". There is no reference Central Power and Light The document's opening chapter which discusses Donald R. Scott
or discussion of the establishment of a budget to Co., and New Jersey the program's purposes, totally ignores one of the N.J. State Chamber of
effect the completion of the Program. It should Natural Gas Co. basic mandates of the CAFRA law, namely, "the Commerce
also be noted that there is no state legislation, legitimate economic aspirations of the inhabitants
existing or proposed, which empower the State to of the coastal area" which the Legislature stated Giordano, Halleran 6
implement the remaining segments of the Program. it "wishes to encourae"--

2:3.
CCOMENTS 15 - 23 AR ADDRESSED BY GENERAL QUESTION D0 The cumulative impact of numerous housing devel- M icheel Havrisko
opments should be addressed in this document. League of Conservation
iS. Legislation
The Coastal Program fails to disclose the cumuli- Elvood R Jarmer
live impacts of its own implementation. Cape Hay County West Jersey Chapter of
Planning Board the Sierra Club

16. Robert W. Huguley
The program is flawed because incremental small Christopher Warren Monmouth County
scale development may not be controlled and the Salem County Planning Board
cumulative impacts of development are not seriously Planning Board
addressed. Ruth Fisher
Citizens Association
17tY~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~ . ~~~~~~for Prot ection of the
The case by ease approach avoids answering, or Darryl F. Caputo Environment
even raising, fundamental questions necessary for N.J. Conservation
proper resource planning. We feel that the Program Foundation Alicia Gregg
does not reflect the planning mandates and purposes Ocean City Public
of either the state or federal legislation, and Relations Department
that the document does not adequately assess the
program's environmental impact.
COMHENTS 24 - 39 ARE ADDRESSED BY GENERAL QUESTION 2:
18.
It is crucial that N.J. be required to assess Diane Craves 24.
the cumulative impacts and to develop a mechanism to Sierra Club We feel that you have done an excellent Job of Kathleen H. Rippere
remedy thLs problem. producing a structured, orderly approach to the League of Women Voters
whole complex subject that should go far toward of Nev Jersey
19. clarifying the decisions of those who must
P. 11. The program has no method for determin- Thomas L. Bertone regulate as well as those who vwent to build. We
ing the cumulative impacts not only of small scale N.J. Office of Fiscal Affairs trust that the plan for the Segment will gain
projects, but even several large scale ones. rapid approval at all levels. Especially con-
sidering the difficulty inherent in vorking up
20. detailed formulas for use of as varied and
The current program restricts our ability to Patricia Q. Sheehan complex an area as the New Jersey coast, we feel
prejudge the cumulative effects of individual deci- N.J. Department of Comaunity that you have done a monumental job. We find it
sions. Affairs forvard-looking and thorough in its coverage and,
Ln basically, sufficiently clear to be readily
21, understood by builders and lay people.
Considering the significance, the geographic Dresdner Associates
application and the controversial nature of the for N.J. Builders 25.
CZMP, the Big is deficient. Indeed, it is fatally Association The EIS should contain an inventory of existing Ann Penna I Dana Rovan
defective in terms of analyzing the impacts (conss- conditions, mapped clearly. American Littoral
quencee) of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment of the Society
CZMP.
26.
22. Carrying capacity maps are essential for the Thomas L. Bertone
We believe that guidelines could be established Richard A. Ginman further development of plans of CZM. N.J. Office of Fiscal
so that applicants could build upon the analyses made N.J. Department of Affairs
for previous projects and concentrate on the Community Affairs
additional effects of their facility on land use, 27
traffic, housing, etc. as well as environmental The federally-funded mapping project to commence Robert W. Huguley
factors. after Program approval will identify development- Xonmouth County
suitable areas throughout the coastal zone and will Plannin- a.-a

28. 37
A gehneratized graphic composite for the coast would Christopher Warren The lack of mapping Is a major flaw in the Program Thomas A. Thomas
help eliminate problems and should have been devel- Salem County Townplan Associates
oped prior to program approval if the public was Planning Board for N.J. Builders
to be properly informed of the program's impact. Association

29. 38.
Why has not a plan been laid out for the state as Barrymor Enterprises, Inc. The Coastal Location Acceptability Hechod or CLAM Katherine Kievitt
opposed to rules and regulations leading to such a for N.J. Builders provides a sound basis Eor management decisions, South Seaside Park
plan? The program needs additional and more Association but the management strategy should also include a
extensive mapping. detailed overall plan for the whole Coastal Area.

30. 39.
The deed remains for an initial mapping and delin- William Potter Certain critical problems will not be addressed Roger Thomas
eation of the coast, which would facilitate truly Public Advocate either by looking for critical uses in each area, Committee For A
prospective planning. or preferred areas for each use, because they Better Environment
involve the impact of some areas on others.
31. Resolution of broad regional problems requires
There does not appear to be a sufficient inventory Giordano, Halleran the development of a master plan having persuasive
of natural and man-made coastal resources, a & Crahay for advisory status if not the force of law.
requirement of 15 C.P.R. 923.12(a)(2). N.J. Builders
Association
COMMENTS 40 - 42 ARE ADDRESSED BY GENERAL QUESTION F:
32.
An adequate inventory of the coast's resources has Darryl P. Caputo 40.
not been compiled. In view of this deficiency N.J. Conservation The Programs Fail to adequately consider the Debevoise and Liberman
there is little alternative for formulating a plan Foundation ,national interest by severely restricting the for Public Service
other than setting forth loose policies and review- construction of coal-fired electric generation Electric and Gas Co.,
ing projects on a case by case basis. fEailities. New Jersey's criteria which prefer Jersey Central Power
oil-fired generation over nuclear generation and Light Co., and
33. unquesutonably conflict wich the clearly delined New Jeruey Natural
The decision not to conduct a proper inventory was Diane Graves national interest. The Program fails to provide CGas Co.
a mistake. No one knows specifically where develop- Sierra Club adequate consideration to the national interest
ments can and cannot be located. in oil and natural gas exploration, development,
and transmission. The Segment does not accom-
34. modate the national interest in natural gas
J The lack of an inventory of coastal zone resoureas Michael Havrisko availability. There are other definitive expres-
and of detailed mapping causes some concern. League of Conservetion sions of national interest regarding energy
Legislation facilities which New Jersey must consider and
accommodate. They include the hkomic Energy Act,
35. and the Energy Supply and Envirnmental Coordi-
Our primary concern centers on the abaence, at this Patricia Q. Sheehan nation Act, and the Natural CansAct.
time, of the fundamental elements of a master plan N.J. Department of
and a master planning process. Much of the fine Community Affairs 41.
work presented will profit with the availability of The program does not provide for adequate consider- Riker, Danzig, Scherer
such a document for which there is clear authority ation of the national interests involved in siting and Debevoise-6 Hyland
and en explicit mandate. facilities necessary to meet requirements which Jersey Central Power
are other than local in nature. El ectric genera- and Light Co.
36. tion and transmission facilities and other energy
The program needs a comprehensive land use plan that Alan Avery facilities clearly fit that category.
clearly delineates the spatial construction of Ocean County
acceptable uses under the plan, and identifies Planning Board 42.
areas that are suitable or unsuitable for develop- We believe the NJCMP does not adequately provide James A. Schissias
ment. for the national and reeinnsi i-.r.�re ; 1...I:

and-is fact, discriminates, discourages and
aftdct vnlf excludes those vital energy facilities (emphasis added). The c ontents of the Energy Report
offil-ccivdly exclmdesm th o s vital en er gy ilitieare not specified (except for "evaluation of
need"); accordingly, it is impossible to know the
areas of review in which possible differences will
COHMMENTS 43 - 46 ARE ADDRESSED BY GENERAL QUESTION C: arise oreover, hat differences will be ignd Addi-
ficant eltough to trigger the Review Board? Addi-
tionally, there is no requirement that the Review
43.
Hundreds of places were nominated as geographic Darryl F, Caputo Board limit its review to the record before it, or,
areas of particular concern (CAPC), yet only three N.J. Conservation if it finds that record sufficient, that it remand
place# were mentioned in the document and two of the Foundation for the gathering of additional evidence
three are already subjected to state control.

44' cCOMMENTS BY TOPIC FROM NEW JERSEY AGENCIES, GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS
The CAPC's nominated in the DEIS reveal Daniel O'Connor
extraordinary timidity on the part of DEP-OCIM Save Our River The comments in this section (numbers 49 - 777) are organized by topic and
since each is already owned by the state and Environment individually addressed below. The left column summarizes the comment, the middle
is subject to strong state legislation. The column indicates who made the coonment, and the right column provides the combined
idea should be to protect somathing that needs . . Bennett response of NOAA-OCZM and New Jersey DEP-OCZM. Unless otherwise specified, numbers
protect ion. American Littoral in the right column refer to sections of Chapter Four (Coastal Resource and Devel-
Society opment Policies) in Part II of this Final Environmental Impact Statement.

45.
We see OAPC designation for dunes and specific Anne Penna &
areas of high erosion as a significant eeans of Dana Rowan
protecting these fragile, productive ecosystems American Littoral
against development which falls below the CAFRA Society
threshold.

46.
Only one site nominated by a single citizen is Charles E. Romick
listed as a nomination for a "geographic ares of Gloucester County
public concern" in Gloucester County. It would
therefore seem apparent that either DEP's solicita-
tion efforts for nominees in this area were not
vigorous enough to be successful, or there was a
distinct lack of interest in the County in DEP's
nominating process,

COMMENTS 47 - 48 ARE ADDRESSED BY GENERAL QUESTION H:

47.
PSE&C believes that the DEP does not have the James A. Schissias
authority and Jurisdiction to coni-der feasibility Public Service
and economics, The New Jersey Legislature has Electric & Gas Co.
mandated that the DOE shall have that jurisdiction
and mandated that it is solely within that Depart-
ment's responsibility.

48.
The nOU leaves several questions unanswered. For William Potter
example,. it states that where the DOE'.s Energy Public Advocate
Report analyzing an energy facility "differs from
the DOP, the conflict _ay be referred f-orresolu-
. *. . ..

Comment Commentor Response Comment Commentor Response

COASTAL POLICIES GENERAL COASTAL POLICIES

NEPA SUMMARY 54.
Document does not have an Ann Penna & There is a gtonsary, and exten-
'49. index; certain terms should Dana Rowan sive cross references within
P. ii. It la inappropriate Marine Trades Atlantic City is under more in- be crosa-referenced in the American Littoral the text where approprinte.
to single out Atlantic City Association of tensive development pressure, text. Society
In item "g" on page ii N.J. because of legalized gambling and
because this creates the its impacts, than any other part 55.
Impression that Atlantic of the coast. It would be negli- The document needs a bibli- Barrymor Enter- Appendicea B and K provide bib-
City will receive special gent for DEP-OCZM not to recognize ography and linst of contri- prises, Inc. liographic material. In most
consideration, which cet- this and consider Atlantic City a butors. for N.J. Builders instances, the source of the
tainly musnt not be the case. special case. Association information is also mentioned
in the text.
50.
P ti. The program takes n Marine Trades Disagree. Development potential 56.
essentially negative Association of criteria, the designation of cer- The EIS is ihcomplete and Harine Trades Disagree. Please see responses
approach to coastal zone N.J. tain uses and the encouragement inadequate. Association of N.J, to General Question D and re-
management. On page ti, of many regions as growth areas aponsen to more specific comments.
item "a" should identify John J. Horn are all positive. Also the prom- Barrymoor Enter-
the uses probably permis- N.J. Department of ulgation of specified policies will prises, Inc. for
sible In various segments tabor'& Industry help potential developers to real- N.J. Builders
of the coastal zone. satceally plan. Association'

51. 57.
P. Ii. "Suppotting and prb- Marine Trades See policy 5.12 which does affect The document is internally Marine Trades See response 55.
mating access" In item "h", Association of the commitment of funds, but does inconsistent. Association of
U1 p. Ii, should be further N.J. not inhibit constitutional rights N.J.
>C defined. This should not to use of private property.
entail the cnmmitment of 5R.
funds nor the diminishment The document contains a de- Roger Thomas Major uses tinder present reglrntion
of private property rights. tailed examination of a vari- Committee For A are examined in the develnpmenmt
ety of types of sites and Better Environment potential section of the docuiment.
52, lists in detail certain nses See Section 3.5.5. The high diegree
The statement on page iii Hearine Trades See General Question 0. that are declared to be more of regulation suggested in largely
concerning economic impacts Association of or less desirable for each a municipal zoning function in New
la understated, inaccurate N.J. area. This is an unsystem- Jersey. See also General Question
and contradictory. An ntic approach when taken by D and E.
irreversible commitment itself, although it does
of reasorces must result serve to present some good
in long term impacts. ideas. What is needed to
complement it is an exami-
53. nation of each ,tse to de-
The alternatives listed are Roger Thomas The alternatives outlined in Part termine wheref, if any-
to accept, reject, or delay Committee for a IV are the most feasible alterna- where, it would be most
the program as set forth. better Environment tives that are available to the suitably located.
Ilowever, alternative pro- Associate Administrator of NOM.
grams are not described, 59.
giving us concern that the The dncrument in clear and i). W. Bennett No response necessary.
document might fell to straight-forward and shn.ild American Littoral
meet the NbPA requirements be comnprehensible to any- Society
for a full discussion of one npplying for a develop-
alternat Ive. menL permilt.

Comment Commentor Response Comment Commentor Response

GENERAL COASTAL POLICIES - Cont. GENERAL COASTAL POLICIES - Cont.

60., 64.
The;only problems that we Kathleen H. Rippere Language has been made as simple Some policies regarding site Thomas A. Thomas The specificity is needed to add
continue to have with clar- League Women Voters as possible. In some cases, more plan and review procedures Townplan Associa- certainty to the decinion-making
ity are in Section 6, technical language adds specificity. and requirements are too tion for N.J. process.
Location Policies. Most of specific and of limited Bliiders
the wording and definitions value. Assocation
are clear and readable' but
we have some problem with 65.
the use of words such as Some very broad policies are lThoman A. Thomas Disagree. A reading of thr com-
Stream "Heads" and their difficult to relate to an Townplan Associates plete set of policies in Chapter
attendant definition. It overall development plan for N.J. Builders Four will quickly produce an
seems as if more common in a community. Association indication of the likely accepts-
wording such as Stream bility of a project.
"Sources" might help to 66.
clarify the presentation. There is little rationale N.J. Builders A rationale for every policy is
for many of the policies Association included in the FEIS.
61. in this document
Camden County may need two Willaim G. lHengst A distinction of this kind may be
sets of coastal policies: Camden County appropriate to the Delaware River 67.
one for urban areas; another Environmental shore. DEP-OCZM hopes that Camden The document lacks clear Marine Trades The F.IS includes specific defi-
for undeveloped areas. Agency County will join the discussion of definitions -- in this an Association of nitionn where lack of clarity was
CLAH may not be suitable planning strategies most appro- indication that it is only N.J. noted in the DEIS.
for urban parts of Camden priate to the Delaware River coastal a general guide to decision-
County. zone. making and not meant to be
La.) more specific?

3 62. 68.
Middlesex County is expect- John Runyon Host energy facilities require Program needs a scheme for Patricia Q. Sheehan Chapter Four nov provides this
ing pressures for new energy Lower Raritan/ riparian permits and therefore are weighting different consider- N.J. Department of scheme.
development. We are con- Middlesex County now regulated by the Division of ations nso that a trade-off Community Affairs
cerned about unfavorable 208 Water Quality Marine Services. The completion point can be determined when
impacts if coastal program Management Program of a state-wide coastal zone will policies conflict.
concentrates energy develop- follow segment approval.
ment in parts of county and 69.
state along the coast out- Certain planning and engi- N.J. BDlilders Revision from the DEIS, made in
side BOSS, where no coastal neering definitions are tn- Association part on the basis of NJSBA cnmments
program has yet been pre- documented and qenstionshle. have hopefully alleviated the
pared. There are glaring engineer- problems. See revised Chapter Four.
ing and planning deficien-
63. cies in the document.
Coastal zone management pro- Middlesex County Agreed. DBP-OCZM has several staff
gram development and imple- Planning Board members working on coordination 70.
mentatlon should be coordi- with counties and 208 agencies. Will the State develop pol- Stephen Gabriel Not at this time. DEP will explore
nated with the Lower Raritan/ icy concerning the recon- Ocean City this suggestion in the next year.
Middlesex County "208" and structinn or repair of Mayor's Office
Water Resources Association. existing discouraged, pro-
hibited and/or non-conform-
ing uses?

Comment Commentor Respaei-- Ci rnne

GENERAL COASTAL POLICIES - Cont. GENERAL COASTAL POLICIES - Cont.

71. 7.
nEP should allow handwritten Daniel O'Connor Agreed. DEP-OCZN permits hand- The document does not satin- Giordeno, lleran Alterlativ.s hnve been explored
drawings of a nite in permit Save Our River written drawings for all early fy the ElS provision of NEPA end Crahay for before and after the publication
applications for relatively Environment analysis stages. because it does not con- N.J. Builders of the Strategy and the DEIS Doco-
minor projects. tain a detailed statement of Association ment. These documents together
all feasible alternatives. with the earlier Alternatives for
72. tihe Goast, record an extensive ex-
All of tile major industries Daniel O'Connor No response necessary. ploration of alternatives.
in Cumherland County depend Save Our River
on local natural resoureas; Environment 78.
welcome the protect ion of The report does not clearly Giordnno, Haileran There are rationales throughout
these resources provided by set forth the underlying & Crahay for the FEIS document.
the coastal program. Re- reasons for the conclusions N.J. Builders
search milst be done to de- reached. Association
terminp how to develop
these tenotreas propetrl. 79,
The bDIS does not provide Giordano, Ilalleran See General Question C.
73., sufficient data on the pro- & Crahay for
It is Incredible that the Glordano, Ilalleran Part It also addressee Impacts Ject's economic fqnnibility N.J. Bluilders
Impact analysis portion is and Crahay for on specific locations, uses, and and economic effects, Association
only 28 pages In a document N.J. Buildera resources
almost 200 pages in length. Association 80.
This program is an open Dresdner Associates Disagree. The program establishes
74. door to slhstantial stata fnr N.J. Builders policies to be lsed In administer-
We Ilrre with thr sEatamtlnt Marins Tradas Thank yoll. revitw and approval of a Assnelation ins aaisting laws and programs.
about wster qalletly In pars- Arssaiaklan nof will varlety of nativltlle,
grAph three on page 7. N.J. facilities and developments
that heretofore have not
75. : been considered. It ia
P. II, I especially endorse Elwood R. Jarmer No response necessary. important that this door
policies which protect Cape Hay County be closed.
coastal natural resources, Planning Board
and which constitute R 81.
rational decision-making Irrelriln tol 15 C.Y.R. Giordano, ielleran The referenced section which is
wi process, and the energy S. 921, 2(n)(2), the pro- A Crnhsy incorrectly cited (the correct
! Rand resort/recreational grain dneR not sufficiently for N.J. Builders citation is 15 C.F.R. 923.11(b))
use policies. inventory nntural and man- Association refers to such an inventory for
made coastal resources. the purposes of determining land
76. eand water ses subhject to the
If you own land along the Fred Gentile Land lost to natural erosion Is mnlngoment program and does not
bay and erosion carrie it lost to the landowner; it becomes simply require an inventory.
away, and then by an act of riparlan and title reverts to the Exinting documentation of soils,
God the land is put back, State. However, if the land returns geology, topography, property
would you have to buy that by natural process, i.e.: gradual ownership, vegetation. bathymetry,
land back from the State? accretion, that land becomes part shellfisll and finfis, demo-
of the upland owner's property. graphic trends and many other
He does not have to buy that back planning elements provides
from the State. sufficient inventory for all
policies in this document.

Comment Commancor Response Comment Comentor Response

GENERAL COASTAL POLICIES - Cont. BASIC COASTAL POLICIES - Cot.
aASIC COASTAL POLICIES . Cont.
82.
Many heavy industries de- Thomas V. O'Neill Area suitable for sater-depen- 87.
pendent upo terfront NJ Independent dent industrie are clearly indi- P. ll. Where is the method Thomas L. Bartone The se condary impact analysis does
aetinitie should be a*nble L.quld TIrn indpa ede n i nduthe atre eeleeaepolicies. for determining the limit Office of Fiscal take note of cumulative impact,
to loceate oin ar eas deeig- Ass oicinti on tSee conentration 34 of Affairs ambient environmentaL quality
nt oate d for such us.es. Th redur. Cptdevelopment at vhich point relative to standards, and remain-
nated for such uses. The ~POur.
~~~~DEP-OC2 ~ fa~~ilse to idntifydeniydvelopment becomes so ing carrying capacity. See also
~~~~~~thes~~e.~~~~~ ers~eaes~ tintense in any given area General Question 0.
thD~~~~~eseP-Z f~ailr~ s. toV~ identifthat it no longer respects
4^|~~~~~~~~~~~3.~~~~~~~~ ~the natural and built
We object to one section of Joseph Heeney The time period between firt and environment?
the State, South Jersey, Lacey Township lact is comparatively short, 6-9
being programmed first, end Chamber of months. The Legislation inevi- a
the other areas of Hacken- Commerce tably simplified the regultory Baicaltly, we suppo rt the Joseph eeney See responses to moe specific
sack. the Meadowlands, the task in this segment. DEP-OCZM concept of long-rnge plan- Lce y To wnsh ip comments.
Delaware River, etc. being felt that more discusion was ning to prote ct the ecology Chamber of
programed last. appropriate in areas not regu- and our natural resources. Co mmer ce
lated under CAFRA. See General how ver, the Lacey Town-
Question S. ship Chamber of Commerce
scrongly opposes the adop-
tiort of this program as
BASIC COASTAL POLICIES on of this program a
it is presently proposed.

84.
We applaud the Segment's Winifred 0. Meyer No response necessary. 89
policy of concentrating~ America~n Associa~- The second Basic Coastal James A. Schissiaa The rationale to the policy in
develpoent, ond encoura- tion of Uiverssity Policy to concentrate Public Service both the DEIS and the FEIS
ing the preservandecution of Women iedevelopment does not Electric & Gas Co. specifically exempts nuclear
opeing the~~~~ *~pr~~es~~ervation~ ~ ofrecognize that nuclear and LNG facilities. See Chapter
open space. generating stations Three.
B~~~~~~~~~~~5.~~~~~~~~~~ ~cannot be located in
85. ocnr dd omn
P. II We strongly endorse Charles E. Romick ank youconcentrated development
LO the four basic coastal Gloucester County ree.
L policies of the coastal 90
I -progra. Elvood R. Jarmser
P;nnigr Cape May~~ Csountyd mThe Salem County Planning Christopher Wartren The Basic Coastal Policy to con-
Staff endorses the basic ?Salan County centrace the pattern of develop-
~~~~~~Planni~ng-Board ~conastal policies with a Planning Board ment means that new development
few reservations. We should generally be contiguous or
leKa~~therine lR~eive~tt ~believe thac the second Ajacent to existing settled areas,
86. policy means that devel- rather than be dispersed vithout
P. 10-12. Phrasees like Patricia Q. Sheehan Major development is legislatively opmenc will occur in a regard for exiscing patterns of
Dragional impact" and N.J. Department of defined. Regional impact is de- concentr ated manner and development. The Basic Coastal
"major development" shold Community Affairs fined as an impact, either not that major new de- Policy is a broad goal vhich is
be defined in terms of the immediately or casually related . velopmenc must be con- to be carried out using the Coastal
coastal gone. that extends beyond a municipal tiguous to existing , Resource and Development Policies.
boundary. See Glossary in settled areas.
Appendix J.

Comment Commentor Response
Comment Commentor Response
BASIC COASTAL POLICIES - Cont.
DOUNI)ARY - Cant.
91.
0"ur previous comments that Christopher Warren The Resource Policies are designed coastal waters". Civen the di-
cestain facilities (nuclear Salem County to address this concern. See veraity of New Jer.ey's coast, it
plants, LNG) be excluded Planning Board Section 5.0. is impossible for a single surfrac
from the clustering policy variable to satisfy this require-
has been heeded. However, melt.
a policy statement some-
where in the document 96.
should discourage such P. 13. 1 oppose the use of Daniel O'Connor Agreed.
clustering without exten- the 10 foot contour line for Save Our River
sive safeguards. an alternate boundary; tile Environment
present boundary is accept-
92. able.
The Program fails to admin- Debeviose and Disagree. The Coastal Program is
later land and water use Liberman for a method to resolve such conflicts. 97.
regulations and control Public Service The felderal Coastal Zone Tlomas V. O'Neill Thl holondary for this area is
development to resolve con- Electric & Gas Co., Management Act stipulates N.J. Independent still proposed nod will he re-
flicts among competing uses. Jersey Central that areas beyond the CAFRA I.iquid Terminals evaluated in the coming months.
Power & Light Co. zone on the Delaware River Association
and N.J. Natural need not be included in
Gas Co. the State's Coastal Pro-
gram as tile salinity con-
BOUNDARY tent of the water is less
thlan 5 parts per thousand.
93. DEP-OCZH in our opinion is
Wi The CAPRA boundary should Hiddlesex County This would require new Legislative erceediop ile mandate of
g be extended to include the Planning Board action and is not necessary for tile l.egislnture as well as
Raritan Bay coastal areas federal approval. going beyond the require-
and Raritan River estuary ments of the federal statlte.
to the Victory Bridge.
98.
94. P. 13. Alternatives to the William C. IlenRgt This is being invostigRatd and
P. 13. The use of culltural Christopher Warren In the Segment area, the cultural proposed boundary for aseg- Camden County debated in tile development of
features as a boundary line Salem County feature line established by the meats outside ROSS, namely, Environmental the program of those aegments.
makes the coastal tone too Planning Board Legislature corresponds closely tile first clltlrnl featlre Agency
inclusive in many areas of with the boundary recommended by inland of coastal waters,
the coast. A boundary environmental analysis. 'may he more appropriate.
should he developed based Those might include exist-
upon sound planning princt- ing land uses or property
plie regardless of whether lines.
the coastal zone lies
within or beyond the exist- 99.
ing CAPRA line. Maps should he prepared for Daniel O'Connor Appendix E inclldes maps depicting
p.hlic distribution delin- Save Our River the entire coastal zone bonlldary
95. eating the new coastal zone Environment at a scale of 1:250,000. Official
P.13. I recommend that the John Holland This was considered by the Legis- boundary, as di.tingialihed DEP Wetlands maps are available
coastal zone boundary be the Cumberland County lature in 1973 in the setting of fr.-m the CAFRA boundary, in for public conllultatinn at County
10 foot contoulr line; this Planning Board the CAFRA boundary anld rejected. thie Bay and Ocean Shore Offices, and at DEP's Division of
would be more meaningful The Federal CZHA states that the Region. Marine Services.
and closer to the spirit of Alvin Criffith boundary should include "shore-
the Coastal Zone Act than Lawrence Township lands the uses of which have
the present boundary. Planning Board direct and significant impact on

Comment Commentor Response

Comment Commentor Response CENERAL LOCATION POLICIES

BOUNDARY - Cont. 104
Gloucester County is in Charles E. Romick No response necessary.
100.
100. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~agreement with DEP's de- Gloucester County
Page 258 describes what the Thomas V. O'Neill DEP proposes to use existing ret in ea e-c
Page 258 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sire to increase predicts-
New Jersey DEP desires to N.J. Independent regulatory authority such as it in re pe
delineate as coastal zone. Liquid Terminals the Riparian Statues to reg- bility an d adding more spe-
cificity to its decision-
in New Jersey. ILTA sub- Association ulate activities within the making process by limiting
mits that this must be de- area shown on page 258. Note administrative discretion
termined by the State legis- that Figure 25 shows only inistr at a gronp
trl idbthSature. lgregions "Proposed" for inclu- s bdyg
sion in New J ersey's Coastal of policies embodying
Jerseys ~~~~~~clearly defined standards
Zone. If DEP's proposal goes cl early defined tandards
beyond the area covered by that must be met in order
existing statutes, It would ob- for a proposed development
~viously have to So� totheto be deemed acceptable is
viously have to go to the Legis- ncsayi copihn
tature for that authority. necessary in accomplishing
lature for that authority. ti eie
this desire.

GENERAL LOCATION POLICIES 105.
The program inappropriately Patricia Q Sheehan Disagree. The program considers
lot. Di s a gree. Any are* can be subject considers facilities of N.J. Department of only combinations of uses, locr-
No one can know the suita- William Potter Disagree.Ayaecnb tonly local significance. Community Affairs tions and resources with regional
bility of particular areas Public Advocate to a CLAM analysis, and the OCZM impacts.
of the coast for development staff is available to help. In Girodano, lalleran
or protection without ini- Cape May County. the planning & Crally for
tiating the CAFRA permit board has used CLAM to study many N.J. Builders
process by requesting a areas to judge compatibility with Association
permit, because no sites Master Plan. Therefore, it is not
L I are evaluated until a just a reactive technique. Also
0' a Alan Avery
H- developer decides to build see Chapter Threen County
on a particular lot. ,Planning Bonrd
,;lannin8 Board
Ii
102.
The policies in the BSay and William Potter Disagree. Two or more sites may 106.
% egment do not pro- Public Advocate be analyzed and their acceptability P. 20, 4.0 The standards 'James R. Kelly Agreed. The standards and their
Ocean Segment donopr- PbiAdoae b nlzdadtercetblt which are applicable to Delaware River rationales are stated in Chapter
vide for a comparison compared. The analysis does not definitions must be clearly ort Autority 4 of the F
between potentially accep- give yes-no answers for entire
table sites, but only sites but indicates the comparative set forth for evaluation.
distinguish a site as extent of problems anticipated.
107. {
either acceptable or
either *cceptabte or ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Does one still have to file Alexander Ogden Where federal regulations are appli-
unacceptable in a part l-
c~uln~~ar ~ce~asb~e. in n parti- ~~~~with the NJDEP and with the cable, one will still have to apply
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~cular case,~~ ~federal government, or will to federal agencies. Ilowever fed-

103. this program consolidate eral policies will, to a large ex-
those two? ~~~~~~~~tent, be consistent witht state
The program can and probably Joseph Neeney Disagree. The use of the Coastal those two tent, be consistent with state
will impose a tremendous Lacey Township Policies will guide development to POl es
tax hardship on communities Chamber of sppropriate locations, rather than 108
and the taxpayers, as all Commerce drive it away. 5.0 The decision-making Dr. Phillip Phelon Disagree. The process is already
tax losses will have to be
tax losses will have t wit process will make develop- Cumberland County simpler than many municipal coning
borne locally and not with poesea
thorne locStatlyIt hasnd bulnot witn ment of coastal lands pos- Economic Develop- requirements which are satisfied
the Stte. It has buillst in sible for only the largest ment Board by small firms. ALso, work on aim-
regulations that will result firms and proposals.s plification is continu ing.
in such tax ratable losses. Chares Fisher
Cumberland County
Board of Chosen
Freeholders

Comment Commentor Response Comment Commentor Response

GENERAL LOCATION POLICIES - Cont. GENERAL LOCATION POLICIES - Cont.

109. 114.
The regulations will "lock Dr. Phillip Phelon The Coastal program is written to The identification of land Patricia Q. Sheehan Agree. See Chapter Three and
in" land uses almost for- Cumberland County be able to accommodate such change. use activity and growth N.J. Department of Sections 3.5.3 and 3.5.7 of
ever. We believe that land Economic Develop- The policies can also be revised trends and the issues impli- Community Affairs Chapter Four.
uses should change as the ment Board should major change prove neces- cit in these trends needs to
economy, the state of scien- sary. be assessed in terms of their
tific development, and our locational appropriateness.
knowledge in general develop.
115.
110. The revised Program is Robert W. Huguley No response necessary.
What will be the procedural William G. Hengst See revised definitions in greatly improved from Monmouth County
difference between a deter- Camden County Section 2.3. the Strategy. Planning Board
mination by OCZM that the Environmental
development should be Agency 116.
"encouraged" as opposed to This section has excellent Bob Maestro The PEIS includes sibstantial
"acceptable"? guidance information for for N.J. Builders revisions in format based upon
development, but must be Association more specific comments by tilhe
ll. presented in a manner that Builders Association and others.
The 3 stages are not clearly Bob Maestro for See discussions in sections 1.0 is less confusing to under-
defined on page 22. It may N.J. Builders and2.0. stand.
help if the document briefly Association
discusses the "how" along 117.
with the "what". The Resource Policies, as Hiddlesex County The Resource Policies do seem
defined in the Segment, (on Planning Board applicable to urban areas since
[ 112. air, water, runoff and buf- they refer to standards which can
Ct Present ownership patterns Giordano, Halleran Agreed. These are among the con- fers) would not adequately vary in different arena. The en-
) of the land, and water and Crahay for siderations that guided DEP-OCZM address the fact that heav- tire set of policies will be re-
resources, including admini- N.J. Builders in the formulation of policy. ily developed areas in evaluated as the program for the
stration of publicly owned Association Middlesex County, as well coastal area outside the Segment
property must be considered as in similarly developed j is prepared.
as well as present popula- areas throughout the State,
tion growth in the coastal already suffer the highest
zone and estuarine environ- levels of environmental
ment, present uses, proposals pollution.
for changes and long-term
requirements of the coastal 118.
zone, housing requirements, CLAM may suffer from other William Potter The FEES simplifies the CLAM deter-
mineral resource require- infirmities related to its iublic Advocate minations and expands the ration-
ments, transportation and basis and background. For ales.
navigation needs and commu- example, it is not clear
nication facilities. from the accompanying
explanation how each of
113. these determinations was
We tend to disagree that the Christopher Warren The six factors have been re- made.
stated six factors are the Salem County vised in the FEIS (See Section
principal location factors Planning Board 3.5); some soil factors, for 119.
and that each is relevant example, are now resource poll- CLAM is disingenuous for William Potter DEP used the experience gained from
to a particular development ties. The special value, loca- its failure to recognize Public Advocate past decisions to write a coastal
proposal. tion, use and resource policies the frequently inconsistent program which could respond to pre-
are all used in decision making; trends in prior DEP deci- sent aitd future needs, rather than
sions, and its failure to to explain or justify the past de-
identify the specific trends cisions.

Comment Commentor Response Comment Commentor Response

GENERAL LOCATION POLICIES - Cont. GENERAL LOCATION POLICIES - Cont.

which like common law cqdi- that this is an issue of not merel)
flied by statute, it wishes regional, but also national impor-
to formalize. tance. The cumulative loss of fer-
tile land progressively lowers the
120. nation's ability to withstand eco-
The DEP still leaves the D. W. Bennett The state is not a builder. The nomic hardship.
important first step -- what American Littoral Coastal Program deliberately re-
should happen to the land -- Society stricts the actions of developers 122.
to the developer, contrary only to the extent necessary to One of the significant Robert W. Huguley See revised section 3.2.2.2. No
to the intent of CAFRA which Mr. Farmer manage resources. At the same time, obstacles to the concentra- Monmouth County response necessary.
emphasized a statewide DEP will work with other public and tion of development and Planning Board
interest in the veil-being private agencies to encourage de- preservation of open space
of coastal water and land. sirable development. in the past has been the
Rather than directing devel- DEP's general unwillingness,
opment (or non-development) even iq the nominated Ceo-
on the coast, the State graphic Areas of Particular
will react to the plans Concern, to deny CAFRA appli-
of others. cations (although the required
performance standards usually
121. result in better projects).
P. 19. There is virtually Ciordano, Halleran To channel development to
no adminatration discretion' and Crahay for some areas, one must prohibit
nor flexibility in this N.J. Builders it in others. By defining
program. For example: Association more clearly what constitutes
aW ) Rule 6.3.8.3 discourages a) Noted, see revised policy and an effective use and incresa-
Q various retaining structures, rationales in 3.4.3 and 3.4.4. ing the predictability of
W There is no analysis of the CAFRA decisions, the new
rule's effects on develop- policies, improved coopera-
ment fronting lagoons. tion, suggested alternativesn,
b) There is no rationale for b) See revised policies 3.4.3 and better mapping, and the pre-
the policy generally dis- 4.8. application conference will
couraging the construction all help to avert the diffi-
of bulkheads. cult decision to deny pro-
c) The acceptability cri- c) See revised policy in 3.3.7.6. posals that are not infill.
terin for new dredging in
Rule 6.3.8.6 are almost 123.
impossible to meet. Locational policies should Bob Maestro Agreed. This is included in Re-
d) Rule 6.4.10 should allow d) See revisions in 3.2.21. address an area immediately for N.J. Builders source Policies, 5.0, and espec-
development on steep slopes adjacent to site (should be Association ially 5.14 and 5.15.
if adverse environmental defined) as well as site
effects can be mitigated itself.
rather than if "no pru-
dent or feasible alternative" 124.
exists, as the rule now There is a presumption that Patricia Q. Sheehan Disagree. For example, Water's
reads. all criteria and consider- N.J. Department of Edge criteria are given more
e) Rule 6.4.11 should be a) The soils are important to ations are of equal value. Community Affairs weight. See also revisions in
made more flexible to allow future food production and must be 3.5 which give different weights
farmers to sell their land maintained. Nation-wide the percen- to variables in the various re-
to developers. tage of fertile soils is small enough gions. Also see Use Policies
4.3 and 4.6.

Comment Conentor Response
Comment Commentor Response
GENERAL LOCATION POLICIES - Cont.
SPECIAL WATER AREAS - Cont.
125.
Eliminate the language "no Katherine Rievitt This is the language of the imple- 131.
prudent or possible alter- menting legislation and therefore There is a failure to treat Harine Trades This is why when mapped information is
native" which is referred cannot be changed without legis- certain elements of the Association of outdated, site specific information is
to as a reason for siting lative amendment. From the permit environment as transient, N.J. required. The most current informa-
a type of development where experience DEP-OCZH finds that this changeable entities, i.e. tion should always be used On the
it would otherwise he pro- condition is adequately rigorous shellfish beds, sand grasses. whole, final permit decisions will be
hibited. to ensure sound management. See based n contemporary site surveys
Principles (Section 2.2) in
Chapter Three. 132.
6.2.1.2 For the purpose of Marine Trades See revisions in policy 3.2.2.
maintenance dredging, con- Association of
sideretlon must be given to N.J.
126. two special situations. The
Measures required to mitt- Charles K. Romick See revised policy 3.3.7.5. These first would be where a shell-
gate the effects of shore- Gloucester County policies are not addressed to fish bed has expanded into
line erosion caused by Gloucester County which is not in an existing dredge area.
dredging should be defined. the BOSS area. Additional and al- The other is where a channel
Areas along the County's ternative policies may be appro- or basin had been dredged
Delaware Riverfront have priate to the Delaware River. near or partially into a
a long history of shore- condemned shellfish bed but
line erosion that has the condemnation has been
directly resulted from lifted at the time a permit
maintenance dredging of for maintenance dredging is
the Delaware River Channel. sought.

127. 133
Special water areas need Bob Maestro for They are: see water related areas P. 31. The Assocition Harine Trades Agreed CLAM relay (trnsplant-
to be defined. N.J. Builders among the Special Areas in See- questions why shellfish ,Association of ing) are encouraged prior to dredg-
Association tion 3.2. transplants cannot be con- N.J. ing. See revisions in 3.2.2.
sidered in areas needing i
128. maintenance dredging, if
The Planning Board supports Robert W. Hugulay Thank you. See revisions in 3.2. shellfish mortality can be
the Special Water Areas Monmouth County minimized?
guidelines. Planning Board

129. The definition of shellfish 'Daniel O'Connor Agreed. See revisions in 3.2.2.
Special Water Areas within William C. Hengat Agreed. This will be discussed beds on page 31 should Save Our River
the Delaware River coastal Camden County as part of the remainder of the include the blue mussel Environment
zone will need new cate- Environmental state program. "mytilus edulis", a shellfish
gorles. We recomend, as Agency species. This edible mussel
a new category, areas which in found in commercial quan-
sua npport migratory waterfowl. tites n shallow aters
along the Atlantic Coast
130. and Delaware Bay.
Within the Special Water William 0. Hengat All the Special Areas are natural
Areas, supposing more than Camden County resource protective, with virtually 135.
one Special Water Area con- Environmental no conflict between them. In con- We commend the policies for William C Ilengat Tank you
dition occurs in the same Agency flict, the most restrictive would be for surf clam areas because Camden County
area, how does OCZH propose effective. they might prohibit develop- Environmental
to resolve conflicting ment which would result in Agency
standards? the condemnat ionX oE surf
clam stocks.

Comment Comoentor Response

SPECIAL WATER AREAS - Cont. Comment Commentor Response

136. SPECIAL WATER AREAS - Cont.
Page 34, 6.2.3.2. Delete Robert Welch Disagree. A natural gas pipe-
last sentence referencing Columbia Cas line leakage would cause damage 140
pipelines or at a minimum System Service to the water environment, in- 6.2.5.1 Now about limited Bob Maestro for Wild rice, Zinsania aquatics, areas
delete words "or natural Corporation cluding the tidal water areas, emergency species such as N.J. Builders are regulated under NJ Wetlands Act
gas" in third to last line . and water' edge areas if the wildrice, which occurs on Association of 1970, and therefore, fall into a
Should for some uncontem- leak were in proximity to the the A Coast? Special Area, 3.2.11
plated reason a natural gas edge.
pipeline leak, it will not 141.
impact prime fishing areas Protection of shellfish beds Kathleen N. Rippere No response necessary.
in tidal water areas and in vitally important and we League of Women
are glad to see it empha- Voters
water's edge areas. Pipeline zided. Protection of the
construction will not gig- sided Protection of the
nificantly alter bathymetric dromous fish is essential
features of ocean bottom nor droa ouo fish it essential
impact fisherman's ability * isp rohibition of dis-
to utilize or fish in charges that will lower the
oxygen content of water or
release hazardous chemicals
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~137. ~~~~~~~~into it.
P. 34. Why not restrict William C. Hengst Agreed. See revised policy,
development which restricts Camden County 3.2.5.
downstream movement within Environmental Does 6.2.5.2 include fresh Bob Maestro for Fresh water tidal marshes fall into
water, tidal marshes? N.J. Builders Special Area, 3.2.11.
finfish migratory pathways? Agency Association
The policies for finfish
migratory pathways should
tat be expanded to cover tem- 143
porar construction over tdi- 6.2.5.2 Just as with Marine Trades Agreed. See revised navigation
porary construction or die shellfish beds, sub- Association channel section 3.2.7.
turbances during migratory merged vegetation is not of N.J.
periods Dredging activi- d vegetation is not of N.J.
periods. Dredging activi-
ties, for example, should necessarily a stationary
not be allowed during these resource While d e-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~perioda. ~~~~~~struction of submerged vege-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~periods,.~~~~ ~tation must be discouraged
138. a more flexible policy must
6.2.4.1 The definition Bob Maestro for The intent of designation of this be employed where vegetation
should not be limited to N.J. Builders Special Area (3.2.5) reflects the has grown into an existing
anadromous fish. Other Association critical value of certain distin- project in need of main-
species which are not truly guithable water bodies to anadro- tenance or where the only
anadromous also rely on less mous finfish, whereas other es- restraint o appr of a
saline areas for part of tuarine dependent species utilize new project is a proposed
their life cycle - e.g. the entire estuary.
bed of vegetation.
blue fish.
144.
139.
When will DEP complete its William G. Nengst DEP will complete this work within P. 35, 6.2.5.2, last para- Robert Welch See revised policy, 3.2.6 where
additional surveys of sub- Camden County two years graph on page. In line 5, Columbia Gas "trenching" has been substituted
admerged veget ationl In the yEnvironmental delete word "dredging" and System Service Language similar to the second
intereim veg feelt n that re- Ag ency insert word "trenching". Corporation suggestion has been added.
quiring all applicants to Further, at the end of
~~~~~~~~~~~survey this resource may ~paragraph, delete the phrase
survey this resource may
be asking too much of all
applicants.

Comment Commentor Response
Conmment Comnentor Response
SPECIAL WATER AREAS - Cont.
SPECIAL WATER AREAS - Cont.
"and replanted with pre-
development revegetation". 149,
Should this deletion be 6.2.6.2 Maintenance dredg- West Jersey Agreed. See revised policies
unacceptable, then it is ing should be encouraged Chapter of the 3.3.7.5 and 4.8.6.
recommended that the fol- only if a suitable place Sierra Club
loving phrase be added to for putting spoil is spec-
existing paragraph- "if if ied beforehand.
after a period of three
growing seasons submerged 150.
aquatic vegetation does 6.2.7 We find this section Clayton D Peavey Agreed. The intent of the policy
not naturally reinvade unclear with regard to har- The Port Authority is not to interfere with harbor
the trench area." bor approaches and channels. of N.Y. and N.J. clean up projects.
We trust that the prohibition
145. of commercial salvage of
6.2.6.1 This definition Marine Trades See revised definition for navi- wrecks will not prevent prompt
is incorrect in that it does Association gation channels in 3.2.7 which removal of vessels sunk in
not encompass the majority of N.J. addresses the concerns indicated. - navigable waters keeping with
of the navigation channels federal law, including the New
in New Jersey. York harbor Collection and
Removal of Drift Project.
146.
6.2.6.2 The prohibition Marine Trades See revised policy, 4.8.6. 151.
of subaqueous disposal of Association p. 37. Are dredging acti- William C. Hengst Maintenance dredging-is condition-
dredge spoil must be modi- of N.J. vities prohibited in areas Camden County ally acceptable (See 3.3.7.5), new
flied. The practicality of shipwrecks? Perhaps the Environmental dredging is generally discouraged
and value of the creation concept of a buffer sur- Agency (See 3.3.7.6), and maintenance
of dredge spoil islands rounding shipwrecks should dredging of navigation channels
in certain areas is just be employed so activities is encouraged (See 3.2.7.2).
coming to light. The policy such as dredging can occur i
is also in conflict with the in their vicinity yet at a
water acceptability table safe distance so as not
which shows disposal in deep disturb this underwater
and shallow ocean as well as feature.
shallow open bay as con-
ditionally acceptable. 152.
6.2.8.2 How about water bob Maestro See policy 3.2.19.
147. areas that are heavily'used for N.J. guilders
6.2.6.2 We ere very con- Clayton D. Peavey Revised policy 4.8.6 addresses concentration areas for 'Association
cerned over the prohibition Port Authority this concern. waterfowl?
of subaqueous disposal of of N.Y, and N.J.
dredge spoil, but trust 153.
that Section 6.3.8.7 con- P. 38, 6.2.8.3 Recommend Robert Welch Disagree. Offshore oil and gas
trols this policy, placing period after the Columbia Gas development could have impacts on
word "value" at end of System Service marine sanctuaries which should
148. second line and deleting Corporation be noted. See Section 3.2.9.3.
6.2.6.2 The recommendation Dr. Phillip Phelon See revised policies, 4.8.6, rest of the sentence.
that land disposal be used Cumberland County
discourages such activity Economic Develop-
because "suitable areas" ment Board
are rarely close to the
channels you wish to widen
and/or deepen.

Comment Commentor Response
Comment Commentor Response

HATER AREAS WATER ACCEPTABILITY TABLES - Cont.

