[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
(C- C;@ NEW JERSEY COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AUGUST 1980 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Coastal Zone Management I wrr,,b^ft -y kw@ J., -44 Z, 7,r: nA it' pg@ Nftm Wei --4 V*4A, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRON-MENTAL PROTECTION Brendan Byrne Jerry Fitzgerald English !@D Governor Commissioner ]be New Jersey Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement 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). Cover photo by David N. Kinsey NEW JERSEY COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT August 1980 Property of CSC Library IMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA Cr)A AL SERVICES CENTER x2-31 ISIOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 Prepared by: State of New Jersey U.S. Department of Commerce Department of Environmental Protection National Oceanic and Atmospheric Division of Coastal Resources Administration Bureau of Coastal Planning and Development office of Coastal Zone Management P.O. Box 1889 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Washington, D.C. 20235 7- STATIE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER P. 0. BOX 1390 TRENTON, N. J. 06625 609-292-2885 July 31, 1980 Dear Friend of the Coast: I am proud to submit to you the New Jersey Coastal Management Program and final Environmental Impact Statement. Approval of this document completes the review process under Section 306 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. This program is based upon our experience administering the Coastal Management Program approved by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment in September 1978, and six years of coastal management and planning. The program provides the substantive framework for Governor Byrne's Riverlands Renaissance Program, while also enabling New Jersey to continue balancing the many coastal interests and pressures to both protect sensitive resources and promote necessary development. New Jersey has already demonstrated that these two objectives need not be mutually exclusive. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), as New Jersey's lead coastal agency, will continue to prepare publications and to hold public hearing and workshops throughout the state with a wide range of federal, state and local agencies, interest groups and citizens so that this Coastal management Program is understood and fully used. In addition,-I am committed to reviewing the Coastal Resource and Development Policies at least once each year to make necessary revisions and additions. while federal approval of this coastal management program is a major accomplishment, it by no means concludes our coastal work. Rather, it provides a detailed framework through which we can all focus our efforts to address the range of crucial and complex coastal issues facing New Jersey. I look forward to working w you 1' this effort. c R Fi RALD ENGLIS omiss' e you 1. nc 0 @R T I mi4 ss DESIGNATION: Final Environmental Impact Statement TITLE: Proposed Federal Approval of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program ABSTRACT: The State of New Jersey has submitted its Coastal Management Program to the Office of Coastal Zone Management for approval. Approval would permit implementation of the proposed Program, allow program administration grants to be awarded to the State, and require that federal actions be consistent with the Pro- gram. This impact statement includes a copy of the Program (Part II) which is a comprehensive management program for land and water use activities. It consists of numerous policies on diverse management issues which are enforced by various state laws, discusses areas of special interest to the State, and is the culmination of several years of program development. Approval and implementation of the Program will enhance gov- ernance of the state's coastal land and water areas and uses according to the coastal policies and standards. The effect of these policies is to condition, restrict or prohibit some uses in parts of the coastal zone, while encourag ing development and other uses in other parts. This Program will improve decision- making processes for determining appropriate coastal land and water uses in light of resource considerations and increase public awareness of coastal resources. The Program may result in some short-term economic impacts on coastal users but will lead to increased long-term protection of the state's coastal resources. Alternatives include delaying or denying approval if certain requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act have not been met, or the State could modify parts of the Program or withdraw or delay their application for Federal approval. APPLICANT: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources, Bureau of Coastal Planning and Development LEAD AGENCY: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Coastal Zone Management CONTACT: Ms. Kathryn Cousins North Atlantic Regional Manager Office of Coastal Zone Management 3300 Whitehaven Road, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20235 (Tele. 202/634m-4126) COMMENTS: Comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ended July 7, 1980. NEW JERSEY COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Commissioner's Letter Note to Reader/NEPA Summary Table of Contents PAGE PART I - SUMMARY Program Summary 1 Changes Program Will Make 5 Major Issues, Opportunities, and Areas of Conflict 7 Major Conclusions 10 Federal Coastal Zone Management Act 13 PART II - DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW JERSEY COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Governor's Letter 15 Chapter One: INTRODUCTION 17 Chapter Two: BOUNDARY 19 Introduction and Summary 19 Inland Boundary 19 Seaward and Interstate Boundary 20 Chapter Three: MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 23 Introduction and Summary 24 Administrative Framework - Department of Environmental Protection 2 5 Principal Implementation Programs 31 Introduction Waterfront Development Law Coastal Area Facility Review Act Wetlands Act Tidelands Management Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission Department of Energy Green Acres Funding Shore Protection Coastal Program Funding Supplementary Programs in DEP 46 Water Quality Program NPDES Permits Areawide Water Quality Management (208) Plans Wastewater Treatment Facilities: Regulation and Funding TABLE OF CONTENTS - Cont. PAGE Stream Encroachment and Flood Hazards Wild and Scenic Rivers Delaware and Raritan Canal State Park Regulation of State Owned Lands Air Quality Regulation Solid Waste Harbor Clean-Up Other State Agencies 57 Department of Agriculture Department of Community Affairs Department of Labor and Industry Department of Transportation County Land Use Authority 59 Municipal Land Use Authority 60 Regional Land Use Authority 60 Delaware River Area Northern Waterfront Area Federal Agency Authority 64 Public Participation 65 Conflict Resolution - Appeals 66 "Chapter Four: COASTAL RESOURCE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES Note to Reader 67 SUBCHAPTER 1 - Introduction SUBCHAPTER 2 - Location Policies SUBCHAPTER 3 - Special Areas SUBCHAPTER 4 - General Water Areas SUBCHAPTER 5 - General Land Areas SUBCHAPTER 6 - General Location Policies SUBCHAPTER 7 - Use Policies SUBCHAPTER 8 - Resource Policies Chapter Five: SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT 241 ACT Introduction 241 Federal Consistency 242 National Interests 261 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Cont. PAGE Regional Benefit Decisions 261 Geographic Areas of Particular Concern 263 Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission District 2 99 Areas for Preservation and Restoration 284 Energy Facility Planning Process 285 Shoreline Access and Protection Planning Process 292 Shoreline Erosion Mitigation Planning Process 301 Chapter Six: NEXT STEPS IN COASTAL MANAGEMENT IN NEW JERSEY 3 07 PART III - DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW JERSEY COASTAL ZONE - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT-310 Introduction 310 Delineating the Boundary 310 Municipalities Within the Coastal Zone 314 Description and Visions of the Coastal Zone 3 19 Northern Waterfront Area Bay and Ocean Shore Area Delaware River Area PART IV - ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL APPROVAL 337 Introduction 332 Direct Effects - Environmental Consequences 332 Environmental Consequences Economic Consequences Institutional Consequences Possible Conflicts Between Coastal Program and the Plans or 337 Policies of Local Governments, Regional and Insterstate Agencies Introduction Local Governments Regional and Interstate Agencies PART V - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 3 57 APPENDICES A. The Coastal Planning Process 362 B. Excluded Federal Lands 370 C. Memorandum of Understanding Between DEP and DOE 372 D. Proposed Waterfront Development Rules and Attorney General's Opinion 378 E. Legal Authorities 390 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS - Cont. PAGE F. Legal Commentary 406 G. Secretarial Findings Index 41.4 H. Comments and Responses on Proposed NJCMP and DEIS (Ma y 1980) 417 I. Glossary J. List of Preparers of New Jersey Coastal Management Program and Final EIS FIGURES 1. New Jersey Coastal Zone - Map 2 2. New Jersey Coastal Zone - Boundary Sketch 2 1 3. Department of Environmental Protection Organizational Chart 26 4. Division of Coastal Resources Organizational Chart 5. Jurisdiction of Proposed Rule for Waterfront Development Law - 33 Concept Sketch and Sample Map 6. Wetlands and Waterfront (Riparian) Development Permit Application 3 5 Processes 7. CAFRA Inland Boundary 36 8. CAFRA Permit Application Process 38 9. Bay and Ocean Shore Area Coastal Permit Jurisdiction 40 10. Tidelands Application Process 4 1 11. Delaware and Raritan Canal State Park Overlap with Proposed Coastal 52 Zone 12. Overlap Between Delaware River Basin Commission Jurisdiction and 62 Proposed Coastal Zone 13. Special Water's Edge Types - Mainland 94 14. Special Water's Edge Types - Barrier Island 95 15. Existing Lagoon Edge 97 16. Beach and Dune System 101 17. Coastal Bluffs 112 18. Intermittent Stream Corridor 114 v TABLE OF CONTENTS - Cont. PAGE 19. Pinelands Jurisdictions 125 20. HMDC Location and Boundary 128 21. Water Area Policy Summary Table 132 22. Water Body Types 133 23. Growth Regions of the Coastal Zone 153 24. Infill Diagram 159 25. Acceptable Intensity of Development 163 26. OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Areas 186 27. Pine Barrens Exclusion Area 191 28. Flood Hazard Areas 236 29. Geographic Areas of Particular Concern 264 30. Higbee Beach GAPC 266 31. HMDC Location and Boundary (Same as Figure 20) 270 32. HMDC Approval Process for Subdivisions Outside of SPA 273 33. HMDC Approval Process for SPA and Planned Unit Developments 274 34. HKDC Zoning Map 277 35. HMDC Land Use, Present and Projected 279 36. HMDC Wetland Biozones 280 37. Energy Facilities and their Major Impacts 286 38. New Jersey Coastal Zone (Same as Figure 1) 312 39. Municipal Government Policies 338 40. Potential Regional Government Conflicts 356 41. Major Excluded Federal Lands 371 42. Jurisdiction of Rules for Waterfront Development Law 379 Sketch and Sample Map (same as Figure 5) vi SUMMARY T I A PART I - SUMMARY Program Summary Program History Changes Program Will Make Outside of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment In the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment integration of the Two Segments Major Issues and Opportunities Major Conclusions - Basic Coastal Policies Federal Coastal Zone Management Act Program Summary The New Jersey Coastal Management Program has been prepared to determine and describe New Jerseyrs -strategy to manage the tuture 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 Manage- ment Act, which will aid State efforts to manage the often conflicting pressures facing the coast. This document serves as a combined Coastal Management Program and as a Final Environmental Impact Statement, because federal approval of a state coastal management program is considered a 11maj'or action" requiring an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources (DEP-DCR) is preparing the Coastal Management Program in part with funding provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admrnistration, Office of Coastal Zone Manage- ment (NOAA-OCZM). ,New Jersey, along with other coastal states, is using the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, to prepare a program intended to promote the wise use of its coastal areas. The Governor has assigned this responsibility to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The New Jersey program was developed in two parts. The first part, called the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, begins at the Cheesequake Creek in Middlesex County, and includes the area south of Sandy Hook to the tip of Cape May and then, north