154. 160
6.3.3 So many variables Bob Maestro Agreed. See revision in 3.3.3. P. 45. We have these que- William C. engst
come to play to determine for N.J. Builders tions regarding the Water Camden County
assimilative capacity that Association Acceptability Table: (1) Environmental (I) See revised table, 3.3.6 where
calculation based on volume In the open bay, why is Agency this has been changed to condi-
maintenance dredging in tionally acceptable.
and flushing rate may be dan-
gerously over-simplified. water 18' depth impracti-
cal? (2) In the open bay, (2) See revised table, 3.3.6 where
155. what is the reasoning for this has been changed to discouraged.
P. 41, 6.3.5.2 The defi- Elwood R. Jarmer See revision in 3.4; Back Bly filling activity in waters
nition and classification Cape Nay County channels (guts) have been added. O' to 6' being condition-
of tidal streams is missing Planning Board ally acceptable, rather
and is, therefore, unclear. than discouraged or pro-
hibited? (3) The cate- (3) This did not seem necessary,
156. gories of water depths but will be considered in the future
The Coastal Program for Thomas L. Bertone Disagree. The program highlights used for the ocean and as a more specific rationale is
"Water Areas" is sketchy N.J. Office of water. See revised Chapter Pour. open bay ight be rede- presented.
when compared with "Land Fiscal Affairs fined to include a fourth
Areas"; perhaps the empha- range (18' to ?7') in
sis should be reversed. order to distinguish
between some activities
Hore mapping would clarify between ome ctivitie
this. which might be acceptable
in relatively deep waters
At~ WATER ACCEPTABILITY TABLES as opposed to very deep
LJ 157.waters.
157.
P. 45. The Water Accept- Czeslewa Zimolzak Thank you. See revised table in 161.
ability Table Is excellent. Cumberland County 3.36. The Water Acceptablity el Jamae R Kelly Disagree. (Some of these uses are
It provides firm, rational Planning Board Table for Open Bay 18'+ 1i Delaware River impractical In this water area.)
guidelines i t an easy-to- boat ramps, docks and piers,! Port Authority DEP-OCZH has considered economic
use form. dredging maintenance, factors in determining and revising
dredging new and spoil die- the tables and policies. (Note the
158. posal are in conflict with revisions in 3.3 and especially
Pp. 46-59. Although "Water Thomas L. Bertone Disagree. The conditions are the fourth CAFRA objective 3.3.6; see also General question C.)
'Acceptability Conditions" N.J. Office of rather specific. See revised which is to improve the eco-,
specify limitations on 18 Fiscal Affairs format of section 3.3.7. nomic position of the inhab0
uses, these are sketchy. tants.

159,
Water Uses/Water Accepts- Anne Penna s Agreed. See revised format of The point in time to which Marine Trades The time referred to is mean
bility should also follow Dana Rowan section 3.3. the water depth refers must Association low water.
a standard format, laid out American Littoral be defined of N.J.
as are the Specisl Water Society
Areas. definition, policy 163.
And rat ionale. Most waterways in New Jersey HMarine Trades Disagree. Just because it has not
are in abominable condition. Association been maintained does not prohibit
Future maintenance should of N.J. its future maintennnce. See re-
not be contingent on exist- vised tables and policies in 3.3.
ing conditions. In essence, See also 4.8.

Comment Commentor Response
Comment Commentor Response
WATER ACCEPTABILITY TABLES - Cont. (
WATER ACCEPTABILITY TABLES - Cont.
the policy would result in
the eventual abandonment of linear facilities are
many channels in New Jersey able routes, the afor pipe-
and the dooming of many abilines should ctherefor pipe-
waterfront home owners to own lines should therefore be
lovely docks with no water equivalent to the cable
access. route acceptability factors.

164. 169.
The maintenance dredging of Robert W. Ruguley Noted. Stream clearance is not We also recommend that th Robert W Nuguley -Disagree Studies of reservoir
lakes and ponds should be Honmouth County meant to be implied by the use of channel construction of Monmouth County locations have determined the i-
conditionally acceptable Planning Board the term maintenance dredging. dams and impoundments be Planning Board practicality of these sites within
rather than prohibited. Mosquito Control Commissions are discouraged rather than pro- the coastal zone. See section
While we strongly oppose exempt from the policies. The hibited to permit the devel- 3.3.7.17.
the wholesale channelization agricultural uses of land are also opment of public potable
of streams, stream clearance not subject to coastal permit re- water supplies and, In
should also be regarded as view. extreme cases where a non-
conditionally acceptable, structural approach is
and mosquito control con- impractical or unfeasible,
missions and agricultural flood control structures.
operations exempt from the
permit requirement. WATER ACCEPTABILITY CONDITIONS
170.
165. 170
I Acceptability of maintenance Marine Trades See revised policies nd tables You say aquaculture is Patricia Q. Sheehan See revised table in 3.3.6.
(A., policies of"generally encouraged"e hut N.J. Department of
L dredging for all areas must Association in 3.3. where this has, for the "generally encouraged" but N.J. Department of
CO be changed to conditional. of N.J. most part, been accomplished. your Table, p 45does not Comunity Affirs
be changed reflect this.
166.171.
Spoil disposal should be re- Marine Trades See revised plicies in 3.3.7.7 6.3.6.20 Temporary Spo Welch See revsed ppelne routng polcy
thought. A virtual across- Association and 4.8.6. 6.3620 Temporary Spoil obert Welchin Section 3.3.7.16.
~the-board prohibition does of N.~J.~ ~Storage (suggested addi- Columbia Cas in Section 3.3.7.16
n ot all ow for the cibitionsi does of N.J. tion): Temporary trench System Service.
t ion of possible disposal spoil alongside the exca- Corporation
ficn of possible disposal vated trench in a lineal
alternatives such as the
creation of spoil islands. pile or a specifically de-
signed marine locations for
167. temporary storage while the
We have felt for some time Winifred D. Meyer Ocean dumping is prohibited. pipeline is installed in
that the demand of the American Associa- See Water Acceptability Table the trench.
American Littoral Society tion of University in 3.3.6.
and of other coastal groups Women 172
~~~~~~~~~to stop ocean dumping NOW ~6.3.8.2 It is virtually Dr. Phillip Phelon Disagree. This policy can be met.
wilto stop ocean dumping NOW impossible to create new Cumberland Economic See revised policy 3.3.7.2.
will save us much grief.
boat ramps which would not Development
168. in some way affect sub- Planning Board
P. 45, Figure 5 Line 16 Robert Welch Agreed. See revised Table 3.3.6. aqueous vegetation.
should be all "condition- Columbia Gastrictions an
ally acceptable". Inas- System Service boat ramps appear equally
much as pipeline routes are Corporation preposterous.

Comment Commentor Response
Comment Commentor Response
WATER ACCEPTABILITY CONDITIONS - Cont.
WATER ACCEPTABILITY CONDITIONS - Cant.
173.
P. 46-47. The policy of Charles Romick This concern is addressed in the 178
retaining structures being Gloucester County retaining structure policy, A study aimed at increasing Marine Trades This study is suggested in Chapter
generally "discouraged" 3.3.7.3, and re-inforced in the the compatabilty of boats Association Eight as a next step in Coastal
should be changed to "con- shore protection use policy, and their support facilities of N.J. Zone Management.
ditionally acceptable" for 4.8.2. It will be further con- with the environment should
developed areas where their sidered as it applies to Glouces- be undertaken.
being built may be very ter and other counties outside
important to the stability the Segment in the coming year. 179.
of an area's developed Goals for site development Marine Trades Agreed. These issues have been
aloreline. based on dredging needs Association addressed in the revised dredge
within specific geographic of N.J. spoil disposal policy, in the Water
174. areas must be set. Inves- Acceptability Table and in the
The Planning Board has long Robert W. Iluguley Thank you. tigation of alternative Coastal Engineering Use Policy
favored the nonstructural Honmouth County dredging methods and dredge 4.8. DEP's intent to pursue
approach to shore protection Planning Board spoil disposal and use additional research on these
and is pleased by the docu- must also be actively pur- issues is noted in Chapter Eight.
ment's preference for beach sued, whether within state
nourishment over groins. government or research
institutes.
175.
The Association agrees Marine Trades See revised Location Policy 180.
with policy 6.3.8.5. Iow- Association 3.3.7.5 and Water Acceptability I would like to applaud the Thomas A. Henry No response necessary.
ever, the policy appears of N.J. Table 3.3.6. efforts of the DEP in recent-
to contradict the Water ly funding a project to look
Acceptability Table. at the overboard disposal of
dredge spoils.
176.
The document does not delin- Elwood R. Jarmer See revised Dredging Policies, 181.
eate policy that specifically Cape May County 3.3.7.5 and 3.3.7.6 and Water P. 36. The standard of William C. Hengst This language has been altered.
deals with dredging channels Planning Board Acceptability Table 3.3.6. "suitable" for the reuse Camden County See revised dredge spoil dis-
necessary to support the of dredge soils is insuffi- Environmental posal conditions in Water Accept-
marina uses. Tidal channels cient. What criterion will Agency ability Table 3.3.6 in Chapter
and lagoons should be more be used to define suits- Four.
explicitly defined and bility?
policies to be applied
toward new and maintenance 182.
dredging developed. 6.3.8.9 Since marine ! Clayton D. Peavey The policy has been changed to
facilities are located in The Port Authority "discourage" rather than "pro-
177. coastal waters, we are con- of N.Y. and N.J. hibit". See Location Policy
6.3.8.6 We are very con- Clayton D. Peavey That assumption is correct. cerned that this "limited" 3.3.7.9.
cerned over the general The Port Authority Existing channels are separate filling concept could
prohibition of new dredging, of N.Y. and N.J. from new channels. See also prevent necessary filling
though case-by-case excep- Location Policy 3.3.7.6 which for the construction
tions are possible. We has been revised to "discourage" of docks and wharves. We
assume "new dredging" rather than "prohibit" new suggest that the word
does not include deepening, dredging. "limited" be deleted.
widening or other improve-
ments to existing channels.

Coment Commentor Response Coent Commentor Response

WATER ACCEPTABILITY CONDITIONS - Cnt. WATER ACCEPTABILITY CONDITIONS - Cont.

183. S e e r e v i s e d p o l i c y 3 37.189.
6.3.8.10 This wording and Clayton D. Peavey Agreed. See revised policy 6.3.8.2 and 6.3.6.21 (ug- Robert W See revsd policy 3.3.7.16
Section reference on piling The Part Authority 3.3.7.10 and revised Water Sete d addition) Jetting Coloumbia Gas which includes some of suggested
needs clarification. of N.Y. and N.J. Acceptability Table 3.3.6. pipelinem into the bottom system service language.
sediments il a condition- Corporation
184. ally acceptable burial
6.3.8.13 The restriction Dr. Phillip Phelon The policy (now 3.3.7.13) makes method.
on bridges will make a pro- Cumberland County construction of this particular
posed crossing of the Economic Develop- bridge extremely unlikely. SPECIAL WATERS EWE AND LAND AREAS
Cohansey River south of ment Board Were it demonstrated that the
the City of Bridgeton con- proposal met the policies, the 190.
The mixing of "special Thomas L. Bertone The Location Policies in Chapter
siderably more expensive costa would be unaffectedl water's edge reas" and N.J. Office of Your have been reorganized. All
The new regualations aso "special land areas" all Fiscal Affairs "Special Areas" are now listed
would probably delay its within section 6.4, "Spe- together in Section 3.2, in part
~~~~~~~start a ~nd complt~etion.~~ e ~cial Water's Edge and Land because these are the areas of

185. Areas" is confusing. greatest public concern.
6.3.8.16 Overhead Trane- HMarine Trades Agreed. See revised Location
mission Lines: Considera- Association Policy 3.3.7.15. 191.
tiion Lnmust b e given to mast: oito of N.J. Most of the Special Water's Robert W. Huguley No response necessary.
h eights in orderg to eliminate Edge and Land Areas policies Monmouth County Additional categories have been
aightoss ibnlity~ orderf ctoelimintacte provide an added measure of Planning Board introduced.
all possibility of contact
between mast and transmission and enitive or the untaique
lines.
lin~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~essnd sensitive or unstable
areas (including prime agri-
186 culture lands) which are not
i. 6.3.8.16 It is suggested Robert Welch Both policies have been revised in the more general categories.
J- that this paragraph be re- Columbia Gas (3.3.7.16 and 3.3.7.14) and are
vised to be consistent System Service not contradictory. 192
with paragraph 6.3.8.14 - Corportion Especially in view of the athleen H. Rippere No response necessary.
Cable Routes. many threats to the potable eague of Women
water supply both from pollu- voters
187. tents and from overuse of
6.3.8.18 and 6.3.8.19 Robert Welch Trenching has now been addressed groundwater we are psrticu-
Trenching (suggested addi- Columbia Gas in Section 3.3.7.16 on Pipeline larly glad to see bogs and
tion) Trenching for pipe- System Service Routes. stream heads included in
line facilities is condi- Corporation protected areas and again
tionally acceptable in all regret that a number of
water bodies, these are not included in
the CAFRA jurisdiction.
188.
6.3.8.20 and 6.3.6.21 Robert Welch See revised policy 3.3.7.16 193.
Beackfilling (suggested addi- Columbia Gas Pipeline Routes. P. 50, 6.4 Previously Slwood R. Jarmer See category Filled Water'
tion) Backfilling the System Service filled wetlands in close Cape May County Edge (3.4.4) which now considers
trench following pipeline Corporation proximity to the water's Planning Board the total extent of the filled
installation in acceptable Edge Areas are an anomaly area regardless of its location,
pr ovided that the back- in the CLAM p roc ess. or the origin of fill. The policy
filling operation reestab- That policy should also also identified the nced to con-
lishes the bottom contours reconcile itself with the sider reclamation of these sites.
over the trench to ax near policy at 6.5.1.3 (p. 71) The Wetlands policy applies to
as practicable to the orig- regarding restoration of all proposed development in the
inal bottom contours. ri-degraded wetlands. Cri- Segment.
teria defining "degradation"
should be developed.

Comment Commentor Response Comment Commentor Response

HIGH RISK EROSION AREAS - Cont.
RIGH RISK EROSION AREAS
198.
194. 6.4.1.2 "Development that William C. Hengat See revised policy, 3.2.12
6.4.1(m) How doyou Dr Phillip Phelon This is defined in the study contributes to further ero- Camden County Envi- where development is prohi-
measure "high long-term Cumberland County cited in the rationale to Loca on reas is discouraged." ronmental Agency bited with few exceptions
erosion rates?" Your Economic Develop- tionPolicy3.2.12.3. Develop- Why not simply prohibited?
"specific examples" ment Board ment is not precluded in Cum- West Jersey
would appear to preclude berland County. See "Delaware Chapter of the
any development of the Bayshore Region" in Chapter Sierra Club
Delaware Bay shoreline of Three.
Cumberland County. 199.
P. 51. How are areas that William C. Hengst It is possible to determine sea
195. will erode in the mid-term Camden County level rise and then a corres-
Pp. 50-54. 6.4.1 The Elwood R. Jarmer The list is not inclusive but future (less than 50 years) Environmental ponding horizontal distance
County Planning Board and Cape Hay County is meant to represent examples predicted A reference to Agency inland Also historic aerial
the Army Corps of Engineers Planning Board of ligh Risk erosion locations, the source for prediction photo interpretations will help
have identified additional which now have been moved from ought to be given determine the "horizontal dis-
areas which should be Stephen Gabriel the policy section to the tafce" over a specified period
added to the list of Ocean City rationale section of Section of years See revised Location
high risk erosion areas Mayor's Office 3.2.12 of Chapter Pour. Policy 3.2.12.2.
in Cape MHay Colunty.
200.
196. The use of the 50 year Ruth Fisher Disagree, the ocean has proved
P. 52. Titled High Risk Czeelawa Zimolzsk Agreed. The policy has been criterion is unacceptable Citizens Assocla- its ability to capture land and
J Erosion Areas, Figure 6 Cumberland County changed to High Risk Beach Ero-s ion tion for Protec- must becoe part of planning
-1J really refers to High Risk Planning Board sion Areas. As noted in the text, areas. tion of the for the coast.
Beach Erosion Areas. Streams this map merely indicates the
shown in heavier print give location of these illustrative
some vague indication of high risk erosion areas which 201.
riverine erosion "power". were noted as examples and not 6.4.1.2 What are "non- ipanetic Corporation An example of a nonstructural
meant to be considered an ex- structural solutions" to for N.J. solution is beach nourishment;
haustive list. The "heavier erosion problems? Builders a structural solution would be
print" along some streams are Association a bulkhead. See also Coastal
county or township boundary Engineering Use Policies 4.8.
lines.
202. u.
197. P. 53. Who will conduct the !William C. Hengst See revised policy 3.2.12,
If beach replenishment fails Kathleen H. Rippere Such possibilities will be ex- cost-benefit studies of the .Camden County which has eliminated this
to protect high risk areas, League of Women plored by DEP in the course of feasibility and benefici- Environmental requirement
it would seem a wiser use Voters preparing the Shore Protection tries of shore stabiliza Agency
of public funds to condemn Haster Plan during the next tlon?
endangered buildings and year.
restore the beach to its 203.
normal fluctuating condi- P. 53. The use of cost- Marine Trades No response necessary.
tions. benefit studies, weighing Association
both economic and environ- of N.J.
mental values, is a good
approach to many permit
considerations.

Comment Commentor Response' Coment Commentor Response

DUNES DUNES - Cont.

204, flood losses, it is oh-
We hope these policies will Winifred D. Meyer No response necessary. viously time that high
provide a big improvement American Associa- risk development on
in preserving all N.J.'s tion of University beaches in front of sea-
barrier islands' protective Women walls or dunes be stopped
dunes. It is in our interest and that the littoral
to sacrifice a bit economic- drift of sand be taken
ally now so that we do not into account when bulk-
ultimately destroy the true heads and groins are con-
base of the coastal economy, sidered.
the beaches.
CENTRAL BARRIER ISLAND CORRIDOR
205.
P. 55. low can municipal- Stephen Gabriel DEP, particularly with the aid 208.
ities develop their dune Ocean City of county planning boards, will 6.4.3 No distinction is Patricia Q. Sheehan The distinction is not made
ordinances so that they mayor's Office work with individual municipal- made between seasonal and N.J. Department of because seasonal housing is
are not struck down or ities to address this issue. year-round communities at Community Affairs often converted into year-
compromised by the courts? this location. Promoting round housing, thus causing
some seasonal communities identical impacts.
206. in these locations may be
6.4.2.2 The dune policy is Wilcox, Gravatt See revised policy 3.2.13.2. a useful strategy itself
not in the best interest of & locunds in protecting Central
vegetation or structures for N.J. Barrier Island Corridors
created behind, It is Builders since major human impact
extremely dangerous to Association is limited seasonally.
utilize the dunes for any
purpose but as a protec- Patricia Q. Sheehan 209.
tion element. Thus, a N.J. Department of P. 55. What will be the 'lilliam G. liengat See revised Central Barrier island
better policy would be to Comaunity Affairs stste's policy on barrier ~amden County Corridor policy 3.2.14.2. No firm
construct the walkways islands after a residential environmental position can be taken on thlis yet.
along the back slope of structure is destroyed by s Agency
the dunes with sufficient natural disaster?
height to enjoy the nat-
ural beauty of the ocean. 210.
Requiring walkways to be 6.4.3.2 Central Barrier Canetic Corporation Disagree, In addition, the
"on piles" is unnecessary Corridor policy is vague. for N.J policy has been revised. See
and costly. Builders Section 3.2.14.
'Association
207.
We are very pleased with Kathleen H. Rippere Thank you. 211.
your approach to shore League of Women P. 55. 6.4.3.2 The con- Patricia Q Sheehan Disagree. Proposals will have
erosion and protection. Voters ditions in policy 6.4.3.2 N.J. Department of to meet Location Policy 3.5.3
Dunes should be preserved may encourage an undesir- Community Affairs for Coastal Regions.
and, like wetlands, re- able level of development
placed wherever possible. in some barrier island
In view of continuing communities. This policy
increase in cost due to may encourage the year-
r ound settlement of
barrier island corridors.

Comment Commentor Response Coemnente r Response

CENTRAL BARRIER ISLAND CORRIDOR - Cont. FLOOD HAARD AREAS - Cont

212.
P. 55. Barrier island Robert W. Huguley The Location Policies regarding 217.
policies should be more Monmouth County high risk beach erosion, dunes, The Monmouth County General Robert W. Huguley DEP will work with other agencies,
closely correlated with Planning Board beaches, coastal wetlands, Central Development Plan designates Nonmouth County particularly the Federal Flood
erosion policies to pro- Barrier Island corridors and the floodpiains as conservation Planning Board Insurance Administration to make
vide a more cautious Use Policies on Coastal Engineering and drainage areas, and the the policies effective.
Planning Board agrees that
aproach toiisland develop- are all closely linked and do pro- Planning Board agre es
ment. vide cautious, yet balance non water-dependent uses
approach to the management of should not be permitted on
New Jersey's essentially built- the Upper Water's Edge But
up barrier Lelandl. will the coastal program
policies be effective?
213.
P. 55. The definition of Robert W. Ruguley Disagree.
.dunes as "formations of R onmouth Countguy Disagree.HMuch of the land along the William G. lengst Agreed. But this does not mean that
idunes as "forsabilions of Ponmouth County Delaware River in Camden Camden County certain specific kinds of develop-
partiallyted, driftvege- Planning sand " County that in within the Environmental ments wil not be prohibited nor that
100-year floodplain has Agency conditions will be placed on develop-
suggests that the eastern been developed. Coastal ment that is allowed. Development
boundary of the Central policies for Camden County in general may not be discouraged,
anCorrid or in natural areas therefore, cannot dis- but development decisions must be
and at the sfoot of the ost courage development within sensitive to flood hazard considera-
inland dune has been de- these urbanized portions tions.
fined inadequately. of flood hazard areas, as

214. long as water quality
Ljj P. 55. Undeveloped barrier Robert W. Huguley Agreed. The only totally undevel- standards re observed.
J islands should remain in Monmouth County oped barrier island in New Jersey
their natural state. Planning Board is Pullen Island in the BrigantineS
National Wildlife Refuge. Unde-
veloped parts of the other islands 219 .
and spits a re protected by the P. 605, 6.4.5 A policy t1zeslawa Zimolzak Development that would affect a
Coastal P ro tecdgram bof "no development" is Cumberland County historic resource is best analyzed
~Coastal Program. ~no guarantee of preserva- Planning Board on a case-by-case basis, using
Fion. "What kind of the general standards established
development" is more in the policy. See section 3.2.15.
crucial in terms of
215.
P. 58. More precise defini- William O. Hengst See new Resource Policy 5.23 Numer- preserving a historical
tions of the floodway and Camden County ous sources of flood hazard area resource.
flood hazard area are needed. Environmental information exist. The best availa-
Agency ble information (the engineering 220
Agency ile ifos rmatite) The draft BIS should have Karen Flinn The chapter on the Management Sys-
will be used in each spetific deel- included a set of proce- N.J. State Museum tem (DEIS and FEIS) describes the
wl be used in each specific deci- dures to determine the Department of role of the DEP's Office of His-
sion. cultural resource base Education toric Preservation and Office of
before granting permits Environmental Review, as staff to
216.
There should be a specific William C. Hengst Disagree. The Location Policy on for particular projects the Commissioner of DEP (s State
policy for filling activity Camden County Natural Water's Edge and the Re- Historic Preservation Oficer),
in flood hazard areas due to Environmental in reviewing individual coastal
the potential effect of this Agency adequately discourages filling projects in terms of historic
activity on the floodwater- flood hazard areas. resources.
storage capacity of the
overall floodplain.

Comment Commentor Response Comment Commentor Response

HISTORIC RESOURCES - Cont. PRIME FOREST AREAS - Cont.

221. "icuae"ith226.
P. 60, 6.4,5.2. Line 3, Diane Craves Dis agred the P. 61 Row is development William C. Hengt See revised section 3.2.17. De-
change "discouriged" to Sierra Club appropriate policy given public that adversely affects prime Camden County velopment that would threaten
prohibited. At least pro- and private ownership of historic forest areas defined To nvironmentsl the continued survival of a white
hibit demolition of historic resources. what extent and at what Agency cedar stand, by, for example,
resources. limits will off-site im- changes in the water table through
pacts be included? off-site drainage, would adversely
affect the resource.

6.4.6.1 Why not also con- Bob Haestro See Section 3.2.18 concerning en- PRIME WILDLIFE HABITATS
sider individual plant for N.J. Builders dangered or threatened vegetation
communities which are Association species habitats. 6.4.8.1 Should also in- Bob Maestro for See revised policy 3.2.18 on
limited and/or unique with
limi respect to the region? The elude examples of habitat N.J. Builders Endangered or Threatened Habitats.
regionspect to the region The types which are limited Association
region may simply be defined and/or unique for the
and/or unique for the
as the CAFRA ea rea gion.

223.
6.4.6.2 Such a policy could Patricia q. Sheehan The policy includes a reference 228.
lead to the destruction of N.J. Department of to the inventory of the specimen ensure continued survival Camden County is an on-going research proesect
specimen trees to avoid the Community Affairs trees, published by DEP. of endangered or threatened Environmental of DeP-OCZM.
restrictions. Hopefully, 5n species needs a better defi- Agency
inventory of same could be ition
made so we know where they Bob Maestro for
are. N.J. Builders
Association
PRIME FOREST AREAS 29Association
229.
We recommend a stronger H1William G. Hengat Agreed. New policy on Endangered
226.~4.)~ ~hisestgo~ .huld ~t~el�e. heahn ~ree; Ie rpolicy which would pro- Camden County and Threatened lHabitats (Section
6.4.7 This category should Patricia Q. Sheehan Agreed; see revised policy i lpment d Environment
ehibit development dis- Environmental 3.2.18).
be labeled "White Cedar N.J. Department of 3.2.17. turblng the nesting areas Agency
Stands". Community Affairs of rare and endangered
fauna and the habitats for

6.4.7.1 Prime forest areas Daniel O'Connor Other species are protected rare and endangered flora. 1.
should not be limited to Save our River through other policies, such as I
white cedar stands. Other Environment Natural Water's Edge Areas, Cri- 230.
white cedar stands Other Environment Natural laters Edge HAreas, Cr'- The impression given is that Daniel O'Connor Your interpretation is correct.
forest areas which hould tcal consWildlife abitats re and Specie s only those plants covered Save Our River Although the State Museum list
receive special consieders- Bob aestro for Rare and Endangered Species by the Federal Endangered Environment is extensive, however, not all
tion: Sweet gum and black N.J. Builders Habitats. See also above com Species Act of 1973 will be of these species are protected
gum lowland swamps, pitch Association ment and response. protected. However a list by legislation
pine lowlandsm of over 200 rare and endan-
William G. Hengut gered N.J. plants was pub-
Camden County lished in 1975 by the N.J.
Environmental State Museum under the
Agency

Comment Coenw tor Response Comment Commentor Response

PRINE WILDLIFE HABITATS - Cont. PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREAS

editorship of Drs. Fair- 236.
brothers and tHough of 6.4.11 The policy on prime Willim Potter Disagree, but see revised policy
Rutgers University. This agricultural areas is vague, Public Advocate 3.2.22. Also, state law does not
publication is the only and appears to favor develop- yet authorize use of Transfer of
authoritative source on ment over continued farming Patricia Q. Sheehan Development Rights (TDR).
N.J. rare flora, and when the two uses come into N.J. Department of
should be used in the conflict. Addiitlonally Community Affairs
program. this policy should mention
the possibility of using
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE Transfer of Development
Rights to keep agricultural
231. land actively farmed.
6.4.9.2 What constitutes Patricia Q. Sheehan Adverse affects could be visual
"adversely effect0,. N.J. Department of intrusions, 237.
A plan should encourage Courunity Affairs or a wide variety of concerns. 6.411.1 To limit
the location of mutually See revised policy, Section 3.2.20. agriclutral lands to Cumberland County is to protect the soil resource.
compatible uses. agricultural use without Economic Develop- See revised section 3.2.22.
the permission of the prop- ment Board
232. erty owner can be counter-
P. 64. We recommend that William . engst Agreed. Demand for the facility productive to your long-
before development of addi- Camden County is one of the concerns in the range intent.
tional campgrounds (public Environmental- CAFPRA permit application process.
open spaces) is acceptable, Agency 238.
sufficient demand must be 6.4.11.3 The issue is Patricia Q. Sheehan See sections 3.2.22, 5.15 and 3.5
demonstrated by the appli- whether the production of N.J. Department of which define location policies for
W cant. food and fibre in the Community Affairs land areas.
UJ1 Garden State is essential
233. to the health, safety and
The open space policy Bob maestro Agreed. See inclusion of "natural general welfare of New
emphasizes the protection for N.J. Builders corridors" concept in rationale Jerseyans. If so, what
of natural "corridors" which Association for critical wildlife habitats kind, how much, where is
presently connect parcels (Section 3.2.19) it best located.
of undeveloped land.
239.
234. Farmed sites less than 20 Daniel O'Connor Areas of less than 20 acres may be
6.4.9.3 The assumption Dr. Phillip Phelon Thi is a misinterpretation of acres in size cannot by th, Save Our River conserved through application of
that open space can "retain Cumberland County the policy. It does not try to definition of page 65 be Environment the Fertile Soil Resource Policy
contiguous farmland" was Economic Develop- encoursge siting recreation "prime agricultural areas" (Section 5.22).
certainly not reached in rjaeBoard adjacent to agriculture when regardless of soil type.
consultation with farmers. these use would be inc ompat ible The sole criteria for
these uses would be incompatible. deteria w or
Recreational facilities determining whether a
adjacent to farms frequently particular site is prime
have a detrimental effect farmland should be its
upon agricultural activities, agricultural capability
class.
235.
Your concern for the pro- Kathleen H. Rippere No response necessary. 240.
tection of steep slopes League of Women 6.5.11.3 In Cumberland Dr.PhillipPhelon Disagree. Seerevisedpolicy
is excellent and leads us Voters County many farmers are no Cumberland County 3.2.22 as well as Chapter Three.
to regret that some of longer able to conpete even Economic Develop-
these critical areas have in the nearby metropoli- ment Board
been eliminated from the tan areas with foods grown
CAPRA boundary.

Comment Conmentor Response Comment Comentor Response

PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREAS - Cont.
STREAH HEADS

on the huge factory-farms 245.
of the South and West. 6.4.13.1 The definition Bob Haestro and The concept of a stream head has
This regulation may hinder of strejadlead ia confusing,. Thomas A. Thomas, been deleted. See the new, re-
rather than help the unrealsitic, has no basis Townplan Associates lated policy on Ephemeral Stream
economy of Ct heberlond and should be napped. for N.J. Builders Corridor Special Area. (Section
County in the long run. Association. 3.2.24).

241. William Hengst,
P. 65-66. Implementation of Charles E. Romick No response necessary. Camden County
this policy through govern- Gloucester County Environmental
mental intervention that Planning Board Agency
would provide both just Thomas L. Bertone
compensation to land owners N.J. Office of
while at a reasonable cost Fiscal Affairs
to taxpayers is a problem
that would appear to have
no easy solution. It i GENERAL WATERS EDGE
policy that also has no
support to date in the legis- 246
atupprt t date in the stledg- 6.5. his section pertain- Thomas A. lhomas The Water's Edge Area has been
ith the ue of the inch to wter edge areas Townplan Associates revised. See section 3.4.
with the issue of the ing to water edge
preservation of fearmlaind should be thoroughly re- for N.J. Builders
for a nuebet of years. viewed and revised. Association

242. LOWER WATERS EDGE
W I would like to see unde- Daniel O'Connor Agreed. See policy 3.2.22 for
veloped, highly productive Sgave Our River farmland construction areas. 247.
a ~gricultura~l wetlands and Environm-~ent 6.5 The regulations r. Phillip Pheln Disagree Identical wetlands
foreste in Cumberland County on wetlands will have lumberland County regulations have been in exis-
receive the maximum amount the effect of eliminating I~conomic Develop- tence since 1972 and the problem
of protection. Legislation sall competitors for pro- ent Board suggested has not occurred.

may be the only way to do poals in the area
this.
248.
The section pertaining to Joseph Heeney This section on wetlands is no
wetlands defnlitions is Lacey Township more or less severe than the
243. too severe, and many tax- oChmber Wetlands regulations in exis-
6.4.12.3 Bogs also assist Patricia q. Sheehen Agreed. See revised policy, 3.2.23. payers will find that they Commerce tance since 1970, which have not
in flood control N.J. Departinent of do not even own the homes caused the problem suggested.
Community Affairs they have bought and paid
taxes on for many years.
244.
P. 66. We recommend that William C. Hengat See revised definition in section 249.
the definition of bogs be Camden C Heounty 3.2.23. 6ee revised definit in6.5.1.2. The wetlands Giordano, Halleran The Coastal Wetlands Special Area
expanded to include their Environmental policy does not include and Crahay for policy clearly defines the required
common vegetative charac- Agency the criteria to be uti- N.J. Builders findings on the use of delineated
teristicei; the definition, lized in the new procedure Association Coastal Wetlands. See glossary.
as written, is so inclu- pursuant to N.J.A.C.
sive that an abandoned 7:7A-1.7(b)leq
gravel pit could qualify
as a bog.

Comment Commentor Response Comment Commentor Response

LOWER WATERS EDGE - Cont. LOWER WATER EDGES - Cant.

250. 256.
6.5.1.2 What does DEP Canetic Corp. for Development that needs water for P. 71, 6.5.1.4 While Wilcox, Gravatt Agreed.
define as: "development N.J. Builders use such as boats, fishing, swimming, the public undeniably and Hacunda
that requires water access Association beach use, and viewing. See glos- must use the beach envi- for N.J.
or is water oriented"? sary in Appendix J. ronment unimpeded, they Builders
must do so via controlled Association
251. access points which are
6.5.1.2.6 wetlands can Bob Maestro Agreed. See section 3.2.11.3 Inno- designed and created that
provide an important func- for N.J. votive approaches to wastewater storm and wave action will
tion in natural "tertiary" Builders treatment will be examined on a not create undue problems.
treatment of treated saewage Association case-by-case basis.
and effluents. A statement 257.
of this type would eliminate 6.5.1.4 We see no reason West Jersey Disagree, but see revised policy
innovative wastewater treat- for the "unless" in the Chapter 3.2.10.2(b).
ment approaches which would beach policy unless the Sierra Club
be of less cost then con- structure is coastline
ventional methods. dependent.

252. 258.
The general prohibition Robert W. Nuguley See the revised policy on Water 6.5.1.4 (c) Additions on Patricia 9. Sheehan Agreed. See revised policy
against filling in coastal Monmouth County areas which discourages filling beaches shown to be "in the N.J. Department of 3.2.10.2.b.
waters should not include Planning Board of most water bodies. Proposals public interest" should be Community Affairs
the grading and planting of to create new wetlands will be conditionally acceptsble
new wetlands in nonsensitive examined on a case-by-caase basis. in this location.
W reas.
259.
253. 6.5.1.4 Delete the beach Loretta C. Hanley See the revised jolicy on Beaches.
We are pleased that only Robert W. Huguley No response necessary. policy and substitute Sew Bright Environ- Shore Protection ie addressed in
water-dependent uses will Monmouth County "Public access for recrea- mental Commission the revised1 Chapter Five -
be permitted on the coastal Planning Board tional purposes to the Management System.
wetlands. maximum extent practicable
is desirable. Provide
254. flexible guidelines for
The DEP should complete Robert W. Huguley DEP does not coordinate with the shorefront municipali-
its delineation of the Nonmouth County Corps of Engineers. Additional ties for obtaining State /
state's wetlands and Planning Board delineated coastal wetalnds funds for shore protection
coordinate its permit will be brought under regulation purposes will be in con-
program with the Army in 1979. formity with Federal Lay
Corps of Engineers. 79-727, approved April 13,
1946."
255.
P. 69. We question the William C. Hengat Wetlands are now included under 260.
inclusion of Wetlands under Camden County Special Areas; See 3.2 and espe- Page 71, 6.5.1.4(a) Loretta C. Hanley Disagree. The Public Trust Doctrine
Water's Edge Areas instead Environmental cially 3.2.11. Rewrite the beach policy Sea Bright Environ- applies to the wet beach area.
of under Special Water's Agency "Public access to public mental Commission
Edge Areas. beaches is encouragesa.

Comment Commentor Response

Conatent Conmentor Response UPPER WATERS EDGE - Cont.

UPPER WATERS EDGE 266
6.5.2.4 The type of Bob Hoestro Agreed, but the revised Natural
261. "forested" vegetation also for N.J. Water's Edge policy (see 3.4.2)
6.5.2.2 This is much too Ciordano, Halleran Disagree, see revised Water's Edge reflects the relative value Builders does not refer to the type
inflexible and does not and Crahay for policies, 3.4. The Upper Water's of the area. Association of vegetation on-site.
take into account pecu- N.J. Builders Edge is now included within the
liarities and unique Association Natural Water's Edge. The policy
characteristics of provides the appropriate degree
certain sites as well as of flexibility. 267
mitigating measures which 6.5.3.2 All locations in Patricia Q. Sheehan See revised policy, 3.4.3.
can be undertaken. the Retained Water's Edge N.J. Department of
may not have equal merit. Community Affairs
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~262. ~~~~~There may be places where
Pp. 72-81, 6.5.2 The Czeslawa Zimolsak Disagree. The standards are conventional land use in
Upper Water's Edge guide- Cumberland County rigorous. See revisions highly aestheticn
lines do not seem to exclude Planning Board 3.4 and 3.5 also. setting h ay be apprpriate
much development at all, if
closely examined.
268.
263. 6.5.3.2 Isn't residential Canetic Corp. for No, and it is not water depend-
P. 72. The definition of William . engt See revisions in 3.4. housing (second homes) a N.J. Builders eat. It's impacts on a site are
the Upper ~Water's Edge is Camden County recreation/resort use? Association virtually the same as year round
the Upper WaterysEdge is Camden County housing and it is therefore
difficult to comprehend, as Environmental included in Section 42 with
it appears in the text. Agenc cludedy i et it
if appears in the text. ~~~~~~~~Agency ~~~~~~housing. However, see 3.4.3.3
for comments about housing on
(*-} 264.
existing lagoons.
00 P. 74. The format for con- Anne Penna& DEP has tried to present all
ditional approval should be Dana Rowan the policies in the document.
standard through the docu- American Littoral as clearly as possible. 269.here are many nfll stes
ment; the layout of Upper Society Would not any development l1Canetic Corp. for No. There are many infill sites
Water's Edgthe layout of Upper Socety in this area extend into - N.J. Builders whose impact would clearly be
iWt ter's Edge Policy cnaden the Central Barrier Island Association seen at the. vacant ends of the
it clear that all conditions Coridor? island, which do not represent
iust be satisfied, then aneas significant development areas.
lists them in an easy-to-
read manner.
270.
265.6.5.3.2(c) The "net bene- Patricia q. Sheehan This criterion has been elimina-
2a5. tfit" criteria, is meaning- .'N.J. Department of ted. See revisions, 3.4.3.
What is the basis for the WilliamC. Hengst See revised policy, 3.4. lees and should be deleted Community Affairs
definition of Upper Water's Camden County
Edge at 50 feet horizon- Environmehtal Giordano Nalleran,
tally from the lower limit Agency, and Crahay for
whichever is further from Bob Haestro and N.J. Builders
the lower limit? Ciordano, Hlalleran Association
and Crahay for
N.J. Builders 271
Association, and P. 78. 6.5.3.3 Next to last Diane Craves Agreed. See revisions, 3.4.3.3.
line, delete "hotels" and Sierra Club
omaN.J. Office of "restaurants". We disagree
Fiscal Affice f that such developments "are
desirable".

Comment Commentor Response Comment Commentor Response

RETAINED WATERS EDGE - Coot. RETAINED WATERS EDGE - Cont.

272. dential development on
6.5.3 The policy that Giordano, Halleran Agreed, see revised policy 3.4.3. lagoon lots. Also
runoff from paved areas may and Crahay for restaurants and hotels
not be discharged directly N.J. Builders will probably not be
into adjacent water bodies Association compatible with adjacent
is ludicrous, since there is uses. Hotels may cause
no place else to dispose Patricia Q. Sheehan shadowing problems.
of runoff from lagoon devel- N.J. Department of
opment than into lagoons. Community Affairs FILLED WATERS EDGE
There is also evidence that
such discharge improves 275.
circulation and the water 6.5.4 Not enough considers- N.J. Builders Agreed, see revisions in sections
quality of these lagoons. tion was given to develop- Association 3.4.3., and 3.4.4.
Assimilative capacity should ment on existing bulkheaded
be the criteria. lagoons. It would seem that
there should be no impediment
273. to development and these
We question the requirement Giordano, Halleran See section 3.4.3 and especially developments should be con-
that such development be and Crahay for the discussion of existing bulk- aidered no different from
water dependent or utilized N.J. Builders headed lagoons in 3.4.3.3. inland development in terms
for public recreation or Association Housing is not water dependent of the criteria applied.
resort use. Traditionally, although water front locations
the State has not considered may be desirable from a marketing 276
housing to be water dependent view point. 6.5.4.2 (b) As presented, Patricia Q. Sheehan Agreed. The criterion has been
W even if the housing is pur- the "net benefit" is mean- N.J. Department deleted See revised policy
ki chased by persons who wish ingless. of Community 3.4.4.2.
I to utilize the lagoons and
I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Affairs
bulkheads for recreational
boating. We contend that GENERAL LAND AREAS
such uses are water depen-
dent and in any case, there 277
is no basis for the policy P. 81. There are other Thomas L. Bertone Agreed. DEP will continue to
of requiring water depen- reasons to reconsider "Land N.J. Office of work closely with other state
dency. Areas" criteria, in parti- Fiscal Affairs and local agencies.
cular. These involve con-
274. sistency with county level
The indication that new Canetic Corp. and Hotels and restaurants are considered and other state agency cri-
private housing would be Giordano, Halleran more efficient uses of the waterfront teria and sewage criteria
an inefficient use of a and Crahay for than private housing because they are now being developed on
scarce resource as opposed N.J. Builders would provide greater access to and areawide bases by counties.
to hotels and restaurants Association use of the waterfront for a greater
is not based on any practical - number of people. Note that hotels DEPTH TO SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE
experience. As a practical and restaurants would also be sub-
matter, more paving will ject to high rise policies. See 278.
probably be required for also revisions in 3.4.3.3 which Pp. 82-84, 6.6.3 This cri- Czeslava Zimolzak The depth to seasonal high water
restaurants and hotels than discusses housing on existing la- terion is difficult to de- Cumberland County table is considered critical in
would be required for real- goons. termine. All over coastal Planning Board the determination of environmental

Comment Commentor Response
Comment Commentor Response
DEPTH TO SEASONAL HICH WATER TABLE - Cont.
SOIL PERMEABILITY FACTOR - Cont.
South Jersey test borings sensitivity. The National Cooper-
will be necessary. Who will tive Soil Survey data gives an 282.
provide personnel and money indication of the extent of O' P. 85. The reasoning be- Christopher Warren The revised location policy has
for such intentaive testing. SHWT soils. If site testing is hind some of the intensity Salem County eliminated permeability and depth
needed for applications, the determinations is dubious. Planning Board to water table as general location
test to determine SHUT at surface For example, certain areas factors. The resource policies
are not expensive and will be the of the coast have low water emphasize concern in high per-
responsibility of the applicant. tables but excessively colation wet soils (SHWT <3')
See revisions in 3.5.4. drained soils. These areas for reasons of pollutant con-
are particularly sensitive taination. The rationale for
279. to groundwater contamination the runoff policy discusses the
6.6.3.2 Selection of the Patricia Sheehan See revision in 3.5.4 and espe- yet the acceptability table problems of contaminnnt mobility
three foot thresholds must N.J. Department of cielly 3.5.4.5.c. The rationale indicates moderate inten- In sandy soils.
he tempered by the soil Community Affairs for the selection of 30 is mainly sity development is accep-
type. the limit of frost peentration table. Although the soils
(18" to 24") plus a depth for information of a specific
foundations and a cutoff for application may reveal this
depth to seasonal high water excessive permeability
table indicating concern of problem, the situation is
latterel transmissibility of widespread and therefore
pollutants. should be noted.

SOIL PERMEABILITY FACTOR 283.
What is critical is soil Thomas L. Bertone There are two issues here. One is
CO 280. class, not the nature of N.J. Office of the value of fertile oils for
O Pp. 85-86, 6.6.4 There Creslawa Zimolxak Disagree. See the revised the vegetation itself; Fiscal Affairs landscaping and individual food
is no provision made for Cumberland County Resource Policy based on soil while recognlsing that a production policies. The revised
assessing the factors of Planning Board texture, which incorporates both minimum requirement of Resource Policy on Fertile Soils
percolation and upward permeability and percolation. vegetation of some type is (5.22) reflects this.
movement of soil waters Some flexibility is also included essential for a variety of
through capillary action. to allow for a case by case in- reasons, as discussed in The second issue is the varying
The charting of hard pans apection of particular site con- greater detail on page 155. value of existing vegetation for
is virtually impossible cerns. See also sections 3.5.4, Consolidation of "herb, screening microclimate control,
and active pan formation 5.20 and 5.21. shrub, and forest" into a wildlife habitat and nesthetic
is occurring in some local single category would lead reasons. See section 5.8.
areas. to simplification of pro-
posed standards. Specifi-
281. cally, developers would not
6.6.4.2 Does not account Bob Maestro Disagree, see revised policies have to differentiate between
for use of detention basins N.J. Builders where permeability is not included "Forested Vegetation (over 10
for mitigation. Association as a general location factor. feet high) and Unforested
High percolation wet soils are Vegetation (under 10 feet)"
now included in resource policies. (p. 73), nor between the three
The prime reason for these classes of "Vegetation Index"
revisions is the migrating effect (p. 88).
of the detention and recharge
implied by the Runoff Resource
Policy.

Comment Commentor Response Comment Commentor Response

SOIL FERTILITY FACTOR VEGETATION INDEX FACTOR - Cont.

284. be limited to only certain, has a value for screening, micro-
The soil fertility defini- Daniel O'Connor See revisions, especially 3.5.4.5.b, highly reliable indicator climate control, wildlife habitat
tions on page 86 are some- Save Our River and 5.2.2. types and those types with and aesthetic reasons and the time
what unclear. Environment commercial value or to investment in tree growth there-
botanical rarities? Does fore indicates a degree of con-
285. vegetation act as an indi- servation. Clear cutting of areas
6.6.5 Is not this factor Bob Maestro Both sections havee been revised. cator of anything not outside the limits of disturbance
somewhat redundant with N.J. Builders See sections 3.2.22 and 5.22. divulged by and mapped with of grading, structures and paving
6.4.11. Are these policies Association criteria 1, 2 and 37 Slope for example is unacceptable. See
coordinated? might be a more important 3.5.4. Also steep slopes are con-
Patricia Q. Shehan factor. sidered a special area, 3.2.21.
N.J. Department of
Community Affairs 290.
P. 88. We question the sole William G. lengst See rational in 3.5.4.6.
286. emphasis on forested areas Camden County
Pp. 86-87, 6.6.5 Soil Czeslawa Zlmolzak See above response. for determining the vegeta- Environmental
fertility is also a ques- Cumberland County tion index factor. Succes- Agency
tionable criterion in Planning Board sional meadows provide
developed agricultural areas. greater benefits for wild-
Years of farming, plowing, life habitation than do
fertilization and irrigation forested areasa.
have greatly modified soil
structure and fertility. 291.
When numbers are used such Patricia Q. Sheehan Agreed. Revisions have been made
C 287. as 15' tree heights there N.J. Department of accordingly.
I-' Forest and Class'III soils Thomas L. Bertone See revised definition of Envi- must be a solid rationale or Community Affairs
should have medium, not low, N.J. Office of ronmental Sensitivity Factor the layman will argue about
potential. Fiscal Affairs in 3.5.4.5. DEP is now using its arbitrary nature.
USDA criteria.
288. 292.
6.6.5.2 The current ration- Patricia q. Sheehan See revised policy for Farmland P. 88. The vegetation index Bob Haestro for The vegetation index has been
ale does not explain the N.J. Department of Conservation Areas 3.2.22 and types are too simplistic. N.J. Builders revised and incorporated with other
value of soil fertility as Conmmunity Affairs Fertile Soils in 3.5.4. (Builders) or need ration- Association environmental sensitivity factors.
a factor in location policy, ales (DCA). See Section 3.5.4.
particularly in the absence Patricia Q. Sheehan
of a farmland and producti- JN.J. Department of
vity plan. 'Community Affairs

VEGETATION INDEX FACTOR DEVELOPHENT POTENTIAL

289. 293.
Pp. 86-87, 6.6.6. The Czeslawa Zimolsak There is no intention that vegeta- P. 89. 6.6.7.2.1 These Patricia Q. Sheehan It is true that development poten-
basic questions remain: Is Cumberland County tion is to be used to indicate criteria work against N.J. Department of tial criteria currently require pro-
vegetation a reliable indi- Planning Board soil fertility (see revised poli- maintaining seasonal Community Affairs posed seasonal communities to meet
cator of soil fertility and cies on Farmland Conservation Areas communities. Also, their the same criteria as proposed year-
water conditions? Should 3.2.22, and Fertile Soils, 3.5, 4.5, use would prepetuate and round communities. This is in part
the use of vegetation data and 5.22.) The vegetation itself expand developments and because seasonal communities have
certain growth locations a tendency to gradually become
that would have been year-round communities. See re-
better off never happening. vised definition of subregions
3.5.3 and revised development po-
tential criteria 3.5.5.2.