along the Delaware Bay to near the Delaware Memorial Bridge. The Coastal Management Program for this area received federal approval on September 29, 1978. This Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement addresses New Jersey's entire coastal zone. it integrates the Coastal Management Program approved for New Jersey's Bay and Ocean Shore Segment by NOAA, with proposals for New Jersey's other tidally influenced waterfront areas in,the northeastern part of the State along the Hudson River and related waters, and in the Hackensack Meadowlands, and in the southwestern part of the State along the Delaware River and its tributaries. These areas have been referred to as the "Developed Coast", a term which does not fully connote their diversity. While the coastal management program is designed to recognize regional as well as site specific differences, this document will avoid use of the phrase "Developed Coast", referring instead to the "Bay and Ocean Shore area", "Delaware River Area", "Northern Waterfront Area", and "Hackensack Meadowlands", the specific counties, municipalities or water bodies of concern, or to "the coastal areas outside of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment" (See Figure 1). Figure I NEW JERSEY HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS COASTAL SUSSEX DISTRICT ZONE /,PA13SAIC BERGEN MORR@S WARREN @ESSEX NORTHERN WATERFRONT HACKENSACK UNION AREA MEADOWLANDS '-@SOMERSET DISTRICT "UNTERDON 1. SAY AND,OCEAN ....... SHORE AREA j IDDLESEX MONMOUTH MERCER DELAWARE RIVER OCEAN AREA BAY AND OCEAN BURL GTON SHOFLE AREA A.,@,CAMDEX SALFM ATLANTIC M91MAND .. ......... CAPE M $1.1E OF NEW 111101111%4r OF warfcMN 2- This document defines and explains the Coastal Resource and Development Policies and the management system the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the New Jersey Department of Energy (NJDOE), and the Hackensack Meadow- lands Development Commission (HMDC) will use in managing activities in this Coastal Program. The Coastal Policies are divided into three groups: (1) Location Policies evaluate specific types of coastal locations, such as wetlands and prime farm land; (2) Use Policies are directed at different uses of the coastal zone, such as housing and energy facility development; and (3) Resource Policies focus on controlling the effects of development, such as water runoff and soil erosion, and on the protection of natural and cultural resources. The use of these three groups of policies to evaluate a proposed development is termed use of the Coastal Loca- tion Acceptability Method (CLAM). 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 permit programs, shore protection program I, tidelands management program, the regulatory activities of the Department of Energy and the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission, and the funding programs available under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act and through the New Jersey Green Acres Administration. Program History New Jersey's interest in its tidal waters precedes the American Revolution, for under the public trust doctrine of English common law, tidal waters and the lands thereunder belonged to the sovereign for the common use of all the people. With the Revolution, the royal rights to the State's tidelands became vested in the people of New Jersey. In 1821, the State Supreme Court in Arnold v. Mundy (6 N.J.L. 1) articulated the State's right to convey, regulate, improve and secure the tidelands for the common benefit of every individual citizen, but also determined that neither the State nor the purchaser or licensee of tidelands could impair the public's common rights of fishing and navigation in tidal waters. In 1869, the General Riparian Act was passed setting forth the procedure by which an administra- tive agency, then the Riparian Commissioners, could alienate State-owned tidelands. Subsequent State Supreme Court decisions have declared that because tidal lands are held in public trust, the State must consider the broad public interest and must receive adequate compensation for these lands. In 1914, the State Legislature showed its first interest in regulating the land areas along tidal waters when it passed the Waterfront Development Law. The Law requires that prospective developers obtain State agency approval for "all plans for the development of any water-front upon any navigable water or stream of this State or bounding thereon ..." (N.J.S.A. 12:5-3). The next major law affecting the State's coastal area was the Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Development Act passed 55 years later -in 1969. To ensure the orderly development of the Meadowlands District, the law created the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission, provided it with authority to regulate all forms of development within the District, and instructed it to develop a master plan for the District. 3 Concern about the environment of the State's coastal zone was reflected in the Wetlands Act of 1970. The Wetlands Act delegated authority to the newly created Department of Environmental Protection to delineate and regulate development in all coastal wetlands of the State from the Raritan River Basin southward. The next major legislative advance in coastal zone management occurred in 1973 when the State passed the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) giving DEP authority to regulate major development in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment of the coastal zone to preserve environmentally sensitive sites and ensure a rational pattern of development, and also requiring the Department to prepare a strategy for the management area by September, 1977. In 1972, the U.S. Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act, declaring a national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection and development of the coastal zone, and encouraging and assisting the states to develop and implement management programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone. In response to this federal initiative, the State has been working since 1974 to prepare and obtain federal approval for a statewide coastal management program. Because DEP, under CAFRA, had already prepared a coastal management strategy for the Bay and Ocean Shore area in 1977, DEP elected to seek federal approval of this segment first, and to then complete the boundary, policy and management system suitable for the remainder of the State's coastal zone. Between 1974 and 1978, the Department collected data and viewpoints, and met with interested groups throughout the State, which provided a foundation for the coastal management program for the segment and for the rest of the State. One end result was a comprehensive set of Coastal Resource and Development Policies to be used by the Department to ensure consistent and predictable permit decision-making in the coastal zone. These were adopted as Departmental rules effective September 28, 1978 and the Coastal Management Program for the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment received federal approval the next day. The first step toward continuing the coastal management program into the more developed portions of the State was publication of Options for New Jersey's Developed Coast in March 1979. In the report, DEP candidly discussed the opportu- nities aFT-773-1ces available to New Jersey under the federal Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act, with a particular emphasis on the state's more developed coastal areas. This report served as a basis for public comment and discussion in the Spring and early Summer of 1979. Publication of the Proposed New Jersey Coastal Management Program and Draft EIS was the second step. The third step was the public review and comment on it and on the Options report. DEP staff met with, and received comments from many residents and people representing federal, state, county and municipal elected representativ es and agencies, regional planning groups, and interest groups with environmental, civic, residential, industrial development, and other concerns. In addition, NJDEP and NOAA-OCZM jointly held four formal public hearings, on the State's proposed coastal management program on June 11 and 12 in Camden, Jersey City, Toms River and Trenton. 4 NJDEP and NOAA-OCZM used the public comments to refine and, where neces- sary, rewrite the State's proposed coastal management program. This was the fourth and final step in the coastal program completion process. The product of this effort is this coastal management program and final environmental impact statement, which the Governor is submitting to NOAA-OCZM for federal approval. Changes the Program Will Make Federal approval of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program will not cause any dramatic immediate effects. Rather, the changes that wirT -occur stem from the beginning of concerted coastal planning in New Jersey in the early 19701s, and will be realized gradually as the results of that planning are accepted and applied. A description of the proposed coastal zone as it is today and as it will become through implementation of a Coastal Management Program may be found in Part III. Federal approval is a major step toward the acceptance of the state's coastal planning activities which will help accelerate those changes which have begun in recent years. Three general areas of change are being produced by the coastal program. In each case, these changes have already been brought about in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment of the coast and will be realized in the remainder of the coastal zone with implementation of a Coastal Management Program. The first change caused by the proposed coastal management program is improved procedures for coastal land and water use decision-making. The adoption of the Coastal Resource and Development Policies as administrative rules will result in greater predictability of DEP coastal decisions. These rules substitute publicly debated and refined written policies for case-by-case decision making. The largely federally funded coastal planning effort has enabled New Jersey to employ a professional coastal planning staff for the past five years which has been able to incorporate new, as well as previously underused, information into State coastal policies. In some cases, the policies codify what had become administrative practice, while in others they will result in different decisions. The major change caused by these policies will be better use of New Jersey's coastal resources. The policies are summarized at the end of this Chapter and presented in full in Chapter Three. In addition, DEP has adopted procedural rules for CAFRA and the Wetlands Act, established innovations such as the pre-application conference, and most recently reorganized the former Division of Marine Services into a Division of Coastal Resources, with a single permit office (instead of three) and increased monitoring and enforcement capabilities. These actions, coupled with the Legisla- ture's enactment of the "90 Day Construction Permit Law", are creating a regulatory process in which developers and others can make their own plans on the basis of binding, and increasingly predictable, beneficial and efficient policies and procedures. The second change caused by the coastal management program will be the avail- ability of increased funding in New Jersey for coastal management. The State is currently receiving $800,000 a year to implement the coastal program in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. Upon Federal approval of New Jersey's statewide program, the State will then become eligible to receive an estimated fourteen-month grant of $2.1 million to implement the coastal program, and an estimated $1.8 million in grants and $4 million in credit assistance under the federal Coastal Energy Impact 5 Program. Part of the program implementation grant New Jersey receives will be used to administer the State's coastal permit programs and to increase the Department's monitoring and enforcement of coastal activities and decisions. The funds will also be used for research projects and continued planning to refine the Coastal Resource and Development Policies as necessary and to focus on additional issues and information which could improve the state's coastal management program. In addition, DEP intends to use part of the grant to initiate or promote specific state, county or municipal projects which would help further the Coastal Resource and Development Policies described in Chapter Four. Thus, a municipality could apply to DEP for funding to conduct a planning study for a specific project which would increase recreational, commercial, or industrial use of the waterfront in a manner consistent with the State's coastal policies. DEP expects that these small grants will be used in conjunction with funds available from the CEIP program administered by the Department of Energy. These planning funds are intended as ,seed money to enable local governments