Comment Commentor Response
Comment Commentor Response
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL - Cont.
298.
294.
294 *The statement in Rule Giordano, Halleran Development potential criteria
P. 89. The definition of Patricia Q. Sheehan See revised definitions 3.5.5.2. 6.6.7.6 that High Develop- and Crahay for aredesigned to implement the
infill is too mechanical. N.J. Department of This policy is to concentrate ment Potential sites are N.J. Builders basic policy of concentrating
If a general area was iden- Community Affairs development. In this sense it most desirable to a Association rather than dispersing mettle-
tified for promoting growth, accomplishes the desired goal. developer is not based ment. The language of the
it would be unimportant In new "Coastal Regions" (3.5.3) on any study. rationale has been modified.
what percent of boundary classifictions the infill cri- See 3.5.5.5.
lengths were involved. You terion has been expanded to
can't reduce the development respond to the different desired 299.
process completely to matter goal in each area. P. 89. The policy to con- Ciordano, Halleran The policy and its rationale are
of distances and percentages. centrate the pattern of and Crahay for stated in Chapter Three. They
development has not been N.J. Builders are based on the desire to
295. sufficiently studied. How Association balance many activities in a
I strongly support the prac- Katherine Kievett No response necessary. much infill land is avail- finite area. Te exact amount
tice of infill, for example, able in Bay and Ocean Shore of infill land is not known.
locating new housing and Segment. Through mapping DEP will
commercial and industrial undertake with Coastal Admini-
development within areas stration funds, such information
which have already been will be available
developed, rather then in
undeveloped areas. I also 300.
support the policy proposed. P. 89. Previously, infill Giordano, Halleran See revised policy 3.5.5 and
for locating Atlantic City and extensions of existing and Crahay 3.5.3.1 which defines "high
casinos along the boardwalk development were encouraged, for N.J. Builders growth" area.
LJW and/or where public trans- Under this new policy only Association
n portation is available. infill is encouraged.

296. 301.
P. 89. Monmouth County Thomas L. Bertone Disagree, Counties are not P. 89. The categories for illiam G. Hengat The categories have been expanded
should be classified as N.J Office of classed as units of "forest" development potential should amden County somewhat See revised policy
"Forest" rather than "Class Fiscal Affairs The classification is site be expanded to include other Environmental 3.5.5. If criteria have not
III soils". specific. Both soil and vege- recreation and industrial Agency yet been defined for a category
tation criteria apply to sites or areas. of development, then medium
parts of sites, development is assumed.

297. 302.
P. 89. Development Potential Robert W Huguley No response necessary. P. 89. "Development Poten- Thomas L. Bertone Water supply is no longercon-
criteria will help to pre- Monmouth County tial Factors" discussion of N.J. Office of sidered as a development poten-
vent sprawl and unneeded Planning Board water supply is limited to Fiscal Affairs tial factor.
development by considering site conditions, without
the site's proximity to roads, reference to area wide
railroads, water supply, impacts.
sanitary sewer facilities,
schools, and similar uses. 303
P. 89. A site must be William Potter The "Coastal Regions" now direct
chosen, mapped and evalu- Public Advocate development dependent in part on
ated before there is any the characteristics used to define
assessment of the need for each area. This incoroporates
the development. the needed or desired development
patterns within these areas.
See Chapter Three and section
3.5.3 of Chapter Four.

Comment Comnmentor Response
Comment Commentor Response
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL - Cant.
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL - Cont.
308.
304. 6.6.7 Both development Cumberland County Limits on growth are not arbitrar-
P. 89. The ordering of William Potter The public facility policies have potential and regional type Planning Board ily determined by development
priorities in the manage- Public Advocate been revised. See section 4.5. are arbitrary and unclear potential and regional type.
ment program seems back- categorizations. Much more These two factors work in conjunc-
ward, particularly when effective guidelines are tion with environmental sensitivity
it concerns Public Service needed. What is limited to describe the intensity of devel-
Pacilities. These should growth? What are limits? opment which would be acceptable
be evaluated on the basis on a given site. See section 3.5.6
of need and alternatives for limits on intensity of develop-
before money and time is meet.
spent mapping and evaluating
individual sites. 309.
The hypothetical case used Cumberland County Thank you. DEP prepared more than
305. in the report is good. The Planning Board 50 case studies which were used
P. 900 6.6.7.2.1 Explicit Elwood R. Jarmer See revision 3.5.5.2.1. Residen- methodolgy will be difficult to revise method.
instructions should be in- Cape Nay County tial development criteria do not to evaluate until multiple,
cluded here indicating that Planning Board apply to marinas. The Water factual cases are done.
the residential development Acceptability Table (3.3.6) and
criteria apply to marinas. Marina Use policies (4.3.7) are 310.
most applicable. There is overall confusion Cumberland County Disagree. See revisions. The
306. in the CLAN methodology in Planning Board method analyzes a site regarding
6.6.7 The whole idea of Cumberland County The entire CLAN method has been terms of what is general special value areas specific to a
developmental potential Planning Board developed to eliminate "overuse" guideline and what is site site, while also considering devel-
raises immense controversy. by analyzing the capability of specific. It seems that opment intensities based on regional
Obviously, any area not a site to receive the proposed more money and a compre- concerns. The program is workable
already developed has use. New "Coastal Region" classi- hensive data collection as presented, but will be improved
00 potential for development. fication has also been developed program are necessary before with use.
There is such a thing as to respond to the fact that this proposed methodology
over development. Its different areas will receive can work.
problems and destructive different patterns of settlement
potential for the environ- (see Section 3.5.3). See also 311.
ment may be even greater Secondary Impact Policy in There are no guidelines to Cumberland County Disagree. The guidelines are
than that of certain types section 5.14. show how far away one can Planning Board indicated in the Development Poten-
of dispersed development. be from supplies and facili- tial Section (3.5.5) and are
"Development Potential" ranks ties and still be considered rather specific.
individual sites with respect acceptable.
to. mainly, existing infra-
structure. The potential of a 312.
regon to accept new infrastructure P. 92. The whole idea of Cumberland County See revisions. Infill has seen
and its associated development is infill is questionable. Planning Board. expanded and made to vary according
the subject of secondary impact Many metropolitan/regional to newly defined "Coastal Regions".
analysis (see Policy 5.14). planners hold that infill- The problem of congestion is
ing can compound congestion addressed by the resource policies.
307. and create a host of other
6.6.7 Much of the potential Cumberland County These are both important and must problems.
for Bridgeton's expansion Planning Board be balanced with other interests.
into non-coastal zone areas Industrial development has not 313.
conflicts with agricultural been excluded from Bridgeton by We are also concerned with Richard Ginman See revised tables and rationale
land use. Which resource is the protection of wetlands or what appears to be unrefer- N.J. Department of (Section 3.5.5 and 3.5.7).
more important, coastal area agricultural soils. enced criteria and standards Community Affairs
or agricultural land? and pages of confusing tables
which are contained in Chap-
ter three.

Comment Commentor Response

DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL - Cont. Comment Commentor Response

314. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL - Cont.
P. 90; This definition is Marine Trades The development potential for
suggested for Marina: "A Association marinas is no longer analyzed 320.
waterfront facility, pre- of N.J. in Section 3.5.5. See glos- 6.6.7.3.1 (a) Road improve- Patricia q. Sheehan See revised criteria in Section
dominantly used for the sary in Appendix J. mente are seldom ahead of N.J. Department of 3.5.5.2.2a. Hajor road epplica-
dockage, (wet or dry stack) growth, save for on-site Community Affairs tions will be evaluated in terms
and/or moorage for recrea- improvements. of the secondary impact resource
tional boats for which dockage policy 5.14.
or moorage a fee is charged".
321.
315. 6.6.7.3 Industrial site Clayton D. Peavey Sewerage and infill are also con-
P. 90. Define "water harbor Marine Trades This phrase no longer appears, potentiality should be The Port Authority sidered. Potential is just one
of adequate depth". Association since the development potential determined by more than of N.Y. and N.J. factor weighed in making a
of N.J. for marinas is no longer analyzed just proximity to a rail decision. As stated in Section
in Sections 3.5.5. line or highway, which in 3.5.5.1, suggestions for addi-
isolation could introduce tional criteria are welcome.
316. rigidities and ignore trade-
P. 90. A plan would relieve Patricia Q. Sheehan Newly added Chapter Three and offs with other locational
the heavy burden presently N.J. Department of "Coastal Regions Section" (3.5.3) assets.
borne by the "infill" Community Affairs of Location policies.
criteria since development 322.
rarely occurs in a neat John J. Horn 6.6.7.3 The definition of Elwood R. Jarmer Noted. See revised definition
sequence of consecutively N.J. Department of "commercial" is unclear. Cape May County in Section 3.5.5.3.1.
developed parcels. Labor and Industry Planning Board

317. 323.
cO The infill policy conflicts Thomas A. Thomas The infill policy (see revisions, 6.6.7.3.3 The "low Elwood R. Jarmer Agreed. See revised policies
2 witIh runoff, development Townplan Associates Section 3.5.5) is but one input potential" criteria appear Cape May County (3.5.5.3.4).
potential, low income for N.J. Builders into the decision-making process. to apply only to industrial .lanning Board
housing, air quality, water Association Development must also meet the development. "Low commer-
quality, groundwater policy resource policies. cial" criteria should be
and, therefore, may not be John J. Horn developed.
desirable in terms of over- N.J. Deparment of
all environmental quality. Labor and Industry 324.
It would seem that Congress Thomas V. O'Neill The energy, mining and other
318. intended that a proper N.J. Independent policies indicate that DEP has
P. 90. It is unclear whether William 0. Henget This has been revised, and is balance be developed for liquid Terminals not omitted industrial uses
the infill criteria apply Camden County now explained in Section 3.5.3.1. foreign and domestic man- Association from the coastal zone. See
only to high potential resi- Environmental time commerce as well as also section on the National
dential development or to Agency for conservation and recre- Interest (Chapter 6). Except
shopping, school, and marina ation in a good management for tidal wetlands adjacent
development as vell. We strategy. Yet is appears to the CAPRA area, the pre-
recommend that these criteria that DEP is tipping the sent program deals only with
apply to all of these uses. scale towards the protec- the CAPRA.
tion of the environment
319. and further extending their
6.6.7 Does not offer the Ciordano, Halleran, See above response. One objec- power beyond the CAFRA zone.
flexibility to determine and Crahay tive was to provide fixed cri-
on a case by case basis for N.J. Builders teria to aid predictability
the environmental effects of Association of permit application responses.
infill as opposed to some
extentions.

Comment Commentor Response
Comment Commentor Response
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL - Cont.
DEVELOPHENT POTENTIAL - Cont.
325.
While the DEP-OCZM might say Thomas V. O'Neill This is not true. All 12 appli- 331.
industrial development would N.J. Independent cations for industrial facilities The Plan s prim facie in James A. Schissia Disagree. Use of the moderate
be allowed under CAFRA Liquid Terminals under CAFRA have been approved. violation of regulaion Public Service development potential ranking as
rules, not one industrial Association for Its failure to be Electric & Gas Co. one factor ia adequate for pre-
application has been a complete document as dictability in energy facility
approved since the rules evidenced in Section 6.6.7.5, Elvood R. Jarmer siting in land areas. Additional
were implemented in 1973. Energy Facility Criteria. Cape Hay County predictability may be afforded
Planning Board by further energy facility siting
326. studies. See also General
What types of commercial William G. Hengst See revised policy 3.5.5.3. Question A and section 3.5.5.4.
development activity are Camden County
intended to be covered Environmental 332.
under development poten- Agency Since the development poten- Ruth Fisher This assumption is incorrect.
tial criteria? CAFRA tial of energy facilities Citizens Associa- See Energy Use Policies in Sec-
applies primarily to is assumed to be moderate, tion for Protec- tion 4.4. and see previous answer.
industrial facilities. I would presume from that tion of the
that the policy is go ahead Environment
327. on all energy sitings, espe-
6.6.7.4.1 (a) Anyone Patricia Q. Sheehan The development potential factor cially on dangerous nuclear
travelling these roads on N.J. Department of for "roads" merely states that power plants.
a summer weekend knows that Community Affairs in order to establish the optimum
this criteria is impractical location for a facility it must 333.
since traffic is most often have road access and that the 6.6.7.6 Location policies Patricia Q. Sheehan Section 3,5.5 indicates that the
generated by other destinea- road should have present eapa- should not be designated to N.J. Department of intention of the development poten-
.W tions. city to absorb increases. Com- address the "needs of devel- Community Affairs tial rankings is, among other
CO muter and tourist traffic may opera" but the needs and things, to implement the general
well be the limiting factor. desires of the general policy of concentration for the
public. general policy of concentration
328. for the general benefit.
6.6.7.4.1 (d) What does Patricia Q. Sheehan This requirement has been eliml-
"surrounding region shall N.J. Department of mated, 334.
be accessible to campground Community Affairs 6.6.7.4.3 Your criteria Patricia Q. Sheehan Note variation in revised policies
users" meant If someone for Low Potential defines N.J. Department of between high and low intensity
else owns it, you are pro- just the recreation exper- Community Affairs recreation criteria. See Section
moting trespassing. What's ience desired by some, i.e., 3.5.5.
the definition of the "our- minimum conveniencee. 3
rounding region"?
335.
329. In the State Development William C. Hengst This will appear in the
P. 93. Are campgrounds of William C. Hengst Any size campground falling within Guide Plan all of Camden Camden County second segment submission
all sizes to be included? Camden County the jurisdiction of the Hanagement County is a growth area. Environmental of the coastal plan when non-
Environmenal System defined in Chapter Five is OCZM should distinguish Agency CAFRA coastal areas are defined
Agency included. between areas suitable for and policies for these areas are
high density, multiple use developed.
330. development from those
6.6.7.5 In the last line of Robert Welch Moderate. areas suitable for low
of this definition the term Columbia Gas density growth.
"moderate" is used. Is the System Service
term supposed to be "moder- Corporation
ate" or "medium"?

Comment Commentor ResDonse
Comment Commentor Reasonse
DEVELOPHENT POTENTIAL - Cont.
REGIONAL GROWTH POTENTIAL
336.
P. 95. The DEP still makes Willia Potter The CLAN process lists in detail 341.
no guarantee that it will Public Advocate the requirments at each level 6.6.8.1.1 (a) According Bob Haestro The regional growth potential
require adequate Environ- of the application, and the to recent Atlantic County for N.J. factor has been deleted. See
mental Impact Statements application will not be con- Planning Division Statistics Builders instead Chapter Three and Section
(EIS) with the CAFRA permit sidered complete until this additional municipalities Association 3.5.3 of Chapter Four.
application. information is forthcoming should be added.
from the applicant.
342.
337. We object to using the State Darryl Caputo Disagree. The Guide Plan has iden-
6.6.8.2 "Growth Areas" Bob Maestro This section has been deleted, Development Guide Plan, New Jersey tified specific areas with pos-
should include places where for N.J. Builders but the idea is incorporated- since it has not had offi- Conservation sible concerns in these areas,
sewerage conveyance systems Association in Section 3.5.5.3.2(d). cial state or federal Foundation which is just one input into the
are planned for the near acceptance. planning process. It is not used
future. as a regulatory mechanism.

338. 343*
6.6.9 This policy is too Patricia Q. Sheehan Disagree. See new Chapter Three The coastal program fails Thomas L. Bertone Disagree. See revised "coastal
.stringent because it ignores N.J. Department of and Section 3.5.3 of Chapter Four, to take into account that N.J. Office of "areas" policy in Section 3.5.3
the relative merits of the Community Affairs sprawl can take place if Fiscal Affairs which is concerned with the
subareas. its criteria are met. settlement patterns within these
areas. See also General Ques-
339. tion D.
Why do we need so many Mrs. Leo Bichner, In the future, DEP-OCZN will judge
severse? It's a well devel- Jr. sever extensions carefully through 344.
S oped area now and I just the coastal policies. See revised The Coastal Program limits- Alan Avery The section has been deleted. See
O wonder why the Ocean County secondary impact policy 5.14 and growth areas to 10 munici- Ocean County Chapter Three and Section 3.5.3 of
Sewerage Authority has re- section 4.5. palities in Ocean County, PJLanning Board Chapter Four.
ceived permits from CAFRA 6 of which are essentially
and from the Federal Cov- developed. This has the
ernment to build a dupli- potential for causing more
cate sever system. environmental problems then
the orderly, managed expan-
340. ' sion of development into
There are numerous examples N.J. Builders The intention is to designate environmentally suitable
of planning policies and Association two general levels of develpoment areas. It also conflicts
engineering decisions set intensity based on past building with the State Department
forth with absolutely no practices. Revisions in the 1FIS Guide Plan, Ocean County
basis in fact. For instance indicate that the maximua in in- Plan, and the 208 Water
What is the source for allow- tensive should be compatible with Quality Plan.
able percentage of imperme- surroundings, thus introducing
able paving and structures? more variation. 345.
For instance for high den- We take issue with the Giordano, Halleran See response 337.
city development 901 imper- definition of growth areas. and Crahay for
menting paving is allowed How much growth can be N.J. Builders
and for moderate density accommodated in these areasT Association
devlopment 301 impermeable
paving is allowed. What
is the level of density
allowed for impermeable
parking between 30 and 902?

Comment Commentor Resoonee
Comment Commentor Reseonse
REGIONAL GROWTR POTENTIAL Comment Comentoe Resnonse
346 REGIONAL GROMTH POTENTIAL - Cnt.
346.
The "regional growth factor" Atlantic-County Sea response 337.
lhich classifies the coastal Executive's Office
ewhich classifinet the coastal E x ecutives Office The Monmouth County shore Cumberland County See response 337.
one intoe growth areas and area ia categorized as a Planning Board
limited grovth areas is "growth area". It is
inappropriate for the situ- already packed to potential.
ation facing Atlantic County
for these areas are almost
totally developed. The delineation of growth D.W. Bennett See response 337.
areas needs refinement. This American Littoral
~~~~~~~~~~~~347. ~~~~is another example of Society
DEP's adoption of the Charles E. Remick Agreed. See response 337. reacting to development
tern's "growth" and "limited Gloucester County pressure rather than plan-
growth" that the Department uing it.
of Community Affairs used in
developing its Guide Plan, 352.
yet choosing different cri- P. 98. The inclusion of maps John Holland The map and section-has been
cateria for defniway l each to on page 98 on an equal Cumberland County deleted. See response 337.
unncegorss may confuad ton. basis with the sensitivity Planning Board
factors is questionable.
William Potter
The reason for the differ- Wilcox, Crevatt See response 337.ublic Advocte
ernce between the two & Hacunda for
development plans is not N.J. Builders
addressed, Association 353
Alan Avery If the water acceptability Cumberland County The tables are only one step in
I Ocean County Tables (Fig. 5) are good, Planning Board the multi-stepped process for
Oceannin Cou rdnty the land acceptability ta- determining land acceptability.
~~~~~~~~~~Planning Board bles (Fig. 18) are not. The See revised "Coastal Areas"
physical environment cannot Policy. See also revised tablesa
N.J. Builders
Association be categorized in just 6 in 3.5.7 which now use three
characteristics. factors,. each in itself a com-
Patricia Q. Sheehan posits of several other factors.
N.J. epany other factors of concern
AffiPJ.~~~~~~~~~~~~ -Departmen~ -~ ~are now included either in
Community Affair special areas or resource poli-

Thomas L. Bertone . ese
N.J. Office of
Fiscal Affair mThe development accepta- Czeslawu Zimolmak See revised policy. 3.5.
bility criteria appear to Cumberland County
be unnecessarily stringent, Planning Board
Judgements need to be made Patricia q. Sheehan Agreed. See above response.e unnecesarily ing anning Board
as to whether observable NJ Departmentdemonstrating a lack of
regional trends should be Community Affairs onsistency at the very
reinforced, redirected-or least and suggesting over-
even stopped. If 6.6.8 regulation of uses con-
were given greater signifi- templated in less critical
areas.
cance, it could be used to
answer a number of recrea-
tion potential questions.

Comment Comentor Resoonse Cormeat Commentor Reseonse
LAND ACCEPTABILITY TABLES - Coant.
LAND ACCEPTABILITY TABLES - Cont.
riparian decisions and Green
355,
Vast acreages wll! fall Acres proposals. Revisions
Vast acreages will fall Dresdner Associates The land area within the segment Acres proposals. Revisions
into one of four develop- for N.J. Shore is 1.382 square miles or 884,480 have been made n the PEIs in
ment intensities. No Builders acres. of this pproxiately response from the stind-
studies or evaluations have Association 91.51 is either ater's edges.
been made as to the amount special value or already developed;
or distribution of these thus only 75,180 acres are included
6.6.9.5 All factors have Patricia Q. Sheehan The tables have been revised
development intensities. in the land tables. The mapping.. Department of and simplified, moving some
P p roposes to or spibution mor will might help if the informs- Community Affairs factors either to special areas
atinre presented in four or to resource policies. See
apparent. sets of tables - each set revised Section 3.5.
356. representing one of the four
Do development intensities development intensities.
inhibit or do violence to for N.J. Builders example, allows almost unlimited Such a forat would le
local, county and state Association development. The experience of
plans for land use develop- Cape May County in applying these
ment, conservation or pre- criteria is that the resultant 360.
servation? distribution of development to 6.6.9.6 The present array Patricia Q, Sheehan The revised tables in Section
soclse t o t h e ir mastibution of deveent, s of information is highly N.J. Department of 3.5.7 are much shorter and
that they are cnsidering adopt- confusing to the reader, Community Affairs simpler.
that they are considering adopt- particularly those not
ins CLAM. directly working on the
357. program. It is not clear
The most glaring ommisaion Giordano, Halleran Over 50 in-house case studies why the x's start and stop
is the failure to assess the & Crahay for have been completed, giving where they do.
CO
Co impacts of the Land Accept- N.J. Builders good idea of impacts. The tables 361.
ability tables on pp. 103 - Association are based on a codification of correct. The develop-
~i~~~~~ll. CI(jh~FRA practices, drawing on limited growth area in- P*blic Advocate ment potential ranking with its
many other site decisione. These
many other site decisions. These tended to further the policy infill requirements is an im-
tdble are now much timplified n of concentrating new devel- portant tool in the implemean-
thancwenthe d istribution will opment, and thereby revere- tation of the policy of concen-
the Ivst-igtd Alstb on sl ing a historical propensity tration as is the designation
Chaptbe investigated. Alof the toward "sprawl" or "subur- of limited growth areas.
Chapter III "A vision of the
Coast"., and revised Land Accept- ban growth" which degrades
ability Ta~bles, 3.5.7. the environment, water re-
ability Tables, 3.5.7. sources, and undermines the
358. recreation-tourism appeal
P. 102. How can the tables or William Potter A comparison has been done and of the coast.
policies be based on permit Public Advocate is an ongoing operation which 362
decision if a comparison be- will enable the reworking of
decision if t comparison be- will enbble the The Land Acceptability Table Dresdner Associates The jurisdiction of DEP-OCZH is
tween the tables and the the method, if a problem sur- is to be used only when the for N.J. Builders clearly detailed in the DEIS,
decisions is yet to be com- faces. The tables are a codi- NJDEP review applications Association and is legislatively defined.
pleted, and how reasonable fication of CAPRA practice and
is it to develop a rationale have been checked against a pur suant to CAPRA, Wetlands If cou nty and municipal
for the method after it is number of real and hypothetical or Riparian permits, how- plans were consistent with
ever, Table 18 could be state policy this could be to
promulgated as a regulation? cases including Wetlands and used as a control on many everyone's benefit, pnrticu-
used as a control on many everyone's benefit, particu-
more situations which would larly developers, since the
be undesirable. permit process would be much
simplified. This is not re-
quired, however.

Comment Commentor Response Comment Commentor Response

LAND ACCEPTABILITY TABLES - Cant. LAND ACCEPTABILITY TABLES - Cont.

363. plated for some time, hence, land tables (3.5.7) protect some
Table 18 usurps land use Dreadner Associates Disagree. These criteria have not clearly associated with forest in developing areas, and
perogntives traditionally for N.J. Builders been extensively tested development under Ch. 257 the revised resource policies
accepted to be local in Association throughout the coast. It in (Soil Erosion and Sediment on vegetation (5.8) and fertile
nature. It has, in all like- no way extends DEP authority. Control Act). soils (5.22) outside prime farm
lihood, extensive conflicts land also offer some protection
with local planning and to these resources.
zoning. This can only be
determined by a test appli- 369.
cation of CZHP's location 6.6.9.5 The acceptable land Elwood R. Jarmer Agreed. See revisions to "coastal
policies on several typical coverage percentages should Cape Hsay County area" policy in "coastal regions"
communities. This has not be clarified and amplified Planning Board (3.5.3) of Chapter 4 which deals
been done. by the addition of the range with the settlement patterns
of densities by subarea Cirodano, Halleren within "subregions".
364. category. Without such & Crahay for
Table 18 is not internally Dreadner Associates The table has been greatly specific information, the N.J. Builders
consistent or, stated another for N.J. Builders revised. See Section 3.5.7. full implications of CLAN Association
way, there it no rationale Association remain unclear or unknown.
for going from the land area
factors to the Naximum 370.
Acceptable Development In- 6.6.9.6 Define "pervious Canetic This phrase is no longer used.
tensities. paving". Corporation Impervious paving is paving that
for N.J. Builders does not allow passage of water
365. Association vertically through the paving;
Do all of the land area Dresdner Associates No. They do not; see revised permeable paving is paving that
W factors have equal weight or for N.J. Builders tables, 3.5.7. does allow such passage.
k value? Association
-I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~371. ;.
366. We question limiting plant- lWillism G. Hengst See revised policy in Chapter
Are any of the factors ex- Dresdner Associates No Pactors in combination are ing materials for coverage I'Camden County 4, Section 5.8.1. The vegeta-
clusive or controlling re- for N.J. Builders what is considered, See requirements to native Environmental tion resource policy requires
gardless of the other Association revised table 3.5.7. forest species, because it Agency all existing vegetation to be
factors? would seem Just as benefi- preserved unless clearance is
cial to retain these areas inevitable for structures, paving
367. of natural vegetation rather or infrastructure. The inten-
Are not several of the land Dresdner Associates In the revised tables, in than to require the planting tion of requiring native forest
area factors derived from for N.J. Builders Section 3.5.7, the categories of native mature forest species (note the plural) is to
soils data, and therefore Association of criteria have been reduced, species. The policy might create new mixed native planting
duplicative? eliminating duplication. cause the replacement of that blends with existing.
some natural areas with a
368. single species of sapling
Special care should be taken Robert V. Ruguley During the implementation phase size trees.
to insure that the aensi- Nonmouth County of the program, monitoring and
tivity definitions for the Planning Board surveillance function will be 372.
vegetation index do not established. Large areas of You have an obligation to Patricia Q. Sheehan See revised land tables and
reward the clearance of fertile forested land are pro- specify and reference what N.J. Department of rationales (Section 3.5.7).
forested land, particularly tected under the farmland the acceptability levels are Community Affairs
on fertile soils where conservation special area based on.
development is not contem- policy (3.2.23). The revised

Coament Coamentor Reswonse
Coment Commentor Resoonse
LAND ACCEPTABILITY TABLES - Cont.
GENERAL LOCATION POLICY
373.
6.6.9.6.6 This section Patricia q. Sheehan Many impacts are directly pro- 379.
overstates the benefit of N.J. Department of portional to paving extent, 6.11 Tha:general location Patricia q. Sheehan It is used in such a fashion; the
restrictive pavement in its Comunity Affairs vegetation and soil disturbance, policy is an "escape clause" N.J. Department of language of the CAFRA legislation
relationship to impact and and ground and surface water which must be used judi- Community Affairs and the-CAPRA experience shows
resource. impactsfor example. Most others ciously and with the utmost that DEP-OCZ has used it with
are related to population density, . discretion. discretion.
air pollution and solid waste
which ie closely linked to 380.
pavement extent (except in high A policy must be estab- Marine Trades Selective administration dis-
rise areas which have special lished to cover instances Association of cretion has been provided by
policies). where a required service N.J. Section 2.2 and rewording of
is prohibited by municipal Section 4.3.7.
374. or county regulations.
P. 121. These-standards William C. .langst See flood hazard policy in
don't address filling acti- Camden County resource section (5.2.3). and 381.
vity within the floodplain Environmental permitted activities in the Chapter 3 does not estab- Richard A. Ginmnan Specific criteria for on-sits
or flood hazard area. 'Agency revised natural water's lish criteria for the de- N.J. Department of parking needs will be devel-
edge policy (Chapter 4, 3.4). sign of on-sit, parking CommunsityAffairs oped during the Program
needs. Not doing this Implementation phase, in coop-
COMPOSITE MAPPING could result in too much eration with interested state
reliance on local zoning and local agencies and in-
375. requirements which are terest groups.
P..123. Several specific William C. Hengst Prime agricultural areas are often inadequate.
areas should be mapped and Camden County mapped by the SCS. They were
referenced in the report, Environmental also mapped by DEP-OCZH in 382.
including prime agricultural Agency the Interim Guidelines cited Your regulations would not Charles Fisher Disagree. The wetlands poll-
areas, prime wildlife habit in Appendix B. Endangered opecies prohibit development of Cunberland County cies are as the Wetlands Act
tats,. areas of endangered are listed and will be located wetlands. But the-number Board of Chosen lists them, and will be applied
species, including buffer as site survey work is done. and complexity of these F holders as the Wetlands office has,
-areas. The criteria for prime wildlife regulations would permit which has dramatically re-
habitats will be established only the largest and most duced the filling of wetlands.
by the Estusrine contract destructive projects to
currently underway, consider undertaking the
procedure.
376.
P. 123. We question the N. J. Builders There are many good reasons for 383. u
utility of doing-environ- Association this scale. See Lower Cape May CLAN remains primarily un- Cgarles E. Romick - Case studies have now been done
mental mapping on a scale Pilot Study for example cited tested. It is not known Gloucester County for many CAPRA, wetlands and ri-
of 1:24,000. in Appendix 8. at this point what the Planning Board parian applications. They have
overall impact of the Is- been used extensively to refine
377. cation policies will be. the CLAH method.
P. 125. Is flood prone-area William C-. Henget Hsazard areas include fluvial Thus, many case studies
the same as flood hazard Camden County and coastal areas. Flood prone should be undertaken.
areal Environmental areas are fluvial, subdivided It is also felt that it-
Agency . into "fringe" and "way". provement is needed, in
some cases, in DEP's data
sources that are used in
378. making CLAN determinations.
P. 126, 6.9.8 Some state- N.J. Builders - See revisions.-particularly
ment allowing flexibility .Association Section 2.2 which states
should be added, principles for use of Chapter
Four.

Comment Commentor Response
Comment Commentor Resoonse
GENERAL LOCATION POLICY - Cont. HOUSING USE POLICIES C
HOUSING USE POLICIES - Cont.
384.
Compatibility of scale, site Patricia Q. Sheehan Legislating aesthetic factors is gram does encourage recrea- people. Also note that intensive
design and architecture is N.J. Department of a difficult and usually fruitless tion and resort development recreation and resort development
highly subjective because it Community Affairs occupation. Great flexibility is in water's edge areas. are only permitted in filled or
leaves so much discretion in needed because ultimately someone bulkheaded water's edges unless
the hands of project review- must look at a final design and water dependent.
ers. make a subjective judgement.
This policy states merely that 389.
proposals that are markedly We thoroughly approve of Kathleen H. Rippers No response necessary.
different from their surroundings your approach to housing, League of Women
and are therefore conspicuous, encouraging clustering and Voters
will be particularly scrutizined a mix of types. Avoiding
and with the additional criterion the current trend to separ-
of visual compatibility. ate people by monetary class
could dramatically assist in
385 raising the standards and
The use policies are very Giordano, Halleran The bulk of the use policies performance of less fortunate
disturbing because if the & Crahay for are already incorporated into people. We also like the
location acceptability table N.J. Builders the location analyusla. They for approach to high-rlsa
discloses that a project Association the most part repeat and rain- structures.
should not be built, then force decisions already made.
the use and resource poli- Flexibility has been added so 390.
cies don't enter the pic- that all policies are considered 7.2.1 While dependence on Patricia q. Sheehan OCZN interprets the question to
ture. The housing. dredging, before a decision is made. water access way be true, N.J. Department of mean that in certain instances
turI. The housfilling or bulkheading polis-made. should we rule this out Community Affairs shouldn't non-water access func-
W cies all seem too inflexible. absolutely in all instances tions be located at the water's
kS cies all seem too inflexible. as a matter of locational edge? It is not only a loa-
H ROUSING USE POLICIES preference? tional preference but an envi-
ronmental concern, e.g. houses
386. on dunes, and the elimination of
lousing should be given Jay T. Fiedler See revised "coastal areas" biologically valuable wetlands.
greater attention in iden- Bureau of policy in Chapter 4, 3.5.3 which
tifying regional needs and Urban Planning addresses the issue of regionality. 391.
growth potential. P. 132, 7.2.1 This policy Bob maestro for See revised policy for existing
does not allow for innova- N.J. Builders lagoon housing (3.4.3.2 and
387. tive design and mitigative saociation 3.4.4.2) and Section 2.2.
I think that some kind of Alvin Wagner Water's Edge policies have been measures which could offset
a grandfather clause should Sunrise revised to address the issue of potential environmental im-
be included as an amendment Beach, Inc. half-built lagoon housing devel- pacts.
to the Wetlands Act and CAFRA opments, see Chapter 4, 3.4.3.2
to permit real estate devel- and .4.4.2. Also, CAPRAdoes 392.
opments which- were in the include "grandfather" or exemp- 7.2.2 Recent case history Patricia Q. Sheehan It is not always possible to
process of development be- tion clause. (See Section C13.19-6 shows us that clustering is N.J. Department of provide preferred choices with
fore those laws were passed of CAFRA in Appendix H). not a preferred housing Community Affairs limited resources. Everyone
to be given consideration. choice, and DEP is inter- would prefer a detached house
feting with the right of overlooking the sea; clearly
388. a community to decide its this is not possible. Unde-
7.2.1 Housing is prohibited Canetic Correct. The thrust of the docu- own character. veloped coastal areas are a
on the water's edge because Corporation ment is the use to waterfront for
it does not depend upon for N.J. Builders the uses that cater to the most
water access, but the pro- Association rather than the fewest amount of

Comment Commentor Response Cormment Commentor Response

1HOUSING USE POLICIES - Cont. IOUSING USE POLICIES - Cont.

limited and fragile resource 398.
contributing to estuarine pro- P. 133, 7.2.2 This policy Canetic Corp. for This is correct. DEP-OCZH
ductivity, water quality and encourages zoning variances N.J. Builders has a basic policy of concen-
marine life as well as being in where minimumt lot sizes pre- Association trating development that is
demand for recreation and in- elude cluster. in conflict with some munici-
dustry. Clustering allows the pal ordinances. The zoning
maximum number of people to variance procedure is an
enjoy coastal amenities with orderly way of debating such
minimum environmental disturb- conflicts.
ante. DEP will work with other
interested public and private 399.
agencies to publicize the The housing policies are Canetic Corp. for Disagree. High rises are not
advantages of clustering. inconsistent; 7.2.3 states N.J. Builders prohibited and there are many
that housing should pro- Association varieties of house-type possible
393. vide a mix of dwelling in a clustered layout.
We, too, would encourage West Jersey Agreed. See water quality types, but other policies
clustering provided the site Chapter of the policies at 5.3, and public encourage clustering and
does not have septic tanks Sierra Club access at 5.12. make high-rise structures
and the developer makes the virtually impossible.
usable common space avail-
able to the public. 400.
P. 133. It should be clear Giordano, Halleran Agreed. See definitions for
394. that proposed uses not spe- & Crahay for "prohibit". "discourage", "con-
A more detailed definition Barrymor The definition is part of cifically "encouraged" can N.J. Builders ditionally accepted", "accept-
of "clustering" is needed. Enterprises for the rationale to Use Policy still be built. Association able" and "encouraged" in
N.J. Builders 4.2.3. Section 2.3.
Association
401.
395. P. 133, 7.2.3 Is there a Giordano, Halleran Yes. Hany studies show that
Since the cluster develop- Robert W. Ruguley Agreed. See responses to socio-economic basis for ) Crahay for separation of housing into
ments favored by DEP involve Honmouth County previous questions. 7.2.3? N.J. Builders social, econmic, or age enclaves
higher densities than those Planning Board Association diminishes the quality of
allowed by the township or residential life.
subareas of the project
site, DEP's must provide a 402.
rationale for the cluster P. 133. Why should policies lr. Phillip Distributing low income popula-
concept before the municipal encourage low cost housing? T helon tion rather than restricting it
body demonstrates a cooper- Won't this perpetuate low Cumberland County to ghettos does not affect re-
ative spirit. economic levels which have Economic Develop- gional economic levels and in
discouraged economic expan- ment Board the long term will help a
396, sion of these areas? region by improving access to
We question the basis for Giordano, Halleran Housing is not dependent on education for people with low
the statement that housing & Crahay for water access. Desire does incomes.
is not dependent on water N.J. Builders not constitute dependence. 403.
access. Association P. 133 7.2.4 What if a hous- Giordano. Halleran The project would be encouraged.
ing development meets a mu- & Crahay for See revised policy 4.2.5.
397. nicipality's fair share of N.J. Builders
The definition of "clus- GCiordano. Halleran No response is possible as high income housing? Association
tering" is questioned as & Crahay for "other clustering policies"
being contrary to many N.J. Builders are not specified.
other clustering policies. Association

Comment Commentor _ Response__ . _._. .
Comment Commentor Resoonse
IIOUSING USE POLICIES - Cont.
HOUSING USE POLICIES - Cent.
410.
404. P. 134, 7.2.7 Is re- Canetic Corp. for Yes. Policy 4.2.8 states "um-
Although OCZM proposes to William G. Hengst While the provision of least development and demolition N.J. Builders less rehabilitation of existing
"encourage" low and moderate Camden County cost housing often depends discouraged even in areas Association structure is demonstrated to be
income housing developments Environmental upon state and federal finan- that are neither of historic impractical and infeasible."
which contribute to munici- Agency cial assistance, the Program or aesthetic interest?
pality's fair share, the can facilitate the construc-
OCZH's policies, as now tion of needed housing pro- 411.
written, contain no pro- posed for appropriate locations P. 134, 7.2.7 Policy Patricia Q. Sheehan Disagree. There is no requirement
visions to contribute through simplified and shor- 7.2.7 is too restrictive N.J. Department of that the structure be used as it
materially to the supply tened permit application re- especially in urban areas. Community Affairs was in the past; therefore, changes
of low and moderate income view procedures, particularly Changes in intensity, use, in density are possible within
housing. with use of the pre-application or occupancy may be desirable this policy.
conference procedure, for en- and defensible. "Condition-
couraged projects. ally acceptable" would be a
more appropriate statement
405. than "Discouraged."
P. 133. We object to any Ciordano, Halleran Such exclusions are not within
development exclusions in & Crahay for the DEP-OCZX jurisdiction. 412.
the Pine Barrens except in N.J. Builders The planning board supports Robert W. Huguley No response necessary.
jurisdictions of permit Association the housing use policies, Monmouth County
programs. including those containing Planning Board

606. high rise construction which
is prohibited east of ocean-
P. 134. Development which Michael Havrisko They are discouraged. See front road or equivalent
would demolish historic League of revised policy 4.2.8. parl distance. Because
sites should be prohibited. Conservation even single detached units
t Legislation have the same effect of
407. r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~preventing uninterrupted or
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~407. ~~~~~uninhibited visual and
P. 133. 7.2.5 Requirement Patricia q. Sheehan See revised policy (4.2.6) that physical access to the i
that "Home" units in devel- N.J. Department of increases the flexibility but beach. the prohibition
opaents of more than 250 Community Affairs maintains the intent to pro- should be extended to all
units have barrier-free vide a barrier free environ- non-recreational develop-
design is vague and should Atlantic County ment. ment of the oceanfront.
be more specific. Executive's Office
413.
408. P. 134, 7.2.8 While recog- iilcox, Cravatt Housing development and recreational
P. 133, 7.2.5 Will exclu- patricia Q. Sheehan No. See revised policy 4.2.6. nizing that high-rise housing 'nd Racunda development need vastly different
sion of barrier free design N.J. Department of development is out of con- for N.J. Builders percentages of cover, and therefore,
in single-family units Community Affairs text with established rural Association have different impacts, which are
justify a permit denial? communities, concentrating treated separately in the document.
If so, we question the it yields the same secon-
wisdom of this. dary impacts as recreation.

409.
P. 134, 7.2.6 Policy Atlantic County The understanding of DEP-OCZM P. 134, 7.2.8 In many cases Wilcox, ravatt The combined conditions will pro-
should include specific Executive's Office is that densities of over 7 the required distance separ- and Hacunda duce this result.
criteria which outline what dwelling units per acre can be sting high-rise from water for N.J. Builders
densities and locations economically served by mass would be inadequate. We Association
contribute to mass transit transit. This is included in would prefer at least 200'
opportunities. in the rationale. requirement.

Comment Commentor ResDoonse
Coent enttor Resonse
HOUSING USE POLICIES - Coont.
HOUSING USE POLICIES - Cont.
421.
415. P. 134. 7.2.8.(f) When does Atlantic County N.J. DOT has criteria for
p. 134, 7.2.8.a What is Atlantic County The distance of a road right-of- an impact, particularly with Executive's acceptable levels of service
meant by an "equivalent Executive's way or greater. respect to traffic, become Office at intersections.
park distance"l Office "adverse"?

416. 422.
P. 134, 7.2.8.a Is the Atlantic County Yes. The Segment cites certain James A. Schissias See response to general question
Boardwalk considered a Executive's decisions from state courts Public Service A, and Section C13:19-11 of
public road in this case? Office concerning fair housing Electric & Gas Co. CAPRA. DEP must address the
opportunities. Conceding needs of all New Jersey residents.
417. that these cases recognize
P. 134, 7.2.8.(c) The pol- Wilcox, CGrsvtt, Disagree. The policy is sound, such a right, they certainly
icy is impractical because and Hacunda but the Coastal Program does not do not constitute or contri-
a developer can construct for N.J. Builders manage the location of a single bute to a comprehensive
single family homes which Association family house. coastal management power."
may block as much or more of
the view. RBSORT RECREATlONAL USE POLICIeS

418. 423.
P. 134, 7.2.8.(c) This Canetic Corp. for Disagree. High rise projects Recognition of the impor- Marine Trades Thank you. The DEP-DHS shore
policy makes any high rise N.J. Builders meeting this criteria have been tance of recreation on the Association protection mater plan effort and
impossible; any high rise Association approved by DEP. coast has been too long of N.J. the Rutgers overboard disposal
will to some degree block the coming. The Harine Trades study are recent examples of
features. Association of New Jersey efforts by the State to increase
J(A applauds this recognition shore protection and contribute
' 419. and calls upon the admini- to better waterway maintenance.
P. 134, 7.2.8.(d) Term Canetic Corp. for "Overshadow" is not vague. If stration tN show its support
"overshadow" is too vague; N.J. Builders a shadow is cast on a beach be- of this philosophy by ra-
requirement must be defined Association tween May and October this turning a greater share of
better. qualifies for this category. coastal recreation gene-
"Beaches" are defined; shadow rated state revenues for
sun tables are available to coastal programs such as
do analysis, providing a deft- waterway maintenance and
nite yes-no answer. shore protection.

420. 424.
P. 134, 7.2.8.(e) This Patricia Q. Sheehan The policy addresses the con- P. 135. While the policy Charles e. Romick Agreed. This document refers
policy precludes the phased N.J. Department struction of high rise buildings of Resort/Recreation Uses Gloucester County only to the Bay and Ocean Shore
redevelopment of an area of Community in areas where they already having priority over all Segment, the subsequent segments
where a consciously deter- Affairs. exist. It does not address the other uses may be suitable both Delaware and Northern will
mined change in character, establishment of a new center. for the BOSS Segment, a more highlight specific issues in
use, or intensity may be at A phased change of character is balanced policy between these areas.
work. possible however, since surround- Resort/Recreation and
ins heights may progressively other uses may be better
increase. See revised policy suited to the industri-
4.2.9. alized Delaware River area.

Comment Commentor Response
Comment Commentor Resoonse
RESORT RECREATIONAL USE POLICIES - Coat.
RESORT RECREATIONAL USE POLICIES - Cont.
625.
Throughout the Segment we Kathleen H. Rippers Thank you. 431.
appreciate your emphasis League of Women 7.3.1 A policy advocating William O. Hengt This FEIS refers only to the Bay
on protecting the tourist voters resort/recreation uses over Camden County and Ocean Shore Segment where
and fishing interests as all others will not work in Environmental recreation predominates. DEP-
vital to the state's acon- New Jersey because dif- Agency OCZM will work with Camden
oly. ferent portions of coastal County in the formatton of
zone have different priori- policy for the Delaware River.
426. ties. In Camden County and
7.3 All these uses will Canetic Corp. for The location and resource poli- other urbanized portions of
be stressful on an area, N.J. Builders cies will prevent such impacts. New Jersey other kinds of
creating more impervious Association development must be en-
surfaces, traffic burdens, couraged and guided.
and air pollution from
automobiles.
7.3.3 It is not the respon- Patricia Q. Sheehan Disagree. The Public Trust
427. sibility of a private inves- N.J. Department of doctrine imposes special obli-
The Planning Board is en- Robert W. Huguley No response necessary. tor to provide off-site Community Affairs gationa on developers of water-
couraged by the Resort/ Monmouth County supporting services and front property.
Recreational Policies which Planning Board facilities as a condition
stress facilities shall of approval.
provide equal opportunity
access to large numbers of 433.
people. 7.3.4 The definition of Elwood R. Jarmer Agreed. The revised Coastal
fexisting resort-oriented Cape May County Regions Section (3.5.3) can
[ 428. areas" is unspecific and Planning Board be used to identify these areas
P. 135. The economic impact Atlantic County Agreed. unclear. more clearly.
of tourism should be studied Executive's
and quantified; this is Office 434
7.3.5 Hotel/casino uses ;Canetic Corp. for Atlantic City is exactly the
evaluating alternative usss in existing resort areas Ii N.J. Builders type of area where some new high-
of the coastal one. isto encouraged in Atlantic Association rise construction is appropriate.
City, usually on water's
429. edge location, while high
P. 135. We question the Atlantic County Some types of recreation and rise housing types are
wisdom of and need for mix- Executive's Office industry are compatible and discouraged.
ing recreational and indus- may significantly improve the V
trial development. working environment. Sailing 435.
and ball fields are examples The Casino Development * William Potter See the revised policy 4.3.6 and
of recreation that may thrive Policy should be written Public Advocate the explicit reference to the high
near industry if properly de- to specifically apply to rise housing policy.
signed, and would provide the housing standards.
recreational opportunities for
the workforce. 436.
430. P. 137, 7.3.6(c) Add,"and Diane Craves Agreed, see revised policy
The preservation of open Michael Navrisko Disagree. These uses are accept- if wastewater disposal Sierra Club 4.3.7(c).
space policy seems self- League of able only under restrictive from such pump out stations
contradictory when it Conservation conditions, see Section 4.3.5. is consistent, with all app-
names hotels and restsu- Legislation licable federal and state
rants as desirable'along laws, rules and regulations."
the coastline.

Comment Commentor Response
Comment Commentor Response
RESORT RECREATIONAL USE POLICIES - Cont.
RESORT RECREATIONAL USE POLICIES - Coent.
440.
437. P. 137. If the terms mean Marine Trades In the final analysis, the site
P. 137. Launching ramps are Marine Trades See revised policy 4.3.7(b) which a dry stack, in-and-out eys- Association of and regional demand will deter-
effective means of serving Association of states that these uses be depen- tam and a public launching N.J. mine the extent of the facili-
transient siall boat owners N.J. dent upon the site conditions. ramp, we are opposed. ties. See revised policy 4.3.7.
but they also produce land
use problems that make them 441.
unsuitable for some sites. P. 137. If the term "pub- Marine Trades The term does not mean "free",
A ramp launched boat re- lic" means "free," the Association of it means "not private".
quires at least twice the Marine Trades Association N.J.
land space of a stack is vehemently opposed.
stored or docked boat be-
cause of the presence of 442.
the 'trailer in addition P. 137. The Marine Trades Marine Trades No response necessary.
to the owner's car. Association supports the Association of
requirement for "adequate N.J.
438. pump out stations for waste-
Public marinas must be Marine Trades DEP regulates the construction water disposal" at all new
discouraged because they Association of and operation of both public marinas.
have an unfair competitive N.J. and private marinas equally.
advantage over private 443.
enterprise and use land Public launching facilities Marine Trades This definition is now in the
that would otherwise be might be better definedl Assocation Gloasary. The second sentence
available for privately Any facilities, available of N.J. of the comment is addressed
r financed business that for use by the general by revised policy 4.3.7.
LJ provides tax revenues. public on a free or fee
0w basis, used for launching
1 439. and returning recreational
We feel that your approach Kathleen R. Rippere No response necessary boats. Facility operators
to marina construction is League of Women retain the right to restrict
excellent, especially in Voters usage of the launching
your support of provision facility when parking,
for sail and rowboats docking or launching capa-
and the requirement that bilities are exceeded.
need for the new marina
be shown. We feel 444.
strongly that along with 7.3.6 New marinas are accep. Canetic Corp. for Marinas will be acceptable as
requiring sewage facili- table if demand is made ap- N I.J. Builders any other use, based on the
ties in marinas', a law parent; however, marinas Association ability for the use-location
is needed to require and related activities are combination to adhere to the
large boats to install sources of both severe air Resource Policies which con-
chemical toilets. and water pollution. sider both air and water quality.
Otherwise pollution in
marina areas is unavoid- 445.
able. 7.3.6 If demand is not be- Patricia Q. Sheehan No. The policy suggests that
ing met by expandable facil- N.J. Department of marinas will be considered
ities, are you going to pre- Community based on an understanding of
vent new boating facilities? Affairs the regional demand for them.
You can't force existing Therefore, if marina capacity

Comment Commentor R eesonse
Comment Coementor Response
RESORT RECREATIONAL USE POLICIBS - Cont Coment Commentor Resonse
RESORT RECREATIONAL USE POLICIES - Cont.
marinas to enlarge basic- Marina Trades exists within a region this
ally because of economic Association of must be examined before aew boating in N.J. and on its pansion Te program will not
restraints. .J. marinas a re built. A regional supporting industries. deter recreation uses of a
analysis might direct devel recreationally oriented coast,
opera to appropriate locations. but balance these uses with
environmental concerns.
446.
7.3.6 Policy does not Elwood R. Jarmer Agreed. See revised water
address the earina-recrea- Cape Hay County acceptability tables (3.3.6)
addres the marina-recre- Cape ay County acceptability tables (3.3.6) 7.3.9 Dredging ofdry land Canetic Corp. for This policy has been deleted.
tion development along the Planning Board which include guts and harbormarina expansion en- .J. Builder
intracoastal waterway. and their potential use for couraged. What about the Association
Policies to deal with the marinas. effects of water action
citing of warinas on the erosion, new breakheading,
tntracoastal waterways, etc. on thi procedur
tidal channels, and lagoons
should be developed. 452.
P. 135, 7.3.11 Amusement Patricia Q. Sheehan Disagree. The vulnerability of the
447. 3 '6 HY vill he "dem- Harin Trades W itinglistefor marina member- piers are a valid recrea- N.J. Department piers is a sufficient reason to
7-3V6 How will the "demon- Marine Trades Waiting lists for mari a rtional opportunity; a of Community curtail the use of this resource
strated regional demand" be Association of ship is an obvious way. DEP-OCZ better policy would recog- Affairs for heavy structural uses. New
determined? N.J. is planning a tourismlrecreation nize the demand for these amusement parks can be located
study to assess regional *up uses and plan for accepta- Wilcox, Gravatt inland.
ply and demand. ble locations. & Hacunda
N.J. Builders
448. Association
P. 137. The artine Trades Marine Trades Specific definitions have not
Association suggests the Association of been developed. Conflicts between 453
following definitionsi Dry N.J. boats and car space have been hy are private owners L.R. Hudson Conveyance of State-owned tide-
storage areas- Land space addressed in that the site charec- d
for the purpose of storing teristica will dictate the design cial owners, such as marinas. quires that legal procedures be
boats when they are removed of the site. and forced to do a lot of followed. The Riparian permit
from the water. They may unneeded surveying and engi- procedure will be looked at
be either for seasonal nearing to legalize a pier? carefully for possible stream-
storage or for holding be- Why can't we get a sapa- lining, as part of the Admini-
tween uses (dry-sailings, ra te set of procedures for stration of this program.
dry stacking, etc.). A
major portion of seasonal private owners?
storage area may be the PUBLIC FACILITY USE POLICIES
same area used for parking
during the boating season. 454.
P. 148, 7.5.10 Line 1, de- Diane Craves Agreed. See revised policy
449. lete "propSierra Club 4.7.5(b).
7.3.7 Who can assure that Canetic Corp. for The statement reflects OCZH's lte "proper"; line 2, fter Sierra Club 4 5(b)
a marina for sail and/or N.J. Builders concern for energy conservation installatio, delete ",
boating (encouraged) will Association and water quality. A permit and "; after "operation",
not be converted to a pri- condition could address this insert nd maintenance"
marily motor boat marina issue..
After completion?
P. 148, 7.5.11 Does the Atlantic County The appropriate level of treat-
phrase "highly treated Executive's ment varies with soil and
t50.
The program puts restraints Harine Trades The program channels growth effluents" refer to a Office vegetation conditions In soils
on the growth and even main- Associatiod of rather than restricting it and
tenance of recreational N.J. encourages maintenance and ex-

Comment Comnentor Resoonse
Comment Commentor Response
PUDLIC FACILITY USE POLICIES - Cont.
PUBLIC FACILITY USE POLICIES - Cont.
specific level or type with high cation exchange and
of sewage, and if so, what harvested vegetation trickle 459,
is it? The standards for or spray irrigation secondary P. 147. 7.5.5 Bicycle and Patricia Q. Sheehan The policy does not imply loss
defining what qualifies as treatment is appropriate. In foot paths design must be N.J. Department of of privacy or security. See
"consistently high quality sandy soils tertiary teatment sensitive to today's con- Community Affairs policy 4.5.5.
effluent" and "acceptable would probably be necessary. cern for security and the
recharge techniques" should Some flexibility here is desir- general concern for privacy.
be spelled out as well. able. See comment and response
below. 460.
P. 147. 7.5.5 Bicycle and William C. Hengat See revised policy 4.5.5 which
456. foot paths in some instan- Camden County addresses this concern. They
P. 148, 7.5.11 Reword to Diane Graves Agreed. See policy 4.5.7(c) ces may not be feasible or Environmental usually represent increased
read "wastewater treatment Sierra Club This statement is stated in fit with the development Agency multi-use, open space areas.
systems that recharge the Resource Policies and applies scheme or with surrounding
groundwater are encouraged to every policy. development patterns. Giordano, Halleran
provided that effluents & Crahay for
and recharge techniques N.J. Builders
are consistent with all Association
applicable federal and
state laws, standards, Atlantic County
rules and regulations". Executive's Office

457. 461.
P. 148. 7.5.8 Line 1 after Diane Graves See response above. The approach to public Kathleen H. Rippere No response necessary.
, "must" delete the remain- Sierra Club facilities is excellent League of Women
D ing sentence and insert, "be requiring ithat development Voters
D consistent with all applies- should be encouraged where
ble federal and state laws, adequate facilities exist
rules and regulations and and discouraged where
standards". they do not. ALso, we like
the provision that new
458. roads prove their need and
P. 148 7.5.9-7.5.11 On-site William Potter DEP-OCZH in general favors that public transportation
sewage disposal systems Public Advocate localization of impact and should be encouraged, but
should be preferred over mitigation as close to the should not block access
regional treatment plants source as possible. In par- to or the use of water-
except where there is no ticular, site sewage treatment ways. We like the idea
feasible on-site disposal is favored that recycles water of fishing catwalks on
alternative and where there and nutrients either through bridges, since, if fish
is a water quality need septic systems or site plant are available, people
which cannot be otherwise or more innovative techniques will fish from bridges
corrected. This policy such as spray irrigation, arti- anyway - and often at
does not differentiate ficial marshes or aquaculture their peril. We hope,
between regional and other as close to the source of however, to see the day
facilities, with both sewage generation as possible. when some limit on the
given "encouraged" status. Also secondary impact analysis size of salt water fish
Rather, unnecessary waste- address the location of regional that are kept will be
water treatment systems treatment plants. enforced.
should be prohibited.

Comment Cosmentor ResDonse Comment Commentor Resoonse

PUBLIC FACILITY USE POLICIES - Cont. INDUSTRY/COM!ELRCE USE POLICIES

462. 466.
P. 147.r The pre-application Robert W. Huguley No response necessary. P. 148, 7.6.1 When deter- Ciordano, Halleran The intention is to measure
conference provides an ex- Nonmouth County mining the ratio of jobs to & Crahay for jobs/acre on the gross acreage
cellent opportunity for the Planning Board land provided by a devel- N.J. Builders of the- site including parking
developer and DEP to explore oper, does "development" Association open space etc., and compares
new technologies and design just mean the building one industrial use with another,
concepts on suitable lands. or the parking area and John J. Horn both subject to the same set
other open space on site. N.J. Department of policies including the
463. If the former meaning is of Labor and open space resource policy.
P. 147, 7.5.6-7.5.8 These William.Potter Agreed, see revised policy used, then this policy will Industry
policies are greatly im- Public Advocate 4.5.6. discourage retention of
proved, although there is open space in a develop-
no mention of reclamation. ment plan.
Sanitary landfills are un-
sightly and environmentally 467.
hazardous. They deserve the P. 148, 7.6.2 Use policy Thomas L. Bertone See revisions, Section 4.6.3(f).
same reclamation requirements .should also consider an Office of Fiscal
as mines. additional limitation be- Affairs
cause of watsr pollution
464, potential.
P. 147, 7.5.4, 7.5.5, and Thomas A. Thomas Agreed. Policy 7.5.4 has been
7.5.9 Policy 7.5.4 should Townplan Associates deleted, 7.5.5 and 7.5.9 has 468.
read "discouraged" rather for N.J. Builders been revised addressing this To restrict mining "only Thomas L. Bertone Seerevised policy 4.6.3(b).
than "prohibited" and 7.5.5 Association concern. (See 4.5.5 and 4.5.7) to sites immediately ad- -Office of Fiscal
should read "encouraged" jacent to current mining Affairs
)0 rather than "required". operations," regardless of
) Section 7.5.9 should also be good reclamation plans, is
modified. an inflexible policy.

PORTS USE POLICIES 469. i
7.6.2 By drawing lines to Kenneth Brunk See revised policy, 4.6.3.
465, depict where mining can and Unimin Corp.
7.7.1 Confinement of new . Clayton D. Peavey There are unused areas within cannot occur, OCZH fails to
port facilities to sites The Port Authority the port areas that can be con- recognize that one must
adjacent to existing port of N.Y. and N.J. sidered for reclamation and will mine wherever the deposit ,.
facilities may be en- satisfy the port policy. This is. '
couraged, but new ports policy applies only to the
should not be prohibited Segment. 470.
from non-adjacent locations P. 148. Regarding mining, William G. Hengat DEP would enforce reclama-
where there is no other how is "immediately adja- Camden County tion requirements included
recourse and the non- cent" defined? What branch Environmental in a permit approval. See
adjacent site is in all of the state-government Agency revised policy on adjacency,
other ways acceptable enforces reclamation Section 4.6.3(b).
under the location, use policies?
and resource policies.
Page 182 would appear 471.
to afford such flexi- P. 148, 7.6.2 Policy is Gary Carpenter See revised policy.
bility. ioo brief. Pennsylvania
Glass & Sand

Cow-ent Cosmeater Reseonsi
eeComment Commentor ReaDonss

INDUSTRY/COMHERCE USe POLICIIES - Cont. SIORE PROTECTION USE POLICIES - Cont.

472.
P. 148. Why Is mining Eanneth Drunk See revised policy, 4.6.3. 478.
lPo1o8 ahyt iso *ini Innegatb Brun See rvised policy 4.6.3Co. P. 149, 150, 7.8.3 Delete Loretta C. Hanley Disagree. Urban shorefront
looked at so negatively Unibin Corp. "urbsn." See Bright areas must be addressed.
when it is so important Environmental
to the state? Cary Carpenter Commission
Pennsylvania
Clasas Sand 479*
P. 150, 7.8.3.d Does Stephen Gabriel DBP's Office of Shore Protec-
Dr. Phillip Phelon the State have a parti- Ocean City tion provides technical assis-
Cumberland County cular bulkhead design mayor's Office tance to municipalities on the
Economic Develop- for ocesnfront proper- design of shore protection
ment Board ties which could be re- structure. Also the shore pro-
quired by municipalities tection master plan will spe-
473. to help-that locally an- cifically address municipal-
7.6.2 This policy needs Willino Potter See revised policy conditions force policy 7.3(d.? state liaison In the des unicipal
to be more restrictive. Public Advocate Section 4.6.3 especially (se) of struction shore protection
Reclamation efforts must methods.
be enforced.
480.
774. P. 149-150. 7.8.3 Delete Loretta C. HInley Disagree. It is the thrust of the
7.6.2 Mining operations Robert V. Ruguley They are not, water's edge "including fishing (too Sea Bright program to provide enhanced recre-
should not be exempt from Monmouth County policies apply; the use is specific and diacrimi- Environmental ational facilities wherever possible.
the location policies. Planning Board so highly specialized they can noting) and other rec- Coumission The shorefront is especially impor-
not be handled similarly to reational (too broad) tant in this respect.
residential uses in the Lend opportunities". .Add
vb Acceptability Tables. "where practicable for
o 475 safety and health."
CD475. Substitute "The struc-
7.6.2 If reclamation plane Giordano, Halleran These issues have been addressed ture WiLL protect and
are acceptable, mining & Crahay for in revised policy 4.6.3. enhance public access
should be acceptable, even N.J. Builders to the shorefront, where
if it is not adjacent to Asnocstion practicable for safety
current mining operations. and health".

SHORE PROTECTION USE POLICIES
481.
76 7.8.3 Adverse economic PNarine Trades Agreed. See policies in Section
476. impacts a n well Association of 4.8.
P. 149. An I correct in Stephen Csabriel No; shore protection tiaa secondary Aspacts ind 4.8.
assuming that the Shore Pro- Ocean City usually is regulated by ti secondry ipacts ofd NJ.
tection Use Policies apply Hayor's Office riparian dtstutes whichty for an ent of reapon i-
only to developments of 25 have no threshold. Also f oreseen witin the permit
foreseen within the permit
or more units? the Office of Shore Pro-ee
tust be included in shore
tection does not operate protection project permit
with such thresholds. conedetions.

477.
P. 149-150 7.8.3 Add "Such Loretta C. Hanley The term infrastructure in-
as, state highways, public Sea Bright cludes these uses. See
utilities, sewers, water. Environmental Section 4.8.5(c).
electric, gas and telephone Commission
lines."

Comment Conmentor Response Comment Commentor Response

SHORE PROTECTION USE POLICIES - Cont. MARINE FISH & FISHERIES - Cont.

482. 486.
Add the federal Public Law Loretta C. Hanley Such inclusion is unnecessary. P. 151, 8.2.1 This policy Marine Trades Disagree. Development may
79-727, approved August 13, Sea Bright. State policy does conform to does not appear to be in Association of affect living marine re-
1946. "Federal Policy as Environmental the federal law. See shore accordance with the shell- N.J. sources outside of shellfish
established in Public Law Commission protection use policies fish beds special area beds.
and as amended which pro- 7.8.3(ac). policy which prohibit
vides for Federal partici- outright some uses.
pation in the construction
of such improvements along 487.
public shores. Shores other 8.2.2 You cannot avoid in- Bob Haestro for Policy does not call for complete
than public are also eligi- creased turbidity levels, N.J. Builders control of turbidity or sedimen-
ble, if there is benefits or siltation with any type Association tation minimum feasible, mitiga-
arising from public use. of land development. tion techniques are available to
Or from the protection of localize these impacts to
nearby public property. acceptable levels in some
Or if the benefits are cases. See policy 5.2.1.
incidental to the project
with the Federal contribu- WATER QUALITY
tion being adjusted in
accordance with the degree 488.
of such benefits." P. 152. policy which re- Hiddlesex County This is the intent of the
State policy should conform quires coastal development Planning Board policy. See revised policy
to the above Federal law. to be in conformance with 5.3.1.
all applicable state surface
GENERAL RESOURCE POLICIES and groundwater quality
standards, as established
483. and administered by DEP's
A number of the resource Robert Y. Huguley Ho response necessary. Division of Water Resources.
policies have considerable Honmouth County should also reflect the
merit, Planning Board water quality management
policies of adopted water
484. quality management plans
P. 151. The policies as Thomas L. Bertone Disagree. The distinction between developed under New Jersey
they are written are so Office of Fiscal local and regional concnerns is Statute PL 1977, Chapter
vague and incomplete that Affairs addressed largely by the manage- 75.
local concerns will not be ment system which indicates that
ferreted out from regional some decisions are of regional SURFACE WATER USE
ones, importance and others strictly
local. 489.
The surface water policy Hiddlesex County Agreed. See policy 5.3.1.
MARINE FISH & FISHERIES should adopt a more regional Planning Board
view and should incorporate
485. the recommendations of State
Separate commercial fishing L.R. Hudson Since recreational fishing Water Supply Haster Plan,
area from private owners, so harvests more fish than the and adopted "208" Water
that private owners are not fishing industry, regulation Supply Elements.
treated like commercial fish- of both is a concern to the
ing owners. extent there are conflicts
between the two activities, the
buffer policy will be employed
(Section 5.15).

Comment Comentor Resoonse Cossent Cosmentor Resoonse

SURFACE WATER USE - Cont. GROUNDWATER USE - Cent.

490 495.
P. 152, 8.4.1, line 5. Diane Graves Disturbnces include entrap- 8.5.1 Policy should in- Bob Naesto for Agreed. See revised poicy 5.5.
"Disturbances" is unclear Sierra Club ment of aquatic organisms, clude "and not ignificantly N.J. Builders
despite Glossary defini- bottom scour, alteration of decrease base flow of ad- Association
tion; if drawdown is what flow nutrient transport patterns jacent water courses."
is meant, than change "dis- as well sa drawdown. See
turbance" to "drawdown". policy 5.4.1. RUNOFF

491. 496.
8.4.1 This policy should Patricia Q. Sheehan This is included in the There is a question as to N.J. Builders The runoff is as stated
include phasing, with ex- N.J. Departent of demonstration of adequate whether "runoff" is limi- Association limited to that of a particu-
pansion plans for potable Community Affairs capacity. Se policy S .4.1. ted to the runoff gener- lar site. See policy 5.6 which
water systems. ated from the subject de- has been substantially revised.
velopment or from all up-
GROUNDWATER USE stream sites. The nature
of the receiving stream
492. � should be taken into con-
- There are no location Robert V. Huguley The deep aquifer outcrops ideratcion, since runoff
policies dealing with Honmouth County do not occur in-the Segment. exceeding mature forest
outcrops of important Planning Board vegetation may not in all
aquifers. cases cause an adverse en-
vironmental effect.
493.
;8.5 When it comes to West Jersey This is not quite true. The 497
groundwater,-the water Chapter of the Water Policy and Supply Council To water runoff Stan- Joseph Reeney See revised policy 5.6 which
supply people seem to Sierra Club issues the permits on diver- dards are unrealistic. Lacey Township introduces some flexibility.
allow excessive with- -Sion rights based on the input Chamber of Calculatior by DEP-OCZH and
drawl rates to every- from the Division of Water Co rc the Ur S. Soil ConaervnCton
body, will you tell them Resources on the groundwatervice indicate that these
they can't? quantity, salt water encoach- 1iordany, Halleran standards are realistic.
ment, etc. DEP has a continuing 6 Crahay for
concern about techniques of N.J. Builders
aastimating. the impacts of ground- Association
water withdrawal and rationales
-for establishing safe sustained 498.
yield and will continue to P. 153, 8.6 When it comes West Jersey Standards of this kind have not
study this issue. to runoff, nobody exceeds bhapter of the been generally applied before.
the standards but we keep Sierra Club If they had been, the flash
494. having more floods; local flood surge problem would not
P, 152. 8.5 Policy is pro- .Thoas A. Thomas The language has been modified. government seems to feel have occured. This is one of
hibitivly expensive� and Townplan Associates See revised policy 5.5.1. DEP is that it's the problem the reasons for these stan-
may not be technically for N.J. Builders aware of the problems of estimating of the guys downstream. dards.
possible except on a Association groundwater impacts, but considers
regional level; that in areas with a history of 499.
Patricia Q. Sheehan salt water intrusion such a policy P. 153. I find it difficult Fellows, Read See revised policy 5.6 which
N.J. Department of is essential. Continuing aquifer - to use the draft and apply -Weber for expands and clarifies the cri-
CoDmunity Affairs studies in the future will assist it to a specific develop- N.J. Builders teria and allows more flexi-
both DEP and developers. ment site as criteria for Association bility of design.
design.

Comment Cowmentor Resoonse Comment Commentor Resnonse

RUNOFF - Cont. RNOFF - Coat.

500. 506.
P. 153. The section on N.J. Builders Disagree, these standards can At the present time DEP con- Kathleen H. Rippers No response necessary.
runoff would in effect Association easily be met in most typical trol over groundwater use League of Women
postpone development in CAFRA applications. Revised and diversion rights is Voters
the CAFRA zone. Policy 5.6 does however intro- inadequate and we hope the
dues more flexibility. forthcoming Water Resources
501aster Plan will work to-
501. ward rectifying this situa-
The imposition of having Wilcox, Gravatt The section 208 program coordi- tion. Haanwhile, protecting
to construct extensive & Racunda for nated by the Division of Waterater fro rnoff
treatment facilities is N.J. Builders Resources is working on this, pollutantsn intensive d
unreasonable. Better Association but it is a very complicated velopment areas is certainly
policies would acknowledge problem. Extensive treatment important and we are pleased
the contributions of other is not required, but rather to see this included in the
point sources and a fair treatment that meets applicable Plan.
share allocation of costs water quality standards. See
should be implemented. revised policy 5.6. 507
P. 153. 8.6.2(d) It is N.J. Builders It is difficult, not impossible.
502. 153 the plicy lees Fellow, Rend tis is corect, hoever geeimpossible to analyze Association The 208 program is studying
P. 153. The policy seems . Fellows, Read This is correct, however see storm water runoff quel- this problem meanwhile there is
to imply that runoff from & Weber, Inc. revised policy 5.6 which limits ity or to predict such empirical data from techniques
a site cannot exceed that for N.J. peak surges to those from quality. proven by experi ence.
which would occur if the Builders existing conditions with some
site were covered with a Association exceptions where existing 508.
"mature forest vegetation" conditions generate high runoff. P. 153. Some of the reten- Fellows, Read Disagree. See revised policy and
r e gardless of the exsiteg tion requilements may be & Weber for rationale 5.6.
conditions of this site. physically impossible on N.J. Builders
503' the site depending on AeSociation
503, topo.rophy, groundvoter
P. 153. The guidelines Robert W. Huguley Some guidelines are included topography, groundwater
should specify the type Monmouth County in revised policy 5.6 but the elevation, nd other
of treatment required for Planning Board exact nature of required treat- physical features
the stormwater runoff from ment to meet water quality 509
the pavement on intensely standards varies so much that
P. 153. It does not appear Fellows, Read There will be considerable
developed site. case by case review is necee- to be a clear indication & Weber for va riation of appropriate
nary. of the degree to which N'O. Builders treatment depending on inten-
storm water must be Asociation sity of vehicle traffic, street
504. treated prior to dis- cleaning techniques, length
P. 153, 8.6.1 How does one Patricia Q. Sheehan Enter the curve number for treated prior to d- cleaning tecnq length
quantify the runoff rate N.J. Department of forest vegetation into either basins, soil texture and depth
of mature forest vegeta- Community Affairs of the two required formulae. t o wat er tabl e.
tion?
510.
505. P. 153. Modificattons Fellows, Read See revised policy 5.6. These
P. 153, 8.6.2(c) Won't this Bob Maestro for No. In some cases, it may even suggested: 1) remove the & Weber for recommendations have not been
significantly increase the N.J. Builders reduce the cost because of requirement for treatment N.J. Builders adopted since they would not
cost of each unit to the Association savings from not building facilities until a plan Association address the concerns raised
buyer? curbs, gutters and sewers. could be worked out for by runoff.

Comment Commentor Response Comment Commentor Response

RUNOFF - Cont. VECETATION - Cont.

feasibility, 2) existing 515.
condition runoff should The requirement that soil Kathleen H. Rippers Thank you.
be allowed with retention characteristics through- League of Women
required for a 10-1S year out a site be analyzed is Voters
store, and 3) on site re- very good, as is protec-
charge should be encour- tion and restoration of
aged with minimal restric- greenbelta and stabiliza-
tions tion of soils with suita-
ble vegetation.
511.
P. 153. Policies dealing Charles E. Romick Agreed. See revised policy 516.
with the management of storm Gloucester County 5.6 and 5.3.1. P. 153, 8.8.1 To plant Giordano, Halleran DEP-OCZH can provide a list
water quality should inter- appropriate native coas- & Crahay for of local nurseries stocking
face with policies that are tal species may not be N.J. Builders such species.
developed in the "208" Water practical if such native Association
Oualitv Manseement Program coastal species are not
now being developed. available.

512. 517.
P. 154. What will consti- William C. Nengat Pollution that violates Tvo of the recommended ape- William 0. Ilengst Agreed, see revisions in
tute "unacceptable" ground- Camden County existing state standards. cies of new vegetative plant- Camden County 5.8.2.c.
water pollution? Environmental ing to be used in the inner Environmental
Agency coastal or southern outer Agency
coastal plain are not indi-
SOIL EROSION SEDIMENTATION genous. We recommend gray
,4 �birch instead of white birch
0 513. and deletion of the eastern
8.7 We like your policy of Bob Maestro for These are the policies which soil hemlock.
requiring the standards of N.J. Builders districts now administer. DEP
the Soil Erosion & Sediment Association will provide support and assis- 518.
Control Act be met, but we tance as necessary 8.9 Uses which generate 'Bob Maestro for The revised policy 3.2.19
are are concerned that the West Jersey high levels of human distur- N.J. Builders addresses "appropriate miti-
soil district personnel will Chapter of the bance should not be located Association gation measures" which includes
not be able to accommodate Sierra Club adjacent to important habi- the buffering necessary to
this. tat areas. protect a critical wildlife
habitat. (5.9 and 3.2.19
VEGETATION should be read together)

514. WILDLIFE
P. 155. We disagree with Bob Maestro for See revised policy 5.8. The
mandating that a developer N.J. Builders policy does not require planting 519.
plant certain shrubs and Association around individual dwelling units. 8.9 No development should Bob Haestro for This would be difficult to en-
trees around each indivi- Policies do require planting restrict movement of wild- N.J. Builders sure since the disturbances
dual dwelling unit. of appropriate native coastal life through the adjacent Association associated with developnent
species where necessary in open space areas. almost always interrupt wild-
certain developments because life movement and cannot be
adopted species can survive mitigated. DEP anticipates
in sandy acid soils, without that stream branching networks
liming, fertilization and irri- will provide movement corri-
gation, which would have seri- dors between larger contigu-
ous water quality impacts. ous habitats. See also
revisions in 5.9.

Comment Commnentor Reanonses
Comment Commastor ResDonse
PUBLIC ACCESS TO SHOREFRONT - Cont.
Air
525.
520. P. 158. The state is doing Stephen Gabriel DEP-OCZM will be looking at
P. 157. The air quality Middlesex County DEP-OCZH can only address air a good job assuring access Ocean County public access to all beaches
policy is not adequate to Planning Board quality to the existing state to publically owned beaches Hayor's Office where public funds are used
reduce the level of pollu- of the art. Until offaite but it needs to establish for shore protection.
tents in Middlesex County. policies are established a clear prescriptive use easements
DEP-OCZH should assess the picture of the air quality laws on privately owned beaches.
secondary impacts of this cannot be obtained. Also see
Policy, revised secondary impact 526.
policy, 5.14. This issue The term "public access" is Loretta C. Hanley Public access is synonymous
will be addressed further not defined. The term Sea Bright with unrestricted access.
in the program for the "unrestricted access" is Environmental
remainder of the coastal zone. used throughout the report. Commission
PUBLIC SERVICES 527.
P. 158. It is beyond the Ciordano, Halleran Disagree. The state does have
521. scope of a program to & Crahay for an obligation to provde access
We recommend that the William C. Hengst Such an estimate is implied in regulate access in a given N.J. Builders to public trust lands in its
policy regarding public Camden County this policy. municipality since this Association funding and regulatory decisions.
services be expanded so Environmental would be the legitimate
that applicants must esti- Agency province of the courts.
mate what additional de-
mands for services will 528.
be. P. 158, 8.11.2 The word- N.J. Builders Agreed. See revisions in 511.2.
ing "through agreements Association
PUBLIC ACCESS TO SHOREFRONT with revelant agencies"
d0 should be deleted.
O 522.
( State and federal funds Ann N. Szelag Agreed. See Resource Policy 529.
should not be spent for for the Council 5.12 in Chapter Four. The State has sold certain Loretta C. Hanley The coastal policies on public
shore and bay maintenance of the Borough beach front lands in grants Sea Bright access were formulated with con-
unless the Jersey Shore is of Carteret to private property owners. Environmental sideration of existing laws.
open to the public. Public access to privately Commission See Section 5.12.
owned and managed beach
$23. facilities that provide
P. 158, 195. The recrea- Rlwood R. Jarmer This is implicit throughout beach use without discrim-
tional potential and pub- Cape Hay County the program. The designation ination, together with
lie access needs to bay- Planning Board of Higbee Beach as a GAPC provisions for public
shore as well as ocean in Chapter Seven is an example. health and safety, is
front beaches should be within the law.
recognized and added to
the Program. SCENIC RESOURCES & DESIGN

524. 530.
We also approve the re- Kathleen B. Rippere No response necessary. We recommend the inclusion William C. Hengst See revisions in 5.13.
quirement for public League of Women of additional language in Camden County
access when state funds Voters the document to better de- Environmental
are involved in repair fine what OCZM intends by Agency
or construction. "visual compatibility",
thereby removing the problem
of enforcing this policy
solely on the basis of sub-
jective, individual taste.

Comment Commentor Resoonses Comment Commentor Responses

SCENIC RESOURCES & DESIGCN - Cont. SECONDARY IPACTS - Cont.

531. 537.
8.13 Revise the policy so Thomas A. Thomas Agreed; see revisions in 5.13.1. 8.14 Although we re illiam Potter See revised policy, 5.14. Note
that visual compatibility is Townplan pleased to see a secondary. Public Advocate that DCA's study "Secondary Impacts
only "encoureged",. and pot Associates for impact policy in the Seg- of Regional Sewer Systems" (1975)
more strongly mandated. N.J. Builders ment, the present wording William G. Iengst is cited as a model for secondary
Association is vague and ill defined. Camden County impacts analyses.
There is no indication of Environmental
SECONDARY IMPACTS the degree of specificity Agency
expected in this analysis.
532. We would like to see this Giordano, Halleran
8.1.4 We believe that a Giordano, Halleran See revision in 5.14.1 and analysis tied to standard and Crahay for
Secondary Impact analysis & Crahay for general question D. studies of secondary im- N.J. Builders
should be required only on N.J. Builders pacts, where available. Association
a selected basis where Association Secondary impacts need
substantial adverse specific guidelines for Patricia Q. Sheehan
secondary impacts are anti- use by prospective appli- N.J. Department of
cipated. We seriously ques- cants. Community Affairs
tion whether secondary im-
pacts are even predictable. Anne Penna &
Dana Rowan
533. American Littoral
P. 159, 8.14 It is not Ruth Fisher See revisions in 5.14 and Society
clear how any decision- Citizens Associa- general question D.
making process is going to tion for the 538.
insist that the secondary Protection of Potential induced growth, Bob Maestro for Agreed. See revised policy,
, impacts from sewage place- the Environment particularly with sanitary N.J. Builders 5.14, and general question D.
O ment are going to be con- conveyance systems, should Association
Im sidered at all. be analyzed with respect

534. to its potential impacts I
on the natural & man-made
P. 159, 8.14 Change the Diane Graves While this wording was not used, on the natural
first sentence to read: Sierra Club the revised policy 5.14 accom-
"Information on the probable plishes the same effect. BUFFERS & COMPATABILITY OF USES
secondary impacts of a pro-
posed development must be
included (or is required) Buffering requirements William G. Hengast Agreed; the policy seeks to assure
in all applications for should be designed to Camden County that the operation of any activity
development." 'ensure that different Environmental in the coastal zone is not unneces-
areas of the coastal eco- Agency sarily harmful to neighboring
535, system are not harmed by activities.
Pp. 159, 210. It is hard Anne Penna & The policy, 5.14, requires that system are not harmed by activities
to see a working relation- Dana Rowan secondary impacts of a proposed cent land.
ship between CLAM end the American development meet the Coastal
Secondary Impacts policy. Littoral Resources and Development Policies 540.
Society which include CLAM. 8.15 The issue of compati- Patricia Q. Sheehan Agreed. It is not only dealt with
bility of uses is central N.J. Department of in the buffer requirements. The
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~536. ~~~~~~to the planning process end Community basic policy of concentration re-
8.14.1 This policy must Marine Trades See revised policy. Secondary cannot be dealt with s a Affairs flecbs it. as do the various use
be expanded to include Association of impacts 5.14 which briefly dis- matter of buffer require- policies end th different develop-
.secondary environmental N.J. cusses the fact that DEP-OC2H mea. mnt potential riteri
and economic impacts be- will require a secondary impact
yond those envisioned by analysis based on the scale of
the policy. the project. This will include
environmental and economic impacts.

Comment Commentor Resmonses Comment Commentor Responses

BUFFERS AND COHPATABILITY OF USES - Cont. SOLID WASTE - Cont.

541. require the submission of
The requirements for buffers Thomas A. Thomas The policy has been revised. disposal site plans by
in industrial developments Townplan Associates See 5.15. the Army Corps of Engi-
are unrealistic. If a for N.J. Builders neers to verify that
buffere requirement is Association their operations are not
going to be established, significantly affectinS
it should be encouraged Charles E. Romick coastal resources.
in accordance with muni- Gloucester County
cipal aoninag and sub- 545.
division regulations. Ciordano, Halleran P. 161, 8.16.1 I suggests Diane Graves = Similar language has been used;
and Crahay for "Solid waste shall be Sierra Club see revisions in 5.16.
N.J. Builders handled & disposed of (or
Association managed) in a manner con-
sistent with the Resource
542,. Conservation 6 Control Act
There is no reason given Giordano, Halleran See revised policy, S.15. Also, (P.L. 94.580) and New
for the specific require- & Craheay for reread 5.15.2. There is no Jersey's Solid Waste Han-
ments like the height of N.J. guilders suggestion that residential agement Act-(Chap. 326,
saplings and the spacing Association development should provide the NJSA 1311E-I et seq).
of plantings. Also, the buffer to industrial uses. Coastal development is
requirement that resi- encouraged to recover
dential uses may have to material and energy from
buffer an industrial site solid waste to the maxi-
is contrary to accepted mum extent practicable."
planning techniques of the
XP industrial use buffering ENERGY CONSERVATION
the residential use
546.
543 . P. 162, 8.17.1. On line lDiano Graves The policy has been revised and
What are the buffers re- Thomas L. Bertone Buffers requirements are evaluated I change "encouraged" to iSierra Club approaches this suggestion. See
quired between residences, N.J. Office of through the permit program on a "required". 5.17.
between residential areas Fiscal Affairs case by case basis. See policy
and agriculture, or con- 5.15. NEIGHBORHOODS & SPECIAL COMMUNITIES
cerning special communi-
ties? 547.
P. 162. The policy for tVillias G. HeNget This hypothetical example is
SOLID WASTE neighborhoods and special fCamden County clearly contrary to the interest
communities is too broad 'Environmental of the program. See, for example,
544. and might be used to pre- Agency policy 4.2.5 as well as 5.18.
This County has been con- Christopher Warren See Coastal Engineering Use vent desired development in
cerned with the control of Salem County Policies, 4.8, and especially the coastal zone. For
dredge spoils disposal Planning Board 4.8.6. example, it might be in-
operations. There are no voked to prevent low- and
procedures established to moderate-income housing in
control the effects of im- a particular ethnic neigh-
proper land disposal of borhood through the argument
dredge material. The man- that such development would
agement program should affect the neighborhood
adversely.