to obtain larger implementation grants from other State, federal and private funding sources. Federal approval of the state- wide program will extend these benefits to 244 municipalities in seventeen counties. Lastly, the coastal management program is bringing increased public focus on the coast. This is the change which makes other more specific changes possible. As people become more aware of the resources of the coast, and of the problems and opportunities the resources present, they become willing to devote more attention, support and money to various coastal issues. Issues such as public access to the waterfront, high rise construction, energy facility siting, and the use of urban waterfronts have all been subject to recent public discussion and debate. The Coastal Management Program has certainly not been the only cause of this concern, but it has sponsored, and will continue to promote, educational programs and publications, research, pilot projects, and revisions to State policies to increase public awareness and use of the coast. Changes the Program will make Outside of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment Federal approval of a Statewide Coastal Management Program will bring the remainder of the coast the same benefits of consistent and predictable coastal permit decision making, federal funding for planning and permitting, and increased public awareness to coastal issues that is now enjoyed in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. In addition, completion of the management program beyond the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment will entail a defining of DEP's jurisdiction under the Waterfront Development Law. This law gives the Department authority to regulate construction in the navigable waters of the State and the adjacent "waterfront". The inland extent of the "waterfront" has never been defined formally in the sixty-five year history of this law. Based upon its legislative history, the Department (with the agreement to the Attorney General) has decided that a boundary ranging from 100 to 500 feet inland of mean high water is consistent with the intent of the legisla- tion. This change will be accomplished through the adoption of an administrative rule which will take effect September 26, 1980. This rule will entrust DEP with project review responsibility over all upland development along a narrow strip of land along coastal waters in the Delaware River Area and Northern Waterfront Area. It would cause no change in the CAFRA area. This proposal is not an extension of the CAFRA boundary. It is discussed in detail in Part II, Chapter Two, and the text of the proposed rule is included in Appendix D. 6 In the Hackensack Meadowlands District, the Coastal Management Program will not replace the adopted Meadowlands District Master Plan and associated policy documents as the guiding policies for the District. What the program will do is bring about closer coordination between the HKDC and the Department, provide federal funds to improve planning and program implementation in the District, and bring greater public awareness to the coastal resources of the Meadowlands District. Changes the Program will make in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment The Coastal Management Program for the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment is in place and has received federal approval. Continuation of the program into the remainder of the State's coastal zone will have little impact on the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. The one change that will be made is that the Coastal Resource and Devel- opment Policies will be amended to make them applicable statewide. There are some substantive changes in the policies affecting the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. These changes - were suggested by staff planning activities, public comment and project review experience, which would be deemed advisable even if the Coastal Management Program,were not being extended beyond the Segment. The changes are included in the amended rules on Coastal Resource and Development Policies found in Chapter Four of Part II which will take effect September 26, 1980. Integration of the Two Segments Upon federal approval of a statewide coastal management program there will no longer be any distinction between the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and the re 'mainder of the coastal zone, except that the Segment will be a wider zone in which CAFRA is the principal regulatory authority. The Coastal Resource and Development Policies will be a unified set of policies to guide Departmental policies throughout the statewide coastal zone. The policies will, however, recognize site specific and regional differences., and will be more restrictive of new development in land areas in certain "limited growth" regions, all of which are in the Bay and Ocean Shore Area, than in "extension" or "development" regions, which are located both within and without the segment. In the Hackensack Meadowlands District, development will be regulated by the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission as lead agency, in accordance with its adopted Master Plan Zoning Regulations. The overall result will be a comprehensive state-wide coastal management program in which environmentally sensitive "special areas" receive special protec- tion wherever they are found, but in which the regulation of development in land areas will be most restrictive in the relatively pristine area near the shores of the Mullica River, Great Egg Harbor and Delaware Bay, and least restrictive in urban areas, and in the urban/suburban areas along the Delaware River, in north- eastern New Jersey, and in the Ha 'ckensack Meadowlands District, Planning, funding and permitting will be carried out in a uniform statewide manner, except that different laws will be used to implement coastal objectives in different portions of the coastal zone. Major Issues and Opportunities This section of the Summary describes major coastal issues in New Jersey, including areas of controversy. The conflicting interests and viewpoints held by different groups on coastal issues demand that a meaningful coastal program be 7 controversial, while the complexity of the issues together with the dynamic quality of the coast itself suggest that no coastal program will ever be "complete" in the sense of having resolved all outstanding issues. Sand dunes, power plants, surf clams, and the State's largest cities 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 industry, 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 disappear- ing rapidly until the passage of the Wetlands Act in 1970. 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 New Jersey coast be maintained as a healthy ecosystem and guarded against the depletion of natural resources, while accommodating those resort-oriented and other activities and facilities which belong on the coast? Away from the shore, the New Jersey coast is even more diverse and in demand for a wider range of activities. Despite, and in some cases because of, the more built up nature of the waterfront along the state's rivers and bays, the main- tenance of existing natural areas and the restoration of spoiled areas is of great concern. In addition, the economic revitalization of New Jersey's cities is an increasingly recognized coastal issue, as urban waterfronts are seen to offer opportunities for rejuvenating and creating attractive residential and commercial areas. The more developed areas also support the state's ports and considerable industrial development which contribute to the state and national economy. A need to facilitate and in some cases expand these operations is likely, and will need to be considered in terms of the multiple coastal issues. 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 land 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 has interfered with passive and active coastal recreation. 8 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 and its region faces a unique set of development pressures from casino gambling and offshore oil and gas exploration. Camden, Jersey City, Newark and other cities face more traditional urban problems while possessing greatly underused waterfront areas. 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. oil and gas exploration off New Jersey's coast is now a reality, and development is stil'i a possibility. New Jersey will have to grapple with the new demands which will be placed on the coast's resources by these activities and associated facilities. 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. New Jersey's coastal laws, while progressive by national standards, are not perfect. By relying primarily upon laws passed in 1914, 1968, 1970, 1973 and 1977, the state's coastal management program is faced with both regulatory duplication, so that development proposals may require more than one coastal permit, and regulatory gaps which prevent the State from fully protecting potentially valuable natural resources and develop- ments. DEP has addressed some of those issues through the reorganization of the Division of Coastal Resources. The Coastal Management Program will provide a focus for additional steps in this direction. The result is that New Jersey has adequate legal authority for federal approval of its coastal management program but also faces challenges for future legislative and administrative reform. In addition, the real property tax system has led to inter-municipal rivalry for ratable-producing property. Construction 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. Also, 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 rehabilitation of urban neighborhoods, 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. 9 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 Conclusions - Basic Coastal Policies The major conclusions of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program are sum- marized by eight proposed basic coasZal policies. These policies are recommended objectives for all public and private land and water use decision-making in the coastal zone, and they summarize the direction of the legally binding, specific Coastal Resource and Development Policies included in Chapter Four of the descrip- tion of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program (Part II of this FEIS). 1. Protect and Enhance the Coastal Ecosystem Although severely stressed by centuries of use as a waste disposal area, the estuarine complex in developed coastal areas is showing some signs of recovery under the influence of recent federal and state water quality legislation and resulting waste treatment facility construction. Portions of the Hackensack Meadowlands, for example, are witnessing a return of species absent for many years due to poor water quality. While the industrial and commercial nature of the waterfront together, with high population densities preclude reattainment of the pristine conditions of the distant past, it is not unreasonable to expect that ambient standards set under the Federal Clean Air Act and Federal Clean Water Act can be attained, that certain natural areas can be restored, and that the urban waterfront can once again provide recreational and employment opportunities for area residents. The coastal ecosystem is fragile and special, and is characterized by a combination of beaches and the ocean, tidal and inland wetlands, flood plains, estuarine areas, bays, streams and stream corridors, vegetation communities 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 recrea- tional 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 Coastal Residential, Commer- cial, 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 located in the coastal zone while minimizing conflicts which could occur between activities such as industry and housing if they were 10 located near each other. In addition, the concentration of development can provide large expanses of open space which can, in some areas, be more useful to the public than a similar amount of open space scattered among many small private parcels. The policy to concentrate development does not apply to nuclear generat- ing stations and liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities. 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 Traditionally, land and water use planning has focused exclusively on environ- mental 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 coastal and environmental disturbance than a more isolated site. This policy insures that both types of factors will be considered in decision-making under the Coastal Management Program. 4. Protect the Health, Safety and Welfare of People who Reside, Work and Visit in the Coastal Zone This 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. 