Comment Commentor Response

Comment Commentor Responses ENERGY

NEIGHBORHOODS & SPECIAL COMMUNITIES - Coat. GENER ENERGY

548.
It was somewhat discon- Daniel O'Connor Agreed. See revised rationale 552.
In general, we believe that D. W. Bennett No response necessary.
certing to see Bivalve Save Our River 5.18.2. the section covering energy American Littoral
and Shellple two towns nvironent isthe sectiong, covering energy d America Littoral
~~~associated with Cumber- ~~~~~~~~is strong, clear and much Soiety
associated wit h Coystmber- improved over earlier drafts.
land County's oyster
industry, singled out 553.
for preservation under With this energy program, Riker, Danzig, Disagree. The energy policies
the Neighborhoods and it will be virtually Scherer & Debevoise provide for a diversity of energy
special o mmunities re- impossible for N.J.'s and Hyland for sources and facilities.
source policies, utilities to supply essen- Jersey Central
TRAFFIC tial electric energy needs. Power & Light Co.
554.
549. Ps55 4-4 ape- aiyou. They
8.19.1 The traffic policy Marine Trades Disagree. Estimates of marine Pgs. 141-144. We ape- Marine Trades Tank you. They have been
should recognize that marine Association of traffic congestion must also con- cifically support sections Association revised slightly. See policies
traffic congestion may come N.J. aider the likelihood of state 7-4-4' 7.4.5. 7.4.7 of N.J. 4.4.5, 4.4.6, 4.4.8, and 4.4.9.
about when a navigation and federal appropriations to and 7.4.8 as protective
channel, otherwise capable maintain waterways. resource s mpo rtan t to
of handling large volumese
of traffic, is restricted 555.
due to shoaling. The
traffcdue to shoaling. The The Energy Facility Review D. W. Bennett The Board was established by
traffic volume and conges- Board is heavily weighted American Littoral the Legislature and can only be
tion should be projected on towards energy interests Society changed by them. Its' "weighting"
the basis of the ability of and does not provide for depends upon who the Governor
traffihe waterwayhen theyo care pr o-y third party participation. chooses to appoint to the
CO traffic when they are pro- third position. See revised
third position, See revised
perly maintained. OU in Appendix G.

CLAM CASE APPENDIX 556.

550. The makeup of this Energy James A. Schissias The restructuring of the Energy
We urge that Appendix N Elvood R. Jarser Appendix L includes one case Review Board is not broad Public Service Facility Review Board as con-
be expanded in the final Cape May County study. Additional case studies enough to provide diverse Electric & Gas Co, stituted by the 1977 Department
FEIS with respect to both Planning Board can be consulted at the DEP- and complete input. We , of Energy Act would have to be
geographical location of 0MOCZ office and may be pub- suggest wider representation amended by the Legislature.
the sites studied and the lished separately by DEP. including input from the
nature of developments Department of Labor and
analyzed. Industry and the Department
of Community Affairs.
551.
Appendix 0. The CZHP Patricia Q. Sheehan Appendix 0 was intended to 557.
would have been been N.J. Department of show pavement intensities DEP should possess the Robert W. Huguley The Department of Energy Act
better served if Appendix Community Affairs in typical housing develop- power to overrule siting Monmouth County does not permit DEP or any agency
0 was constructed from sents. The results would not decisions by DOE. Also, DOE Planning Board to overrule DOE. The powers of
the complete CAPFRA per- be different if CAPFRA ex- should not overrule siting the Board of Public Utilities
decisions on the local do conform to the second concern
mit review files rather amples were taken. One case
than a series of indi- study is included in Appendix L. level unless such policies raised.
vidual site plans. are clearly obstructionisat
and interfere with the
location of a pipeline or
other corridor.

Comment Commentor Response Comment Commentor Response

GENERAL ENERGY - Cont. GENERAL ENERGY - Cont.

558. 562.
We heartily approve your Kathleen n. Rippere Thank you. See revised policies We agree with policies Riker, Danzig. These policies are now 4.4.3-
approach to energy with League of Women in Section 4.4. 7.4.2 - 7.4.11 Scherer & 4.4.12. The language has been
emphasis on recycling and Voters Debevoise & Hyland modified slightly.
conservation. Also, we for Jersey Central
support the routing of Power & Light Co.
pipelines, wherever pos-
sible, along established 563.
rights-of-way and avoid- The Coastal Program should Thomas L. Bertone The new Chapter Three does recog-
ance of the center of the note that ocean shore Office of Fiscal nize the first part of the comment.
Pine Barrens. Knowing tourism is much more impor- Affairs The expansion of existing port
that leaks in gas pipe- tant to the State's economy areas, rather than creation of
lines cause the death of than bay shore recreation, new ones, is permitted. See
trees, we wonder why the With this in mind, the policy 4,7.
standards for their use Delaware Bay should be
through the Pine Barrens reexamined for potential
is less stringent that for port sites.
those for oil pipelines.
We like your criteria for FEDERAL PREEMPTION
the acceptability of nu-
clear generating stations. 564.
The Bay and Ocean Shore Debevoise and The policy has been changed and
559. Segment infringes on the Liberman for is consistent with existing laws.
7.4.1: Until rules for Clayton D. Peavey While it would be desirable to exclusive power of the Public Service See policy 4.13(d) and (e).
arbitration between DOE The Port Authority have these rules in place at Nuclear Regulatory Com- Electric & Gas Co.,
and DEP by the Energy of N.Y. and N.J. this time, the siting policies mission to regulate Jersey Central
4P Facility Review Board are are sufficiently articulated nuclear generating Power & Light, Co.,
� defined, it is impossible by virtue of NJDOEB's adoption facilities. and New Jersey
T to comment on general of the CZHP siting policies N44ural Gas Co.
energy facility siting in section 6 of Appendix 0 to ti
policy, allow comment. 565.
N.J.'s authority to regu- Debevoise and See above response and also
560. late nuclear power plants Liberman for revisions to LNG policy 4.4.14.
We question the legal D. W. Bennett See Appendix G, Chapter Five, siting and safety, liquefied Public Service
strength of the memo of American Littoral and General question H. natural gas siting safety Electric & Gas Co.,
understanding (MOU) be- Society and gas pipeline siting Jgrsey Central
tween the two departments has been pre-empted by a Power 6 Light, Co.,
and its effectiveness in pervasive scheme of federal and New Jersey
protecting marine resources. legislation. Natural Gas Co.

561. James A. Schissias
I don't understand why a Ruth Fisher No response necessary. Public Service
.PSE&G representative would Citizens Associa- Electric & Gan Co.
say that nuclear power tion for Protection
is discouraged. They have of the Environment Robert Brown
gotten all the permits that U.S. Labor Party
they ever wanted from the
state.

Comment Commentor Response Corment Comentor Response

FEDERAL PREEMPTION - Cont. GENERAL ENERGY FACILITY SITING POLICY - Cont.

566. of the Clean Air Act could
The program fails to give Debevoise and See revised policy 4.1.13 and make the siting of fossil
adequate consideration to Liberman for responses to Nuclear Regulatory fuel plants virtually im-
the national policy regard- Public Service Commission comments. possible in N.J. and leave
ing nuclear generating Electric & Gas Co.., only the exotic energy
facilities by imposing Jersey Central types open.
unreasonably stringent Power & Light, Co..
siting standards. and New Jersey 571.
Natural Gas Co. P. 137, 7.4.1 To avoid James A. Schissias Agreed. See CAFRA Procedural
overlapping responsibilities Public Service Rules and Regulations. N.J.A.C.
567. and unnecessary delays in Electric & Gas Co. 7:7D-2.4(b)2.
The disposal of spent fuel James A. Schissias See revised policy 4.13. the development of energy
from nuclear plants poses Public Service facilities we suggest
no unacceptable safety or Electric i Cas Co. that a phrase be added to
environmental hazards to the existing paragraphs
N.J. residents. No deposi- "State reviews should not
tory is planned nor duplicate and extend
expected to be built in existing fact finding
N.J. studies and should be
limited to those areas
GENERAL ENERGY FACILITY SITING POLICY not already covered
in detail by the Federal
568. regulatory process."
P. 139. The use of the Atlantic County The policy has been thoroughly
"maximum extent feasible" Executive's Office changed. See 4.4.2. 572.
provision is totally The CAFRA policies and Michael Havrisko Agreed. See energy use policies
inappropriate in policy guidelines must be ape- League of Conser- 4.4.
7.4.1. cifically outlined with vation Legislation
respect to energy siting in
569. the coastal zone. Further-
We are concerned that the James A. Schissias The Program addresses the 'range more the Pine Barrens must
NJ CHP may not be consia- Public Service of energy facilities and pro- be protected from exploits-
tent with the intent of Electric & Gas Co. vides rationales for the siting tion by the oil and gas
Congress and the purposes of energy facilities. It com- industries.
of the national Coastal Zone plies with the intent and spirit
Management Act. While the of Section 303 of the federal 573.
proscribing of electric CZN Act. See revised energy P. 212. The program active- James A. Schissias Disagree. The program establishes
energy and LNG facilities policies in Section 4.4. See ly discourages and effect- Public Service stringent conditions which such
from the coastal zone is also General Question A. ively excludes nuclear and Electric & Gas Co. facilities must meet.
not intended by the Act, LNG facilities from the
this can be the result of coastal zone.
the implementation of the
NJ CNP with its present 574.
provisions. No protection exists such Thomas V. O'Neill Use of existing facilities will
as grandfathering for New Jersey Inde- be unaffected. Expansions, addi-
570. existing facilities. pendent Liquid tions, modifications so sizeable
The restrictions of this James A. Schissias Disagree. See Energy policy. Terminals Associa- as to require a federal or state
program regarding built Public Service 4.4. tion permit will be subject to review.
up areas and the provisions Electric i Gas Co.

Comment Commentor Response Comment Commentor Response

GENERAL ENERGY FACILITY SITING POLICY - Cant. GENERAL ENERGY FACILITY SITING POLICY - Cant.

575. 580.
Siting flexibility is needed James A. Schissias Agreed. Most siting policies Will this act (CAFRA) be Alfred Coleman If any new legislation affecting
and must be provided in the Public Service are qualified by the statement amended when the energy the coastal zone is passed, the
final program Electric & Gas Co. "to the extent feasible" and siting bill is signed into policies and procedures of the
"consistent with the national law. Coastal Program will be changed
interest". as necessary. Such changes will
follow public review and comment.
576.
The General Energy Facility William Potter See revised policy 4.4.2(b).
Siting Policy still does Public Advocate GENERAL OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY
not require that utility
applicants demonstrate 581.
that there are no 7.4.2. -This board objects Dr. Phillip Phelon Due to channel depths, distance
"feasible end prudent to the encouragement of OCS Cuhberland County from the OCS tracts, and
alternatives" to the pro- related facilities to Economic Develop- existing land use patterns,
posed facilities. locate in developed areas. ment Board Cumberland County is largely
This would preclude unsuited for energy facilities.
577. Cumberland County from See, however, Use Policy
The NJDOE master plan is Robert W. Welch The State Energy Master Plan in participating in what may 4.4.6 which suggests the
not contained in the Columbia Gas draft form, but the letter from be the largest new economic county as a possible site for
Coastal Program, yet under System Service the Commissioner of N.J. DOE con- opportunity to come to N.J. repair and maintenance facili-
the program, energy facili- Corporation tained in Appendix G, certifies ties.
ties must demonstrate that the part of the plan rele-
consistency with the vant to this program will be 582.
master plan. Thus consistent with Chapter Pour. We agree with the encourage- Winifred D. Meyer No response necessary.
. it is impossible to Thus, the CZH policies and the ment of OCS related facili- American Associa-
I conduct a meaningful review relevant parts of the Energy ties only in developed tion of University
of this. plan are consistent. areas and that pipelines Wo:men
must follow already devel-
578.. oped rights-of-way.
The policy of clustering Robert W. Welch Disagree. The purpose of clus-
energy facilities fails to Columbia Gas tering is to protect air quality 583.
consider the Clean Air Act System Service and promote orderly development. The areas where pipeline Winifred D. Meyer Disagree. The conditions for
amendments of 1977. Corporation Complying with Clean Air Amend- corridors are prohibited American Associa- approval of a pipeline (location
ments does not conflict with this should be enlarged. Also, tion of University Policy 4.4.8) will protect
goal. the same prohibition should Wopen other areas, while giving New
apply to all possible Jersey the flexibility to
579. pollutants. evaluate alternate locations
The Plan violates CZMA James A. Schissias Disagree. The program as revised for pipelines.
regulations for its failure Public Service contains all the necessary ele-
to be a complete document Electric & Gas Co. ments required by 15 CPR 923.14 ONSHORE SUPPORT BASES
as evidenced by Section that will allow DEP-OCZM to make
,6.6.7.5 which states only a siting decision. See also 584.
"this Section is reserved General Question A. 7.4.3 The policy does not William Potter Agreed. The policy has been
pending completion of joint prohibit support structures Public Advocate changed. See Use Policy 4.4.4.
coastal energy facility in undeveloped arenas but
siting studies by DEP and merely encourages such
DOE... development in already-
built-up urban waterfronts.
In short, the policy is too
open-ended.

Coimment Commentor Response Comment Commentor Response

ONSHORE SUPPORT BASES - Cont. PIPELINES AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES

585.
590.
P. 140, 7.4.3 We disagree James R. Kelly Perth Amboy was cited as an The pipeline policy is not Patricia Q. Sheehan Disagree. The pipeline policy
with the predetermination of Delaware River example in the DEIS. It was coterminous with your bound- N.J. Department of (4.4.8) deliberately recognizes
location, e.g. Perth Amboy. Port Authority examined in depth by a Rutgers ary with regard to the Community Affairs efforts by DEP. DCA and others
The management program University study team and Central Pine Barrens area to protect the Pine Barrens.
should evaluate all alter- found to satisfy the necessary and may be in conflict with The pipeline policies enunciated
natives. Siting criteria for * support the preliminary policy by DOE and DEP are compatible.
base. Applications to site in statement of NJDOE
Perth Amboy or elsewhere will entitled "Determination of
still have to meet the location, the Need for Energy FacLli-
use and resource policies. ties".

586. 591.
Pp. 140 and 204. State- Atlantic County Agreed. The first reference, P. 180. On line 6, after Diane Craves Agreed. See revised Part III.
ments regarding onshore Executive's Office discouraging onshore support bases "feasible" insert "that Sierra Club This sentence is also part of
support bases in Atlantic in the Segment including Atlantic oil pipelines are prohibited of Use Policy 4.4.8(c).
City on page 140 and 204 City (now Use Policy 4.4.4) is from the Central Pine Barrens
are inconsistent. correct. The latter reference and gas pipelines shall," or
in Part II has been corrected. refer to page 141-142 Sec-
tion 7.4.7 (c), or both.
587.
7.4.4 The bridges crossing Cumberland County Agreed. This is reflected in Use 592.
the Delaware. River pro- Planning Board Policy 4.7-5. P. 142, 7.4.7 (e), line 12. Diane Craves This is accomplished by the
hibit the fabrication of After "Segment" insert "and Sierra Club language of Use Policy 4.4.8
platforms in Salem, the Central Pine Barrens". and 4.4.10.
Gloucester and Camden
J counties because of 593
clearance restrictions. P. 142, 7.4.7(e) To the ipobert V. Welch Agreed. This has been added
second sentence add "and lFolumbia Cas to Use Policy 4.4.8(f).
588. compressor stations` after System Service
Cumberland County has the Dr. Phillip Phslon Disagree. The possible short-ter ..processing plant." Cor porst ion
most suitable sites for Cumberland County economic benefits would be greatly
platform construction Economic Develop- outweighed by the long-term eco- 594
yards and our economy ment Board nomic and environmental disruption We feel both oil and gas Diane Craves Gas pipelines may be subject to
needs such activity more in the region. See revised Use pipelines should be prohi- Sierra Club federal preemption. Oil pipe-
than adjacent counties do. Policy 4.7.5. bited from the Central Pine T lines must take account of
PIPE COATING YARDS Barren. weare national interest provisions
concerned that NJDOE can of the CZH Act. BL's pro-
589. override DEP's policies. posed transportation study
7.4.6. The encouragement of Clayton D. Peavey While this subject will be recon- o psere tr at
pipe coating yards in the The Port Authority sidered in greater detail in the follow rights-of-way having
waterfront north of CAPRA of N.Y. and N.J. next part of the Coastal Program, the leas adverse envirohmental
is inappropriate for this it is appropriate for New Jersey i pects and that decions be
Segment. This subject to indicate that energy facili- made which will mutually accept-
'ahould be thoroughly recon- ties inappropriate in the Segment able.
sidered in the Northern can be accommodated elsewhere
Waterfront and Meadowlands in the coastal zone.
Segment Program, and not
foreclosed in that area.

Comment Commentor Response
Conaunt Comentor Response
PIPELINES AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES - Cent.
STORAGE OF CRUDE OIL. NATURAL GAS AND OTHER POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS LIOUID SUBSTANCES
Cent.
�.595.
I believe it was DEP'S Robert V. Welch Agreed. See revised langusage
intent that the term Columbia Gas in Part III. providing they do not co
"rights-of-way" included System Service tribute unacceptably to
in line six of this par Corporation the degradation of air or
graph was meant to be vwter quality
"transportation corridors".
The use of the term "pipe- TANKER TERMINALS
line corridor" is properly
used in line eight of this
paragraph. Policies concerning deep- Thomas L. Bertone Deepwater ports are now addressed
water petroleum ports are Office of Piscal in Use Policy 4.4.12.
GAS PROCESSING PLANTS omitted. Affairs

596. 601.
FP 144, 7.4.9 We recommend Atlantic County Agreed. Such a capability is being Port policies limiting port- Thomas L. Bertone Disagree. See rationale to Use
that someone at DEP should fecutive'a Office developed. related development only to Office of Fiscal Policies 4.4.12 and 4.7.
~~~~~be developing a capability '~~"established port areas" Affairs
be developing a capability
to determine, independently Diane Graves are too constraining.
of oil company advice or Sierra Club
j udgement "*maximm .02
feasible distances" 7.4.11 This policy appears Thomas L. Bertone This policy. now 4.4.12, and all
inconsistent with Appendix Office of Fiscal the energy policies have been
597. A to A Draft of the State Affairs prepared Jointly by DEP and DOE.
P. 144. Policies should Charles E. Romick This is stated in Resource Enernv Naster Plan, Hay,
emphasize that gas process- Gloucester County Policies 5.3 and 5.10. 1978 p 24 regarding
ing and gas separation
t plants can only be built and deepwater ports.
if they do not unacceptably ASE LOAD ELECTRIC NERATING
contribute to the area's BASE LOAD ELECTRIC GENERATINGSTATIONS
overall air and water i6
quality degradation. 603.
P. 145, 7.4.12 We find the James A. Schissias This policy has been revised.
598. policy confusing, and con- Public Service See Use Policy 4.13.
P. 211, (3) The criteria Etwood R. Jarer The language in Part III has ider that compliance with Electric & Gas Co.
"technical and economic Cape may County been changed. The phrase can the Clean Air Act may pre-
reasons" are vague and Planning Boord be clarified by reference to vent fossil fuel plants from
should be made more the Energy Use Policies in -iting in the Coastal Zone.
explicit. Section 4.4 of Part Since the trade-o.fs be-
tween nuclear and fossil
STORAGE OF CRUDE OIL. NATURAL GAS AND OTHER POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS LIOUID SUBSTANCES fuel stations are unclear,
the esseil fuel option
599. should be kept open.
P. 144. The "Delaware William . Hlengst This is a proper interpretation.
River Port" needs to be Camden Comunty The implications of the policy
defined. We interpret Environmental outside the Segment will be defined P. 145 7.4.12-13 These Willia Potter Disagree. New legislation would be
the policies for storage Agency specifically in the Program for policies should be spe- Public Advocate required. DEP i an administrative
sites as permitting that area, In part through the work cifically extended to plants agency.
sites as permitting that area, in part through the work
their location inland from being done by the Environmenal currently under construction,
the coastal zone and ports Agency. even if new legislation is
required.

Comment Commentor Resownse Comment Commentor Response

BASE LOADR ELECTRIC EGENERATIIN STATIONS - Cont.

605. .
7.4.13.d The requirement William Potter Agreed. See Use Policy A.13(c) P. 145, 7..13.b- The Elwood R. Jarmer The policy has been revised.
should be extended to Public Advocate nature and extent of the Cape May County See Use Policy 4.13.
coal-fired plants. evidence that constitutes Planning Board
"clear proof" of "need and
606. vital importance" should
7.4.12. This policy Clayton D. Peavey Disagree. See revised Policy be specified in a detailed
combined with federal air The Port Authority 4.13(c). and comprehensive statement.
quality standards would in of N.J. and N.Y. Likewise, the information
effect ban new coal plants, requirements leading to the
in direct opposition to required "assurance" should
Federal policy. also be specified.

607. 611.
7.4.12. As set forth in Riker, Danzig, Agreed. See revised Use Policy The statement that the James A. Schississ Agreed. This has been corrected
Section 7.4.1, the siting Scherer, 4.4.2. Atlantic Generating Station Public Service in policy 4.13.
and construction of pro- Debevoise and application was filed Electric & Gas Co.
posed new electric genera- Hyland for Jersey since 1975 appears to be
ting stations must be in Central Power & in error.
compliance with the rules Light Co.
and regulations of the NJDOE 612.
expressed in its easter Plan. 1.4.13.e Since population James A. Schissias This is the intent of the
and must satisfy the need increases are analysed in Public Service revised Use Policy 4.13.
criteria set forth therein. NRC applications and because Electric 6 Gas Co.
DEP has significant controls
608. around nuclear plants,
Insufficient electrical James A. Schissias The relative benefits of nuclear language should be changed
energy can have a signift- Public Service power alternatives are addressed to "the proposed nuclear
cant adverse impact on the Electric & Gas Co. in detail in the Presidents' facility has been proven toli
welfare and economic well- National Energy Plan with which the Department of Energy as I
being of N.J. residents. this program is consistent. See the most effective from a
Nuclear energy provides Chapter.Six for further informa - cost/benefit standpoint."
the safest and least tion.
expensive means to meet the 613.
State's needs now and in the Nuclear energy is indispen- Robert Boven Nuclear energy is one of many
immediate future. sible to meet energy demandsf' U.S. Labor Party sources which must be considered.
See revised Use Policy 4.13.
NUCLEAR ELECTRIC GENERATION STATIONS Jamea A. Schissias
Public Service
609. Electric & Gas Co.
P. 180 and 181. The James A. Schissias The entire nuclear energy policy
stipulations "feasible Public Service has been modified. See Use 614.
and economical energy Electric & Cas Co. Policy 4.13(d) and (e). We do not believe that under- Alfred Coleman Both the DEP and Department of
alternative" on pages estimating radiation expo- Public Advocate have been working
180 and 181 should be sure by a factor of 100,000 with the Nuclear Regulatory
modified. or more is acceptable. Commission to reduce unacceptable
risk.