5. Promote Public Access to the Waterfront Through Linear Walkways and At Least One Watertront Park in Each Watertront Municipality Along much of the waterfront, particularly in developed areas, highways or underutilized private 'property prevent residents from being able to walk, fish or otherwise enjoy the shores of rivers and bays. In some locations, high-rise buildings immediately adjacent to the waterfront block visual access to the water. Discouraging new highways and high-rise buildings adjacent to the waterfront, providing pedestrian bridges over existing highways, publicly purchasing selected waterfront properties, and obtaining easements for public access over other properties can increase the value of the waterfront to the surrounding communities, by making possible linear walkways, bikeways and vita courses along the waterway. The waterfront in much of the coastal zone does provide sites where urban and suburban residents can relax, walk, fish, or play, even in areas where swimming is not currently advisable. The waterfront offers views of boats and shorelines, fresh breezes and a sense of openness not otherwise available in most urban areas. Waterfront parks, by bringing people to the waterfront, also help raise public consciousness about water quality and waterfront use and development. Waterfront parks do not have to be large or elaborate. The success of Liberty State Park in Jersey City has demonstrated that an attractive, green area by the water can attract many people. It has also proved that a park can be extremely beneficial in a location which many believed was unsuited to a park. Nevertheless, for some municipalities, a waterfront park may make little sense due to the lack of an appropriate site or too small a nearby population. The specific policies on recreation, therefore, will exempt such areas from the policy. 6. Maintain Active Port and Industrial Facilities, and Provide for Necessary rx-panslon in Adjacent Sites The proposed New Jersey coastal zone includes thriving port and industrial facilities along both the Northern Waterfront and the Delaware River Areas. The continued vitality of these facilities is important to the state's economy and helps New Jersey contribute to several national interests. 7. Maintain and Upgrade Existing Energy Facilities, and Site Additional Energy Facilities Determined to be Needed by the J. Department of Energy (DOE) in a Manner Consistent with the Poll-c"ies of this Coastal Management Program The Northern Waterfront and Delaware River Areas of the proposed coastal zone contain many of the East Coast's energy facilities for crude oil refining,. petrochemical manufacture and electricity generation. Crude oil refining and petrochemical manufacture serve national needs. Electricity is generated for regional needs. Provided these facilities comply with federal air, water, toxic substance and other applicable regulations, the continued operation and needed expansion of existing petrochemical and oil refining facilities are expected to be acceptable under the New Jersey Coastal Management Program. Electric generating facilities must be in compliance with the same federal standards, and also must be determined to be needed by the N.J. Department of Energy. The New Jersey Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for determining what new energy facilities are needed in the State. DEP will use the specific policies of the coastal management program to ensure that the facilities determined to be necessary by NJDOE are located on sites where they can operate efficiently without threatening the health or welfare of area residents or natural resources. 8. Encourage Residential, Commercial, and Recreational Mixed-Use Redevelopment of the Developed Waterfront Sections of abandoned and deteriorating waterfront property are suitable for residential, commercial or recreational reuse depending on their location. DEP will aid counties, municipalities, and developers in design of plans and programs to redevelop these lands to more beneficial uses. The waterfront in or near urban areas can be creatively designed and used to accommodate diverse activities which might, at first glance, be considered infeas- ible or incompatible. Waterfront projects will be encouraged which include, for example, housing, public open space and commercial developments such as restaurants and stores. Others have suggested combining industry and ports with recreation and educa- tion. If safely constructed, for example, a bike path could follow the outskirts of an industrial facility to a park, or a public area near a port could be designed to give people a view of the port in action, as the more familiar "nature inter- pretative trails" offer ecological understanding. This Basic Policy is a recognition that developed waterfront areas in New Jersey, because of the views they offer and the large nearby population, provide unique opportunities for nontraditional, as well as traditional, forms of develop- ment and redevelopment. 12 Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (FCZMA) In response to intense pressure, and because of the importance of coastal areas of the United States, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L. 92-583) which was signed into law on October 27, 1972. The Act authorized a Federal grant-in-aid program to be administered by the Secretary of Commerce, who in turn delegated this responsibility to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM). The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 was substantially amended on July 26, 1976 (P.L. 94-370). The Act of the 1976 amendments affirm a national interest in the effective protec- tion and development of the coastal zone by providing assistance and encouragement to coastal states to voluntarily develop and implement rational programs for managing their coastal areas. Broad guidelines and the basic requirements of the CZMA provide the necessary direction to States for developing coastal management programs. These guidelines and requirements for program development and approval are contained in 15 CFR Part 923 as revised and published, March 28, 1979, in the Federal Register. In summary, the requirements for program approval are that a State develop a management program that: (1) Identifies and evaluates those coastal resources recognized in the Act that require management or protection by the State; (2) Re-examines existing policies or develops new policies to manage these resources. These policies must@ be specific, comprehensive and enforce- able, and must provide an adequate degree of predictability as to how coastal resources will be managed; (3) Determines specific uses and special geographic areas that are to be subject to the management program which should be based on resources capability and suitability analyses, socio-economic considerations and public preferences; (4) Identifies the inland and seaward areas subject to the management program; (5) Provides for the consideration of the national interest in the planning for and siting of facilities that meet more than local requirements; and (6) Includes sufficient legal authorities and organizational arrangements to implement the program and to insure conformance to it. In arriving at these substantive aspects of the management program, States are obliged to follow an open process which involves providing information to and considering the interests of the general public, special interest groups, local government, and regional, State, inter-state and Federal agencies. Section 305 of the CZMA authorizes a maximum of four annual grants to develop a coastal management program. After developing a management program, the state may submit it to the Secretary of Commerce for approval pursuant to Section 306 of the CZMA. If approved, the state is then eligible for annual grants under Section 306 to implement its management program. If a program has deficiencies which need to be remedied or has not received approval by the time Section 305 program develop- ment grants have expired, a state may be eligible for preliminary approval funding under Section 305(d). 13 Section 305 of the Act stipulates that Federal agency actions shall be con- sistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with approved State management pro- grams. Section 307 further provides for mediations by- the Secretary of Commerce when a serious disagreement arises between a Federal agency and a coastal State with respect to a Federal Consistency Issue. New Jersey's Department of Environmental 'Protection discusses the purpose of developing a comprehensive program through participation in the Federal Coastal Zone Management Program and its desire to seek approval of its Program under Section 306 of the CZMA in Part I of this document. Approval of the New Jersey Coastal Managem ent Program is considered a major action which significantly affects the quality of the human enviornment. An immediate effect of approval is the qualification of the State for Federal matching funds for use in administering the program. In addition, the CZMA stipulates that Federal activities affecting the coastal zone shall be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with an approved management program. It is the general policy of OCZM to issue a combined final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and program document. Parts III, IV, and V of this FEIS were prepared by OCZM. Parts I and II of this FEIS is a description of the State's program and was prepared by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. For purposes of reviewing the proposed action, the key questions are: - whether the New Jersey Program is consistent with the objectives and poli- cies of the national legislation. - whether the award of Federal funds under Section 306 of the Federal act will help New Jersey to meet those objectives. - whether the State's management authorities are adequate to implement the Program, and - whether there will be a net environmental gain as a result of program approval and implementation. OCZM has made an assessment that the answers to these questions are affirma- tive. OCZM wants the widest possible circulation of this document to all inter- ested agencies and parties. OCZM thanks those participating in the review of the New Jersey Program and this Final Environmental Impact Statement. 14 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED NEW JERSEY COASTAL MANAGEMENT PRPGRAM Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Boundary Chapter 3: Management System sx@&-r]E 0.V WMW JBIRSY-y OFFICE: OF TMIE GO-%r]EFZWOI-;.' TIRIF-WTOW o8625 BRENDAN T. BYRNE GOVERNOR Mr. Michael Glazer Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20235 Dear Mr. Glazer: The State of New Jersey submits the New Jersey Coastal Management Program for approval under Section 306 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. This program is the culmination of a six year process during which a wide range of agencies, interest groups and citizens have worked together to identify issues of concern, review draft recommendations and debate public policy on the coast. In the two years since New Jersey received federal approval of the Coastal Management Program for the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, we have been able to dramatically improve the processes for coastal decision-making as well as the substance of those decisions. We have also learned from administering that ap- proved program and have incorporated our experience this coastal management program for the State's entire coastal zone. In addition, new policies have been added to apply specifically to the more developed areas which are now part of the coastal zone. I have reviewed this document and approved the management program for the New Jersey coastal zone as State policy. Accordingly, I have designated the Department of Environmental Protection as the single State agency to receive and administer implementation grants under Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. I certify that the State of New Jersey has the legal authority necessary to implement the management program, and that the organizational structure necessary to implement the program is in place. I believe that this coastal management program will enable the wise management of one of New Jersey's greatest assets, the coast. S el 011. GOVERNOR CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION This part of the final environmental impact statement describes the New Jersey Coastal Management Program. This is the heart of the document and the focus of the other parts and of the appendices. Unlike some EIS's, it does not repeat all the information in Part 1, but rather assumes the reader is somewhat familiar with this introductory material. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has prepared the New Jersey Coastal Management Program to protect the state's coastal resources while accommo- dating needed future deve opment. The Program contains 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 Management Program is also designed to enable New Jersey to meet the requirements, and thereby reap the benefits of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. These include greater consistency between state and federal actions in the coastal zone, and the provision of federal funds for New Jersey's coastal management efforts. DEP was given responsibilty for preparing and administering the State's coastal management program by the Governor. DEP's enabling legislation, the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA), Wetlands Act, Waterfront Development Law, and tidelands and shore protection statutes provide a strong mandate and basis for direct State agency involvement in key decisions involving the coastal region. The Department of Energy Act and the Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Devel- opment Act give some coastal responsibilities to other State agencies, and these are also included in the Coastal Management Program. The Coastal Management Program also contains 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 consistency 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 aid DEP when it is called upon to review federal domestic financial assistance 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 coastal zone: (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 pass through grants DEP will make to local governments with funds available under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. 17 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 coastal management program has three interrelated, basic ele- ments: 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 together, especially 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 CAFRA, Wetlands, and waterfront development permit applica- tions. The Coastal Policies could, however, because of their comprehensive nature, be used to guide other decisions not strictly subject to the New Jersey Coastal Management 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. This Part of the EIS is presented in six chapters. Chapter Two defines the boundary proposed for the coastal zone. Chapter Three describes the management system which will be used within the boundary to carry out the Coastal Resource and Development Policies. Chapter Four presents the definitions, policies and rationales for the Coastal Resource and Development Policies which describe what should and should not take place in the coastal zone. Chapter Five addresses seven special requirements of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act: Federal Consistency, National Interests, Regional Benefit Deci- sions, Geographic Areas of Particular Concern, Areas for Preservation and Restora- tion, Shoreline Access and Protection Planning, Shoreline Erosion Mitigation Planning Process, and the Energy Facility Planning Process. These sections, for the most part, repeat information in the first four Chapters but in a format which directly addresses the specific federal requirements and which provides greater detail. The proposed inclusion of the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commis- sion District is discussed in detail in this Chapter at the end of the section on Geographic Areas of Particular Concern. Finally, Chapter Six outlines the next steps in the coastal management process in New Jersey, including public review and comment on this draft coastal management program, preparation of a final program, and activities New Jersey plans to pursue once the program receives federal approval. is CHAPTER TWO - BOUNDARY Summary Inland Boundary Seaward and Interstate Boundaries Summary New Jersey's coastal zone extends from the New York border south to Cape May Point and then north to Trenton. It encompasses the waters and waterfronts of the Hudson River and related water bodies south to the Raritan Bay, the Atlantic Ocean and some inland areas from Sandy Hook to Cape May, the Delaware Bay and some inland areas, and the waterfront of the Delaware River and related tributaries. The coastal zone encompasses areas in which the State, through the Department of Environmental Protection and the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission, ha's the authority to regulate land and water uses that have a significant impact on coastal waters. These authorities include the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA), the Wetlands Act, the Waterfront Development Law, Tidelands statutes, and the Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Development Act. Inland Boundary The inland boundary for the portion of the coast from Raritan Bay south to Cape May Point and then north along the Delaware Bay (consisting of parts of Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Burlington, Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland and Salem Counties), is defined as: the landward boundary of the Coastal Area as defined in the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA, N.J.S.A. 13:19-4), or the upper boundary of coastal wetlands located landward of the CAFRA boundary along tidal water courses flowing through the CAFRA area, whichever is more landward, including State-owned tidelands. In the more developed portions of the State (including portions of Salem, Gloucester, Camden, Burlington, Mercer, Middlesex, Somerset, Union, Hudson, Essex, Passaic and Bergen Counties), the coastal zone boundary is defined as: the landward boundary of the State's jurisdiction under the Waterfront Devel- opment Act (N.J.S.A 12:5-3)* or Wetlands Act (N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1), or the landward boundary of State-owned tidelands, whichever extends farthest inland. The definition of the inland jurisdictional boundary of the Waterfront Develop- ment Law is: the first public road, railroad right-of-way, or property line generally parallel to any navigable waterway, but in no case more than 500 feet or less than 100 feet inland from mean high water. 19 This boundary (discussed below in "Principal Program Authorities") ensures that the State will regulate at least the first 100 feet inland from all tidal waters. The State will consider all land within 500 feet of tidal water to be within this boundary unless demonstrated otherwise. This represents a substantial reduction from the coastal zone boundary DEP proposed in several publications between December 1976 and March 1979, which would have extended the coastal zone inland to the first road or railroad, regardless of its distance from the water (See Appendix B). The boundary of the Hackensack Meadowlands region is defined as: the boundary of the area defined as the Hackensack Meadowlands District by the Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Development Act. (N.J.S.A. 13:17-4) A generalized map of the Statewide Coastal Zone Boundary is shown in Figure I in Part. I of this document, and Figure 2 is a sketch of the boundary in different parts of the State. The boundary encompasses approximately 1,792 miles of tidal coastline, includ- ing 126 miles along the Atlantic Oceanfront from Sandy Hook to Cape May. It ranges in width from one hundred feet to twenty-four miles (near Batsto and the Mullica River, in Burlington County). The total land area of the Bay and Shore region is approximately 1,376 square miles or 17 percent of New Jersey's land area. Research indicates that there has been a rising trend in the level of the ocean, relative* to coastal land, along the northern East Coast of the United States. Hicks data places the rise at about 8 inches between the 1890s and 1970. If this trend continues, tidal waters will penetrate further up the State's coastal rivers. Should this change become significant, the coastal zone boundary and the area under the jurisidiction of the Waterfront Development Law, will be redelineated accordingly. Seaward and Interstate Boundaries The seaward boundary of the coastal zone is the three nautical mile limit of the United States Territorial Sea, and the interstate boundaries of the States of New York and Delaware and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In most of Salem County, the Delaware-New Jersey State boundary is the mean low water line on the eastern (New Jersey) shore of the Delaware River. The New Jersey and Delaware Coastal Management agencies have discussed this issue and have concluded that any New Jersey project extending beyond mean low water must obtain coastal permits from both states. New Jersey and Delaware, therefore, will coordinate reviews of any proposed development that would span the interstate boundary to ensure that no development is constructed unless it would be consistent with both state coastal management programs. S.D. Hicks, "As the Oceans Rise", National Ocean Survey, NOAA, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 22-24, 1972. 20 Figure 2 NEW JERSEY COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY SKETCH 2. NORTMICNI WA-rf%FR0t-fr 66MCIZALIVED CIL @OUMDAIZJ I-IALKENSAtk MEAbOWLANbS UNERAU-Lcr.) C'l- ?,c)L)NpAoq LIKI w MEA'Dow I-ANb, -,Vr;,LoP@AF-M Of ?"N t4c-W VORK HAWMACK tivElt ,t P-t 5,j-rA P-4 tAgAoow LAMO DELAWAF.9 RIVER ARGA oil-MICT 11" 6Et49eA(LIl.GD CZ ?@oUtqDjNp,4 LlKfr OF OCEP04 514ORE SECS-MEW W JAITMFX UNERALMM C%. 150L)NDAP-1 MiCLOPMA CAFRA PA - Ot- ... IN, 3 Mai 1.114IT NEW Yol(K 09 DQAwkvfs REGULATED WETLANDS 00 TIDAL WATERS L= 0 PROPOSED COASTAL ZONE 21 CHAPTER THREE - MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Introduction and Summary Administrative Framework-Department of Environmental Protection Principal Program Authorities Introduction Waterfront Development Law Coastal Area Facility Review Act Wetlands Act Tidelands Management Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission Department of Energy Green Acres Funding Shore Protection Coastal Program Funding Supplementary Program Authorities Water Quality Program NPDES Permits Areawide Water Quality Management (208) Plans Wastewater Treatment Facilities: Regulation and Funding Stream Encroachments and Flood Hazards Wild and Scenic Rivers Delaware and Raritan Canal State Park Pinelands Protection Regulation of State Owned Land Air Quality Regulation Solid Waste Harbor Clean-Up Other State Agencies Department of Agriculture Department of Community Affairs Department of Labor and Industry Department of Transportation Department of Health County and Municipal Land Use Authority County Authority Municipal Authority Regional Land Use Authority Delaware River Area Hackensack Waterfront Area Northern Waterfront Area Federal Agency Authority Public Participation Conflict Resolution 23 MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Introduction and Summary In passing the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), Congress recognized both the importance of the coastal zone and the need to strengthen existing public controls over resources and development in order to protect it. Section 302(h) of the Act states that: The key to more effective protection and use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone is to encourage the states to exercise their full author- ity over the lands and waters in the coastal zone by assisting the states ... in developing land and water use programs for the coastal zone, including ... methods and processes for dealing with land and water use decisions of more than local significance. This section of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program describes the methods and processes that New Jersey has developed to guide decision-making in the coastal zone. Section 305 of the CZMA requires that participating coastal states demon- strate one of three methods of exercising control over those land and water uses in the coastal zone which have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters. New Jersey's approach corresponds to management technique "B" -- Direct State regula- tion and planning -- as described in Section 306(e)(1) of the CZMA. This is the only feasible approach under New Jersey's existing legislative framework that is in compliance with the requirements of the CZMA. It requires no new legislation. This Chapter describes the administrative framework and program structure under which New Jersey proposes to exercise these controls. It contains a descrip- tion of the three state agencies involved in significant coastal decision-making: the Department of Environmental Protection, the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission and the Department of Energy. It describes the principal legal authori- ties and programs to be used in implementing the policies found in Chapter Three, including the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA), the Wetlands Act, the Waterfront Development Law, the authority to grant title to, or license the use of State owned tidelands (sometimes referred to as riparian lands), and the Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Development Act. It also describes certain capital spending programs such as the Green Acres Program, the Shore Protection Program and the coastal management funds available under the CZMA. Also described are other state regulatory programs, largely administered by DEP, which are not focused as exclusively on the coastal zone, but which do affect the coast and supplement the Statets ability to implement specific Coastal Resource and Development Policies or categories of policies. These are described as "sup- plementary program authorities". The last sections of the Chapter analyze the manner in which the programs of other state, county, municipal, regional and federal agencies function with the Coastal Management Program. 