Comment Commentor Resnonse

NUCLEAR ELECTRIC GENERATING STATIONS - Cont. Coment Commentor Response
LIOUIPIED NATURAL GAS - Coant.
615.
P. 145, 7.4.13 This entire James A. Schissias The section has been revised.
621.
section is biased, imply- Public Service See 4.4.13. P. 181 and 146. The LNG James A. Schissias True, although it has not yet
ing that nuclear plants are Electric & Gas Co. facility referred to on Public Service received all the federal approvals
unsafe. The entire section
unsafe. The entire section Staten Island is not a Electric & Gas Co. necessary to operate.
should be revised. "proposed" facility
but is an actually
The Program fails to give Debevoise & See the national interest policy existi facility on
adequate consideration to Liberman for regarding nuclear facilities in 18 million in funds
the national policy regard- Public Service . revised Chapter Six. Also see
ing nuclear generating Electric & GOa Co., responses to Nuclear Regulatory
facilities by imposing Jersey Central Commission comments. 622.
unreasonably stringent Power & Light Co..
siting sta ndards. and Nt oers Light Co., As stated in the National James A. Schissias Revised Use Policy 4.4.14 is fully
siting staadards Natural Gas Co. Energy Plan on page 181 of Public Service consistent with the quote. Fur-
~~~~~~~Natural CamG ~ Co. ~the document, LNG "can be Electric & Gas Co. the information will be necessary
an important supply option before the word "can" which starts
617. through the mid 1980's and the quote can be made stronger.
Does the Act provide for a Alfred Coleman The decision to increase capacity
beyond until additional gas
CAFRA EIS to be amended to for spent fuel requires an amend- s upp lies may become avail-
provide the redesign or ment to the operating license able", end "the previous
increased capacity for issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Energy Resource Council
spent fuel pools. Commission. A public hearing on
the Salem 1 matter was held in June guidelines are beng
replaced with a more flex-
1978. Any change or addition to a ible policy that sets up
facility approved by DEP under no upper limit on LNG
CAPRA will have to be reviewed. imports", yet the program

618. discourages LNG facilities.
The grandfather clause pro- Alfred Coleman Agreed. Any modification to the 623
tects those nuclear facili- structure or change in operations The position to deny Jqes A. Schissias This policy has been changed.
ties approved prior to the however, must be reported and approval until the Federal Public Service See policy 4.4.14.
enactment of CAFRA. approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Energy Regulatory Commission Electric & Gas Co.
Commission. A hearing on PSEAG's responds to the petition
proposal to increase storage of of N.J. to establish a
spent fuel at Salem 1 held by NRC g ener al siting criteria
general siting criteria,
for LNG facilities is
619. :impractical.
I approve of the nuclear Alfred Coleman Thank you. Please note revisions
pfacility siting policy on. to Use Policy413.The State says that LNG Thomas V. O'Neill This misinterprets the policies of
page 145. terminals are acceptable New Jersey Inde- the Program. Recreational uses
LIOUITIED NATURAL GAS only at sites remote from pendent Liquid have highest priority for use of
population centers, con- Terminals Associa- waterfront sites, but other inter-
620. travening its previous tion eats must also be accommodated
Pp. 146, 181. NJOCZH James A. Schissias Disagree. See revised Use Policy determination of the and balanced. See Use Policies
continues to assert that Public Service 4.4.14. national interest in recrea- 4.3.2 and 4.4.14.
iNG projects are unaccept- Electional uses for this eg-
able and the policies ment.
effectively preclude
LNG facilities from the
coastal zone.

Comment Comentor Response Comment Commentor Response

LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS - Cant. CONSERVATION AND ALTERNATE TECHNOLOGIES - Cont.

625. traditional sources are depleted.
If FERC has fulfilled Thomas V. O'Neill The policy has been revised, but This policy supports N.J.'s
the requirements for LNG N.J. Independent the state must fulfill its energy conservation program
siting and safety suggested Liquid Terminals responsibility to balance com- pursuant to the Energy Policy and
in the NJCHP-BOSS, then any Association peting uses for the coast. Conservation Act.
siting decisions should be See Use Policy 4.4.14.
made by that Federal agency. 629.
Why "encourage" only the use Dr. Phillip Phelon The use of solar energy was in-
626. of solar energy when other Cumberland County eluded here as an example. There
The program seeks to con- Debevoise and This issue is addressed by the sources years ahead may Economic Develop- is no intent to limit new energy
trol both safety aspects of Liberman for revised Use Policy 4.4.14 and prove to be more desirable. sent Board sources to solar energy alone.
LNG facilities as well as Public Service revised rationale. Your position will dis-
their siting. Additionally, Electric & Gas Co.. courage efforts to find the
the program seeks to con- Jersey Central best possible energy sources
trol siting of interstate Power & Light Co., by concentrating efforts
gas lines (7.4.7), gas and N.J. Natural upon solar.
processing plants (7.4.9), Gas Co.
natural gas and other 630.
hazardous substance storage The coastal plan asks that Michael Havrisko The policy has been revised to
facilities (7.4.10) and conservation of energy be League for Conner- require such techniques when
tanker terminals (7.4.11). "encouraged" in coastal vation Legislation practicable. See Resource
which are federally pre- development. The League Policy 5.17.1.
empted. feels this policy should
be "required".
CONSERVATION AND ALTERNATE TECHNOLOGIES
;d' 631.
627. We have repeatedly said Ruth Fisher Disagree. New Jersey's vulner-
Solar energy is less effi- Robert Bowen While solar energy is more expen- that you can't go after "itizens Associa- ability to the OPEC embargo was
cient than other energy U.S. Labor Party slve now, it is expected to nuclear power and solar ion for Protec- related in large part to its heavy
forms and more expensive. become competitive with other power at the same time. tion of the dependence on oil. Tle use of
energy forms by the mid 1980's. Environment several energy forms is necessary
See Council on Environmental during the switch from non-renew-
Quality's 1978 study Solar Energy able to renewable energy sources.
Progress and Promise.
632.
628. P. 147, 7.4.15 This !Marine Trades Thank you. It is now Use Policy
Exotic sources are encour- James A. Schississ The Council on Environmental policy is commendable. AAssociation 4.13(f).
aged in the report, but Public Service Quality report cited above of N.J.
are not technically or Electric & Gas Co. indicates otherwise. CEQ notes
economically Justified. that electricity produced by 633,
photovoltaic cells may be pos- We feel strongly that there Winifred D. Meyers Agreed. See Use Policy 4.13.
sihle by the mid-1980's st a cost should be stringent limits- American Associa-
of 50d per peak watt (p. 17). tions on the use of nuclear tion of Univer-
At this price it is considered reactorS, and acceleration sity Women
competitive with conventionally of the technology leading
produced electricity. So-called to the development of ade-
"exotic" sources of fuel must be quate energy sources other
developed and encouraged as than nuclear, with emphasis
on renewable sources.

Comment Commentor Response
Comment Coamentor Response
FEDERAL CONSISTENCY - Cont.
FEDERAL CONSISTENCY
sidering a consistency deter-
634. mination, we suggest that
N.J. may not apply the Debevoise and The revised section of Chapter the following sentence
federal consistency require- Liberman for Six on consistency indicates that be added to this paragraph
ment to the entire CAFRA Public Service consistency will be applied following the second sentence:
"coastal zone"; the State Electric & Gas Co. largely within the Segment, but "The submission of a written
must restrict it to the Jersey Central also to activities effecting the notice to landowners is not
zone defined in the Power and Light Co. Segment in compliance with the required for natural gas
federal CZHA. New Jersey federal regulations 930.20. pipeline facilities subject
Natural Gas Co. to the Natural Gas Act."
a consistency determination,
635. we suggest that the following
Because the programs fails James A. Schiesias There is no intent or provision in sentence be added to this
to protect facilities Public Service the Program to decommission exist- paragraph following the
already existing in ti e Electric & Gas Co. ing facilities before the expir- second sentence: "The
coastal zone prior to ation of their life. The federal submission of a written
the adoption of the Plan consistency requirements became notice to landowners is
in conjunction with the operative only where additional not required for natural
federal consistency clause federal permits, licenses, or re- gas pipeline facilities
it would appear that the licensing procedures are already subject to the Natural
State's adoption of the Plan required by law. New standards Gas Act."
and its approval by NOAA and criteria can always be imposed
would be arbitrary and on these procedures provided they MANAGEMENT SYSTEM GENERAL
capricious and a denial apply equally to parties in simi-
of equal protectiqn under lar circumstances. See the 638.
the law. revised section on consistency For 300 years, this area Dr. Phillip Phelon With rapid growth alolng the coast
which defines major additions. has managed its affairs Cumberland County creating increased demand for the
expansions or modifications to quite well without all Economic Develop- coast's resources, the U.S. Con-
existing facilities which would this red tape. Your mlat Board gress, the N.J. State Legislature
require consistency certificate. actions are likely to and many individuals agree that
bring about changes far a state coastal management pro-
636. more disruptive than gram is necessary to balance
Submission and approval of Robert W. Welch Disagree. Consistency will apply those which would occur these competing demands and pro-
m partial Program does Columbia Gas within the defined Segment. otherwise. vide for both economic develop-
not trigger the federal con- System Service ment and for areas of preserva-
sistency provisions of Corporation tion. The Coastal Management
Section 6 of the CZMA which Program relies solely on exist-
only applies to final ing legislation and therefore
approval of a _co _lete lessens rather than adds the
CZKPP. red tape. Condemned shellfish
beds, waters so contaminated that
637. swimming would be harmful to health,
Second full paragraph on Robert W. Welch Disagree. DEP will not be able oil spills, declining estuarine
page 187. Since specific Columbia Gas to review a pipeline proposal productivity, flash floods, eroding
natural gas pipeline align- System Service until its route is determined, beaches, over harvesting of fish,
ments are not known and Corporation At that time, notification of and air end drinking water haz-
will not be known at the adjacent landowners will be ardous to health, can hardly
time DEP Is considering feasible, be described as "managing quite
well" and are some of the
reasons that Federal and State
government singled this area
o,,t as being of special con-
cern.

Comment Comentor Response Comment Commentor Response

MANAGEHENT SYSTEM GENERAL - Cont. MANAGEMENT SYSTEM GENERAL - Cont.

639. The problems caused by con-
It is difficult to see how Alan Avery DEP will review applications struction in them are well
this program with its Ocean County for projects over which it has documented in your Rationale.
emphasis on site specific Planning Board authority The authority, as
considerations, will ade- articulated by the Legislature, 644.
quately consider the re- is over aspects of projects P. 11. The State must ac- Narine Trades Agreed.
gional impacts of, for which could have regional in- tively assist in the devel- Association of
instance, 208 area-wide pacts. The program is being opment and maintenance of N.J.
Water quality Plans and coordinated with the 208 pro- private facilities that
projects submitted for gram through sharing of docu- complement the State's
A-95 review. ments and meetings, and the goals for the coastal zone.
reciprocal review of program
drafts for consistency. 645.
It is essential to have a Katherine Kievitt No response necessary.
640. management program admlini-
Does the N.J. program con- Jesse T. Horie Yes, in some areas the New Jersey stered at the State level,
tain more stringent re- Commercial program exceeds the federal mini- as this program will be,
quirements than are re- Township mum requirements; Air and water although local input is
quired by federal regu- Planning requirements, however, will be invaluable in forming
lations? Board governed by standards set under policies which suit each
the Federal Clean Air and Water area 's unique resources
Pollution Control Acts. and problems.

641. 646.
Who nare beneficiaries of N.J. Builders The beneficiaries are the How can you develop a tax N.J. Builders Each municipality in the cons-
policies? Association people of New Jersey and base in a community filled Association tal zone segment has developed,
CO elsewhere wlo value the coast with natural resources? end developable, land to form
for many different reasons a tax base Were a munici-
and purposes. pality totally or largely com-
posed of lands unsuitable for
642. development, special tax-sharing
Wlat are the costs N.J. Builders See General Question C. legislation might be necessary.
associated with imple- Association
mentation? 647.
As part of a regulatory HMarine Trades The State will actively seek
643. program, will encourage- fsaociation of maintenance of the channels.
We found the Decision- Kathleen H. Rippere Thank you. The goal expressed ment of maintenance dredg- *N.J.
Making Section an extremely League of Women is shared by the coastal program. ing be passive, applying
imformative compilation of Voters See Section 4.23 in Chapter Four. only to actual permit
laws affecting coastal applications; or will the
area decisions. This program actively seek main-
should be of use to many tenance of the State's nav-
people. We also appreciate igation channels? The
the arrangement for inter- latter should be the case.
governmental cooperation and
hope that out of it the 648.
federal policy regarding This 'draft environmental James R. Kelly The New Jersey Legislature. in
flood insurance may live up impact statement should Delaware River establishing CAFRA, the Wetlands
to its original promise to have considered all three Port Authority Act and the Riparian Statutes,
lessen development in flood- alternatives (local imple- has made direct state control the
plains and flood-prone areas. mentation, direct state only feasible approach. The

Comment Cosesentor Response Comment Conmentor Response

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CENERAL - Cont. MANAGEMENT SYSTEM GENERAL - Coot.

control, case by ease re- Alternatives Section in Part IV 653.
view) as required by law describes the alternative of So as not to delay imple- Thomas L. Bertone This is not possible. Under New
and let the people know local implementation. mentation or to risk loss N.J. Office of Jersey law, DEP must continue
what their options are. of Federal funds, we Fiscal Affairs to decide upon all CAFRA, Wet-
suggest that DEP perfect lands and Waterfront Development
649. the policies in the final Permit applications. Moreover,
The objective of the Cons- James R. Kelly The program is fully consistent EIS on "water areas" and within the CAFRA area, direct
tal gone Management Pro- Delaware River with, and in fact helps to carry "water's edge areas" under state control already exists.
gram should be the same Port Authority out, the objective of CAFRA. the option for direct State
objective as the Coastal control, while reducing the
Area Facility Review Act, use of "land area" policies
under the option of case-
650. by-case reviews.
The policies must be James R. Kelly The CAFRA objectives are listed
clearly stated to show how Delaware River in Section 10 and II of the Act, 654.
they promote predictability Port Authority and are reprinted in the DEIS and We suggest that the pro- D.W. Bennett That is the Intent. The section
and eliminate administra- FEIS. The Coastal Resource and cedures for regulating American of Chapter Five on the Shore Pro-
tive discretion in meeting Development Policies are consider- land use through the Office Littoral tection Program has been ex-
the CAFRA objectives. ably more specific than those sec- of Shore Protection be made Society panded accordingly. Also, the
tions of the Act. part of this document, policies of Chapter Four guide every
office In DEP. See Section 1.3.
651.
We think it is time for Donald H. Scott The Coastal Program is designed 655.
state government to take N.J. Chamber to improve and, to a large We wish to eliminate red Harry Fries Agreed. DEP policy is to simplify
gP an in-depth look at the of Commaerce extent, combine the administra- tape in the process of Cumberland County the permit process. It should be
P' multiplicity of programs tlion of three existing laws. CAFRA, wetlands and ri- Cooperative clear, however, that CAFRA permits
in the light of its over- The program is also intended parian decision making on Extension Service are not required for any agricul-
all impact upon New to prevent unwise land and agricultural lands. , tural activities.
Jersey's economy. Gov- water use decisions now which i!
ernmental costs have esca- would lead to increased public 656. i
lated in good measure due and private costs in the future. We are not certain exactly Roger Thomas The comment refers to proposed
to the proliferation of how DEP would coordinate Committee for A state legislation. Were such
regulatory bureaucracies. energy facilities siting Better Environment legislation'to be enacted, admin-
in the coastal zone with istrative details and regula-
652. energy facilities siting- tion would have to be clarified.
We feel strongly that New Donald H. Scott The coastal program is a step in outside the coastal zone, ,'
Jersey should have one N.J. Chamber this direction by closely coordi- over which DOE will pro-
state-level program wTth- of Commerce nating three laws, and providing bably have prime respdn-
respect to land usage, not a framework for all state deci- sibility (Bill S 1179).
six or seven. Such a pro- sion making in the coastal zone.
gram should be so consti- 657.
tuted that it will accom- These standards should Thomas L. Bertone Agreed. The DEIS and previous
modate the full scope of also be consistent with N.J. Office of drafts have been reviewed by the
the public's interests in development limitations Fiscal Affairs Pinelands Review Committee staff
land use planning, not the now being considered by and reciprocally, the Chief of
much more limited, special the Pinelands Review DEP/OCZM spoke before the
concerns that are repre- Committee. Committee, and OCZM staff have
sented, for example, in reviewed the draft report of the
the Wetlands or CAFRA Governor's Pinelands Review
laws Committee.

Comment Commentor Response Comment Commentor Response

HANAGEMENT SYSTEM GENERAL - Cont. MANAGCEMENT SYSTEM GENERAL - Cont.

A major concern is that the est Jersey The policies were formulated The State of New Jersey James A. Schissias The program is adopted not by
ElS provides no criteria Chapter of the only after evaluating regional lacks the statutory author- Public Service DEP or DOE but by tile State
for making regional deci- Sierra Club considerations. See Chapter ity to resolve conflicts Electric & Gas through the Governor. Because
sions. Three which has been added to between state and local Co. atate policy, the plan guides DEP
tone demonstrate regional issues. governments as sought by and DOE on decision making within
Also see Chapter Six, "Uses of the New Jersey Plan. The their jurisdiction. See "Con-
Regional Benefit". DEP and DOE have no author- flict Resolution" section of
ity other than that given Hanagement System, and General
to them by the Legislature. Question A for further response.

659. The adoption of the Plan The Program relies on existing
In general, the acceptance Joseph Heeney Disagree. The Coastal Resource is beyond the scope of authorities to assure that uses
of the program can impose Lacey Township and Development Policies pro- their respective author- of regional benefit are not
a financial disaster to Chamber of vide a method for making wise ities and thus, ultra arbitrarily excluded from the
every community it encom- Commerce coastal land and water use deci- vireo. Prior to t'-ie coastal zone.
passes. sins based on the best available passage of the necessary
information, and minimize the legislation, the State,
number of short-sighted deci- through the DEP or DOE,
saone which can, in the long run, does not have the author-
lead to great costs for a land ity to overrule local
owner or municipality. determinations on pro-
jects of regional and
national interest.
j 660.
P The potential lose of vege- Middlesex County DEP decided in 1971 to not under- 662.
taoted wetlands due solely Planning Board take the aerial photography pre- A complete disclosure that Loretta C. Henley This is unnecessary, given the
to an incomplete wetlands requisite to coastal wetlands New Jersey as a sovereign Sea Bright lengthy discussion of the State's
mapping effort on the part designation along portions of State has sold Riparian Environmental riparian powers at several
of DEP in disturbing. Only the Raritan River west of the Lands in the Atlantic Commission places in the program. On the
the coasta l lands regulated Garden State Parkway for finan- Ocean in certain areas, State's past practice of selling
by the co parian stal lands regtutes cial reasons. However, DEP did should be made in APPENDIX riparian rights, see the refer-
can be protected against delineate the Flood Hazard Area L - LEGAL COMMENTARY. ence in Chapter One - Coastal
the adverse environmental along the Raritan River, which HMnagement Efforts in New Jersey.
impacts of unregulated and encompasses coastal wetlands
unmanaged coastal develop- and triggers restrictive regu- 663.
m ent. lation by DeP's Division of The County Planning Staff Christopher Warren No response necessary.
Water Resources under New believes that a rational Salem County
Jersey's Flood Plains Act of decision-making mechanism Planning Board
1977. Also, the U.S. Army should be employed which
Corps of Engineers regulates relates to the advantages
wetlands along the Raritan. and disadvantages of de-
Therefore, coastal development velopment as stated in the
is regulated and managed along third policy. However, we
the Raritan River. also believe that OCZH's
responsibility to manage
the coast does not end
with such a method.

Comment Commentor Response

MANAGEHENT SYSTEM GENERAL - Cont. Comment Commentor Response

664. MANAGEMENT SYSTEM GENERAL - Cont.
664.
The Littoral Society ques- Anne Penna & As the three alternatives are
tions the validity of the Dana Rowan defined by the CZMA and Federal 668.
DEP's claim that this plan American Regulations, New Jersey's pro- The Lawrence Township Alvin Griffith Cle Assistant Administrator for
is one of direct state Littoral gram is is indeed one of direct Planning Board makes the Lawrence Township CZH cannot conditionally approve
control as defined in the Society state control. See General following requests of Planing a coastal program. The boundary
federal CZMA sec. 306(e) Questions A and B. Because AOM/OCZ: a.Onsub- Board proposed for the Segment is suf-
(1) (B). The plan states some coastal decision making is witting Coastal Program ficient to meet the requirements
"Most regulatory decisions local in nature does not *Iter to the Secretary It should of the CZHA. The boundary is
local in nature does not alter
will be made through the the fact that the management be noted that certain regu- also legislatively established
permit process," leaving program is one of direct state lations set forth in by the CAFRA statute. See also
the balance to the dicre- control. Riparan and wetland Lws, General Questions A and B
tion of rmunicipalities, end the coastal boundary
line in Cumberland County
are unresolved conflicts
665.
The EIS has glossed over Dresdner Associates Parts III-VIII of the EIS between the state and those
issues of significance for N.J. Builders have been made more sub- local governments. b. That
that touch not only on Association stantial. Also, ee for te cnfe t a target date
socio-economic impacts General question C. rthose conflict to be
but also on the philosophy
of governance in this
State. A more substantial 669.
EIS is requreed by NJDEP It is legal for the State D.W. Bennett No response necessary.
for an inlandre d 25 unit to control some land use American
subdivision than was pre- decisions in the coastal Littoral
p resubdivision this man wor and pr one. Both CAPRA and the Society
pared for this major and 'Wetlands Act have stood
significant document
which a ffects doen of up under court challenge.
which affects dozens of Neither 14W is arbitrary
communities within the Neither law constitutes
coastal zone. a taking without compen-

nation. In fact, it is
666. absolutely necessary for
Elimination of ambiguous Anne Penna & Agreed. bsolutely neces a sary for
language is crucial to: Dana Roan in coastate to have a say
1) increase predicability American two reasons: first, muni-
of the permit process, Littoral cipalities cannot with-
2) assure consistent Society stand the pressures to
regulation with changing stadd te pressures at the
administrations, 3) be expense of the environ-
understandable to non- aent; and second cooa-
specialists as required tat land use decisions
by CZKA, and 4) fulfill influence environmental
the intent of Hew influence environmental
the intent of New atconditions far beyond
Jersey's Coastal Area the limits of the de-
Facility Review Act.
velopment itself or
the municipality where
667.
The program should serve Giordano, Halleran Disit takes place.
as guidelines and not as & Crahay for policies as Rules adds to the
definitive rules. N.J. Builders certainty of their enforcement.
Association

Comment Commentor Response Cosment Commentor Response

MANAGEMENT SYSTEn GENERAL - Cont HANAGEMENT SYSTEM GENERAL - Coat.

670. 674.
Overall, while the rules Thomas L. Bertone The different state and local The economic growth of Dr. Phillip Pltelon Adoptloll of tese policies,
are a vast improvement N.J. Office of criteria result in part from Cumberland County may well Cumberland County by lessening uncertainty,
over the prior listing Fiscal Affairs the different concerns that be impeded with adoption Economic Develop- will speed tile decision-
of policies, they are too each must address. It is of these regulations in ment Board making process. Decisions
site-permit oriented, anticipated that, over time their present form. on CAFRA, Wetlands and Water-
overly complex and con- and through co-operation, front Development Permit appli-
fusing. Furthermore, the criteria will become more cations are bound by the 90 day
proposed standards lack uniform. The state-county law.
commonality with those of coordination project, now
existing agencies in the in its second year, is a675
area, i.e., county plan- step in this direction. Unless you develop some Charles Fisher Outside of wetlands and
ning board criteria. way which allows the Cumberland County riparian lands, the coastal
smaller entrepreneur to board of Chosen program will have limited effect
671. operate, your regulations Freeholders on small land owners. See also
Resource Policies are Thomas L. Bertone The Resource Policies, like the may have the further General Question C.
overly involved with N.J. Office of other policies, apply only the effect of eroding our
matters that should be Fiscal Affairs developments with regional In- property tax base in
of local concern only pacts defined in the Hanagement CAFRA areas. Huncipali-
and conversely provide System Chapter. Also see ties with a few large
too little concrete General Answer D. tax-paying property
basis for long-term owners may be more sub-
beneficial impacts re- ject to undue pressures
lated to protecting than those with many
I, water quality, water smaller businesses.
N supply, air quality,
N) etc., as intended.
New Jersey's DEP regula- Loretta C. Hanley New Jersey's Coastal Program
672. tions should conform to Sea Bright does meet the requirements
What is still lacking is Thomas L. Bertone See General Answer D. the Federal regulations. Environmental of the federal Coastal Zone
the basis upon which the N.J. Office of Commission Management Act, end other
State could determine Fiscal Affairs DEP programs operate in con-
carrying capacity" or formance with, relevant federal
ability to assimilate requirements and standards.
development. See General Questions A and B.

673. PROCEDURES
The EIS does not appear to Elwood R. Jarmer See General Question D. The
take a hard look at the Cape Hay County ElS has focused on the most 677
impacts the implementation Planning Board probable impacts occuring within DEP should have a staff HMrine Trades DEP has staff members with
of the Coastal Program the Segment boundary. When appro- member that knows about Association of knowledge about marinas, and
will have in non-CAFRA prints, the impacts beyond the operating a marina. N.J. also learns more from the
areas. Segment are addressed. However, active role played by the
numerous secondary impacts Marine Trades Association
that could occur outside the and other interested people
boundary would be too specula- in the preparation of this
tive to describe and are not and other documents.
included.

Comment Commentor Response Comment Commentor Response

PROCEDURES - Cont. PROCEDURES - Cont.

678. 687.
The N.J. Coastal Manasge- Wilcox, Gravatt Diaagree. The NJCIP-BOSS. Will the Coastal Resource William . Hengast No, but the Permit Review
ment Program document is HIacunda for is not a plan nor a product and Development Policies Camden County Officers will use the policies
illegal under New Jersey's N.J. Builders of the "practice of pro- replace the requirements Environmental in the pre-application confer-
law on professional plan- Association fessional planning" in the for an environmental im- Agency ences to indicate the specific
ners (N.J.S.A. 45:14A-1 context of N.J.S.A. 45:14A- pact statement, as de- information required. This.
et seq.) 2.(c). Rather it is a pro- scribed under Sections 6 will, in many cases, lessen
gram for managing coastal and 7 of CAFRA1 the amount of information sub-
resources. mitted as provided in Section
4.3.2 of the CAFRA Rules and
679. Regulations.
Procedures should be simpli- Robert W. Uugulay This is a goal ofDEP. Ex-
fied so that only one per- Monmouth County plorat ion of this ides is 688.
mit application is needed Planning Board a future DEP task to be The Bay and Ocean Shore Anne Penna i The requirements of NEPA. for an
for any proposed project. conducted during the next Segment is a lengthy docu- Dana Rowan EIS, and the many different
year. ment, both intimidating American Littoral interests of potential readers
and redundant in its cur- Society unfortunately necessitate.a long
680. rent form. It would be document. The schematic diagram
The costs of the permitting Marine Trades Streamlining the permit processes more manageable broken is a good idea and has been
process may discourage many Association after program approval should into two parts. A ache- added to Chapter Five. DEP will
desirable facilities which of N.J. reduce this cost. There is a matte diagram or timeline continue to prepare other types
are marginally profitable misunderstanding of the complexity which presents the appli- of more manageably-ized: reports.
like recreational ones, involved; the DEIS document is cation process In a
from siting in the coastal already simpler than some munici- straight-forward manner
I zone and thus frustrate pal ordinances and the FEIS is would be helpful.
1 the goal of "accommodating even simpler.
LW future needed development" 689.
stated on page 6. Would it not be possible Charles Fisher The DEP administers two types of
for proposed development Cumberland wetlands permits - Type A and
681. of the wetlands below a County Type B - for this purpose. DEP
I didn't try to get a L.R. Hudson Riparian leases are cancel- designated geographic Board of Chosen will explore further simplifi-
riparian lease, but. it lable only for forfeiture or and/or dollar size to Freeholders cation. in the next year.
isn't worth anything to non-payment. Leases do have use a simplified permit
me because it states it expiration dates however. system? Must everyone
can be revoked without go through the complete
cause. And then after application procedure?
getting that lease, I
am sent to the Army en- 690.
gineers to get another Does DEP make site visits Larry Wolinsky Yea. Site visits are made for
permit, and I'm still when reviewing an appli- Salem County each application. The site is
waiting on that. cation and what is done Planning Board surveyed to note the accuracy
on a site visit? of the environmental impact
682. statement. Particlar attention
A general theme in the Thomas A. Thomas It is admittedly difficult for is paid to those areas of the
document is one of re- Townplan an individual developer to site that may be environmen-
quiring applicants (in- Associates for evaluate regional questions. tally sensitive or may pre-
cluding municipal and N.J. Builders That is a major purpose of the sent unusual problems for
county governments) to Association coastal program and its poli- development. Samples and/or
evaluate many complex cies. Sensitive areas outside photographs may also be taken
and difficult questions the coastal zone are afforded during the site visit.

Comment Commentor Response
Comment Commentor Response
PROCEDURES - Cont.
LOCAL AUTIIORITY - Cont.
691.
We are concerned over the Niddlesex County The Coastal Resource and Devel- ordinances and meetings
fact that DEP does not have Planning Board opment Policies apply to ri- with local officials,
a general riparian lands parian decisions within the should help to provide
policy to guide coastal de- Segment. The program for the for sound development
velopment other than react- remainder of the Coastal Zone which respects the natu-
ing to individual appli- will include policies for all ral environment of the
cations on a case by case riparian decisions. See also coast.
basis. General Question D.
695.
692. A procedure should be de- Christopher Warren Agreed. The county coastal
The DEP does not have D.W. Bennett DEP is attempting to increase veloped by DEP to affirm Salem County coordination program does pro-
enough staff to do a American the number of staff. County plans as the con- Planning Board vide a framework for consi-
thorough job of proces- Littoral ceptusl policy for the dearing the integration of
sing CAFRA applications. Society area. The integration county plans which are con-
While this document states of County plans and the sistent with the coastal
that its policies can be State program has not program.
-enforced under present been adequate to date but
law (Wetlands, CAFRA, the coastal coordination
Riparian, Shore Protec- program should help
tion), this is only true address this problem
if there are enough peo-
ple to process applica- 696.
tiono. Staff in both Toward the end of actually Middlesex County DEP is committed to continuing
the CAFRA and Wetlands implementing coordination Planning Board such coordination, and will,
Section must be doubled. and full participation when necessary and feasible,
among federal, state, selectively use federal funds
693. county and municipal gov- to enhance the coordination.
Some prepurchase or pre- Narine Trades Agreed. With the funding under ernmentas, the Hiddlesex
planning guidance is de- Association of an approved Coastal Program, County Planning Board
sirable including, per- N.J. DEP will work to clarify and recommends that present
haps, a general mapping simplify these procedures. coordination activities
of the coastal zone show- between NJDEP - OCZH and
ins what uses would other governmental agen-
probably be acceptable cies continue particu-
in each area as well as larly for the Northern
what uses would probably Waterfront.
not be accepted.
697.
LOCAL AUTHORITY We assume that an appli- William C. Nengst Yes.
cant, seeking permission Camden County
694. to develop within the Environmental
The Planning Board has Robert W. Huguley Thank you, coastal zone, must obtain Agency
worked with OCZM staff on Nonmouth County approval both under OCZH's
a number of projects and Planning Board policies as well as under
appreciates the coopers- municipal and county land
tion shown in the past. The use regulations;
present State-County Coor-
dination Project, which re-
quires a review of local
master plans and zoning

Comment Commentor Responsent ent Respnse

LOCAL AUTHORITY - Cont.
LOCAL AUTHORITY - Cont.

698. - this purpose and has created
Will denial of develop- William C. Hengst State approval of a proposal * climate of uncertainty
ment approval by either Camden County cannot override municipal denial. toward the state which will
level of government pre- Environmental This is stated in explicit terms affect the opinion of the
vent proceeding with the Agency in the Municipal and County proposed coastal program
project? Or, will either Government Section of Chapter
of these approvals take Five. Very limited exceptions 702
precedence over the other? to thin situation are discussed Delay to correct deficien- Thomas L. Bertone Disagree. Federal approval of
in the Regional Benefit Decision cies in Chapter Three poli- N.J. Office of the program for the Segment does
Section of Chapter Six. These cies for subsequent incor- Fiscal Affairs not affect home rule. Such
limitations pre-exist the poration into a unified approval also provides addi-
coastal program. State Coastal Program at the tional funds for New Jersey to
end of 1978 would appear de- further refine and implement
699. sirable. Such action would the program.
The Day and Ocean Shore Thomas A. Thomas Disagree. DEP's contracts avert w hat appears to be un-
Segment reflects a lack Townplan with 12 counties, and county necessary interference with
of coordination with Associates for and municipal review of the home rule concerns.
county and local land N.J. Builders D05S and previous coastal
use planning efforts. Association documents has added local 703
expertise to the program. Decisions about "land areas" Thomas L. Bertone Disagree. The standards are clear
See revised Chapter Five should be deferred to county N.J. Office of and the counties do not have com-
and Appendix D. planning until better stan- Fiscal Affairs plete regulatory mechanisms to
dards for interpreting the implement the plans.
700. importance of environmental
It is debatable if the Alvin Griffith The federal CZMA requires states factors is developed.
N policies set forth under Lawrence Township to prepare comprehensive pro-
the coastal laws of New Planning Board grams which will address a 704
Jersey are legitimately multitude of issues described Should the municipal e Horia This not required, but is an
necessary, and do they in the findings and policies planning board send a ommercial excellent idea. DEP will con-
exceed reasonable defi- of the CZKA. NOAA feels New developer to DEP before ownship duct a pre-application conference
nition of the fede ral Jersey's program ii a p roper
nition of the federal Jersey' s program is a proper he buys the property or Planning Board and furnish written information
Coastal Zone Management interpretation of the Act, begins to prepare a which will help the potential
Act of 1972. state design? developers learn what types of

701. projects are likely to be ap-
I question whether the Alvin Griffith The state has worked with, and proved.
state has cooperated and Lawrence Township will continue to work with 705
participated with local Planning Board county and municipal governments. The institutional arrange- lan Avery e program, by its very nature,
governments throughout the See, for example, the Appendices ments between local, coun- Ocean County leaves a great deal of room
development process as Con- on the Coastal Planning Process ty and state programs must Planning Board for local plans. The state-
gress intended. In Sep- and Local Planning Process and b
tember 1977 Lawrence Town- Local Government Participation, Coastal Program apparently addressing this question.
ship Planning Board re- Before comnlitting additional, does not consider local
quested NJ/OCZM pass through funds, DEP will need to both concerns as reflected in
funds to the county to serve obtain further funding, and local and county zoning
and educate the people on evaluate the results of the
coastal issues. NJ/OCZH re- funding granted to date ( master plans.
sponded by passing on $4,335 total of $19,335 to Cumberland
which is not adequate for County).

Comment Comsentor Response

LOCAL AUTHORITY - Cont. Comment Commentor Response

706. LOCAL AUTHORITY - Cont.
The Bay and Ocean Shore Dresdner The program does not change the
Segment presents guide- Associates for existing relationship between policies and regulations of
lines (which will later N.J. guilders local and state governments. the Coastal Management
become rules and regu- Association Program. Quite correctly,
lations) for controlling you point out that these
development in a signi- impacts could be as great
ficant portion of the or greater than that of one-
State of New Jersey. large project. Very recent
These rules and regu- events have pointed out that
letions will usurp ele- developers are finding ways
ments of local land use to avoid coastal regula-
authority. tions by developing several
smaller projects instead
707. of one large project. It
The provision regarding Charles S. Romick They are not inconsistent. The goes without saying that
override of local deci- Gloucester County override provision is narrowly there exists a need for
sions which unreasonably applied as defined in Chapter administrative mechanisms
restrict uses of regional Six; and pre-existed the coastal to close these loop-holes..
benefit appears to con- management program. In the meantime however,
flict with the Management while these mechanisms
Systems's provision that are being developed, we
development proposals would like to strongly
must meet all local re- recommend that DEP-OCZM
quirements. adopt a posture of ac-
tively lobbying with
708. municipalities where this
The document may conflict Thomas A. Thomas . Disagree. The program relies type of development is
0I with the legal authority of Townplan Associates upon existing state laws which taking place to ensure
municipalities and counties. for N.J. Builders define the specific responsi- that local planners are
Association bilities of the state via a via aware of and consider
municipal and county governments, the cumulative impacts
of several small-scale
709. projects.
We find an extreme set of Joseph Heeney The DEIS in no way changes the
regulations that take away Lacey Township state-local relationship now USES OF REGIONAL BENEFIT
from the vital and neces- Chamber of existing since it is based on
sary home rule features Commerce existing regulatory authority. 711.
of townships and counties. The Department of Envi- Robert W. Welch Disagree. See revised language
Thomas V. O'Neill ronmental Protection Columbia Gas in Chapters Five and Six and
N.J. Independent (NJDEP) lacks the System Service General Question A.
Liquid Terminals authority to implement Corporation
Association the Program as contained
in the DEIS. There Is
710. no doubt that this
Another issue that is brought Atlantic County Agreed. This is one of the agency does not have
up in Part Ill, Probable It- Executive's Office goals of the state-county the authority to over-
pacts of the Proposed Action project. See also General ride local objection
on the Environment, is that Question D. to any of its policy,
of the cumulative impact of plans or guidelines.
a number of small projects
which are not subject to the

Comment Commentor Response
Comment Commentor Response
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~USE OF REGIONAL BENEFIT - Cont.
enacted for the purpose the Act. Also see General
712. of providing for compre- Question A.
N.J.S.A. 40:55-50 alone James A. Schissias Disagree. 306(c)(2) requires hensive land-use manage-
cannot satisfy the require- Public Service a method that bars unreason- ment of the coastal zone;
ment that the Program con- Electric & Gas able local restrictions on they do not provide the
tain authority to override Co. use of regional benefit (empha- override authority. in-
local ordinances or regu- sis added). New Jersey ful- dividually or collec-
lations. fills this requirement as de- tively, required by
scribed in "Uses of Regional applicable regulations.
Benefit" in Chapter Six, and
does not rely solely on the NATIONAL INTEREST
authority of the Board of
Public Utilities (N.J.S.A. 716.
40:55-550-19). All references to the Na- James R. Kelly New Jersey has used many
tional Energy Plan should Delaware River sources to define the na-
713. be deleted because the plan Port Authority tional interest. Although
It is self-evident that James A. Schissias Eminent domain fits into the is only a proposal which the energy plan has not been
these statutes [eminent Public Service coastal zone program since has not been adopted by approved by Congress, it does
domain) do not empower New Electric 6 Gas it is available for open Congress. reflect the views of the
Jersey to implement the Co. space acquisition. See Executive Branch and therefore
comprehensive land use General Question A. Moreover, contributes to an understanding
policies described in the these policies are for resource of the national interest See
segment. management rather than land use also General Question F.
planning.
717.
714. The program fails to take James A. Schississ Energy facilities are not ex-
-D. While this legislative James A. Schisslas Because of the strong municl- into account a realistic Public Service cluded from the Segment. See
._.J authority (N.J.S.A. 40: Public Service pal reliance on local pro- analysis of the national Electric & Gas revised Chapter Six.
55D-19 Board of Public Electric 6 Gas perty taxes in New Jersey, interest in energy facility iCo.
Utilities) allows New Co. the exclusion of facilities siting.
Jersey to assure that other than utilities by many
local ordinances could municipalities would not be PARTICIPATION
be overridden with "unreasonable." See section
respect to public on Uses of Regional Benefit, 718.
utility facilities, Chapter Six. New Jersey's proposed coastal J. W. Thursby No response necessary.
this authority certainly management program appears ,.Delaware River
would not satisfy the to be consistent with DRBC I'Basin Commission
requirement with re- policies and objectives, }
spect to non-utility including relevant criteria,
facilities. standards, and guidelines by
which to evaluate impacts
715. that could occur on the
The Segment cites numerous Kiker, Danzig, The FCZMA recognizes that the environment as a result
"authorities" embodied in Scherer and legal authorities for compre- of implementing the pro-
existing legislation to Debevoise and hensive CZN may already exist, gram. We agree that imple-
support its contention Hyland for but that a management system mentation of the State's
that the override set out Jersey Central is required to take advantage management program should
in Section 306(3)(2) has Power & Light of them. The argument that generate net gains in pre-
been met. However, these Co. special authority is necessary serving, conserving, and
authorities were not does not note this aspect of enhancing the environment.
We notice that many of the
factors considered in the

Comment Commentor Response Comment Commentor Response

PARTICIPATION - Cont. PARTICIPATION - Cont.

State's decialon-making 721.
process are compatible with What is the status of the Stephen Gabriel Same response as above.
DR3C's Comprehensive Plan proposal to fund interven- Ocean City
for development of the oral Hayor's Office
water resources of the
Delaware BaResin, including 722.
wetlands, and that there Also along the line of West Jersey This is exactly the approach DEP
is enough flexibility in public participation, we Chapter of the has followed. In the past four
the State's processes to would recommend a different Sierra Club years, the state has held three
allow coordination of method than you have been formal public hearings, but has
policies that could conflict using heretofore. We also held more than 100 informal
with other levels of govern- think you should have regu- meetings and workshops. In addi-
ment and with public agencies. far open meetings inviting tion, DEP-OCZM meets monthly with
environmentalists, county the "Environmental Advisory Group",
719. planners, industry, end an informal group of environ-
The public participation William Potter The public participation program legislators in order to mental organizations.
measures simply are not Public Advocate followed by DEP-OCZW is perhaps share ideas without the
adequate. There is still the most active of any agency in constraints of a public
no guarantee of sufficient New Jersey. Nevertheless, DEP hearing or the necessity of
time between public notice agrees there is room for Improve- responding to a draft final
of a hearing and the hear- ment. DEP's use of the mailing plan. Workshops could be
ing date to ensure that list it has compiled is a cen- arranged as the plan is
the public will have time tral, but not exclusive, part of being developed.
to prepare reasoned testi- its program. The early distri-
mony. Also, reliance on bution of the preliminary analy- 723.
IV a mailing list does not sis is a DEP goal often made We wish to compliment N.J. Winifred D. Meyers Thank you.
XS ensure adequate public difficult by the scheduling re- OCZH not only on its well American Associ-
I awareness of issues or quirements of the 90-Day Law. thought out document, but qtion of University
hearings. Finally, per- The hiring of additional staff also on its intense efforts Women
mission to examine DEP may also facilitate such dis- to encourage citizen parti- |;
documents does not satis- - tribution. cipation.
fy the public's need for
access to the preliminary 724.
analysis. You should be searching West Jersey This is a recognized problem. An
for a method which allows Chapter of the effort has been made to keep coastal
720. citizen participation but Sierra Club documents as short as possible
Regarding financial assis- William Potter DEP staff is skeptical about does not require the citi- T and to write them clearly. Future
tance to intervenors, the Public Advocate the idea, but open to being con- zen to read, understand, and ' DEP publications will include
DEP appears to be placing vinced. DEP will explore the balance such a large amount shorter, more educationally
its efforts on indefinite mechanism for such a program, of material. We're going to oriented documents. It is, however,
"hold" until the Public and the Public Advocate's and have to live with these regu- demeaning to the public to pretend
Advocate comes forth with others' suggestions will be artions for a long time and that coastal decision-making is a
a specific proposal. There welcome. it would be a shame to over- simple process which ceat be ade-
should be no question that look some important features quately addressed in a few pages.
public funding will enrich simply because there was too
the decision-making process much to deal with.
by providing the means for
largely volunteer citizens 725.
groups to present more ex- Efforts of DEP to solicit Charles ER. Romick No response necessary
pert advice on proposed public input into the Gloucester County
facilities. coastal management process
are to be commended.

Comment Cotmentor Response
Comment Commentor Response
PARTICIPATION - Cont.
PARTICIPATION - Coot.
730.
The League of Women Voters Kathleen H. Rippere No response necessary. Office, then the require-
of New Jersey is pleased League of Women ments of National Environ-
that you allowed an extended Voters mental Protection Act of
time period for comment on 1970 for full public hear-
the Coastal Management ings on the adoption of man-
Program for the Bay and agement regulations, will be
Ocean Shore Segment. ignored.

731. 734.
It was disappointing, James A. Schissias Disagree. The Strategy was a Public participation is to Stephen Gabriel See explanation of DEP-Colnty
procedurally, that earlier Puclic Service source for the DEIlS document and be enhanced through the Ocean City Coastal Planning project in
source documents for the Electric & Gas Co. was widely circulated. Alterna- County Planning Boards. iow Mayor's Office Chapter Five, The state-
"Strategy" were not cir- tives for the Coast and many is this expected to take county coordination project,
culated for comments until issue papers were among the place? now in its second year, in-
after the document was source documents for the Strategy cludes county sponsorship of
formulated and published. which were circulated; drafts newsletters and public meetings.
of the Strategy and the DEIS
document were shared with PSE&C 735.
and others. See Appendix B. There is a need/potential Stephen Gabriel Agreed. These are ideas m nP will
for more public education/ Ocean City continue to work to implemernt.
732. information work concerning Mayor's Office
We recommend separate Thomas V. O'Neill The proposed rules and regula- the need for coastal zone
public hearing conserning N.J. Independent tions were announced in New management, to publicize
the proposed rules and Liquid Terminals Jersey Rcgister Hay 4, 19i- social issues addressed,
regulations outlined as Association and public hearings were held, such as barrier free design
Chapter 3 of the draft Separate hearings were unneces- and unique communities, and
EIs before addptlon sary since the proposed state a layman's guide to the
and federal policies were Location, Use, and Resource
identical. Policies and CLAM. I

733. 736.
The DEIS indicates that the James R. Kelly Disagree. The comments submitted The Marine Trades Associa- Marine Trades DEP-OCZM works with and consults
intent of the Coastal Zone Delaware River by the Port Authority and others tion would like to see Association with both agencies. Both Depart-
Management Office is not to Port Authority are the basis for changes made greater participation by of N.J. ments submitted comments on the
have full participation of between the DEIS and the PrIS. the Department of Labor i: DEIS.
the Delaware River Port DEP-OCZM has met with Port and Industry and the Public
Authority as the Federal Authority officials in the past Advocate.
Coastal Zone Hanagement Act and will continue to do so,
so specified. The words particularly in the planning 737.
"may lead" show that our the Delaware River region of The Lower Raritan/Middlesex Middlesex County As the focus for coastal planning
full participation is op- the coastal tone. As to public County 208 and Water Planning Board is now shifting to include the
tional to New Jersey's hearing requirements, three Resources Association should Lower Raritan/Middleaex area, DEP
Coastal Zone Management. such hearings were held in June be involved in the design of will work more closely with the
In addition, if the heart 1978. a sensible and implementable 208 agency. The agency's comments
of the program, Chapter 3, coastal zone management pro- on the Coastal Management Strategy
is adopted as Administra- gram for the non-CAFRA areas. and DEIS have already been helpful.
tive regulations as rec-
ommended by the State
Coastal Zone Management

Comment Commentor Response Comment Conmaentor Response

PARTICIPATION - Cont. NEXT STEPS - Cont.

738. through a bistate compact
It is unfortunate that the N.J. Builders The dialogue has occurred in many or other arrangements as
response in some instances Association meetings and letters with the N.J. referred to in Section
is the first indication of Builders Association and others 303(d) of the Federal
DEP's position on some of for more then four years, and it Coastal Zone Act. OCZH
the criticisms. Wouldn't will continue. The type of writ- should more vigorously pur-
it be better to engage in ten response in this section of sue this issue during the
dialqgue on these comrments? the 1IS is a formal response for later segment of this
the benefit of the person who made management program.
the comment and for others who
were not part of the initial dia- 742.
logue. Such written responses We assume that in the William C. Nengst Agreed. The specific policies for
also provide time for research and Delaware River coastal zone Camden County the Delaware River area are being
reflection by DiP staff. the same goal--to restrict Environmental developed by DEP with the contrac-
development from areas with Agency tual assistance of Camden and other
739. a high potential to degrade counties, and the input of other
Greater participation by Marine Trades DEP's continuing program of water quality--will be interested groups.
people with direct working- Association meeting with groups like the sought. Attainment of this
knowledge in regulated uses of N.J. Narine Trades Association is goal will require different
must be included in drafting designed, in part, to take policies from those proposed
and applying policy regula- advantage of their expertise. for the CAFRA area due to the
tions. This can be accom- more urbanized nature of the
plished through membership Delaware River coastal zone.
on the Coastal Area Review
Board or through the use of 743.
-D- consultants from regulated The Littoral Society urges Anne Penna & T1tese are worthwhile ideas DEP
industries in all decisions consistency of local and Dana Rowan would like to explore in tile
affecting those industries. state regulations for American Littoral future. Tley are not required
building in tile coastal woclety for federal approval.
740. zone. Coordination with
The Task Force would like John Runyon Agreed. the Department of Labor and
to make the recommendation Lower Raritan/ Industry to devise a taxa-
that the 208-WRA be involved 'Middlesex County tion system which encourages
in the design of a sensible 208 Water Quality open space, in conjunction
and implementable coastal Hanagement Planning with Green Acres purchases
zone management program for Program could further protect coastal
the non-CAFRA areas of ecosystems. Transfer of
Middlesex County. Development Rights would
concentrate building. The
NEXT STEPS DEP could also encourage
consistent application of
741. the Management plan through
It is our opinion that New Christopher Warren Agreed. its contracts with regional
Jersey Coastal Zone princi- Salem County government agencies, requir-
pies should be required of Planning Board ing municipalities to under-
all new industry rather than take a natural resource in-
the blanket prohibition of ventory and land capability
certain uses under the analysis within a specified
Delaware Act. Therefore, time limit.
the State should pursue
interstate cooperation

Cogsent Comeentor Response
Coiment Cosentor Response
NEXT STEPS - Cant.
NEXT STEPS - Cont.
744.
Many of the facilities and Clayton D. Peavey Agreed. DEP will continue to 748
services of the Port of New The Port Authority work with the Port Authority The program should develop Patricia q. Sheehan Agreed. See Chapter our, Section
Jersey and New York relate of N.Y. and N.J. in developing a coastal program a trade-off, or balancing N.J. Department of 2.2 on "Principles" DEP staff
to the "national interest" for the Northern Waterfron. mechanisms, to resolve re- Community Affairs will continue to work with DCA
and "federal consistency" source-use conflicts. staff to reconcile the occasion-
features of the Coastal Zone ally conflicting planning
Management Act of 1972 (as philosophies with which the two
amended). Thus, how these departments seek to accomplish
matters will be carried out virtually identical objectives.
in the Northern Waterfront
and Meadowlands Segment 749.
Program. as well as in The permit application pro- John NHolland This idea, too, will be explored
Raritan Bay, become quite cess should be simplified Cumberland County with the first Program Admini-
important. We also hope for projects having a rela- Planning Board stration grant during 1978-1979.
that there will be some tively insignificant impact
harmonizing of policies on natural resources, per-
between these two areas. haps through the Institu-
tion of locally managed
permit procedures for
We believe that the State D. W Bennett The State is working with County minor projects, like
must maintain control over American Littoral Planning Boards, as well as indi- repair of storm damaged
land use decisions in the Society vidual municipalities, to assess docks.
coastal zone and not delegate the consistency of local plans.
its authority to counties or This work will continue. 750
I municipalities. Beyond that, -DEP should not require a Daniel O'Connor This is a good idea which will
L the State needs to approach permit application to be Save Our River be explored in the next years.
communities to see that their stamped by an engineer or Environment
zoning ordinances conform to an architect, especially ,;
coastal policies. for relatively minor pro-
jects.
746.
We approve the use of Kathleen H. Rippere Agreed. See above response. 751.
counties in the review and League of Women Several passages clearly Thomas V. O'Neill DEP intends to consider the
recommendation process and Voters indicate the intent of DEP N.J. Independent applicability of the policies
as a liaison to the public, to extend the currently Liquid Terminals in other areas, with full public
existing or proposed pol Association review and comment
747. cies designated for the
The State Office of Riparian Alvin Griffith One of the uses of funds available CAFRA zone to other areas.
Land Management has enacted Lawrence Township to implement New Jersey's coastal This procedure could be
an elaborate scheme for the Planning Board will be to review the riparian construed as implementing
control of waterfront areas. permit program and make any possi- regulations and policies
I have a growing concern with ble administrative changes or before comment is solicited:
the lack of coherence and in- recommendations for legislative
tegration of the environmental reform. 752
quality of the law and the If the statement about Marine Trades Disagree. First, the federal funds
regulations. In addition to supporting and promoting Association used by NJDEP for the Beach Shuttle
causing confusion and unneces- access to beaches and water- of N.J. in 1977 would not have been avail-
sary red tape the procedures front areas means using able to the State for another pur-
operate at great disadvantage funds to build facilities pose. Second, one of the strengths
to those who seek to conform and support programs like of the coastal program is the
to the law.

�Comnent Commentor Response
Comment Commentor Response
NEXT STEPS - Cont.
NEXT STEPS - Cont.
756.
the Island Beach shuttle, ability to not only plan and do The changing echanism is Wilox, Gavatt Same response as above.
we are adamantly opposed. research, but to actually implement extremely difficult to and Hacunda for
The need for research into the plans. Third, DEP will also realize; "The Coastal N.J. Builders
all aspects of the coastal continue to undertake research Program can be amended Association
zone is so great, that projects to further strengthen the through administrative
spending coastal zone funds coastal program. action of the Covernor.
for projects rather than Major revisions would re-
research is unconscionable. quire the approval of NOAA-
OCZM".
753.
The implementation of the H/h Dowdy This is a problem recognized 757.
riparian law to a private Members Bay Point by DEP. Under an approved Department of Environmen- Marine Trades This will be a priority of the
individual with no desire Rod & Cun Club coastal program, DEP will work to tal Protection permit pro- Association Division of Harin Services in
to make any kind of profit Association improve the administration of cedures must be simplified. of N.J. the coming year. Preparation
or to engage in any form of coastal permit programs and par- A further simplified, easier of the coastal program with
business is ridiculous. ticularly to address the impacts to obtain permit process must spelled-out policies for the
Therefore we feel you are of these programs on owners of be considered for small, new three coastal permit programs, is
concerned only with large small amounts of land. projects or maintenance of a major reponse to this observa-
-developers and commercial approved existing projects. tion. Federal approval of the
enterprises, program will provide funds and
opportunities to further simplify
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~754. ~~~~~~~~~~the process. It should be noted
If NOAA approved the docu- Wilcox, Gravatt The regulations will be in place, that small businesses outside of
ment as written, the faults and Hacunda but can be amended as necessary the riparian lands and wetlands
contained within will for N.J. Builders in the future. Also, the programot directly affeted by the
never be corrected. Association is subject to an annual NOAA re- coastal program
view. See response below.
758.
755. We are frustrated over tioe iMarine Trades Noted. Now that the state coastal
11ow can changes be made N.J. Builders The formal procedure for rule end cost involved in obtain- Association policies are explicitly stated,
in the rules once the Association change or amendment is pursuant ing various permits and with of N.J. DEP as well as private developers
document is adopted? to the N.J. Administrative Proce- the added problems created and interested citizens, will be
dures Act. This procedure, by discrepancies between the better able to seek consistent
applicable to all New Jersey state's policies and a muni- municipal policies.
state agencies, is not particu- cipality's ordinance .
larly cumbersome. In addition,
these rules are subject to NOAA/
759.
0CZM approval. Concerning sub- The CAFRA, Wetlands and HMarine Trades Tlis is a good idea which the
atantive changes, such as re- Riparian permits must be Association Department is working toward.
defining the national interest consolidated. Once con- of N.J.
in response to new federal legis- solidated, they must be
lation, or assessing cumulative solidated, they must be
mpaction, o asessing cumulativy, th e streamlined, without weak- Kathleen N. Rippere
uimpacts of a a policy, th FCpiA ening their effectiveness. League of Women
requires an annual grant appli- Voters
cation review to insure that the
state's program complies with Alvin Criffith
the Act goals. Lawrence Township
Planning Board

Coment Commentor Response Coment Commentor Response

NEXT STEPS - Coni. NEXT STEPS - Cont.

760. 763.
In order to gain a fresh Marine Trades DEP will consider this suggestion We are especially concerned Donald H. Scott The program for this area will
perspective on permit Association in the coming year. over what has been announced N.J. Chamber of be fully discussed and debated
consolidation an outside of N.J. as the "next stage" of the Commerce before it is proposed or adopted.
consultant should be brought Coastal Management program NJOCZM is not proposing the ex-
in to guide the consoli- development, namely, exten- tension of CAFRA, which is a
dation and streamlining. sion of CAPRA-'s provisions statutorily defined area. See
to cover the Delaware River General Question B.
761. and Hudson River-northern
We recommend that the sub- Richard A. Ginman DEP has referred to the CAFRA Rules waters areas of our state
stantive sections (9 and 10) N.J. Department of in the FReS and will further under the aegis of the
of the currently adopted Community Affairs explore this suggestion. There Federal Coastal Zone Man-
CAFRA Rules and Regulations is, however, no conflict between agement Act.
be examined and combined to the CAFRA Rules which are pro-
avoid conflict, duplication cedural and the Coastal Resource 764.
or overlap with the pro- and Development Policies which The Lower Raritan/Middlesex John Runyon This recommendation will be
posed rules. are substantive. County Task Force wishes to Lower Raritan/ evaluated by DEP as it prepares
continue once again, to Middlesex County the Coastal Program for the rest
762. strongly recommend that the 208 Water Quality of the State. It would, however,
Lack of a protective mecha- Middlesex County This situation Is being evaluated CAFRA boundary be extended Management require Legislative action.
nism forces Sayreville, Planning Board by DEP and the Middlesex County to include the Raritan Bay Planning Program
South Amboy and the remain- Planning Board as part of the coastal areas and Raritan
ing non-CAFRA coastal areas the planning for the second seg- River estuary to the Victory
of Middlesex County to rely went of the coastal zone. It Bridge and to ask UEP-OCZM
UP upon existing legal authority must be noted that any extension to specifically include
to control and manage coastal of CAFRA or other DEP authority this recommended boundary
zone development on their would require action by the change in this Coastal
waterfront. Wetlands and Legislature. Management Program document.
ripsrian permits are not
sufficient to manage coastal 765.
activities outside the CAFRA Home Rule has always been a WUst Jersey No response necessary.
area since they cover only thorn in the side of con- Chapter of the
that area up to the mean servationists (and reformers Sierra Club
high water line. The in general) who look to the
Middlesex County Planning state to see things more
Board wishes to continue, clearly, in a larger context.
once again, to strongly
recommend that the CAFRA 766.
boundary be extended to Because residential con- 0. W. Bennett This would require a change in
include the coastal areas of struction of less than 25 American Littoral the CAFRA by the Legislature.
Raritan Bay and the Raritan units does not require a Society To the extent possible, DEP
River estuary to the Victory permit, there can be an includes these considerations
Bridge and to ask DEP-OCZM accumulation of small impacts in its decision making. See
to specifically include through small developments. also General Question D.
this recommended boundary There are cases where many
change in the final Coastal more units than 25 can be
Management Program document. permitted with little envi-
ronmental impact and other
cases where a single unit

Comment Commentor Response Coement Commentor Response

NEXT STEPS - Cont. DETAIL CHANCES - Cont.

can cause serious environ- 771.
mental damage. Environmen- P. 173. The word "State's" Tri-State Regional Disagree. The plane referred to
tal sensitivity, not number should be "its" in the Planning Conmis- are state plans.
of units, should guide land sentence "... responsibility sion
use. for assessing consistency
between state plans
767. financed by ...".
We urge the Legislature to Diane Graves No response necessary.
reduce the threshold number Sierra Club 772
for housing units in order P. 260. The following William C. Hengst Noted. These changes have been
to gain control over sequen- corrections should be made Camden County made
tial development. to the list of municipali- Environmental
ties on page 260 of the Agency
768. document.
The courts have ruled that Harine Trades DEP has no power to alter tax
Wetlands Act regulations do Association rates. This is primarily a Deleted: Audubon Park
not represent a taking of of N.J. function of the Legislature, Borough
property by the state. That where relevant legislation (Wet- Oaklyn Borough
may be true, but wetlands lands Assessment Act) has been Added: Audubon Borough
are essentinially useless for Introduced. The Assessment Bill Camden City
development and to tax them is currently in the appropria- Magnolia Borough
on the basis of being fully tions committee and is not sche-
developable according to the duled for hearing. 773
tax rate for the area is P. 260. Logan Township is Charles E. Romick This correction has been made
totally unfair, omitted from the list of Gloucester County
municipalities within the
DETAIL CHANGES preliminary boundary of

769. the Coastal Zone,
The Resorts/Recreation see- Elwood A. Jarmer Agreed. The text has been 774
tion fails to note that the Cape May County changed. Some of the map numbers Cumberland County Agreed. Corrections have been
growth of tourism is not Planning Board given on the list on p. 255 Planning Board made. See Appendix E.
exclusively dependent on are incorrect
Atlantic City; demand for
recreational opportunities 775
will also spur growth and Pp. 203-204. Impacts on Elvood R. Jarmer This table is intended to be a
development. New Development and Land Cape May County generalized overview of the impacts
Values: We specifically planning Board of govermnent action on property
770. recommend inclusion of "Ex- value. This table has no direct
P. 173. The Delaware River James R. Kelly This was an inadvertant omission. hibit 2 of "Business Pros- applicability to New Jersey, and
Port Authority, which has Delaware River It is included in the FEIS. pects under CAFRA Zone Man- thus may be misleading in the revie,
decision making responsibi- Port Authority agement" prepared by Real of this program through the EIS
li~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~fthis prIamtrog the DEIwSr
litley in the Delaware Estate Research Corporation process.
Valley, is not lisated as for NOAA (Harch, 1976)
such ithabv i n t he above ls- in the FElS as it neatly
fication. summarizes the generally
positive economic effects
of coastal zone mangement.

Comment Commentor Response

DETAIL CHANGES - Cont.

776.
The LNG facility mentioned Charles E. Romick The correction has been made.
on pages 146 and 181 has Gloucester County See rationale to policy 4.4.14.
been proposed for West Dept-
ford Township. not beptford
Township.

777.
The figures regarding the Cumberland County The figure on page one is for the
geographic area of the Bay Planning Board entire Segment. That on page 13
and Ocean Shore Segment is for the CAFRA area only.
on pages 1 and 13 are
inconsistent.

Comments Response Comments ___Re ons___

NEW JERSEY PETROLEUM COUNCIL NEW JERSEY PETROLEUM COUNCIL - Cont.

778. c) Only the legislature can expand the boundaries The legislature specifically
New Jersey Petroleum Council believes the plan is See responses to specific ques- of the coastal zone and exercise or delegate the established a regulatory
not ready for approval at this time. tions below. authority to regulate the conservation and use of boundary for activities re-
coastal resources in the other segments. quiring a CAFRA permit. It
779. is within DF.P discretion to
The program doesn't outline those tasks which See revised Chapter 8 which establish a coastal zone boun-
must be completed in order to develop a compre- outlines the tasks to complete dary requiring other statu-
hensive plan for the entire coastal zone. the remainder of the State tory permits.
program.
780. 781.
The program should discuss the legislative and Revised Chapter Eight outlines The discussion of future steps to be taken in See revised Chapter 8 which
regulatory steps which must be taken to authorize the next steps New Jersey will other segments is vague. expands this discussion.
New Jersey/OCZH to define the coastal zone, manage take in preparing a management
and regulate development in the remainder of program for the remainder of 782.
the coastal zone. The State doesn't possess the the State coastal zone. The Questions are raised concerning full compliance See general question B.
requisite legal authority to exercise effective State need not exercise con- with requirement to consider the national interest
management and control of the remaining segments plete management control over in planning for and siting of certain enumerated
prior to integration into a unified plan. the other portions of the facilities because the state's authority to plan
state's coastal zone at this for and regulate such facilities is non-existent
time. Section 306(h) of the in the remaining segments.
CZMA allows a state to finish
one segment of the state program 783.
first and then submit the re- The program doesn't include a delineation of the The management boundary for
mainder of the state program at a entire coastal zone. the entire state has been pro-
later date. DEP is lookihg at - posed in Appendix E which is
-P aa variety of options for con- subject to change during the
trolling activities that have a public review period. This is
direct and significant impact not contrary to the require-
on coastal waters outside the ments of the CZHA.
Segment. These options could
�include a combination of ri- 784.
parian, wetlands, air and water The Legislature in passing CAFRA didn't mandate Disagree. The legislature
ermits , or seeking new legis- the development of a "management plan" only to specifically directed DEP to
ation. See General Questions prepare an environmental inventory of coastal establish a management program
A and B. resources and assess their capability to absorb for the area established in the
a) CAFRA doesn't authorize New Jersey OCZi to Agreed. CAFRA applies only and "react to man-made stress." 1973 Act.
regulate or conduct any planning efforts outside of within the legislatively man-
the defined "coastal area". dated boundaries. NJ/OCZM's 785.
authority to plan outside CAFRA CAFRA doesn't allow the state to guide facility The aim of the program is to
is conducted through the DEP development to the most preferred site. manage coastal resources, not
enabling legislation. necessarily to select preferred
b) The Wetlands law is limited geographically to The Wetlands Act has jurisdic- sites.
an area south of Raritan Bay. tional control extending from
the Raritan Bay along the Jersey 786.
Shore and up the Delaware River. The Riparian statutes do not possess a mechanism This program does nbt make
to pass title to or lease lands beyond the bulkhead such a claim.
and pierhead lines out to the three mile limit.

Comments _ __ __ Response Com entsR -__

NEW JERSEY PETROLEUM COUNCIL - Cont. JERSEY PETROLEUM COUNCIL - Cont.

787. 794.
The Wetlands Law is special purpose legislation CAFRA is only one of the laws The Board of Public Utilities is limited in its See General Question H.
which cannot be integrated in the program estab- utilized to meet the authori- review powers to override local zoning is mis-
lished pursuant to CAFRA. ties requirement of the CZMA. leading and the DEIS doesn't provide a method to
The Wetlands Act will operate ensure that the Board will exercise its authority as
independently of CAFRA but con- to implement the policies and objectives of the
sistent with the coastal poli- Program.
cies.
795.
788. No legally enforceable documents in the DEIS which The applicable laws that com-
The DEIS does not analyze the extent to which Chapter Four has been adopted bind the other state agencies to exercise their prise the program are all within
special purpose legislation and regulations need as DEP administrative rules. powers to assure that use of regional benefit will DEP. The MOU between DOE/DEP
to be altered. These policies have been analyzed not be restricted or excluded; tied D t o act c onsistenther
with the program. All other
in the DEIS. Special purpose state agencies with activities
legislation is not necessary to in the BOSS region which require
meet the requirements of the CZMA, a permit from one of the Acts
provided the entire program is comprising the program must act
adequate and enforceable. consistent with the coastal pro-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~789. ~~~~~~~~~~~gram.
No evidence that the MOU is binding or enforceable See general question D.
under N.J. law. 796.
DEIS doesn't describe an organizational structure The Commissioner's letter
HOW is N.J. Program 790a'dirct stat co n t r ol p~ogramto insure that the agencies will exercise their directs all DEP agencies to
Now is N.J. Program a direct state control pogra The program meets the require- authority to implement the plan. Nor an indication act consistent with the program.
under the CzM It cannot be approved as a direct ments of t he CZt M for a tech- that local and regional agencies have been inte- The CZMA does not require inte-
state control program. nique B, direct state control grated into the program. grationl of locies under a direct
W program. See 923. 42. regional agencies under a direct
.r. 1program. See 923. 42. state control program, only

791. coordination.
Are all facilities listed as being in the national No. See uses of regional bene-
interest considered uses of regional benefit? fit section, revised Chapter 6. 797.
Especialy for energy facilities. The program doesn't provide for a definition of All of chapter 4 defines per-
permissible uses. missable uses.
792.
National interest list should be more specific- See revised chapter 6, oil 798.
Do energy facilities using oil include pumping and gas facilities include The program is lacking any energy facility si ting Section 4.4 constitutes Use

oil-fired generating stations. Pumienergy faciin crities.
national interest as part energy facilities.
of OCS pipelines.
799.
793.Why were casinos, hospitals, facilities and Dredging is not listed in CAFRA as subject to NJOCZM does not claim that a
Why were casinos, hospitals, port facilities and The state has not regulation by OCZH. CAFRA permit is required for
usesor regional benefit., d e e m e dtesefaclitiehs to bdredging, but wetlands and
light or heavy industrial development excluded from deemed these facilities to be Riparian permits may be re-
uses of regional benefit quired
They Are not reguired to be
included as part of this prpgram..
800.
Each application for dredging should be reviewed Each project will be reviewed
independently. on a case by case basis and
must be consistent with the
dredging policies or the pro-
gram.

Comments Response

NEW JERSEY PETROLEUM- COUNCIL - Cont. Comments R__ _Rsponse_ _ __
801. NEW JERSEY PETROLEUM COUNCIL - Cont.
Prohibition of pipeline development in certain See revised policy 4.4.8 which
water areas does not appear to be valid or prac- make pipelines conditionally 810.
tical, acceptable subject to review The plan has not been adopted by the state. The Governor's letter in this
conditions. FEIS is sufficient to meet the
requirements of the CZHA.
802.
Prohibition of effluent discharges in certain water All effluent discharges must 811.
areas is overly restrictive. meet applicable state and The proposed process for considering the national The process for considering
Federal water quality stan- interest is inadequate. the national interest is ade-
dards. a) CAFRA permit process not in the plan. quate to meet the requirements
b) Permit process doesn't consider the full of the CZMA. The state has
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~803. ~~~~~~range of factors which must be analyzed. pfmulgated chapter 4 as DEP Ad-
Policy on onshore support bases is too restrictive. Disagree. This policy directs c) Statements of national interest are not ministrative Rules and incor-
onshore support bases to built included as legally adopted, enforceable porated in Section 1.1 of chap-
up areas and discourages them elements of the plan. ter 4 the process for consi-
in less developed areas. dering the national interest.

812.
804. 812.
Oil refinery policy should define the terms expan- Expansion has been defined as The "public welfare" clause of CAFRA is very Section 1.1 of revised Chapter
sion and modification, in capacity. Modernization has weak. Four has incorporated the Commis-
been deleted. See revised sioner's interpretation of the
tW) policy 4.4.9. "Public Welfare" clause of CAFRA.
co For energy facilities, the in-
805. terpretation by DOE in Section
Policy concerning storage facilities is unenforce- Storage facilities come under of the HOU addresses how DEP will
able. CAFRA review. adequately consider the national
interest. See signed MOU in
806. Appendix 6.
Surge tankage policy should be reconsidered. This has been revised. See
policy 4.4.11. 813.
The plan must be revised to include an adopted, See revised Chapter Six.
807. legally enforceable and comprehensive process to
Does the Use policy concerning tanker terminals Revised policy 4.4.12 addresses consider the national interest which is clearly
pertain to deep water ports? this concern. Deep water ports detailed and specific.
are discouraged pending a tho-
rough evaluation on a case by 814.
case basis. The DEIS does not indicate if the CAFRA, Riparian The appleate asA;es for CAFRA,
and Wetlands appellate bodies are authorized by law Wetlands and riparian statutes
808. to resolve "disputes which involve national inter- are bound to review decisions
Ocean dumping, dredging and dredge spoil disposal Ocean dumping is controlled est use and resource protection conflicts". based on the record which must
is not addressed. by Federal law. Dredge � include an adequate consideration
spoil disposal and dredging of the national interest as out-
are addressed in the water lined in Section I.1 of Chapter
acceptability tables. Four. In addition, with respect
to energy facilities, DOE can

809. appeal these decisions to the
The requirements of the Clean Air Act have not been The Clean Air Act has been in- Energy Facility Review Board
adequately considered. corporated by reference. See as outlined in the MOU.
5.10.

-Comments Response Comment Response

NEW JERSEY PETROLEUM COUNCIL - Cont.
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NEW JERSEY PETROLEUM COUNCIL - Cont.

820.
Consideration should be given to the establishment This will be considied during
of a multiple permit review procedure and/or a the first year of program
mandatory schedule to expedite the consistency approval.
review process.

821.
The DEIS does not adequately describe the status of Section 305(b)(8) requirements The DEIS does not identify any conflicts with This has been outlined in
currant OCZIl-sponsored energy-facility planning of the CZNA will be submitted local, regional or interstate plans. This is an revised Appendix D.
programs as required. with the remainder of the extremely crucial oversight in light of current
state program. autonomous zoning authority of local governments.

816. 822.
The Plan should clearly indicate when or if modifi- Revised Chapter 6, Federal The CZMA requires that lawful agreements must be This is incdrrect. This is
cations and renewals of federal permits or OCZ consistency section has been .. entered into to bind local agencies to act in a not required of a
plans will require a consistency certification. clarified to address these manner which is consistent with the plan. direct state control program
concerns.
concerns. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~See 15 CFR 923.42(d).

817. 823.
OCt14 should reconsider the boundary of the jres in The boundary for consistency No action to approve Plan can be taken until the The Governor's letter is in-
which activities will require a consistency certi- determinations is the same as necessary documentation is provided by the Covernor. cluded in this FEIS, adopting
fication. This area should be deceeased in size or. that for the Segment jurisdic- the program as state policy.
4' delimit the number and types of federal permit tional area or activities that
~.O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~824.
to which must be reviewed for consistency. may effect the coastal cone. 84
Thichstbe revied for iconsistemayct with c The Plan should provide a more thorough discussion See general question D and
This is not inconsistant with
of the sfatus of the development plan with the revised Chapter Five, DOE sec-
State Energy Master Plan and how it will be inte- tion as well as the MOD in
818. grated into the program. Appendix G.
It is submitted that duly adopted regulations Section 1.3.4 of chapter 4 in-
should be included in the Plan to reveal to inter- corporates the consistency825.
ested parties: requirements of section 307 of Approval of this program should be deferred until The requirements of section
the CZliA as the process for de- appropriate amendments to'the Plan can be developed 305(b)(8) or the CZlA need not
- What informastion will be required for consis- terminations will be conducted. and implemented for energy planning. be submitted until the re-
tency reviews? Chapter 6, federal consistency mainder of the state program
tency reviews? ~~~~~~Chapter 6, federal consistency
Who will conduct consistency reviews? section addresses each of the is submitted for approval next
How will these reviews be conducted? questions. It is not required year.
How and when mediation will be utilized? that a state promulgate new
826.
� What specific criteria will be examined to consistency regulations. See This proposed federal action is too tentative to
certify to the consistency of a federal activ- 15 CpfR 930.act i one to tent ats.
ity? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~enable one to assess its impacts.
ity?

859. . The boundary is not defined; and, The boundary has been defined.
The DEIS does not indicate what specific criteria The criteria the State will the Plan fails to indicate how or where federal See Chapter Two. The proce-
will be used to conduct a consistency review. The use for conducting consis- consistency procedures will be applied and what dures for reviewing federal
criteria will be used to evaluate these other consistency determination are
policies would severely restric and even preclude tency reviews will bhe the
essetial activities in the specified "consistency" policies and standards prom- activities; and, outlined in Chapter Six.
area, These policies should be revised so that the ulgated as DEP Administra- the plan does not include the DOE Master Plan The entire Master Plan need not be
Plan include separate, specific criteria for tive Rules in Chapter 4 o incorporated so long as relevant
consistency reviews. the program. portions are consistent see 4.4.2

Comment Response

Comment Response NEW JERSEY PETROLEUM COUNCIL - Cont.

NEW JERSEY PETROLEUM COUNCIL - Cont. 835.
The DEIS must discuss the OCZH's efforts to consult

827.DEIR stipulates to the fact that the Plan does *The boundary outlined in this with and coordinate with other agencies of federal,
not define the entire coastal zone as required. section is a proposed boundary state and localgovernments. The DEIS fails to
(DEIS p. 263) This deficiency makes it impossible subject to change after the

the envIronn to pfovid deis consistent with the conflicts, as required by the CZnHA and, Chapter 6, County and Local
requirements of the CZMA. Government Section.

indicate to what extent, if at all, the plan This has been added in re-

The DEIS does not adequately discuss the "relation This section is adequate to has been coordinated with local and regional vised chapter 6, county and
ship of he proposed action to land and water use eet te reuirements of gencies; and, local governments section.
plans, policies and controls."d w euee
plans, policies anp d controls.". NEPA. . identify certain important state agencies which All state agencies which have
exercise regulatory and planning powers over regulatory control over ac-

2i9il. , he aocio-ecnoic and See general question C. develope in or affecting the coastal zone. tions affecting resources in
Similarly, the analysis of the coastal zone have been
environmental impact(s) of this proposed action is the coastal zone have been
identified in revised Chapter
superficial. Five,

830. The EIS does address te iM-
The assessment of environmental impact is also NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
lacking. The DEIS fails to discuss or analyze the plications of the coastal
environmental implications of the basic coast policies on concentration 836
policy which encourages concentrated rather than rather than dispersal. See
dpolicy which enouragent, concentratedrathrevised part III, section 1 NRDC does not believe that New Jersey quali- See responses to specific
dispersed development. re saned part2. 111fies for segmented approval at this time because of comments below.
the extremely cursory work done so far on the
Delaware and Hudson portion of the state. Approval
-I~ 831. of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment met be delayed
The DEIS does not address the secondary or indirect The discussion provided is of the Ray snd Ocean Shore Segment muste delayed
C consequences of the Plan's many far-reaching believed to meet the NEPA re-
DP consequences of the Plan's many far-reachin quirements, given the nature of has met the applicable statutory and regulatory
policies. the proposed action and the CEQ requirements to assure development of a single,
guidelines on this issue. unified plane.
837.
832. .
discussion regardihg the environmental and See general question C. A complete boundary for the entire coastal zone A management boundary for the
must be delineated prior to Federal approval entire state has been proposed
socio-economic impact of the proposed action of the first segment or that approval will be although this is subject to
requires the presentation of more factual and illegal and subject to challenge. change during the public review
analytical material. period. This is consistent with

833. the requirements of the C22tA.
The DEIS fails' to consider preliminary approval Preliminary approval is not availabl 838
alternative, ,or alternatives to the policies. for a segment See 923.74(f). Pirt Enforceable regulations and policies should be All of Chapter 4 of the pro-
IV has been revised to reflect this. All of Chapter 4 of the pro-
Many of the policies address alternatl adopted prior to program approval. gram document has been adopted
Many ot h p oiisadesatraigas Rules and Regulations by
834. These section have been ade- the Commissioner of DEP.
The DEIS does not adequately analyze and discuss The Commisioner of DEP.
quately addressed to meet the
,the: requirements of NEPA.
relationship between local, short-term uses of
the envirofi6ent and the maintenance and enhance-
ment of long term productivity, or
irrevocable or irretrievable commitments of
resources.

Comment Response
Comment _Response
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL - Cont. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL - Co
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL - Cont.

'There is a large gap in New Jersey's program See general question E. Th45.
The program doesn't adequately protect criti- Disagree. Barrier Islands and
destructivaus e projects of author ity over protec umulation of fragile cal coastal resources, barrier islands and dunes. dunes, are listed on Special
destructive projects or over protection of fragile This omission violates the intent of Section 301 of Areas 3.2.10 and 3.2.13.
resources such as floodplains, specimen trees,
steep slopes, prime forest areas, bogs and white the CZMA and the President's Environmental Message
of May l, 1977.
cedar stands.

840. 846.
The EIS should clearly explain the Shore Protection The description of the Shore Barrier beaches should be declared generic GAPC's. Selected barrier beaches and
and Waterway Maintenance Program. Protection and Waterway Pro- islands have been designated
gram has been revised. See GAPC's see Revised chapter 7,
Chapter Five, shore protec- APC Section.
tion program. 847

841. A A cumulative impact review program for small See general question F.
The Shore Protection and Water Maintenance Program The shore protection and scale projects and critical coastal resources
nust be bound by the policies affecting the water maintenance program is should be incorporated as a part of CLAM. The
resources and activities it controls. bound by the coastal policies. review should be limited to activities undertaken
This has been clarified in in the Special Water's Edge and Land Areas.
.~ chapter 6, shore protection
4t. programs. Also the Commis- 848,
I sioner's letter directs all CAFRA review of parking facilities associated' The CAFRA procedural rules
DEP agencies to act consis- with commercial facilities should be lowered from and regulations adopted April
tently with the program. 300 spaces to 50 spaces for special land areas with 4, 1977 outined that DEP deter-
emphasis on barrier islands. mined that 300 spaces for park-
ing facilities was a reasonable
Division of Water Resources and all programs The Division of Water Re-
administered by this division should be bound by sources is bound to the mercial facilities under CAFRA.
the policies in Chapter 511. policies promulgated as This threshold is presently
DEP regulations. The Com- under litigation by the N.J.
missioner's letter directs Home Builders Association.
all agencies to be consis-
tent with the coastal poli-
cies.

843. 849
There is no mechanism for critical coastal projects DEP/OCZH reviews all expen- The state has never completed an inventory of Disagree. The DEP has com-
to be ranked with other programs or DEP/OCZM to ditures of Green Acres Pro- C' and never eval uated the 200 propoal from pleted an inventory of '
and shared the evaluation of
propose projects in the Green Acres Program. gram funds, which must be
spent consistent with the nominations with public
coastal program. agencies and citizens.
850.
844.
4' The MOU between DOE and DEP is unacceptable to The MOU has been revised. The program has not adequately designated APC's. This section has been revised.
ensure forceability of the coastal policies in the See General Question D.- See chapter seven. Also see
energy facility siting area. Also see regulations 4.4.2 which general question G.
incorporates relevant portions of
DOE procedures.

Comment Response
Comment Response
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL - Cent.
851. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL - Cont.
851.
A special management technique or plans for The description of the Higbee 858.
Higbee Beach are not outlined in the program. Beach GAPC has been revised We are concerned that list on page 180 contains no The resource policies in Chapter
and is sufficient to meet environmental concerns except for the disposal of 4 apply to all power plants.
the GAPC requirement of the spent fuels. Of particular concern is the impact These standards must be met be-
CZMA. of a plant's cooling system on adjacent waters. fore a plant could be built.
This should be added to the list of criteria.
852.
The program doesn't adequately identify the The procedures for designating 859.
procedures for designating an APR. APR's are outlined in the Na- On page 187, it states the Department of Energy The DEP as lead state agency
tural Areas System Act, Wild "will participate in the decision of state of New for the 306 grant will trans-
and Scenic River Act and Jersey to issue a determination of consistency." mit the final consistency de-
State Historic Preservation DOE is not the appropriate agency because its termination. The N.J. DOE
Officer's designation of his- actions are not bound by this program and it has no will be consulted only on
toric sites. ability to review projects unless they have energ energy facilities. See re-
implications. Federal consistency review extends vised chapter 6, federal con-
853. far beyond review for energy projects and for that sistency section for clarifi-
The Division of Marine Resources must This is a function of the reason DEP should be the authoritative review cation.
. : develop criteria to determine if an area quali- Green Acres Program which agency.
') fies aS an APR. is described in Chapter Five.
860.
854. The Bureau of Land Management must be added to the Revised Chapter 6, Federally
A process and a responsible office must be offi- This is not a requirement agencies under the Department of Interior whose Licensed Activities in OCS
cially designated by the Commissioner for fulfill- of the CZMA. The NJ/OCZH activities and development projects must be re- Plans, includes a clarifi-
ing the responsibilities under this section. as lead agency will coordi- viewed for consistency. This agency makes deci- cation on this point. The
nate this program with Green sions under the OCS leasing program which relate state will review OCS plan
Acres. directly to the state's coastal program. Prelease in conformance with subpart
sale decisions can have a determining effect on E of the federal consistency
855. activities which would fall. in New Jersey's three regulations. Amendments to
The relationship of the APR program with existing This is not necessary. The jile boundary both off and onshore. the OCS Lands Act recently
mandates of the Green Acres Program must be identi- Commissioner's letter directs passed will provide further
fied and accepted in an agreement between the all DEP agencies, including clarity and specificity to
Division of Marine Services and the Green Acres the Green Acres program to these procedures.
Program act consistently with the
coastal program. 861.
We recommend that New Jersey reserve the right to New Jersey has added permits
856. exercise consistency review over the licenses and and licenses for construction
A formal process should be adopted to process The formal recommendation pro- permits issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commis- and operation of nuclear fa-
public recommendations for APR designations. cess is the rule making pro- sion. cilities as subject to federal
This process should contain an appeal process cess for Natural Areas and consistency review.
for citizens proposing APRs that are not acted Scenic Rivers. An appeal
upon. process is not required by 862.
the CZMA. On page 174, the document indicates the procedure The publ
the DEP will follow to notify the public of pending dressed in the DEP permit de-
857. permit applications in the CAFRA, riparian and cision issued at the end of
There is no indication whether Board of Public The Board of Public Utilities wetlands programs. There is no discussion of how the decision making process.
Utilities has overrule authority over CAFRA does not have override autho- the DEP expects to address public concerns raised
decisions, qr how energy facility siting decisions rity over DSP decisions under through this process.
made under CAFRA could be affected by this Board. CAFRA,
863.
We support the Public Advocate's suggestion for No response necessary.
public funding of public participation.

Comment Response Comment Response

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL - Cont. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL - Cont.

864. 870.
We recommend addit6niatypolicy-reruiringthat-the Such evaluation is the'purpose 6.2.2 Surf Clam Areas. Developments which would Revised policy 3.2.3.2 has
ecological carrying capacity of critical resources and intent of many of the poli- rteult nt rinsing -peduetive-srfl"uam areas should clarified that development
be evaluated as part of the four major coastal cies, and will be a work product be prohibited and directed to other areas where is only acceptable if it
policies. during the first year of pro- surf clams would not be affected. effects less productive surf
gram implementation. See clam areas and is of signi-
Chapter Eight. ficant national interest.

865. 871.
We believe it is irresponsible to propose develop- Each site for a proposed "Within a specific area" should be defined more The term within a specific
ment in already urbanized areas without a detailed action and surrunding region precisely." area has been deleted.
analysis of the capability of these areas to accept including alternatives is
additional development. evaluated in the course of 872.
specific coastal permit deci- 6.2.3 Prime Fishing Areas. Disposal of domestic or Revised policy 3.2.4.2 clari-
sions. An analysis of each industrial wastes must be prohibited from these fies that domestic or indus-
urban area would be specu- areas. There is no reason why New Jersey can't trial wastes must meet appli-
lative and unnecessary. adopt a stronger policy than federal standards to cable state and federal laws.
protect its fishing or disposal of dredge spoil Dredging disposal is addressed
866. would also be prohibited. in the dredging policies.
% We suggest eliminating qualifying language such as Disagree. A measure of admini-
O "to the maximum extent practicable" throughout the strative discretion and flex- 873.
regulations. Strong, definitive language should be ibility is appropriate. 6.2.4 Finfish Migratory Pathways, Submerged Vege- Revised policy 3.2.5.2. out-
used throughout. tation, Navigation Channels. "Mitigation measures" lines mitigation measures.
should be defined more precisely and specific types The term mitigation is suffi-
867. of mitigation measures should be outlined. ciently specific and self-
2.0 & 3.0 Authority and Jurisdiction The Commissioner's letter explanatory to define its
These two sections make clear that the only actions directs all line agencies intent.
to which this rule applies are those which require within DEP to act consis-
permits under CAFRA, wetlands and riparian sta- tently with the coastal pro- 874.
tutes. We find this too limiting a other actions gram The MOU with DOE ties 6.2.4 Fish Migratory Pathways. The list of activi- Revised policy 3.2.5.2 ref-
undertaken by the DEP within the BOSS boundary the energy agency to act con- ties which would require mitigation measures must erences chemical water qual-
should also be required to adhere to these poli- sistently witht the coastal include changes in salinity. ity barriers which include
cies, particularly those affecting critical coastal policies. Thus the key salinity.
resources. agencies are tied directly
to the program 875.
6.2.5 Submerged Vegetation. The developer must be This will be considered during
868. responsible for seeing that the replanted vegeta- the first year of program im-
5.0 Coastal Management Decision-Making Process The NOU between the DEP and tion lives and that reclamation is successful. plementation
There is no reference to other state actions DOE is referenced in revised This may require putting up a performance bond for
outside of the DEP which might affect New Jersey's section 4.42 of chapter 4. the duration of the reclamation project.
coast and ocean shore segment. Both the Department
of Energy and Energy Facility Review Board should 876.
be discussed in this section. 6.2.6 Navigation Channels. This policy discusses See new dredging policy 3.5.5.6.
existing but not new navigational channels. Does
869. this imply that new channels are prohibited?
6.2.4 MSellfish Beds. This policy makes condi- This change has been made in
tionallj acceptable water dependent development regional policy 3.2.2.2. 877.
which requires dredging adjacent to shellfish 6.3.5 Definition of Water Body Types. This section See revised water classifica-
beds. Dredging activity next to productive shell- give a clear indication of why mapping is essential tion system which includes a
fish beds should be discouraged, not conditionally for New Jersey's coastal zone program to operate map of water areas. See
acceptable. successfully. The definitions of semi-enclosed and Section 3.3.
back bays, for example, are brief with few examples
and no comprehensive list of each type.

Comment Response
Comment Response
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL - Cont.
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL - Cant.
878.
6.3.7 Water.Acceptability Table. It is unclear in The exception applies only to 883.
the definition of "prohibited" whether the excep- existing conveyances of ri- 6.3.8.7 Dredged Spoil Disposal. This policy is This has been clarified in
tion is limited to existing riparian grants or parian grants conveyed before inconsistent with 6.2.6.2, the policy on navigation revised policy 3.3.7.7.
whether new riparian permits could be granted and program approval. By defini- channels, and the definition of "prohibited". If
then be also subject to an exception. The confus- tion, special water areas take disposal of spoil is "prohibited" (p. 36), it
ing element is the extent of the state's jurisdic- precedence over the water cannot be deposited under certain conditions.
tion over subsequent actions once a riparian grant acceptability tables. See These policies must be uniform throughout.
is allowed. Because it is unclear how Special management system chapter 4
Water Areas are to be addressed in this TableiWe >for discussion of Riparian'- 884.
recommend extending the Table to include Special Statutes. 6.3.8.9 Filling. Same comments as above. If This has been clarified to
Water Areas. The Table should be modified to filling is prohibited, it cannot be permitted with reflect this concern in re-
reflect the conditions in the text. conditions. vised policy 3.3.7.9.

879. 885.
6.3.8 Aquaculture. The qualifiers attached to the These changes have been made - 6.3.8.10 We recommend deleting this if piling is The water uses are broken into
aquaculture policy make it in face a "conditionally in revised policy 3.3.7.1. always associated with another, already controlled component uses, and will remain
acceptable" policy, not an "encourage" one. The activity. as such.
adverse environmental impacts which may result from
aquaculture make the aconditionally acceptable 886.
designation more appropriate. The last sentence 6.3.8.12(b) Offshore Sand and Gravel Mining. There The standards are those estab-
should read "do not cause adverse off-site environ- must be performance standards to control physical lished by existing water qual-
mental impacts. - and chemical impacts from mining. ity standards.

880. 887.
6.3.8.3 Retaining Structures. Shoreline retention See revised water acceptability 6.3.8.13 Bridges. "Acceptable" secondary impacts These impacts are defined in the
structures should be considered only if nonstruc- table (3.3.4) and coastal engi- must be defined. resource policies.
tural stabilization cannot be used. This policy neering use policies (4.8). The
should be modified as necessary as the shoreline criteria will be modified as 888.
erosion component of New Jersey's coastal program the N.J. Shore Protection Master 6.4.1.2 High Risk Erosion Areas. We strongly These changes have been incor-
is developed. The Table should be changed to Plan. support the prohibition of development in "high porated in revised policy 3.2.-
reflect the text which is "discouraged" risk erosion areas". Also, "in principle" develop- 12.1.
ment in areas that will be eroded in less than 50
881. years should be prohibited, not discouraged.
6.3.8.4 Delete "to the maximum extent feasible". Disagree. A measure of
administrative discr4tion 889.
and flexibility is appro- The causes of erosion should be included in the The causes are outlined in the
priate. list of factors affecting policy on development rationale 3.2.12.3.
restriction.
882.
6.3.8.5 Dredging Maintenance. This section has Agreed. See revised policy 890.
given no consideration about whether existing 3.3.7.5. Structural solutions should be acceptable only if The program does favor non-
maintenance dredging operations are necessary or non-structural controls would be ineffective. structural over structural
desirable. The DEP should undertake an evaluation controls.
of all dredging going on in its coastal zone to
determine what is absolutely necessary. 891.
The above rules apply only to facilities which This is correct. The state
require a CAFRA, riparian, or wetlands permit. has established a threshold
Many structures in high risk erosion areas would for permit review of activi-
not require any of these permits. Local govern- ties that have a direct and
ments are not bound to act consistent with these significant impact on coastal
rules so significant development in high risk waters. Local governments
areas can continue. are not bound tact consi.-

Comment Response
Comment Response
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL - Cont.
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL - Cont.
896.
tent with program. The state 6.4.6.4 Specimen Trees. Only specimen trees to be There is no additional author-
has chosen technique B 1306 e impinged on by CAFRA, riparian or wetlands projects ity to protect specimen trees
(1)(B)], which does not re- will be protected under the program. What autho- that are not covered by CAFRA.
quire local conformance with rity is there to protect other specimen trees?
the program. (C923.11 and
923.12).
897.
892. 6.4.7 Prime Forest Areas. This policy applies=by ;-The Pine Barrens vegetation-is
6.4.2 Dunes. The stabilization of existing dunes Disagree. Properly created definition only to white cedar stands. What about special vegetation which is
and the creation of new dunes should not be en- new dunes are a reasonably other prime forest stands within the coastal area? appropriately covered by the
couraged. Artificial stabilization of dunes which effective barrier to storm We recommend including the Pine Barrens vegetation vegetation resource policy.
naturally shift in response to a number of factors, surges and overwash. under this definition.
particularly winter storms, will result in in-
creased erosion. New dunes created in areas where 898.
no dunes previously existed are not likely to last 6.4.8.2 Prime Wildlife Habitats. Development Revised policy 3.2.19 ad-
very long and could also result in erosion through causing minimal feasible interference with habitats dresses critical wildlife
disruption of overwash. Dunes should be protected is listed as "conditionally acceptable", but no habitats and development is
and repaired, but not created or stabilized. conditions are established. Development that is discouraged that would ad-
destructive to endangered or threatened species versely affect these areas.
893. must be prohibited. To adequately enforce this Many of these areas are al-
6.4.3 Central Barrier Islnd Corridor. This section See revised policy 3.2.14.2 policy, prime wildlife habitats must be inventoried ready known by DEP, and con-
encourages development on barrier islands whereas New or expanded development and mapped, and a management program developed. We tinued mapping will occur.
all future development on barrier islands should be must be reviewed on a case by recommend such areas as GAPC's. The state feels these areas
prohibited or discouraged. The state does not have case basis. Density on central are not candidates for GAPC
control of non-riparian, non-wetlands smaller than barrier islands will be con- designation.
CAFRA projects which cumulatively and individually trolled through height limita-
adversely impact barrier islands and amplify the tions and the development po- 899.
need for federal and state subsidies for inappro- tential policies. Some small 6.4.9 Public Open Space. The overall policy of Revised policy 3.2.20.2
priate development. Furthermore, this policy in no scale development will not be encouraging the concentration of development will addresses part of this con-
way reflects the potential hazard to barrier island reviewed under the program on curb sprawl, but could also reduce the open space cern by discouraging develop-
development from flooding, nor the ability of the barrier islands See general in urban areas. A major impact on public open ment wherever it adversely
islands' resources to withstand increased develop- question &. The hazard's poli- space as defined here would result from activities affects existing open space.
ment. cies and flooding policies will on the fringe. This policy should more specific- -
all apply on barrier islands. ally address fringe activities by listing the types
of activities acceptable adjacent to public open
894. space.
6.4.4 Flood Hazard Areas. By what authority does Revised policy 5.2312 addresses
the state regulate "most uses" in the flood fringe? the authorities for DEP control 900.
Will these rules be applicable to that authority? of flood hazard areas which are 6.4.10 Speep Slopes. Development on steep slopes Revised policy 3.2.21.2 dis-
These questions are not satisfactorily answered in part of the BOSS program. should be discouraged, not conditionally acceptable. courages development on
this section. slopes 10-15Z.

895. - 901.
Furthermore, this section must meet the require- This policy does address the 6.5 Beaches Policy. Any development on the beach Revised policy 3.2.10.2 has
ments of the Executive Order on Floodplains (E.O. issues raised in Executive must be in the public interest. A developer's added that development must
11988). To do this the policy should reduce the Order 11988, which is bind- proposal to build on the beach or dunes, even if be in the public interest,
risk of flood loss, minimize the impacts of floods ing only on federal agencies. there is no feasible non-beach location, is not but has retained no prudent
on human safety, health and welfare, and restore
and preserve the natural and beneficial values
served by the floodplains.

Comment Response
Comment Response
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL - Cant.
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL - Coat.
sufficient to permit development. "No prudent or or feasible alternative. The
feasible alternative" should be deleted from this reference to wet sand being a 908.
section. This policy makes no reference to the wet GAPC has been added. 6.6.7.3.3. There should be low potential for This is a misunderstanding of
sand beach GAFC designation. This should be development of any facility incompatible with the CLAM policies See re-
clearly detailed in this section. existing land use. vised density policies.

902. 909.
6.5.3.2 and 6.5.4.2 Retained Water's Edge, Filled Policy 3.4.3.2 has been revised 6.6.7.4 Campground Development Criteria Secondary Campground development cri-
Water's Edge. Development is conditionally acrnpt- ;to clarify when development._ impacts should be a criterion in determining:both -:teria have been deleted. -
able provided that "the development provides a net is conditionally acceptable. high and low potential sites.
benefit to the environment." How will "net benefit" The policy has been revised to
be determined? The policy does not reflect the delete net benefit. 910.
continued effects of erosion on stabilized shore- 6.6.8 Regional Growth Potential Factor. The Regional Growth potential fac-
lines. The policy is too confident that stabiliza- document does not clearly establish how growth tors have been combined in the
tion techniques work permanently. areas were chosen and whether carrying capacity of revised land acceptability
air and water resources were utilized as a basis tables. The carrying capacity
903. for the determination. of the land type has been in-
6.5.3.3 Retained Water's Edge Rationale. Restau- Policy has been changed to corporated into the table,
rants are not water dependent. make them acceptable. including air and water fac-
tors. See also Chapter Three
904. and section 3.5.3 of Chapter
,, 6.6.3 Depth to Seasonal High Water Table Factor. See revised policy 3.5.2 which Four.
O'b Why would the creation of surface ponds in areas has been resturctured.
with a shallow water table render the area unsuil- 911.
able for open space use? It seems logical that 7.2 Housing Use Policies - Definition - The See general question E.
such areas would be suitable only for open space. program identifies no authority to control cumula-
tive impacts from housing projects of less than 25
905. units which may have a direct and significant
6.6.4 Soil Permeability Factor. The most conserva- This whole section has been impact on coastal waters.
tive policy must be adopted to ensure minimum revised. See policy 3.5.4.6.
runoff on the surface and minimum affect on subsur- 912.
face flow which reaches coastal waters either 7.2.7 By what standards can an applicant's claim Revised policy 4.2.8. clari-
directly or via streams. that restoration is impractical and infeasible be fies that it must not be con-
judged? trary to the public interest.
906.
6.6.7 and 6.6.7.2(b) Development Potential Factor, Disagree. This is adequately 913.
Residential Development Potential Criteria. For specific for the purposes out- 7.3.1 Placing resort/recreational uses as the Disagree. Coastal protection
the infill criteria, "existing residential develop- lined in the policy. See re- highest priority is inconsistent with the program's is not a land use epy .F This
ment" should be defined quantitatively. For vised policy 3.5.5.2.2. primary goal to protect coastal ecosystems. policy must ,e %Ain connection
example, what is compatible for infill adjacent to Coastal protection should be the highest prioity with the resource protection
a commercial or condominium area would be substan- with resort/recreational uses second. policy.
tially different from an area which was predomi-
nantly cottages. 914.
7.3.3 Does New Jersey have authority to require The state has interpreted autho-
907. access to the shorefront for resort development? rity from CAFRA, Wetlands and
6.6.7.3 Commercial and Industrial Development See chapter 5 for definition If so, the document should indicate what it is. riparian Statutes to require
Criteria. The final document must delineate more of facility under CAFRA. This access to the shorefront.
clearly how commercial facilities are to be con- policy is very specific. This authority has been formal-
trolled under the public facilities requirement. ized by the adoption of Chapter
Four as Administrative Rules
of DEP.

Comment Response Comment Response
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL - Cont.
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL - Cont.
924.
915* 7.4.11 Tanker Terminals. New or expanded tanker Revised policy 4.4.12 has been
7.3.6 Marinas. The conflict between preservation of Marinas must also meet the wet- t erminals should be discouraged for iting which changed to reflect this con-
wetlands and other special water's edge areas with lands policies and the remain- would result in increased dredging. cern.
development of new or expanded marinas should be der of the location policies.
addressed. 925.
7.4.12 Base Load Electric Generating Stations. The See revised policy 4.4.13
916D issues of coastal dependency and demand should be which has combined old policy
Dredging of dry land should be "discouraged," not This policy has been deleted. addressed in this policy. This policy is extremely 7.4.12 and 7.4.13.
*encouraged." vague in comparison with the specificity of many
policies for activities of smaller impact.
917.
7.4 Enerme Use Policies. We recommend that thjlas The signed MOU between DOE and 926.
relationship be more firmly established through an DEP provide an enforceable 7.4.13 Nuclear Facilities. We commend New Jersey See revised policy 4.4.13.
enforceable mechanism prior to approval under the mechanism. See general ques- for establishing a strong policy relating to
CZ1MA. tion D. nuclear energy.

918. 927.
7.4.3 Onshore Support Bases. It should be clearly Revised policy 4.4.4 dis- 7.4.14 LNG. We support this policy which recog- See revised policy 4.4.14
stated that onshore support bases will not be courages development in less nines the risks associated with siting LNG facili-
permited in fragile areas as defined by the loca- developed areas. All support ties.
tion policies.
928.
919. 97.5.1. There must be a policy regarding the N.J. pioneered the 201 planning
7.4.5 Repir and Maintenance. Repair and mainenance See revised policy 4.4.6 capacity, location, and conditions for-hook-up for process for determining the
facilities can be allowed only at existing ship- reationale which addresses sewage collection systems. pattern and pace of development.
-4 yards where no additional dredging is necessary. new dredging. EPA has since adopted the N.J.
-P:
'-4 920. approach as national policy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~920. ~~~~~~~~~~~201 facility planning addresses this
7.4.4 Platform Construction Yards. This policy must All platform construction 929. issue.
recognize the potential impact of dredging which piers would need to follow 7.6 Industry-Commerce Use Policies. New or See revised policy 4.6.2 which
would be necessary to accommodate such facility. the dredging policies. See expanded coastal depend
expanded coastal dependent development should be clarifies this point.
revised policy 4.7.5. conditionally acceptable, not encouraged, at or
near existing sites. "Sites" should be qualified
~~~~~~~~~~921.~~~~~ * ~~~~~as developed sites.
7.4.7 Pipelines. There should be a prohibition to Pipelines for natural gas are
crossing barrier islands or any part of the Pine discouraged through the Pine 930
Barrens to minimize the adverse impacts of such Barrens. Criteria for re- 7.6.2 aining. What is the justification for See revised pollicy 4.6.3 which
crossing on the geological and biological proper- storing wetlands and dunes excluding mining from the Location Policies? We has been totally revised and
ties which makes them unique. has been added. cannot accept this policy as it is very brief and expanded.
gives inadequate explanation of why mining should
922. be allowed. What constitutes an "acceptable"
7.4.8 Refineries. NRDC strongly supports this No response necessary. reclamation plan?
policy as we believe that available information
indicates that the Mid-Atlantic already has ade- 931.
quate refinery capacity to meet foreseeable demand. 7.8.2. The source of sand for beach and dune This will be addressed in the
nourishment projects should be addresed. Shore Protection Master Plan
7923.4.9 Gas Procession Plantsi This policy is over Disagree. A measure of ad to be initiated next year.
7.4.9 Gas Processing Plants. This policy is over Disagree. A measure of admin-
qualified with "to the maximum extent feasible." istrative discretion and flex-
ibility is prudent.