24 ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK - THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Created by the Legislature in 1970, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was given broad authority to "formulate comprehensive policies for the conservation of the natural resources of the State ... 11 (N.J.S.A. 13:1D-9). Spe- cific authority for preparation of 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 also serves as New Jersey's lead agency to administer the Federally approved program, under Section 306 of the Act. The Department is divided into nine operating units: the Division of Coastal Resources (prior to July 1, 1979, the Division of Marine Services); Division of Water Resources; Division of Environmental Quality (which includes the Bureau of Air Pollution Control and the Solid Waste Administration); Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife; Division of Parks and Forestry; the Green Acres Administration; the Division 'of Fiscal and Support Services; Division of Employee Management and Development; and the Commissioner's Office. The Bureaus of Coastal Project Review, Coastal Planning and Development, Coastal Enforcement and Field Services, Tide- lands, Coastal Engineering, and Marine Law Enforcement are all located in the Division of Coastal Resources (See Figure 3). The core of the Coastal Management Program's management system is the adoption by DEP of the Coastal Resource and Development Policies as administrative rules. This means that the actions of every Division in the Department will be legally bound to be consistent with the Coastal Policies to the extent permitted by the enabling legislation of each program. DEP's regulatory authority in the coastal zone is principally based on the Waterfront Development Law, the Coastal Area Facility Review Act, the Wetlands Act, and the Tidelands statutes. These laws apply to virtually all aspects of major development within this zone. Their administration will be unchanged under the coastal management program with the exception of the Waterfront Development permit program's redefined jurisdiction. Division of Coastal Resources - On July 1, 1979, the former Division of marine Services was reorganized and continued as the Division of Coastal Resources. The reorganization's principal features are the consolidation of three different permit offices. (the former Office of Coastal Zone Management's CAFRA Permit Section, the office of Riparian Lands Management, and the office of Wetlands Management) into one Bureau of Coastal Project Review, the placement into one bureau of all coastal planning and development activities, and the creation of a Bureau of Coastal Enforcement and Field Services. This reorganization became permanent in 1980 when the Legislature amended the relevant portions of DEP's enabling legislation (N.J.S.A. 13:ID-1 et seq.). The Division's new organization is described in chart form in Figure 4, and is summarized as follows: The Bureau of Coastal Project Review administers the CAFRA, Wetlands, and Waterfront Development Permit Programs, in conformance with the respective enabling legislation and with the Rules on Coastal Resource and Development Policies. The Bureau assumes the permit functions of the former Offices of Coastal Zone Management, Riparian Lands Management, and Wetlands Management. 25 c- 0 a >;a m COf4MISSIONER z G) IV J.1L1R&V_k1jUGU&ALPf&(;L I a > > WWI COMMOSSAOINER fluriT 15,11,501v > Z PFC-041411I.TURA :< At ENV. SF.RVKIVS > rn - -4 z to -0 ASSIStANf410MMISSIONER ASSISFAMCOMMISMONER (D z FOR SCIF-MV AM) RESEAR01 FOR GOVERNMEMAL AFFAIRS 0 0 0 BegO.1-y All.k- z 1rX X > < & r.h1k z ft'llap.th- J M z ASSISTAN't U)NIMISSIONER ASSIUANV COMMISSIONER ASSISTAN'r 410M Iss"Im FOR NATURAL RFSOUKITS MANACkMFN r A DUIXXT ENV. MANAGWMErff A DONALDT.GRA*J 51DNFr YTAIN PAUL A14DESAIAN f FINFLANDS S111"RT wf@Altlxms ill Uvwx (w ENV. ADJAINISTRATIVF "QuffittION ANALVSIS COORDINATION MANA(-FbtFttlr IL n-011- R. romahow R. Tkoob's" P. Gialdt"A 0 PARKS& 1:14SUGAME& GREM ACRES A UUAnAL 1111,U)YEE UGT. 1w 1.11 WAFER ;NV1R41N%lMJ*A1. rn VORE-SIRV A ura RECREA111IN RFSOUR(" A DIEVVIARMFNI Ajurrolu SFRV. RFSOURCTS QUAWY ---.A. Goddst- C-,Uubcct-. LL Abarx-_ 1-scatmu- --A. sriptaWm. 0 al.termialk Wildiff. Usf.- I.GCOG'"fa fkki,ouk kla-1 & A-alov "-.h* A 14111. 50114 Wmtt rue.m. tta,bw Fhh'.ka 1-4 A.I.blll,,. A AUU-00. Adb- A-lb#,M WaIn S.P14Y & Ak ShAllial-k. U% Exca'Fl6m fkM 4".k.s L.h_ adathp.. 4".P. Fl..'a 11.1A mst. Rdi.0o, 0 F."cofty F-A.M., Fist-k-, wurmov r."J..l Pl.k. 04..P.-# Atmapeownf fag.. rbw W.-A.-.I,, ft.40.4a.. z * b. F'.4-xwd & L._. rt...ins & 11 ... lot A, 11.4. sym..s F-11111'. ro...j Mal. No. ]t.w SP-1.0 I"-fop-M S1.111 Vkifmf$,@ How nan.lay & 14-*4 Folm"ase.4 IA*rlnt 61=01 c'-f-sy A II.M.1 Po 104 val. (D IVA. 61 COO, Figure 4 DIVISION OF COASTAL RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL CHART APRIL , 1980 DIRECTOR BUREAU OF MARINE OFFICE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION BUREAU OF COASTA BUR E A U OF COASTAL BUREAU OF COASTAL BUREAU OF COASTAIJ BUREAU OF PLANNING ENFORCEMENT AND AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW FIELD SERVICES ENGINEERING TIDELANDS - The Bureau of Coastal Planning and Development provides a single planning agency to assist in the development and refinement of a program to guide and regulate development and resource protection in the coastal zone. This office assumes the planning functions of the former Office of Coastal Zone Management. - The Bureau of Tidelands serves as staff to the Tidelands Resource Council and aids in the protection and management of State-owned tidelands through the review of applications for conveyances for grants, leases and licenses. The Bureau assumes the functions of the former Office of Riparian Lands Management with respect to the description and valuation of State-owned tidelands. - The Bureau of Coastal Enforcement and Field Services provides an interdis- ciplinary inspection team to support the functions of the Bureaus of Tide- lands and Coastal Project Review. The Bureau assumes the inspection and enforcement activities of the former Offices of Coastal Zone Management, Wetlands Mangement and Riparian Lands Management. - The Bureau of Coastal Engineering administers the State's shore protection and waterway maintenance programs. It assumes the functions of the former Office of Shore Protection. Division of Water Resources - The Division of Water Resources is responsible tor water quality planning -a-ng-maintenance, water supply, and flood plain manage- ment. The Division is the designated water quality planning agency under Section 208 of the Federal Clean Water Act and, under the New Jersey Water Pollution 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 EPA delegates this responsibility to DEP. The standards set by the Division under the Clean Water Act 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 and to regulate development and land use in designated floodways under the Flood Hazard Areas Control 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 four county planning boards, 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 1979 and 1980 in different parts of the state. The water quality planning program seeks institutional and technical alternatives to control and abate water pollution. The key policies of the program are to protect the sources of potable water supply, control toxic and hazardous substances, control pollution from areawide sources, and protect environmentally sensitive areas. Water quality planning programs may utilize and refine the Coastal Location Acceptability Method for activities which need not be regulated for coastal manage- ment program approval (i.e. activities not having a direct and significant impact on coastal waters), 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. 28 The Division of Water Resources is also responsible for supervising the development of the State Water Supply Master 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 draft plan was completed in Spring, 1980. The Division of Coastal Resources 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 planni7g-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, pesticide control and solid waste manage- ment programs. Under the requirements of the Clean Air Act, the Bureau of Air Pollution Control in the Division 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 particulates in Camden and Jersey City, and the maintenance of clean air levels throughout the state are the major problems to be addressed. The Division of Environmental Quality is also responsible for the development of a statewide plan to maximize use of resource recovery and minimize the adverse environmental impacts of solid waste. This was the responsibility of the Solid Waste Administration until August, 1979 when it was abolished and its functions transferred. The state has been divided into twenty-two districts (21 counties and the Rackensack Meadowlands Development Commission District). Each district is responsible for developing 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. The Division of Coastal Resources works closely with the Division of Environ- mental Quality to develop programs directed toward attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and to assure consistency between the Coastal Policies and statewide solid waste planning. In addition, attentioA will be given to the impact of Coastal Policies on air quality outside of the Coastal Zone. Coordination with the Division of Environmental Quality should result in the use of Coastal Policies to help attain statewide air quality and solid waste management goals as well as use of the State Implementation Plan and State and district solid waste plans to further Coastal Management Program goals. Division of Parks and Forestry - The Division of Parks and Forestry manages the state's parks and iF -responsible for acquiring, operating and maintaining historic sites. The Division reviews CAFRA permit applications in addition to coordinating with Division of Coastal Resources on park and recreation policies. 29 Green Acres and Recreation - The Green Acres Administration develops a comprehensive recreation plan and works with the Division of Parks and Forests and the Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife to identify and rank possible sites for DEP purchase. The Division of Coastal Resources reviews all proposed expenditures of Green Acres funds, and where differences emerge, the Commissioner of DEP makes the final decision. The New Jersey State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), prepared by the Green Acres Administration, addresses the adequacy of open space for exist- ing and projected demands, and the accessibility of recreation resources for all segments of the population. The plan qualifies New Jersey for funding under the Federal Land and Water Use Conservation Fund Program. In addition to studying recreation needs and uses, SCORP also includes inventories of federal, state, county, municipal and private recreation resources. The major policies in SCORP, which are fully consistent with the Coastal Resource and Development Policies, include emphasizing open space in urban areas, developing recreation facilities, increasing public access to recreation resources through mass transit, and devel- oping barrier free recreation facilities. Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife -. The Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife is responsible tor 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 Divi- sion 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. Office of the Commissioner - The Office of the Commissioner conducts a number of functions relating to th astal Management Program. Matters relating to Coastal Resources; Green Acres and Recreation; Fish, Game and Wildlife; Parks and Forestry; and Pinelands are supervised by the Assistant Commissioner for Natural Resources. Matters relating to water and air quality, solid wastes, and toxics are supervised by the Assistant Commissioner for Environ- mental Management and Control. First, the office of Environmental and Cultural Services coordinates the review of major development proposals likely to require more than one DEP-admini- stered permit, applications circulated through the A-95 Project Notification and Review Processt, and state agency sponsored projects costing more than one million dollars (as required by Executive Order #53 of 1973). This coordinated review helps speed the permit review process and insures the application of consistent pol ic ies . This Office also reviews coastal permit applications in terms of possible archaeological impacts. In addition, the Office evaluates the potential impact of CAFRA permit applications on cultural resources, maintains the State Register of Historic Places, and makes recommendations to the Commissioner for State nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. 