Comment Response Comment Response

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL - Cont.

932. 941.
7.8.3. The type and efficacy of shore protection All projects are reviewed on a On Pg. 58, 5th paragraph, the last two lines should This change has been incor-
structures are linked to the causes of erosion. case by case basis and must be changed to read, "...1:24,000), supplemented by porated in revised policy 5.23.
Structures should only be allowed if they will meet all water's edge poli- flood prone areas as determined by soil maps con-
really work, and a project by project analysis must cies. tained in appropriate National Cooperative Soil
be done to ensure the project would accomplish its Survey Reports."
goals.
942.
933. On pg. 61, Section 6.4.7, the title of this section This change has been incorpor-
8.4.1. "Surface water disturbances" should be Disturbances have been changed "Prime Forest Areas" may cause some confusion porated in revised prime forest
defined. to drawdown. because "Prime Forest Land Timber" as defined by policy.
:: - ;. =USDA is based on growing capacity and is oriei-ied
934. to commercial timber production.
8.4.2. The policy refers to water quantity, not This change has been made. See
quality. policy 5.4.2. 943.
Pages 63, 64, Section 6.4.9, Public Open Space. Logging operations in New Jersey
935. This section and the description of the Division do not appear to have direct
8.6.2 Runoff. We support the runoff policy for See revised policy 5.6. of Parks and Forestry on page 169 discuss the State and significant impact on coas-
Intensive Development because of the direct affect parks' and State forests' role incontributing. tael wates, and since commercial
that runoff has on coastal waters. recreation, aesthetics, historic preservation, and forests do not fall under the
wildlife protection. No mention is made of commer- jurisdiction of CAFRA, they need
936 cial forest products from State forests. To not be incorporated directly in
8.16.1 Solid Waste. This policy is unclear and This policy is adequately spe- maintain optimum forest environments for open this document.
should be rewritten in the final document. cific. space, recreation and other uses compatible with
coastal zone objectives will require forest manage-
4-- 937. ment. We do not find any discussion in the report
8.17.1 Enervy Conservation. It is legally possible See revised policy 5.17 which for such need.
to require energy conservation; "encourage" is too has been changed to reflect
weak. this concern. 944.
U.S. Department of AgrticUlture Page 64, Section 6.4.10.1, Definition. Add the See revised policy 3.2.21.2.
938. following: K values may be found in most National
On page 50, Section 6.4.11, we suggest rewording of This language has been incor- Cooperative Soil Survey Reports available from soil
the second line to read "...bay and ocean shores porated into revised policy conservation districts or in local Soil Conserva-
that are eroding or that have a history of ero- 3.2.12.1. tion Service Technical Guides.
sion..." Processes that shpae the shoreline are
extemely complex. Nany shorelines that have 945.
aggraded recently were degrading earlier and are On pg. 65, Section 6.4.10.2, Policy, the reference This has been dropped as a
vulnerable in the future. to U.S. Soil Conservation Service should be changed reference source in revised
to State Soil Conservation Committee. In addition, policy 3.2.21.2.
939. it should be recognized that under some conditions
Op pg. 51, experience of the Soil Conservation This has been included in re- practical control measures may not produce a
Service (SCS) indicates that the Sea Isle City vised policy 3.2.12.3. desirable level of control. In such cases, as
area should be included in the high risk erosion determined by the State Soil Conservation Commit-
area list. tee, developmet should be prohibited.

940. 946.
Section 6.4.1.2. policy. We recommend that the This change has been incor- Section 6.4.11. "Prime Agricultural Areas" should This has been changed to Farmland
last sentence in the first paragraph shosuld be porated in revised policy be changed to read "Prime and Unique Farmlands." Conservation Areas in revised
changed. to read, "Development that contributes to 3.2.12.2. policy 3.2.22.
further erosion of high risk areas is prohibited."

Comment Response
Comment Response
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - Cant.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - Cant.
947.
Section 6.4.11.1. This definition should be in The definition of prime is in- 954-
keeping with SCS definitions of Prime and Unique corporated and definition of Section 6.6.4.3 should indicate that infiltration See comment above.
Farmland. unique are restricted to uses rates can also be found in the National Cooperative
applicable to New Jersey. Soil Survey Reports as well as permeability.
Permeability cannot be accurately determined by
948. percolation tests. Therefore, the sentence begin-
On pg. 75, Section (d), Erosion and Sediment The rationale has been amended ning, "Site survey data..." should be deleted.
Control, the first sentence should be changed to to be general to the natural
read: "Surface water runoff is a well-documented, waters edge 955
possible source of water quality degradation." On Page 86, Section 6.6.5, Soil Fertility Factor This has been included in the
should be changed to Soil Productivity Factor and definition of high and low en-
949. Section 6.6.5.1 should reflect this change. =--= Vironmental sensitivity. See-
Page 82, Section 6.6.3.1, Definition. (Seasonal Those definitions that are Capability classes are not based on fertility, but revised policy 3.5.4.5.
High water Table.) This definition should be in applicable to New Jersey have rather on hazards to productivity.
keeping with the SCS definition. been incorporated in wet soils
policies, and in the land tables. 956.
On pg. 154, 3rd paragraph, 5th line, there is a This has been corrected.
950. typographical error. The word should be "gabions."
Section 6.6.3.2, Rationale. This section should This consideration has been in-
reflect the existence of perched water tables. The eluded in the definition for 957-
second sentence might be changed to read: "Shallow high environmental sensitivity On pg. 171, the paragraph entitled "Department of This has been changed to incor-
depths to water table (wet terraces) occur either and resource policy on wet Agriculture" should be changed to read: "This porate this language and clari-
close to surface water bodies or as perched water soils, policy 5.20. Department through the State Soil Conservation fy that DEP jointly administers.
4 tables above relatively impervious soil layers." Committee administers the Soil Erosion and Sediment this program.
-P. Control Act (N.J.S.A. 4:24-39 et seq.)." The Act
provides for the control of erosion during the
construction phase of development.
951.
On pg. 84, Section 6.6.3.3, Information Require- . This has been changed through- 958.
ments, change the first sentence to read: "Data on out the document. On pg. 186, change "Prime Agricultural Lands" to These changes have been made
the distribution of these areas may be obtained "Prime and Unique Farmlands." Also, in the last whenever the phrases now here.
from the National Cooperative Soil Survey available sentence of this paragraph, change "soil fertility" See Section 3.2.22, now called
from the local soil conservation district, etc... to "soil productivity." Farmland Conservation Areas.
similar changes should be made throughut the text
of the report. 959.
On pg. 186, Forests, the first sentence should be This is what the document
952. changed to read: "...through consultation with the states in the DEIS.
On pg. 85, Section 6.6.4.1, Definition, the first The new document does not deal U.S. Forest Service."
sentence should be changed to read: "Soil permea- with permeability but relates
bility is the rate of vertical movement of water soil percolation rates to soil 960.
through the soil or a soil layer expressed in textures. See revised sections Page 191. Under Department of Agriculture, Soil This has been incorporated in
inches Ppr hour." 3.5.4 and 5.20 5.21 and 5.22 of Conservation Service - change it to read: Water- revised chapter 5, federal
Chapter Four. shed Protection and Flood Prevention. Also add: consistency.
Resource Conservation and Development Program.
953.
Section 6.6.4.2 should reflect the difference See comment above. 961.
between soil infiltration and permeability. On pp. 328-329, for each map, change the source of This has been revised in the
Infiltration is the rate of water intake into the data sentence to read: "The source of date is the new case studies in the
soil, and permeability is the rate of vertical National Cooperative Soil Survey for Ocean County." Appendix.
water movement through the soil.

U.S. Department of Comnerce - NOAA Comment Response
962.
Many of the policy statements in Chapter 3 include Some such language is neces-
the words "prudent and feasible alternative." sary to allow administrative
These words are somewhat vague. We recommend that judgement. See section 2.2 970.
such wording be eliminated from the document and and 2.3 of Chapter Four. Chapter Five, pg. 187, Federal consistency - This has been clarified in re-
replaced with clear, understandable instructions. Consistency determinations are to be made by the vised chapter 6, federal con-

963�. Anadromous fish are covered Federal Agencies themselves and not the state, sistency section.
pursuant to NOAA's consistencj regulations. Also,
P. 24, 6.2.4.2 This policy statement should by this Program. Federal agencies are not subject to state permit-
consider juvenile anadromous fish which migrate in ting procedures in the absence of specific con-
the autumn. gressional mandate.

964. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Air Force)
8.0 Resource Policies. We wish to recommend that This objective is addressed
more emphasis be given to policies which encourage not only by resource policies, 971.
wise management and utilization of commercial and but also by location policies P. 13. The coastal zone boundary should be amended Agreed. See Chapter two, Appen-
recreational fisheries stocks and associated Bing 3.2.2 through 3.2.5. to indicate that federally owned or controlled dix E, and Section 3.2.26 of
resources. lands are excluded. Chapter four.

U.S. DEPARTIENT OF DEFENSE (Assistant Secretary) 972.
P. 186. The program should specifically state that Agreed. See revised language
965. federal agencies make consistency determinations. in Chapter Six.
The Department of Defense approves NJCHP subject to No response necessary. As written, this is an implied action for federal
incorporation of their comments in the FEIS. agencies.

966. 973.
Chapter Two - Specific exclusion of federal lands Reference to excluded federal P, 187, I n the first sentence of the section
P. 187. In the first sentence of the section New Jersey will follow the federal
from t he boundaries of the coastal zone should be lands has been added to re- Federal Activities and Develoment Proct add Regulations on consistency and issue
clearly stated. A reference to Appendix G is also vised chapter 3. "through the A-95 clearinghouse review process" procedural handbooks as necessary.
recommended. after "Department of Environmental Protection". The A-95 procedure will be used as
Federal OCZH regulations permit a federal agency to much as possible.
Cn 967. provide information in any manner it chooses and
Chapter Three, Section 3.0 - Federal exclusions See revised chapter 4. section provide informationtein athat the A-9 process be
should be briefly discussed before listing the section 1.3.4 for consistency used for consistency notification.
proposed uses of coastal resources that would come determination.
under state jursidiction. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

974.
The policies relating to port development (717) are The policy is adequate for the
968. quite restrictive. The criteria used to determine segmentation requirement of the
Chapter Five, pg. 177, second full paragraph - This change has been incor- inadequacy should be specified. This policy should CZMA. Variations of this policy
"non-federally owned land" should be changed to porated in revised chapter be reconsidred both for this segment and in the will be considered in developing
"non-federally controlled land." 6, National Interest Section. context of the overall state program. the remainder of the state's pro-
gram.
969.
Chapter Five, pg. 187, Federal Activities and The DEP will coordinate with 975.
Development Projects - It would be advantageous for the State's A-95 clearing house Industrial development is also discouraged (Policy The ratio will be compared to
federal agencies to deal with matters involving however, as designated state 7.6) and will be considered only to extent that the number of Jobs that could
projects which significantly affect the coastal agency, DEP will make the final high ratio of jobs created to acres used is achieved be created by other activities
zone through the state's A-95 clearing house rather consistency determination as and no conflict with resort recreation uses occurs. utilizing the same acerage.
than dealing with another state agency (DEP)- This required by NOAA regulations While jobs criteria is useful and valid, it is a
would prevent duplication and reduce administrative 15 CFR 930.18. very broad guideline and may not be sufficiently
time. defined in this document to act as a performance
standard.

Comment Response

Comment Resoonse U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - Cont.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - Cont.
982.
976. Pg. 189 - provides that DEP reserves the right to The state has inserted clarifiea-
Pg. 55, 1st paragraph - statement on dmune policy Revised policy 3.2.13.2 has review other unlisted Federal permit and license tion on the time frame for Fed-
should be further addressed to emphasize the need addressed this issue by pro- applications which may significantly affect the eral consistency review in Chapter 6.
for dune protection in the coastal zone area. hibiting development covering coastal zone. It indicates that up to 45 days from The DEP will seek information to
the program on dunes. notice of Federal application is needed to deter- review consistency on unlisted ac-
mine if DEP will exercise this reserved option on tivities early in the review process..
977. first request information on such a proposal. The
Policies 6.2.3.2 (pg. 33) and 6.2.7.2 (pg. 37) - These sections have been de- need for information to review for Federal consis-
the appropriateness of the last statement in each leted in revised policies 3.2.4 tency on unlisted activities should be determined
of these policies is questionable. There is no and 3.2.8. and sought early in the review process.
apparent justification for establishing poliotes
for areas outside the coastal zone. 983.
The application of CZMP on state-wide basis rela- The reference to assistance projects
978. tiye to Federal consistency requirements for Fed. for chemical processing, mineral
Pg. 176 - the national interest in port and indus- This is adequate to meet the assistance grants for chemical processing, mineral extraction, sewage treatment and
trial development is sufficient to warrant a more national interest requirement extraction, sewage treatment and solid waste dis- solid waste disposal facilities
extensive discussion than that which is provided. of the CZMA. See revised posal facilities is seriously questioned. has been deleted in revised Chap-
This should be done in a manner consistent with Chapter Six, National Interest ter 6, Federal Assistance Projects.
expanded use policies discussed in 1 and 2. Section.
984.
979. Pg. 189 - Listing of Corps of Engineers regulatory All of these changes have been in-
.P Pg. 182 - the last of the major objectives of See revised chapter 6, National authorities should be revised as follows: corporated into revised Chapter 6,
bI= national interest in recreation, should be revised Interest section. This comment a. Permits to regulate construction of any dam or Federal Licensed and Permitted
to read as follows: "To accelerate the no-cost has been incorporated. dike across any navigable waters of U.S. under Activities.
transfer of property identified as surplus and Section 9 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899.
underutilized by the Feder al agency."
b. Permits to regulate the obstruction or altera-
980. tion of, construction of any structure in or
Pg. 187, 1st paragraph - is in conflict with This has been charified in over, and the excavation from or depositing
official Federal position that consistency determi- Chapter Six, federal consistency of material in any navigable water of the U.S.
nations for direct Federal activities will be made section. under Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act
by the Federal agency. The following should be of 1899.
added, before the last sentence, "Consistency
determinations will be made by the Federal Agency." c.dredged material for purposes of dumping in
The last sentence should be revised as follows: dredged mater ia for purposes of dumping in
"DEP will review the proposal and consistency ocean water under Section 103
determination by the Federal agency for consistency
with the Coastal Program, and will issue a state- material into the waters and adjacent wetlands
ment of agreement if it finds that the Federal of the US at specified disposal sites under
project or activity is consistent to the maximum of thSectionified disposal sites under
extent practicable."
985.
Pg 188 - the following should be added after the1.arification has been Pg. 197-199 - we strongly recommend that the De- Port development and water dependent
P . 188 - the following should be added after the tC larification has been added velopment Potential Study include consideration industry are integral components
first sentence: "The Federal agency will make the to the Federal consistency of port development and water dependent industry. of the Development Potential Study.
consistency determination regarding direct Federal section of chapter 6. Moreover, we would expect to see the results of Upon completion this will be sub-
activities." this incorporated into the program policy. mitted as an amendment to the
program.

Comment Resoonse

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 991.

986. Uses of regional benefit should apply as part of the CZMA regulations 923.13 do not
986.No objections to approval of the proposed program Noresponsenecessarmanagement program to all energy facilities capable require uses of regional benefit
segmN o objections to approval of the roposed program No respons e necessary. of meeting a test as providing benefits to more than to include all energy facilities
revied in gproeneral conormance with DOE review one unit of local government (Sec. CFR Part 923.13) nor all facilities identified as
revised in general con formance with DOE review and within the scope of the definition of energy in the national interest. See
comments. facilities contained in CZMA Section 304(5). DOE clarified definition of uses of
would recommend against approval for elements and regional benefit in Chapter 6.
The remaining segments of the N.J. program and the This will be done, however segments of the NJ Program which limited considera-
The remaining segments of the N.J. program and the This will be done, however, tion of energy facilities as uses of regional
energy planning process elements should be submit- specific sites for energy b enefit to a scope less as uses of regional
ted concurrently for future review and approval facilities need not be out- Section 304(5).
action as program amendments. We will not be able lined in the 305(b)(8) ele-
to evaluate compliance with requirements of CZMA pent-. Yv2.
Sections 305(b)(8) and 306(c)(8) in the absence of Regulations pertaining to implementation of the A timetable has been added in
specific statewide geographic information for all energy planning and facility siting process element Chapter 8. The energy plan-
State program segments. should be made available for Federal review and ning process requirement
comment when the program amendment is submitted for 306(b)(8) will be submitted
988. approval. A timetable should be established for with theremainder of the
Policies and findings of Policy 7.4.2, pg. 134; See revised policy 4.4.9. A promulgation of final regulations prior to final state program in 1979.
Policy. 7.4.8, pg. 144; and the discussion of uses new rationale has been action approving the amendment.
of regional benefit, pg. 192 are based on findings added, which reflects this 993-
that new Mid-Atlantic OCZ oil production is not concern. Policy 7.4.13, pg. 145, fails to provide criteria After a thorough review, OC7M
* expected to require new refinery capacity. Program in sufficient detail to allow evaluation for has determined that revised
cP should reflect greater awareness, that the actual consistency with the licensing standards of the policy 4.4.13 is consistent
level of OCS oil and gas resources is matter of NRC. We recommend that the program be revised in with the CZMA and not in con-
level of OCS ail and gas resources is matter of
great uncertainty and that production of oil and order that the State's policies are not in.conflict flict with Nuclear Regulatory
gas may be either much less or much greater than with the authorities of the NRC. Commission Laws in Regulations.
current expectations. 994 See also response to NRC comments.
a. Policy 7.4.13 should be redrafted to insure that Revised policy 4.4.13(d)
989. *land use regulation implementing the CAFRA clearly ensures that CAFRA
More specific geographic information is needed Disagree. This policy is ade- authorities doe not result in implied regulation land use decisions do not re-
concerning Policy 7.4.7. beginning at pg. 141, for quately specific. Each pipe- of matters of nuclear safety, which are the sult in matters of nuclear
pipelines and associated- facilities in order to line will need to be evalu- responsibility, of the NRC. safety which is the responsi-
select alignments which would be considered consis- ated based on the policies bility of the NRC.
tent with the CZM program. of the program. 995
bent . of the State should identify its authorities The State's Energy Master Plan
990. concerning assessments of need for power will establish criteria for
The State should further define its policies and See General Question A and and related utility regulatory authorities and determining nedd for energy
legal authorities with respect to recognition of General Question D. seek to avoid policies which would appear facilities. The Plan is
energy facilities siting as uses of national arbitrary and unreasonable unless applied in scheduled for adoption in
interest and regional benefit. Consideration of context of the administrative record related to October 1978.
national interests should include documentation the siting of a particular facility.
that policies may not be limited by authorities 996.
restricting State's concerns to limits of social, We believe that N.J. should modify the LNG policy
cultural, economic, or environmental well-being stated in Policy 7.4.14, pg. 146. Reference to a
exclusively of the citizens of the State of New petition for issuance of siting criteria should be
Jersey. We believe the statements should be modified in the following respects:
deleted or carefully revised so that the policy
statements do not seem to contradict intent to a. Federal consistency should not be tied to a Agreed. The revised policy 4.6.14
consider national interests. petition for rulemaking action for siting removes this tie.
criteria to be issued by FERC. FERC fully
evaluates each project reviewed for licensing
action and develops an administrative record
specific to the project which would provide
adequate basis for consistency evaluation.