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 P-olfu-tants 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 30 into the Coastal Policies, and could conceivably lead to proposed alternatives to 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 (under the direction of the Assistant Commissioner for Natural Resources), 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. The office of Public Participation, created in 1979, directs DEP's efforts to stimulate public interest and involvement in the development and implementation of all of the Departments management and planning programs. PRINCIPAL PROGRAM AUTHORITIES Introduction This section describes the Coastal Management Program's principal regulatory and capital spending programs. They are described as "principal" programs since they allow the State, through a number of agencies, to implement a broad range of Coastal Policies. This is particularly true of the three coastal permit programs administered by the Division of Coastal Resources (the Coastal Area Facility Review Act, the Waterfront Development Law, and the Wetlands Act). These authorities, in and of themselves, provide authority for land and water uses in the coastal zone sufficient for program approval. In contrast, the supplementary programs which follow this section are more limited in scope and involve the implementation of only one or a few policies (e.g. air quality or water quality). This section also describes the process by which the Tidelands Resource Council, a twelve-member citizen body, supervises the management of State-owned tidelands (sometimes called riparian lands). This section explains how the deci- sions of the Council are made consistent with the Coastal Resource and Development Policies contained in Chapter Three. Also described are: The Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (HMDC): A state-level regional agency regulating development and conservation in a 31 square mile area encompassing part of the Hackensack River Estuary and associated uplands. Its master plan constitutes the proposed State Coastal Resource and Develop- ment Policies for the area, and, for the purposes of the Federal CZMA, its regulatory authority constitutes the principal management mechanism; The Department of Energy (DOE): The state agency responsible for energy planning, DOE is authorized to participate with all other state departments on any regulatory decision affecting energy facilities. The Shore Protection Program: A program planned and administered by the Division of Coastal Resources, and The Green Acres Program: A recreation and open space funding program admini- stered by DEP's Green Acres Administration. 31 I . Waterfront Development Law - The Waterfront Development Law (N.J.S.A. 12:5-3) autgorizes DEP to regulate th construction or alteration of a dock, wharf, pier, bulkhead, bridge, pipeline, cable, or other "similar or dissimilar develop- ment" on or adjacent to navigable waterways and streams throughout the State. Past and present administrative practice under the Law (passed in 1914) has been generally restricted to tide-flowed lands on or below the mean high water line, but D.EP has now adopted regulations to fully implement the law by defining both its geographic scope and the types of development to which it applies. These regulations, which are reprinted in Appendix D, are intended to re-establish DEP's long neglected authority to guide development in waterfront areas. They have been reviewed by the Attorney General of New Jersey, who has issued an opinion endorsing them in terms of both geographic scope and facilities subject to the law. The Attorney General's opinion is also contained in Appendix D. Under these regulations, the following types of development in the waterfront area will, with specified exceptions, require DEP approval: a. Docks, wharves, piers, bulkheads, bridges, pipelines, cables, moorings and other submerged structures (all these already require DEP approval); b. The construction, reconstruction, structural alteration, relocation or enlargement of any building or other structure, or of any excavation or landfill, and any change in the use of any building or other structure, or land or extension of use of land. The waterfront area itself is defined (N.J.A.C. 7:7-2.4) as including all tidal waterways and lands adjacent thereto up to the first property line, public road or railroad right-of-way generally parallel to the waterway, provided that the boundary is between 100 and 500 feet from the waterway. This rule will apply in upland areas beyond the mean high water line only outside the CAFRA area and Hackensack Meadowlands District (see Figure 2). The waterfront boundary for a hypothetical location is illustrated in Figure 5a, and a sample map of the boundary is shown in Figure 5b. Persons proposing to undertake waterfront development must first apply to the@ Division of Coastal Resources for a permit. The applicant must hold a valid grant, lease or license for the tide flowed part of the site before the application will be considered. The permit process is outlined in Figure 6. Waterfront Development permits are subject to the requirements of the 90 Day Construction Permit Law (N.J.S.A. 13:10-29). Under its provisions interested persons who consider themselves aggrieved by the granting or denial of a Waterfront Development permit may appeal the Division's decision to the Tidelands Resource Council (a proposed amendment to the 90 Day Construction Permit Rules will transfer this function to the Commissioner). This includes the right to challenge decisions which the appealing party contends are in conflict with the Rules on Coastal Resource and Development Policies. 2. Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) - The Coastal Area Facility Review Act (N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 et seq.) authorizes DEP to regulate and approve the location, design and cons trJ_t i3n-o f major facilities in a 1,376 square mile coastal region encompassing portions of Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Burlington, Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland and Salem Counties (See Figure 7). The CAFRA area 32 Figure. 5a JURISDICTION OF RULE FOR WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT LAW CONCEPT SKETCH 100 -400@- A C D F G H WATER LOT I BOUNDARY MEAN HIGH JUSTICE ROAD WATER LINE 0 w 0 w LOT LOT K BOU NDA RY AML 0 0 LOT L LOT M 0 WATERFRONT BOUNDARY WATER AREA UPLAND AREA 33 H k @'e "@7, e 7igure 5b N@k -@*qf A JURISDICTION OF RULE FOR WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT a r h-2 LAW SAMPLE MAP x 4@Q@rEcce ric % \ . @ell I I @ . , , "I i - \*.% / I/ , I . Rive Gq ce JURISDICTION Wind Villa. /;E 1.AdOiti 0i aW tandpi Watero N 4- lPiimping 'a z@ation u Qt5,@ atel Board ar@ eth r S cwmr 7Z 40@ Stand 5,1 wage '@o'aste,. p ng <\ IL st tion- s D % ),S /P L% j*1 0. 0 w ter c- 20 Pvens VV -7@ N 2 T anal W@ h Ir Bm Z Z 0 :........... ast 'o& E ............... . @V& %B -23 \@@B m Its @ F4-P V - 2 10 2 e o!, r W atm osal High Merl. AB IK' Gra, .7, avel c, C@. Yci@.@ p . . .... an 20 N 'rr . ..... ........ 1124,000 'A 16661 mooll, 3000, -V Tow n 34 simst" malft "ps "he love (D YETLANDS AND WATERFRONT (RIPARIAN) DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESSES REQUEST ADD ITIONAL ADDITIONAL INFORNATION INFORMATION R ECE IVED APPLICATION OR STILL DEFICIENT tA OPTIONAL P OR 0PT 10 NAL DECISION DEP PRE - APPLICATION RECEIVES P UBL IC CONFERENCE APPLICATION 20 WORKING DAYS MAXIMUM HEARING t RETURN 90 DAYS MAXIMUM PUBL:C COMMENTS PL CAT WIT H N FIVE DAYS OF DEP BULLETIN NOTICE NOTE A WATERF RONT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION IS NOT DECL AIRED COMPLETE FOR REVIEW WITHOUT A LAWFUL RIPARIAN OCCUPATIONAL OR USE INSTRUMENT SUCH A S A RIPARIAN GRANT, LEASE OR LICENSE. INDICATES THAT THE TIMETABLE IS SET BY THE APPLICANT. 0 /RLE@f@@@]4 APPLICAT I ON UtIACCEPTABLE FOR FILING Figure 7 NEW JERSEY CAFRA op INLAND BOUNDAR U 44 S 0 X 0 0 U 0 c P E N N SY LVANIA DELAWA U :j N G T 0 N Xv E, M' T L A N 0 U E R A 4 P E 4 STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1,1250000 36 also includes coastal waters. Lying within the CAFRA area are New Jersey's barrier beach islands, all of its coastal resort areas, portions of the Pinelands, large agricultural areas, and New Jersey's fastest growing county (ocean). The Act is administered by the Division of Coastal Resources. Facilities regulated under CAFRA include all those proposed for the following purposes: a. Electric power generation, including oil, gas, coal fired or nuclear; b. Public facilities, including housing developments of 25 or more dwelling units, roads and airports, parking facilities of 300 spaces or more, wastewater treatment systems and components, and sanitary landfills; C. Food and food by-products, paper and agri-chemical production; d. Mineral products, chemical and metallurgical processes an inorganic salt manufacture; e. Marine terminals and cargo handling and storage facilities. The full list of facilities regulated under CAFRA, together with the text of the Act, is reprinted in Appendix E. A flow chart depicting the CAFRA permit applica- tion process appears as Figure 8. Persons proposing to build CAFRA-regulated facilities must first submit an application and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to the Division. A public hearing and review of the EIS by other DEP divisions and state agencie.s are required before the decision to grant or deny the permit may be made by the Divi- sion Director. CAFRA permit decisions may be appealed by an interested person to the Com- miEsioner of DEP, or directly to the three member Coastal Area Review Board. Appeals to the Commissioner may also be taken to the Review Board following her decision. The broad provisions of the appeals process allow challenges to permit decisions on the basis that they are inconsistent with the Rules on Coastal Resource and Development Policies. 3. Wetlands Act - The Wetlands Act of 1970 (N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 et seq.) authorizes DEP to regulate activities on coastal wetlands. Since its enacFm_ei7t_and the adoption of the Wetlands Regulations in 1972, the amount of wetlands filled in New Jersey has been reduced from 1,900 to 55 acres annually. In 1978, approxi- mately 14 acres of regulated wetlands were filled, while in 1979, less than one acre was filled. The Act, which is administered by the Division of Coastal Resources, gives the state broad discretion in regulating virtually any form of development or disturbance on mapped coastal wetlands, except for mosquito control and continued commercial production of salt hay or other agricultural crops or activities. Coastal wetlands are defined as those wetlands subject to tidal action along specified water bodies. They are not regulated under the Act until they have been mapped and the maps promulgated, following notice to affected property owners and a public hearing. Most coastal wetlands were mapped and the maps promulgated by 1972. The Act does not affect inland or freshwater wetlands. 37 m co CAFRA PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS S SO Is 0.1. SO All MAXImum 10. MA X, MUM OR .0, M .A 1.U. 0M 15 D.s ........... 0. 30 DAYS MAXIMUM .5 A A .0 DAYII MA.-M .0 DAYS MAXIMUM THE ftwp;m. IFT-11 TROVIcas P'JILIC Ica OF WE *TRPs In THR PROCEED ONCE All APPLICATION 1949 BERN RECEIVED. 0 'MUM -ZN 120 30 DAIS MAXIMUM The g.reatest amount of wetlands acreage is found along the Atlantic shorefront but there is also a considerable amount of acreage along the Delaware River, and approximately twenty acres of regulated wetlands on the Raritan River, in and near Perth Amboy. The Act specifically exempts the Hackensack Meadowlands District from its coverage. Small wetlands areas in the Delaware River Area have not yet been delineated and are therefore not now regulated by DEP. They would, however, be regulated under the proposed rules for the Waterfront Development Act. Under Administrative Order No. 12 of 1977, Wetland permit decisions are made by the Division Director and may be appealed to the Commissioner of DEP. As is the case with Waterfront Development and CAFRA permits, permit decisions may be challenged on the basis that they violate the Rules on Coastal Resource and Devel- opment Policies. The Division of Coastal Resource's jurisdiction under each of the three coastal permits in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment is shown in Figure 9. The Waterfront Development's proposed jurisdiction in the rest of the State is depicted in Figure 2. 