Comment
Response
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - Cont. Commentse
Comment Response

authorities of various concerned Federal agen- AgreP. There O ised policynt.
6. Recognition should be afforded to relevant Agreed. The revised policyT and
cles, especially DOT and DOE. Action by FRC 4.4.14 currects this mistkken - Certificates required for construction and
are not the only Federal actions which may impression operation of interstate natural gas pipelines
q Statre conernsly er and associated facilities, including facili-
c. State conerns regarding consideration of safety ties needed for importation of LNG.
c. Sae cnerns reg gardng consideration of safety See the detailed discussion of the Permission and approval required for abandon-
rulemaking actions related to LNG facilit ning state role provided in response - ment of natural gas pipelines and associated
to FERC comments on this issue.
should be stated in the appropriate particlpa to FERC cments on this issue. facilities.
tion forums provided in all regulatory and f c i ii .
rulemakig actions. 1000.
Reference Figure 23, pg. 241 should be revised. These changes have been made
aO7 Cbieon a I rady g x ven t o s a vt DE c * ider FECC c uc eecnsheene
DOshDOE received staff issue papers and Coastal. Manage- on revised figure 23.
146, hat' rik of N perati 7.~l1 Agreed, Ap~propr changes have meat Strategy, attended the November 21, 1977
d146, thare th e risks of LNG operationcs rlshould bte mcng i-es.
mized. The energyat risk. o f LUe e sh ould be mn- b ade to revised policy meeting on th document, and met individually with
miazedf t.The emen s ive lann pressseem to N.J. DEP-OCZM staff during program development.
make a specific appraisal of the extensive consider- .ERC comments. to1
atmon alrady given to safety and environmental FERC c e ents. 1001.
cancers. If thestateio asutDOT responsibilit ies are divided between the Coas t Revised policy 4.4.14, ra-
concthey rshould bf the state still has specific concerns, Guard and the Office of Pipeline Safety Operations tionale has indicated these
Feder al review In the intenergy element for pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding. The changes.
Federal review. In the interim, Palicy 7.4.14 Coast Guard has responsibility for LNG facilities
shoul d be restated to indicate intent to.ake a with regard to management of vessel traffic and
further analysis of LNG issues.
998. other matters pertaining to the facility between
Pag. 178 - the Federal Energy Administration bag; Tthe LNG vessel and the last manifold imnediately
Pg. 178 - the Feder al E nergy Adinistr ah con ted prior t before the LNG receiving tanks. The Office of
been listed o twie among the list of agencies Pipeline Safety Operations has responsibility for
consultand transmission. energy produc- matters pertaining to an LNG facility beyond (and
tion ind transmgssion.
999. including) the last manifold valve immediately
.before the receiving tanks.
There are several errors concerning the license and These hanges have been incor- 1002.
permit responsibilities Of DOE o pg. 1189 Reg- porate in chst S. DOE responsibilities related to LNG facilities These changes have been made
lao of th e NRC which is notar plants isof a responsiblity Consistency Section. encompass the ERA and FERC. ERA has authority to in revised policy 4.4.14 and
f the NRC which is not part of DE. The Economic issue opinions an dorders granting permission to revised chapter 6, federal
Regulatory Administration has authority to issue import LING from foreign sources. FERC has juris- consistency section.
ordThers COnening use of coal in power plants. diction over certificates for construction and
nere is no angency within DOE that directly li- operation of interstate natural gas pipelines and
censes construction of fossil fuel power plants. associated facilities, included facilities needed
We suggest the following amendment:
to import LNG.
Dept. of Energy
Economic Regulatory Administration DEPARIENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Orders granting permission for importation 00
Of liquified natural gM fnd no objection to approval by the Secretary No response necessary.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of Commerce of the State's program segment and
-~Licenses required for construction s~d ape,,application for 306 administrative funds subject to
tLicen of non-Federal hydroelenstruction a odopera- the following clarifications and conditions.
and associated transmission lines. 1004.
The plan should provide for assessing the cumu- See general question E.
lative impacts and efforts emanating from permit s
and developments drawing on the same or contiguous
resources.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - Cont.
Comment Response Stlate should develop and describe in the final This state's soil and sediment

DEPARTMENIT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT - Cont. program the procedure it will use to provide runoff control law requires adequate
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPNEN.T - Cent. and siltation protection to regulated wetlands. measures to prevent runoff and
1005. soil erosion from construction
We recommend that the preparation of the Delaware There has been continuous throughout the state. Policies
River and Hudson River/wetland segment of the New -coordination between the four dealing with soil runoff and
Jersey Coastal Management Program be fully coordi- states during program prepar- siltation (Policies 6.6) have
nated with the State of Delaware, Pennsylvania and ation for the program. been revised to clarify this
New York. This will continue during the concern.
preparation of the entire 1012.
state program. While New Jersey has completed a number of resource New Jersey has an adequate data
1006. inventories, additional work should be initiated to base for coastal decision-making.
The State coastal management plan states that as No. The state will only become build a more comprehensive data base related to A majority of the policies ref-
their policy "construction is acceptable in flood involved if the action requires subaquatlc vegetation, artificial reefs, fisheries, erence the data base from which
hazard areas if such construction conforms with a permit under any one of the surfclam and shellfish areas, and fish, wildlife they were established. During
applicable flood hazard reduction standards as Acts which comprise the and endangered or threatened species habitat. the first year of program
adopted by the FIA in BUD." This raises the program. Actions requiring a approval, the state plans to ex-
questioneof whether the state plans to review state permit will need to con- pand its existing data inventory.
a permit from a municipality to ensure that its form to the requirements of
flood PAain management measure are met before policy 3.2.12.
approving the proposal?
a. Does the State plan a municipality to ensure
4h- that the municipality's flood plain management
VI measures are met before approving the proposal?
_* o1007. -1013.
Section 6.4.4.1 - "Flood Hazard Areas Definition" This has been referenced in Policy 7.4.2 encourages OCS-related facilities to The general planning process - see
should reference the FIA mapping effort for the revised policy 5.23.2. locate in developed areas where infrastructure and policy 4.3.3 -. combined with specific
CAPRA area. labor markets exist. Some clarification should be policies on the various facilities
1008. provided here to more explicitly detai which provide tbisiderahle detail. Other
The reference of the FIA regulations in D should This has been incorporated in facilities are recommended for the Bay and Shore policies specifically exclude facil-
include the phrase "as amended" after the citation policy 5.23.2. Segment and which should be directed to the other ities from the segment t e.g. refin-
to ensure that communities are not mislead as to New Jersey segment. eries (4.4.9).
which are the latest FIA regulations in effect. In 1014.
addition, the work "adopted" should be changed to Mineral deposits may or may not be located adjacent
"promulgated." to existing operations. A policy designed to

~~~~~~U.S. DEPART~~MENT OP THE INTERIOR ~prestrict new mining to sites adjacent to existing
U.S. DEPARTMEN'T OF THlE INTERIOR operations may be unreasonable where mineral
deposits do not exist on adjacent sites or where
de %9lieve that this segment of the New Jersey No response necessary. mineral deposits do no t e xis t o n adjacent sites or
Coastal Management Program is a potentially excel- where other environmental or land use considera-
lent program tions have limited the expansion of existing mining
4,01.0 activity.
e are concerned that the proliferation of small See general question E.
development projects along the New Jersey coast
which are not subject to State permitting authority
will result incumulative adverse environmetal
impacts.

Comment Response
Comment Response
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - Cont.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - Cont.
1015. TL1e Lepartment endorses the designation of wet- The state is in the process
Policy 6.4.4.2 discussed on page 59 must be clari- Revised policy 3.2.12 has been lands, wet sand beaches and the Higbee Beach - Pond of acquiring the lands which
fied to indicate that it is directed toward fluvial clarified that it applies to Creek Meadow Area as geographic areas of particular comprise the Higbee Beach -
flood hazard areas and toward the coastal Elood- all shorelines in the concern. However, the final document should more Pond Creek Headow Area utiliz-
plain. area that are eroding or have clearly explain how this desgination will prevet ing Land and Water Conserva-
had a history of eroding. the piecemeal development of the Higbee Beach - tion Funds. When completed,
These areas extend inland to Pond Creek Meadow Area. the piecemeal development of
the first cultural feature, Higbee beach will greatly be
established dune field or reduced.
areas that are likely to be 1022.
eroded in the next 50 years. We recommend that buffer zones be developed around Buffers zones around GAPC's
Flood plains are addressed in CAPC's. are not a requirement of the
revised policy 3.4.2. CZMA, but are encouraged by
1016. policy 5.15.
Policy 7.4.7 should be revised to reflect that This has been added in revised 1023.
pipeline corridors shall also aboid wetlands of policy 4.4.8. On page 189, we note that the State proposes to The 'state has chosen to review
value to fish and wildlife. review permits and licenses for geological and these permits and licenses for
1017. geophysical exploration on the OCS. We do not OCS geological and geophysical
We recommend that the State develop a regulatory The state will investigate the believe that any of the geological or geophysical exploration. The state will
mechanism to insure that saltmarsh mosquito control possibility of establishing a exploration activities, most of which are conducted reevaluate this position after
.p activities will comply with the approved coastal regulatory mechanism for mosquito many miles offshore, potentially effect the coastal the first year of program
. resource policies during the first year of program control in the first year of zone. The large volume of permits for such activi- approval after they are able
Cn implementation. program approval. ties may present an administrative burden to the to determine the volume of
1018. State, and they may wish to reconsider this list- permit necessary for review.
The State should examine policy 7.4.11 to assure Revised policy 4.4.12 is consis- ing.
its coordination with the State Haster Energy tent with the Energy aster Plan. 3.2.12 and
Plan. O pg. 49, the reasons for allowing cable routes in See revised policy 3.2.12 and
1019. high risk erosion areas and not pipelines should be revised water acceptability
The State should use the public health, safety and Section 4(b) of the revised HOU clarified. Trenching which is applicable to tables for clarification on
welfare language in the final interagency agreement has incorporated the national pipelines may also be required for underwater cable cable routes.
which should be in effect prior to Federal approval. interest as part %t the consider- routes.
There exists no mechanism which the State can use ation process. NOAA regulations 025
to insure that local governments take the national provide that under a direct state con, n pag. 43, 6.3.6.14 and 6.3.6.16, cable routes and The water acceptability tables
interest into consideration when making siting trol technique, only the state must pipeline routes may be similar enough to cover in list different conditions for
decisions concerning certain energy facilities. establish a mechanism for considerati4i one category. The different treatment in Figure 5, cable routes and pipelines in
of the national interest. The HOU is pg. 45 between cable and pipeline routes may not be guts and canals. It is appro-
in effect and the public welfare justified in terms of water acceptability. priate that these remain sepe-
clause of CAFRA has been defined in rate.
Chapter 4, Section 1.1 as including 1026.
consideration of the national interes' On pg. 181, we commend New Jersey for identifying Sandy Hook is excluded federal
Chapter 4 has been promulgated as Sandy Hook as a national recreational resource. We lands thus N.J. policies on
DEP Administrativd Rules. also believe that the program should recognize the littorial drift do not directly
role of littoral drift and groin placement and apply to this area of the state.
10o0. should develop techniques to maintain the integrity The program does recognize the
That portion of the document which discusses areas APR's in New Jersey include of Sandy Hook. rdle of littorial drift. See
for preservation or restoration (APR's) describes land under the Patural Area policies dealing with water
various State agencies and their respective authori- System and the Wild and Scenic areas policy 3.3.
ties to purchase or protect certain areas. What is Rivers Act. The process for their
needed in the final NJCHP is a more complete designation is established in State
description of the process and the criteria that law. Detailed discussion in this
the State will use to designate APR's. document would add unnecessarily
to the length of the document,

Comment Response
Comment Response
U.S. DEPARTIENT OF THE INTERIOR - Cont.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1027.~~~~~~~ ~U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - Cont.
On pg. 185, the responsibility for administering This has been changed in
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as Chapter 6, National Interest �97.2 Policies (pg. 37), the last sentence of This is not a requirement of
amended has been changed from the National Park Section. second paragraph should be expanded to read as the CZMA since this area is
Service to the Heritage Conservation and Recreation follows: "Federal management of shipwrecks outside outside the state's coastal
Service. This should be changed under the section of the coastal boundary should be consistent with zone.
"Historic Sites and Districts and Areas of Unique state policies (and federal historic preservation
Cultural Significance." legislation) developed for shipwrecks within the
boundary."
1034.
1028. 6.2.8.2 Policy (page 38), the second sentence The criteria set out under
On pg. 188, the document states that management of This is correct. This concern
national wildlife refuges and proposed acquisitions has been addressed in the should be expanded to read "...habitat areas, policy 3.2.9 is the criteria
will be subject to Federal consistency determina- Federal consistency section of species areas, rsearch areas, recreational, "esthe- for designation of a marine
tions. Significant chnges in wildlife refuge Chapter 6. tic, (by adding) and cultural/historic areas. sanctuary set out by NOAA.
management practices will be subject to consistency To add cultural/historic areas
only if they have a "spillover" impact. The would be inconsistent with
document should be changed to reflect this. NOAA's criteria.
1029. 1035.
The Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service No response necessary. "Water Acceptability Table" (pg. 45), under item These additions add greatly to
feels that the New Jersey Coastal Management "4, Docks and Piers" the water categories have been the predictability of the per-
Program Bay and Ocean Shore Segment (NJCMP/BOSS) is assigned a "C" (Conditionally Acceptable) or "D" mitting program. These desig-
basically a sound and comprehensive document in (Discouraged classification). We believe many of nations are reasonable and
P consideration of the magnitude of social, natural, the "C" categories should be donated as "E" (En- based on sound planning prac-
and culturatol resource cma gities which had to be couraged) with individual project selection and tices.
and cultural resource complexities which had to be ances.
addressed and resolved. approval made within sensible and reasonable
environmental discretion.
be were pleased with referenced program coordina- Coordination with the statewide
tion with New Jersey's Statewide Comprehensive comprehensive historic plan and 6.4.5.1 definition (pg. 60), this section makes This has been clarified in
Outdoor Recreation Plan and the Nationwide Plan survey is an ongoing process reference to the "National Register of Historic policy 3.2.15.
effort. However, the Statewide Comprehensive that will continue during the Places" and its administration by National Park
Historic Plan and Survey should be consulted for first year of program implemen- Service (NPS). This reference and all others in
first year of program implemen-
program coordination and preparation, and refer- tation. This coordination pro- d the t ram should be changd in accord
enced in the appropriate sections if utilized. . cess has been outlined in with the transfer of duties and responsibilities
~~~~Chapter 6. ~between HCRS and the NPS.
Chapter 6.
1031. 1037.
We believe the State's decision to carry out the No response necessary. 6.4.5.2 Policy, it is recommended this policy The state presently coordi-
coastal management program by "direct state con- statement be expanded to require consultation with nates with the State Historic
trols" is a wise approach. the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and Preservation Officer on any
the State Historic Preservation Officer should development tht may effect
1032.It is recommended the Shipwrecks and Artifiial proposed development be adverse to cultural re- historic areas. Consults-
It is recommended the Shipwrecks and Artificial
Reefs Section (6.2.7.1 Definition, page 37) be sources. tion with the Advisory Coun-
expanded to include the specific listings of known The Program has added a reference in 1038 cil would be too burdensome.
shipwrecks and artificial reefs. In addition, the Chapter Six to the National 6.4.5.3 Rationale, the first sentence makes refer- The terms representative and
"National Register" should be noted as a source of Register as a source of information ence to "representative and unique historical and unique are sufficiently clear
information for shipwreck.identification besides on shipwrecks. archeological (cultural) resource. .."It is when read in light of the
the referenced publications.
unclear as to what constitutes "representative" or policy.
unique." We recommend these references be more
clearly defined.

Conment Response
Comment Response
U.S. DEPARPIENT OF THE INTERIOR - Cont.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - Cont.
'Oe3a9ches Policy". The elimination of paving auto- Revised policy 3.2.10 deals
matically restricts those individuals confined with beaches, however, the b. Reference to the Natural Historic Preservation This change has been made
to wheelchairs from using the sandy beaches. In state feels that there should not Act of 1974 should be changed from "(P.L. in Chapter 6, national
addition, recreational support facility develop- be paving on beaches. Also the 93-29)" to "(P.L. 93-291)". interest section.
ment such as comfort stations are necessary state feels that comfort stations c. Reference to the "National Historic Preservation This change has been made
structures where public use is encouraged. We also should not'bebuilt back from the Act of 1966 (Executive Order 11593)" should be in Chapter 6, national
note these policies are in direct conflict with the beach. This policy is not in con- changed to "National Historic Preservation Act interest section.
policies stated on page 135, "7.3 Resort/Recrea- filet with the reseort/recreatidnal of 1966, as amended." Executive Order 11593 is
tional Use Policies, 7.3.1 and 7.3.2." These policies. an incorrect reference.
sections encourage facilities for the "physically 1044.
handicapped" and recreation in the development On pg. 196 in the last paragraph, it is stated in This change has been made
design. It is therefore recommended the "Beaches the second sentence "The Commissioner of DEP, the in Chapter 7, APR section.
Policy" section on pg. 71 be changed to coincide State Historic Preservtion Officer, may approve
with the "Rationale" under "Resort/Recreational Use nominations of publicly or privately owned areas
Policies" on pp. 135 and 136. and sites for inclusion on the Register." In the
1040. case of the National Register of the SHPO "submits
"6.11 General Location Policy" (Pg. 131) - Item This language is drawn from the nominations" for consideration to the "keeper of
"(c)" should be expanded to read "...preserve, CAFRA statute and can only be the Register" who determines if approval should be
protect and enhance the natural environment" (by modified by the state legisla- granted. This differentiation in responsibilities
adding) "and cultural resources." ture. should be corrected.
1045.
w4Wo}mmend the inclusion of requirements under No response necessary. See We do not recommend expansion of the impact state- No response necessary.
7.5.5. revised policy 4.5.5. ment unless it eventually becomes and independent
loUI ~~~~~~~~~~l. ~~~~~~~~~~~documet.
1041.
"Division of Parks and Forestry" (pg. 169), this This is adequate to meet the
section should be expanded to describe in more requirements of the CZHA.
detail the responsibilities of the Office of
Historic Preservation and include appropriate
reference to the Statewide Comprehensive Historic
Preservation Plan and Survey.

'Recreation" (lst paragraph, pg. 181) - this These changes have been made in
section has two incorrect statements. Reference Chapter 6, National Interest
was made to "the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Section.
as amended." In the last sentence it is stated
"...Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and its successor
National Heritage Program." Reference to "its
successor" should be changed to "Heritage Conserva-
tion and Recreation Service."

.43pg. 185 in the first paragraph, there are three
changes required:

a. In referring to "The national interest in This change has been made in
historic sites and districts... "this should be Chapter 6, national interest
changed to read "The national state, and local Section.
interests in archaeological and historic sites
and districts."

Comment Response Comment Response

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION U.S. DEPARTIENT OF TRANSPORTATION - Cont.
1046. 1053.
The overall approach that New Jersey has taken in No response necessary. N.J. misinterpreted one of Our comments on the Thank you for pointing out our
presenting their plan is excellent, and their staff Coastal Mangement Strategy to be a suggestion that misinterpretation. Wbhee approp-
should be commended for their perceptivenee. they become involved in commercial vessel safety riate, the state will work with
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1047. ~~~(pg. 244). We only asked that they discuss aspects Federal agencies to gain access to
We suggest that the FEIS discuss the effect of the Suggestion has been noted by OCZM and of their program other than land use reulation. Federal oceanfront lands.
noise on activities and compatible land uses in the the state, although this is not a re- Finally, we would like to reiterate the question
coastal zone. quirement of the CZHA or NEPA. that is not answered on pg. 246 concerning the
procedures that the State intends to follow to gain
pRe plan should disucss provisions for controlling Revised Chapter 5, Office of access to federdb oceanfront lands.
and cleaning up oil spills and other potentially the Commissioner outlines
hazardous materials, such as industrial chemicals, the New Jersey Spill and Com- 1054.
which could have a serious effect on the coastal pensation Act and in addition, The overall approach that N.J. has taken in pre- No response necessary.
environment. Appendix B references a DSP senting their plan is excellent and their staff
publication on oil spills: should be conmmended for their perceptiveness.
Reactions and Responsibility. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1049. 1055.
One condition for the construction of docks and Revised policies 3.3.7 and The NJtHP-Bay and Ocean Shore Segment is a signi- No reponse necessary.
piers (pg. 47) should be that the structure not 3.3.7.15 have included this ficant attempt to provide a systematic guide for
obstruct navigation. Similarly, overhead trans- concern. developers and others insterested in New Jesey's
mission lines that cross waterways (pg. 49) should coastal zone.
not interfere with navigation. 1056.
(A 1050. We are concerned that the NJCIP-Bay and Ocean Shore These two acts have been in-
03 The requirement (pg. 187) to "notify DEP of all Revised Chapter 6 clarifies that Segment does not incorporate policies reflecting corporated by reference in the
proposed activities or projects on federal lands Federal agencies provide consistency the need to integrate the air and water require- program. See policies
which may have an impact on the Segment..." is not determinations not a notification. ments established pursuant to the Clean Water Act 5.3.1 and 5.10.1 which address
mandated by the CZHA and will create a notification The DOT will only need to issue a (CWA) and Clean Air Act (CAA). these two act.
process for minor projects that do not require a consistency determination on those 1057,
consistency determination. It should be noted that activities listed in Chapter 6, We urge the NJCIP to incorporate other elements of The state will incorporate 208
Federal agencies provide a consistency determine- Federal consistency section. the CWA, including the environmental guidelines for plans when completed as amend-
tion, not a notification, and only for projects dredged and fill materials being developed pursuant ments to the program. The state
with a significant impact. to section 404(b), the regulatory aspects of 208 will consider incorporating sec.
1051. plans, and section 403 ocean discharge criteria. 404(b) guidelines when completed.
N.J. puts the burden on federal agencies to "alert A Federal applicant is encouraged The state also will consider
all potential applicants for permits of the need to to consult with NJ/OCZM on all incorporation of sect. 403 cri-
obtain a DEP consistency certification" (pg. 188). bridge permits, but DEP wants to teria during the first year of
This will not be possible for all bridge permit review all bridge permits. program approval.
actions since the number of potential applicants in 1058.
the private sector is virtually unlimited. The NJIHP, and its coastal policies, must also be Through the amendment process
105he2 private sector is virtually ~~~~able to incorporate any subsequent changes to CWA outlined in 15 CFR 923.81,
The DOT coordinates with the State Historic Preser- The legal basis is the National His- (or CAA) or revisions to water quality standards, changes to the program can be
vation Officer, as required by regulations under toric Preservation Act, If DOT means 208 plans, (and state implementation plans estab- incorporated when necessary.
the National Historic Preservation Act, for pro- something else, the State will be lished pursuant to CAA).
posed DOT projects that affect properties listed on pleased to clarify this answer. 1059.
or eligible for the National Register of Historic The NJQIP must detail the efforts being made to The Coastal Program and the Water Re-
Places. We would like to know the legal basis for coordinate its coastal planning with applicavle sources Division and Divislour of
this requirement and would appreciate an explana- water and air quality planning. Documentation of Environmental Quality have met con-
tion from New Jersey of the procedures involved. this coordination is notably lacking in the DEIS. tinuously during the program's
preparation.

Comment Response Comment Response

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - Cont.
U.S. ENVIRONIENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - Coat.
1060. 1066.
The potential of the air and water quality programs See above*remponse. Since NJCMP's management system is designed See general question E that
The potential of the air and water quality programs See aboveresponse. around the Coastal Area Facilities Review Act -- addresses cumulative impacts.
to assist the NJCMP in controlling development and
from which co=sercial facilities and housing
protecting significant coastal resources has not
protecting significant coastal resources has not developments of less than 25 units are excluded--
been fully realized through close cooperation. significant cumulative impacts of small scale

1061. The Clean Air and Water Acts have developments would be ignored.
The EPA is concerned that the coastal policies been incorporated by reference into 1067.
relating to air and water quality have been made the program. The program will in- In addition, because it is primarily intended The program has been submitted
without due consideration of the conditions in the corporate both Acts in the remainder for CAFRA-type facilities, the NJCHP provides as a technique B (Section 306e
other segments and without coordination with the of the state program. This segment very little guidance to local governments regarding (IXB) state under the CZMA. This
other segments. has addressed coastal policies developments not covered by the NJCHP. technique doesn't require a state
relating to air and water quality to give guidance or direction to
both in this segment and the re- local governments in order to con-
mainder of the state. See revised trol activities that have a direct
section 3.4, Chapter 4. and significant impact on coastal
1062. waters.
We urge the NJC3P to include regional water treat- The national intresc rot 1068.
ment planet within the definition of facilities in regional water treatment is The NJCHP's management system also appears to See general question b.
the national interest. Because section 307(f) of addressed by the water section, have no means of insuring that the actions of
the CZffA mandates the incorporation of the require- National Interest Section of other state agencies will be consistent with
meats of the CAA and CWA into the plan, the FEIS Chapter 6. coastal policies.
for the NJCMP must also provide that, in the siting
of national interest facilities, the national
interest is not used to evade the air and water 1069.
r- quality requirements. Discussion on pg. 7 of the importance of water For this segment of New Jersey
quality to the coastal ecosystem should also Coastal Program, air quality is
1063. Disagree. The Federal consistency include air quality and the interrelation of the not a major issue. This will be
The NJCiP's language preceding the list of regulations require that Federal two to the vitality of coastal ecosystem. discussed when the remainder of
licenses and permits (p. 188) appears to agencies do not have to evaluate the state program will be sub-
imply that only activities which must also ob- coastal zone effects for which the mitted early in 1979.
tain a state permit are subject to consistency. management program does not con- 1070.
Echoing the internal activities of a stae is not tain mandatory or recommended pol- We fully support NJCMP's general policy to protect No response necessary.
the sole intent of the consistency provision. icies because in the absence of the coastal ecosystem, and to prohibit or dis-
such provisions there is no basis courage uses that would contribute to the violation
for making a consistency determina- of applicable surface and groundwater quality
tion. See 930.39. standards.
1064. 1071.
.Compliance with applicable effluent limitations and NOAA feels that New Jersey has gone
The FEIS should consider use of a mechanism to See general question E. water quality standards does not fully satisfy CMZA beyond the requirements bf the Clean
prevent cumulative impacts of housing develop- section 307(f)'a mandate that teh "requirements" Water Act for establishing effluent
mfacil with less than 25 units, and commercial established pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA) controls, and land use regulations.

1065. be incorporated into CZH programs. Such a narrow For emission controls, New Jersey
The EPA is not satisfied that the NJCNP-Say and SegnrlqetoA hainterpretation of "requirements" runs contrary to uses the definition of requirements
nT h oe EPA i s not sa ie atii ed t the NJCMP- toy an d dSee general questionA that intent of Congress which envisioned "effluent as outlined in the Clean Air Act.
Ocean Shore Segment has adequate authority to addresses the quest controls, emission controls, and land use regula-
insure that development will be in conformity quate legal authorities. tions to contro air and water pollution" as "require-
ments." NJCMP's consideration of only limitations
and standards does not meet the statutory intent.

Comment Response Comment Response

U1, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - Cont. U.S. ENVIROINENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - Cont.

EPA urges the NJCMP to detail those efforts that This is sufficiently detailed Does the policy on steep slope development (6.4. Yes, all landfill operations
are being made to coordinate its coastal zone in Chapter 5 under the Division 10.2, pg. 65) apply to proposed sanitary landfill are covered by CAFRAI thus
planning with the water quality planning being of Water Resource's. Details operations? the steep slope policy applies.
conducted by the Division of Water Resources of past meetings are available 1082
ursuant to section 208 of the CWA. from DEP. The policy on air quality should more clearly The Bureau of Air Pollution
10frOuant73 to section 208 of the CWArecognize that both the location and type of Control within DEP reviews and
EPA recommends that the coastal plan explicitly This has been addressed in re- facilities within the coastal zone can have various comments on various direct and
state that coastal planning activities must be vised Chapter 5, under Division direct (through their emissions) and indirect indirect sources of air pollu-
coordinated with 208 planning for both point and of Water Resources. (though emissions from induced secondary develop- tion subject to the permit
non-point sources. ments) effects on coastal air quality. More decision of the coastal program.
1074 specific procedures -for coordinating the NJCHP and The SIP has been incorporated
The NJCHP makes no mention of guidelines to govern Revised policy 3.3.7.5 outlines the state implementation plan (SIP) should be by reference and coordination
the discharge of dredged or fill materials when it new procedures for dredging, and developed. is mandated by the Commissioner's
sets out those policies which will govern dredged combined with the water accepts- letter.
spoil disposal in the coastal zone. bility table provide adequate 1083
guidance on dredging in the The NJCMP should clearly lay out the location of
segment. nonattainment areas in all segments of New Jersey's Al-
1075 coastal zone. BOSS should not establish policies ternative siting policies w ere
Commercial and industrial development criteria This is addressed in the opportu- concerning the siting of industrial and energy considered in the formulation of
should be revised to include a consideration of nity policies for land based activ- facilities in a vacuum; they should carefully the policies.
waste compatibility between the proposed industry ities. See revised policy 3.5.5. consider the air (and water) quality implications
and the receiving treatment facility. of these policies on the present air (and water)
'~ qualityconditions within all segments of N.J.'s
O coastal zone.
1084
Policy 8.10.1 should be modified as follows: Reference to guidelines and regu-
"Coastal development shall conform to all appli- lations of the CLean Air Act has
1076 cable state and federal emissions regulations, been added to revised policy 8.10.1.
Policy should be revised to make the overall No sole source aquifers have been ambient air quality standards, prevention of
protection of groundwater quality a central program designated i-n N J. When they are significant deterioration criteria, nonattainment
concern. The value of sole source aquifers should designated this policy will be criteria, and other regulations or guidelines
be specially noted. revised. established pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act,
1077 as amended in 1977. Revisions to the SIP or
Policy 7.5.7. should be altered to reference the See policy 5.16. which references amendments to the Clean Air Act will be reflected
guidelines being developed pursuant to the Resource this Act. in the coastal policies, as necessary."
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 1085
1078 The NJCMP should include in the rationale for its This has been added to revised
The NJCHP should coordinate with the Solid Waste The program does coordinate with air quality policy a discussion of the possibility policy 8.10.1.
Administration's solid waste management plan. the Solid Waste Master Plan. This for emission tradeoffs to allow the siting of new
has been referenced in chapter 5. facilities in nonattainment areas of N.J.'s coastal
"sod1079 taste" should be entered in the NJCNP as n The stnte feels that solid was zone.
"Solid waste" should be entered in the NJCMIP as a The state feels that solid waste 1086
national interest alongside air and water. is a local and state concern, EPA finds the lack of mention of specific coordi- This has been clarified in re-
not national. nation procedures between the NJCMP and the N.J. vised policy 8.10.1.
1080 SIP, implemented by the Division of Environmental
The policy on solid waste (8.16.1, pg. 161) should This has been incorporated into Quality, inadequate (pp. 157-158, 169). This
include examination of proposed coastal zone revised policy 5.16. should be corrected in the FEIS.
projects in terms of waste type and volume ex-
pected, disposal method employed, and effects on
disposal sites.

Commeent Response
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - Cont.
U.S. ENVIROlIiENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - Cant.
1087 1095
EPA encourages the NJCMP-Bay and Ocean Shore While not a reguirement of the CZMA, EPA commends the NJCMP policy concerning solid No response necessary.
Segment to develop specific policies on noise and the state will consider these waste conservation and recycling (pg. 147).
pesticides within the coastal zone and procedures concerns in the first year of 1096
for coordinating with the Division on Environmental program approval. EPA takes exception to the broad policy statement Policy 7.3.1 doesn't advo-
Quality. concerning recreation (7.3.1, pg. 135). It does not cate only intensive recrea-
1088 believe that highest priority should necessarily be tion. It advocates a balance
The three tiered screening process consisting of No response necessary. reserved for "hose uses that serve a greater, or recreational needs in the
Coastal Location Acceptability Method (CLAM)
policies, and resource policies is a convenient rather than lesser, number of people (pg. 135). coastal zone.
This policy reflects the need for a diversity of
system for both program staff and coastal devel- Ths policy reflects the need for a diversity of
opera. The definitions, policy statements, and recreational experiences, including high, middle
and low density types. The importance of pre-
rationales are clear and should provide much and low density recreational area
serving certain low density recreational areas
guidance. cannot be underestimated, especially because many
1089 such areas are rapidly disappearing.
Now will the NJCtP address the cumulative impacts See general question .1097
Of small projects not covered by CAPRA? EPA requests clarification on why the NJCMP dis- See revised water accepta-
N090 courages boat ramps placement adjacent to medium bility table, chapter 4. Boat
NJGMP should develop CLAM policies that speci- These policies have been devel-
fically address development that would take place oped as part of the upper edge depth back bays, yet conditionally accepts them for ramps in back bays and semi
on lands imediately adjacent to wetlands nd policies. See policies 3.4. shallow semi-enclosed bays end shallow back bays. enclosed bays are now addi-
on lands immediately adjacent to wetlands and policies. See policies 3.4.
(pg. 46). tionatly acceptable.
riparian lands. 1098
C0 t of how the NJIP would prevent This is correct. 9e program EPA is concerned about a NJCMP policy that appears Policy 5.2.8 limits the height
individual housing construction on coastal dune is has established threshold per- to encourage development on the Cental Barrier of coastal development, thus
...a Clarification of how the NJC would prevent This is orrct. The programto encourage development on the Cental Barrier of coastal development, thus
individual hough ct ion on coastalhe dune policies are coendstable it limit for reviewing aeivi- Island Corridor (6.4.3.2, pg. 55). These policies limiting sharp increases in
needed . Al thougha the dne policies are commendable mit limit for reviewing activi- do not seem to reflect consideration of increased density on developed barrier
(6.4.2.2, pg. 55), EPA finds that the Coastal ties that have a direct and
Program has no way of stopping small developments Significant impact on coastal costs of providing public services to the in- beaches. The increases in
on dunes. waters. This is consistent creasing numbers of people on barrier islands. The infrastructure on barrier is-
with the requirements of the carrying capacity of these areas, and the impacts lands will be carefully moni-
CZMA. See general question � and costs of exceeding it, must be recognized in tored to ensure that the
for further clarification. the coastal policies. carrying capacity is not.ex-
ceeded.
1092 1099
The cumulative air quality impacts of a series of See general question 1
The EPA commends the NJCMP's Public Facility Use No response necessary.
small developments have not been addressed. The
EPA strongly urges that the NJCMP be revised to
include the legal authority to regulate and plan the unavailability of alternative technologies for
for such uses. meeting the need.
EPA commends the NJCHP for its stipulation that No response necessary. 1100
new marinas provide adequate marine sanitation pump BOSS provides no assurance that other state agen- See general question D.
ties -- outside of DEP -- with the exception of
out stations. N.J.'s Dept. of Energy (DOE), will be legally bound
1094 by coastal policies.
EPA urges that the NJCMP espouse policies that New Jersey. espouses such poli-
avoid the creation of deep dead-end marina harbors cies through location policy 1101
with poor flushing characteristics. 3.3.7.6 which generally dis- The relationship between the NJCMP and the Energy See general question D for
courages new dredging and Master Plan being prepared by DOE should be firmly clarification of the MOU.
through resource policies re- established.
lating to water quality.

Comment Response
Comment Response
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - Cont.
1102 IU.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - Cant.
The NJCIP and the HOU fail to discuss the criteria The MOU has been revised to 1109
which will guide the Energy Facility Review Board provide such data and criteria. The EPA is concerned about Areas of Particular The designation of APC's by
when it is called upon to resolve a DEP coastal Concern (APC). APCs should be designated based on New Jersey is adequate to
energy facility permit application appealed by - inventory of coastal resources to determine which meet the requirements of the
DOE. areas need special management. That is, the CZHA. The APC section has
management system should be tailored to meet the been revised adding selected
1103 areas; areas should not be designated because of barrier beaches. See re-
Significantly absent is DOE's distribution of funds The CEIP regulations specify the existence of a management system vised chapter 7, APC section.
under the CZHA's Coast Energy Impact Program (CEIP). that all funds allocated
The MOU should be amended to clearly reflect the under the CEIP program, must The EPA also requests clarification of the dispo- A copy of the pblicly nomi-
fact that allocations of CEIP funds should be be consistent with the coas- sition of public nominations for APCs. nated APC's is available from
consistent with the goals and policies of the tal program. See 931.25. NJ/OCZM Hany of these nomi-
NJCMP. nations have been incorporated
1104 directly into the program.
The EPA strongly urges the NJCMP to change its The program must review Others will be used in the
beach policy from one that discourages development each dev elopment application first year of program approval.
that unreasonably restricts access to beaches to on a case by case basis. Only 1111
one that prohibits such development. Unreasonable certain types of development It is unclear whether a listing of state programs The state has established a
restriction of beach access should be grounds for in specific areas can be pro- that relate to parks, species preservation and process for designating APR's
denying such development. hibited under N.J. State law. historic places constitutes the type of criteria that is consistent with CFR
1105 specified in section 306(c)(9) of the CZEIA for 923:24.
EPA would also like the NJCMP to add a clarifi- The language in revised policy designating areas for preservation or restoration.
cation statement concerning its policy on the 3.4.3.2 has been changed It also appears that restoration of specific areas
construction of hotels and restaurants along slightly to clarify the policy . is not mentioned. The adequacy of this element in
retained water's edges (6.5.3.3, pg. 78). meeting the requirements of the CZMA must be
addressed in the PEIS.
6 ustrongly supports the NJCHP policy discouraging These references have been 1112
development in flood hazard areas (6.4.4.2, pg. 59) added to the respective The EPA believes that the NJCHP's definition of the No response necessary.
and wetlands (6.5.1.2, pg. 69). The Coastal policies and the national national interest represents and admirable effort
Program should reference President Carter's Execu- interest section, Chapter 5. in bringing together a diverse, and occasionally
tive Orders on Floodplain Management (Executive conflicting, collection of interests.
Order 11988) and on Wetlands (Executive Order 1113
11990), as well as the guidelines for implementing Two of the five categories of facilities described National defense facilities,
these orders. in the NJCMP are not required to obtain a CAFRA if built on federal lands
1107 permit -- national defense and recreation. Nor is would not be subject to a
The EPA supports the NJCHP policy encouraging This is outlined in policy a CAFRA permit required when one of the defined CAFRA permit. However, the
development that creates open space. The EPA 3.2.20, 3.4 and policy 5.1.3. resources will be significantly affected, unless state can use the federal
recommends, however, that the NJCMP state how it the proposed facility is on the restricted list of consistency section of CZHA
will implement this policy. CAFRA facilities. Thus, the NJCHP provides no to control any activity impact
opportunity to consider the defined national on the coastal zone. Recrea-
1108 tion facilities do require a
It is suggested that the FEIS discuss the authori- See revised chapter 8 for interests in regard to these facilities or to apply
ties that the other segments will rely on and the timetable and discussionof CLAM and the other coastal resource and development DEP review, through the coas-
procedures for combining the segments, with a authorities in the remainder policies. This is a serious program deficiency and tal units input in the Green
timetable. of the coastal zone. one which must be remedied before the FEIS is Acres Program.
issued.

Comment Response Comment Response

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - Cont. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - Cont.

441 believes that the NJCMP should state that its The list of activities and le 9DEIS fails to point out what difference ap- The state will receive
list of federal activities and development projects permits subject to consis- proval of the NJCMP really means to DEP. The basic program implementation
subject to consistency is to exclusive and that tency is that which the state programs relied upon -- CAFRA and those for wet- grants under section 306.app
other activities and projects may also be reviewed wishes to hold subject- to lands and riparian lands -- viii not be altered by section 30 and be eli-
for consistency. consistency. Changes to this program approval. gible for section 308
list can be made through the
amendment process. 1120
11~~~~i5'lls-~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~The DEIS does not adequately discuss the tradeoffs This is adequately addressed
Two particular federal activities, the construction Both of these activities have and impacts involved in the general policy of in the qIS section 1 to
of Coast Guard stations and OCS lease sales, been added to the list of concentrating development. meet the requirements of
should be added to the list of federal activities activities subject to con- NE
and development projects because of their potential sistency. See revised chapter 1121
impact on the coastal zone. 6, federal consistency. The DEIS also does not analyze the impacts of The action under considera-
1116 segmentation, particularly what may happen if the tion by the Assistant Admin-
Finally, EPA requests an explanation for setting This section has been de- other segments where growth is being encouraged do istrator is approval of the
aside three facility types for which federal leted from the revised not have adequate authority to implement the BOSS program. The EIS
assistance is provided to state and local govern- Federal consistency section. program or, for other reasons, the segments fail to analyzed this action only.
ments -- chemical or petrochemical processing, See revised chapter 5. unify into a total program, The impacts of the rest of
transfer or storage; mineral extraction; and sewage Federal Assistance to state the state program will be
treatment and disposal factors -- and subjecting and local government. analyzed when it is sub-
them to the consistency provisions wherever in the mitted early 1979. Segment
state they may be located. (pg. 191). a roval will b e wi thdrawn if the
1117 1122 rest of the state program is not
O 1117 1122 Incorporated.
EPA would like to note a significant omission in This has been added to the The EPA also questions the DEIS's analysis of the This section has been revised
the NJCNP list of federal licenses issued by the list of consistency permits. impacts of the coastal policies on N.J.'s barrier in Part III - Environmental
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the construction See chapter 6, federal con- islands. Their limited carrying capacity and their Impacts.
and operation of nuclear power plants. sistency section. susceptibility to natural hazards are treated
1118 lightly.
The EPA seeks clarification of the intended geo- The list of permits and ac- 1123
graphic scope of the NJCNP's consistency provi- tivities listed in the con- The EPA is concerned that the DEIS does not analyze See general question H.
sions. Some discernible criteria must be provided sistency section are those the draft memorandum of understanding between the
so that federal agencies will be on notice as to activities and permits sub- DEP and DOE, particularly how DOE (in its alloca-
whether a particular activity is subject to the ject to the program. See tion of CEIP funds) will be consistent with the
federal consistency provisions. The NJCMP provides chapter 5, federal con- coastal program.
no such standard. sistency section.

1124
1The effects of 305-1/2 funding on the BOSS efforts Program segments are not eligible
to improve their program should be analyzed sepa- - for section 305 (d) funding. Part
rately. IV addresses this issue.

Comment Response Comaent Response

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMIlSSION - Cont.
1125 1131.
While N.J. has made a conscientious beginning in See responses to specific questions Use Policy 7.4.9 for Gas Processing Plants on pg. The state feels that this
the development of the NJC(P-BOSS to produce a below 144 may increase coastal zone disruption rather policy will not increase
well-balanced and reasonable program we find the than decrease it as intended. While it is true coastal zone disruption,
policy on LNG siting to be unacceptable. that these plants may be excluded from the coastal but add to the predictability
1126 zone with little detrimental effect, the policy of of the coastal zone permit
The Federal Power Commission (FPC) became the These changes have been made locating them "the maximum feasible distance from decisions. See revised
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) when throughout the program docu- the shoreline" may not be appropriate. Once the policy 4.4.10 which clari-
the U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE) was activated on ment. OCS gas has been processed, the transmission of the fies that this policy also
10/1/77. FERC and DOE should be identified sepa- same volume of gas requires far less pipeline refers to partial processing
rately. construction than would occur with a processing plants. Evidenc to date
1127 plant closer to the coast. In addition, location has not shown that these
The Commission has been referred to in the report These changes have been made nearer the coast would minimize the costs of processing plants could not
by the following names: FPC on pg. 178, former FPC throughout the program docu- constructing chemical and salt water return lines. be located the maximum fea-
on pg. 181, FERC (former FPC) within the DOE on pg. ment. sible distance from the shore-
241. We suggest use of the term FERC (formerly line. Each plant will need
FPC) in all cases. to be reviewed on a case by
1128 case basis and distance from
The report uses the names of the N.J. DOE, U.S. The DOE refers always in the the shoreline will determine
Department of Energy, and the Department of Ener- document to the U.S. Depart- on a variety of local factors.
gy. The Department of Energy refers to either New ment of Energy. 1132.
Jersey Department of Energy or U.S. Department of Policy on LNG facility siting is unacceptable. After a thorough review and dis-
Energy. A clarification of the uses is needed. CMPs not intended to be vehicle to circumvent cussion with FERC officials, OCZM
1129 Federal agency rulemaking processes. May 1976 finds that the revised policy 4.4.14
It is impossible to determine the precise CAFRA The cost would prohibit pub- petition to FPC by State of N.J. for issuance of is consistent with the CZMA. To the
boundary shown on the maps of N.J. Coastal Zone lication of these maps for siting criteria (R 76013) is still under con- extent the FERC objection is based
(see pp. 14 and 258). As soon as these boundaries distribution to all federal asideration by FERC. New decisions to be made on upon alleged Federal preemption of
are official, a set of the U S.G.S. annotated agencies. Working maps are this petition will not be influenced by Use LNG siting issues, we find the argu-
topographic maps should be sent to the FERC so that available for inspection in Policy 7.4.14(c) of NJCpP-BOSS. Therefore this ments neither official policy of FER
applications to the Commission can be reviewed for the NJ/OCZ office in Trenton. policy statement should be reconsidered. norreasonable interpretation of law.
determination of Federal consistency. The CZMA therefore requires OCZH to
1130 assure that states have adequate
Regarding the national interest: New Jersey's The areas that are refered to policies to deal with LNG siting
determination that "resort/recreation uses shall in the report by Rutgers Uni- issues. The New Jersey policy is
have priority in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment versity are outside the BOSS essentially to encourage the adop-
over all other uses" is a justifiable choice jurisdiction.Copies of the report tion by the four Federal agencies
however, if national interest considerations are to are available from N.J/ OCZM currently involved, of consistent
be balanced, the State must insure also that and one has been sent to FERC. Federal siting criterion, which the
appropriate and necessary energy facility sites are State appears ready to abide. But
not preempted. To support such determination, the such criterion are not forthcoming;
State should supply to Federal agencies, or an the State's petition (RM 76-13) has
appendix to the final NJC P-BOSS, the basic reports had no action taken on it in over 2
such as the Rutgers University study referenced on years by FERC and its predessor
pg. 179 which reportedly concludes that suitable agency; nor is any action evidently
sites for oil and gas facilities are available contemplated. Given these circum-
along the Raritan Bay and River. stances, OCZM finds it necessary for
the State to establish its own siting
policies at this time, and finds
those policies reasonable in scope
and content, consistent with the pro-
gram approval regulations.

Comment Response Comment Response

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COmMISSION - Cont.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COfMISSION
1136.
aw3ther requirements also established under Use Revised policy 4.4.14 has deleted136.
Policy 7.4.14. State has not established ho will {'(a) vigorous and consistent siting Pg.'145 - Sections 7.4.12 and 7.4.13 are not This suggested change has
determine when "(a) rigorous and consistent siting criteria are establisheduand clar- given parallel treatment. The heading "Base been incorporated into re-
criteria are established," and "(b) the risks ified that these will include all Load Electric Generating Stations" is applied vised policy 4.4.13.
inherent in tankering...and transferring LNG applicable Federal siting criteria, only to new or expanded non-nuclear fossil
onshore have been sufficiently analyzed and mini- OCZM has found the revised policy fossil fueled plants. This is not accurate because
mized." These requirements have been fulfilled by to be consistent with the require- fossil fueled plants may be cycling loadaili-
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, most ments of the CZMA. facilities ut there should be one single head-
recently by our siting and safety analyses of Point ing: "Electric Generating Stations" with a
Conception, Calif., LNG terminal as proposed in
FERC Docket No. CP75-83-2. nuclear plants. The second section number
1134. should be dropped.
State says that LNG terminals are acceptable only The policies are consistent in that The use of the term "non-nuclear, fossil fueled The phrase non-nuclear fos-
at sites remote from population centers, contra- recreational uses are among the plants" raises a question in our minds. Do they sil fueled plants'has been
vening its previous determination of the national most approprnte for areas near LNG really mean the broad category of all "non- deleted. See revised
interest in recreational uses for this segment. If terminal sites. The extent of Fed- nuclear" plants or the narrower category of policy 4.4.13.
FERC has fulfilled the requirements for LNG siting eral authority over LNG siting, as "Fossil Fueled" plants?
and safety suggested in NJCHP-BOSS, then any siting indicated above Regarding Policy 7.4.13, it is suggested that, OCZ1 has reviewed revised
decisions should be made by them. is still very much un- OCZMr carefully consider the question of whether policy 4.4.13 and finds
resolved and unlikely to be re- they are consistent with the Atomic Energy Act that it is consistent with
.p solved in the near future. of 1954 and the Energy Reorganization Act of both acts referenced and
1974 and/or the CZMt itself. with the CZPIA.

l13T. The State now clearly delineates
Pg. 189, -the information identified under DOWE needs These changes have been its policies with respect to the
to be corrected. FERC is an independent regulatory incorporated in revised its policies with respect to the
commission; it does not speak for DOE, nor does chapter 6, Federal con- siting impacts within its juris-
FERC expect DOE to speak for it in these matters. sistency section. ical health and safety consideration,
The following should be identified: the State recognizes its limited role

and takes cognizance of recent court
a. Licenses required for non-federal hydroelectric decisions establishing the extent to
projects and associated transmission lines under which New Jersey can exercise the
Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 USC referenced state law in areas of
797(e). safety and nuclear waste disposal.
b. Certificates required for the construction and 0CZH believes that this should fully
operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, OCZM believe the issues to th should fully
defined to include both interstate pipeline and of all parties.
terminal facilities under Section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717f(c).
c. The permission and approval required for the
abandonment of natural gas pipeline facilities
under Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (15
U.S.C. 717f(b).

Comment Response

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - Cont.
1137.
Pg. 177, paragraph 3, states that, "The Commis- The interpretation has been in-
sioner has interpreted "public welfare" to include eluded in Chapter 4, which has
a full consideration of national interests..." We been adopted as regulation by
do not find assurance in either the N.J. law or the few Jersey.
regulations that the "public" includes those beyond
the State's border.
1138.
Pg. 186 Federal Consistency - We suggest changing This suggestion has been
the second sentence to read: "They issue permits incorporated in revised
and licenses for activities such as... the construc- chapter 6, federal con-
tion and operation of nuclear power plants..." sistency section.
1139.
Pg. 187 (2) - This statement tends toequate This has been clarified in
national interest with national security. National revised chapter 6, federal
interest is a broader concern. We suggest changing consistency section.
the wording to: "The activity is clearly in the
national interest and is carried out in a manner
which minimizes conflict with the Coastal Resource
and Development Policies."
1140.
Pg. 189 - The NRC mission has been lumped under This change has been incor-
DOE. NRC should be separately stated as we are an porated in revised chapter 6,
independent Federal agency. It should read: federal consistency section.
OM "NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Permits and licenses Please excuse this error.
(M the construction and operation of nuclear facili-
ties."
1141.
Pg. 203 section 2 state, "Under these policies, This section has been clari-
large scale energy production.. .must locate in the fied in revised Part III,
region outside the Segment's boundaries." Where is Section 2. Large scale
the justification that keeps this from being an energy production is not
arbitrary exclusion of activities in the national prohibited, but must comply
interest? with the full range of BOSS
policies.
1142.
Pg. 212 (paragraph 1) - The timetable for DOE and This is outlined in the
DEP to investigate the feasibility of alternative Energy Master Plan as being
energy production methods is not given. 1-2 years.
1143.
Pg. 212 (paragraph 2) - The last 2 sentences assume It would not be appropriate
that there is adequate water to support the energy to address alternative inland
facility inland and that an inland location will sites in the OU which only
not result in coastal air and water quality degra- addressed conflicts between
dation. It appears that N.J. could very well DOE and DEP over interpre-
approach inland alternatives to coastal sites tation of the coastal poli-
through the emorandum of Understanding between DEP cies or need requirements.
and DOE and the N.J. Energy Act.
* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978 272-443/6375