4. Tidelands Management - In New Jersey, "tide-flowed" (or riparian) lands are owned by the State --- or -New Jersey, except where already conveyed. These are lands now or formerly flowed by the mean high tide, including filled lands. The State owns the lands as trustee for the public, and must administer their use in the public interest. The State exercises control over tidelands in two ways: through its proprietary role as owner, and through its regulatory role under the Waterfront Development Law. The State's ownership interest extends to the mean high water mark, which is determined on the basis of a theoretical 18.6 year tide. DEP's Office of Environmental Analysis is presently conducting a tidelands delineation program throughout the State. Until the delineation is complete, the Division of Coastal Resources is determining the applicability of tidelands law on a case-by-case basis. Landowners proposing to build and citizens concerned about a proposed project, as well as the Division of Coastal Resources staff of Marine Lands Inspectors, bring individual cases to the attention of the Department. The State's ownership role is exercised through the Tidelands Resource Council, which may grant, lease, or license the use of State-owned tidelands provided such action is in the public interest. Persons seeking to purchase, lease or otherwise use these lands must first obtain the Council's approval (Figure 10). Many of the State's tidelands were sold in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, but it is the present practice of the Council only to license the use of the lands, and not to grant them outright, except in unusual cases. The Council, which is composed of twelve citizens appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the State Senate, has broad discretion concerning applications for tideland conveyances. The Council may make any decision it 'believes to be in the public interest. DEP's Commissioner and Director of Coastal Resources, however, have the authority to veto any Council action inconsistent with state policy. Should a veto occur, the application is returned to the Council for reconsideration. Consideration of the State's Coastal Resource and Development Policies in tidelands decision-making is also assured by the fact that the Division of Coastal Resources serves as staff to the Tidelands Resource Council. 39 -TT" CAFRA Th WASCFftW t)WLWPMSWT VEP.Mrr CAV9A EPOTSIECT TO MWA19CWNT WYELOPAWNT -r r'ro 1?@"'r @TLAND I Ill / MkMIT 0 PERMIT :6 C Gtjl@SSCIT TO CAr-p-A PC-P-Mfr I -e H VV5 1146 C OfA PLGTXES 0-F 2 OP, mom, -6 vt4 kl'5 WA:,,-E WAre-R lv5pCT- MENT FAC I On E-S BULKHEAD WATrzRFL't*a rAVcU"sNr PSRfAI-V ISVBIECT TO ATLANTIC or_ G PC N cPrT:)ZA W-Rm GROINS solblecr LON 'TO WOOND a S\Jp>jcc-T 'row AxMoW WrauPK &NT r PeRml r ki BAN ANb OCEAN S40Q ACEA COA5TAL PERMIT JURISDICTIONS PERMIT TjuL.KHFAD 17pil WE-TLANtr. eGROIN ROAD,'Wl Vol; 49 29 40 TIDELANDS APPLICATION PROCESS - - - - - - - - - - TB. In keeping with traditional riparian law, the owners of land immediately upland have the first right to purchase or use tidelands. But before any person may make use of tidelands, the Council requires that they obtain a Waterfront Development Permit. Since the permit may only be granted if the activity is consistent with the Coastal Resource and Development Policies, this requirement insures that the use of tidelands will conform with those policies. 5. Hackensack Meadowlands District - Implementation of coastal policies in the Hackensack Meadowlands District will 'be a joint venture of DEP and the Hacken- sack Meadowlands Development Commission (HMDC), with the Commission's plans guiding both agencies in their decisions. The HMDC is composed of the Commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs and three residents each from Bergen and Hudson Counties, appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the State Senate. The Commission is responsible for developing and implementing a plan for ecologically sound development of the Meadowlands District. For this purpose, it has been given planning and zoning powers for the District, which were previously exercised by the individual municipalities. In 1972, the Meadowlands Commission adopted a master plan, which, as revised in 1977, 1978 and 1979, is to guide future development of the District. The HMDC will be the State agency responsible for implementing the State's coastal program under the CZMA in the Meadowlands District, and the coastal policies for the District will be those presently adopted by the HMDC in their Master Plan and other policy documents. Amendments to the Zoning Regulations of the Hackensack Meadowlands District will be considered as amendments to the Coastal Management Program when they meet the definition for amendments found in 15 CFR 923.80(c): I'amendments are defined as substantial changes in, or substantial changes to enforceable po,licies or authorities related to: (1) Boundaries; (2) Uses subject to the management program; (3) Criteria or procedures for designating or managing areas of particular concern or areas for preservation or restoration; and (4) Consideration of the national interest involved in the planning for and in the siting of, facilities which are necessary to meet requirements which are other than local in nature." As required by 15 CFR 923.53(a)(1), DEP-Division of Coastal Resources will make federal consistency determinations for actions affecting the Meadowlands District. However, such determinations will be made after consultation with the HMDC. The District is not subject to the requirements of the Wetlands Act. 6. Regulation and Planning of Energy Facilities - The Department of Energy (NJDOE), created in July 1977 (N.J.S.A. 52:27F-1 et seq.), has broad planning authority over energy-related matters, including th'@_a =thority to participate in the decision-making of other State agencies concerning the siting of energy facili- ties. The fact that energy generating and petroleum refining facilities often seek to locate in the coastal zone means that NJDOE8s authority is a significant element in the management system. 42 The Departments of Energy and Environmental Protection, recognizing their coextensive jurisdiction over energy facility siting in the coastal zone, and also recognizing the importance of such siting decisions to a successful coastal manage- ment program, entered into a memorandum of understanding in August 1978. 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 proposed amendments to the existing Coastal Resource and Devel- opment Policies will not be adopted until agreed to by NJDOE, at which time they will be subject to the August 1978 Memorandum of Understanding. (See Appendix C) In the case of a disagreement between DEP and DOE concerning the siting of an energy facility, the matter will be submitted to an Energy Facility Review Board for resolution. The Board was established by the Act creating DOE, and consists of the Director of DOE's Division of Energy Planning and Conservation, the Chief Executive Officer of the state instrumentality with the power of approval over the application, and a designee of the Governor. The Board has never had to meet. 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 to protect and manage 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 currently meets these criteria. Ensuring New Jersey's continued eligibility through federal approval of a complete statewide coastal management program is one key incentive for complet- ing the program. CEIP grants are based in part on the amount of OCS acreage adjacent to a particular state. As specified in the FCZMA, NOAA's Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management is in the process of establishing extended lateral seaward boundaries which will be used to determine New York and Delaware, and New Jersey's respective CEIP grant allocations. 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. Funds are allocated to municipal and county governments, State agencies and governmental regional planning agencies according to the pro- gram's intrastate allocation process which includes project evaluation and approval by the New Jersey Intrastate Allocation Committee, representing diverse state interests. DOE and DEP coordination is required by the federal CEIP regulations which state that CEIP assistance cannot be granted without DEP certification of compatibility with the goals and policies of the developing Coastal Management Program or consistency with the approved Coastal Management Program. 43 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. Another major responsibility of the Department of Energy is preparation and updating of the State Energy Master Plan. This plan considers the production, distribution, consumption and conservaE-lon of energy in the state and surrounding reg ion. 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 was 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 authority comes into play only when a proposed utility facility has received required state permits (including coastal permits) and is denied a required local permit. This, provision helps New Jersey fulfill a section of the federal CZR-A requiring that local governments not be able to unreasonably restrict uses of regional benefit (See Chapter Four). 7. Green Acres Funding - The Green Acres Administration determines where and how state funds shou-ra-F-es pent for park and open space acquisition, development, and capital improvements. DEP can purchase land under this program by condemnation if necessary. The Division of Coastal Resources reviews proposed expenditures of Green Acres funds in the coastal zone for consistency with the Coastal Resource and Development Policies and can suggest modifications. In addition, under the Use Policies for Recreation, Green Acres funds would be withheld from municipalities with recreational plans or ordinances which are inconsistent with the Coastal Resource and Development Policies. The State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), prepared by the Green Acres Administration, 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 qualifies New Jersey for funding under the Federal Land and Water Use Conservation Fund Program. In addition to studying recreation needs and uses, SCORP also includes inventories of federal, state, county, muni- cipal and private recreation resources. The major policies in SCORP, which are also proposed for adoption in the Coastal Management Program, include an emphasis on open space in urban areas, recreation facility development, increasing public access to recreation resources through mass transit, and developing barrier free recreation facilities. In November 1978, the voters of New Jersey approved a $200 million Green Acres Bond issue, with $100 million earmarked for the acquisition and development of park land in urban areas. This brings to $540 million the amount of money approved by the voters for Green Acres funding since 1961. The Green Acres Administration will be spending this money in accord with SCORP priorities. One top priority is the creation of waterfront parks in urban areas. Some of the money will be used for direct state acquisition, while the majority will be channeled through local governments as matching grants. This money will help to significantly expand public access and recreational opportunities through the coastal zone. 44 New Jersey has also received additional funds for park rehabilitation in selected urban areas under the federal Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act, passed in 1978. These funds could be used by an eligible municipality to fill the local matching share of a state Green Acres grant. 8. Shore Protection - Shoreline erosion is a major concern in New Jersey, and DEP is authorized to undertake any and all actions necessary to prevent and/or- repair damage caused by such erosion (see N.J.S.A. 12:6A-1). In 1977, New Jersey's voters approved a $30 million bond issue (the Beaches and Harbors Bond Act of 1977, P.L. 77-208), $20 million of which is to fund State matching grants for beach restoration, maintenance and protection facilities, projects and programs. The Act requires that DEP prepare a comprehensive master plan that will serve as a basis for these grants. Work on this plan has been underway since 1978, and is being conducted by the Division of Coastal Resources. Shore Protection rules, which have been proposed only in draft form, would be procedural rules which cite the Coastal Resource and Development Policies relevant to shore protection for their substantive element. These include policies on Coastal Engineering, Dunes and Dune Management, Beach Nourishment, and High Risk Beach Erosion Areas. This uniformity between programs is required by the adoption of the Coastal Resource and Development Polices as Department rules governing coastal decision- making. In addition to guiding the state's program, the Shore Protection Master Plan and the Coastal Policies will serve as a basis for the planning of joint projects with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Coastal permits will be issued only in conformity with the Policies. 9. Coastal Program Funding Coastal Management Program Implementation (306) Funds Upon federal approval of the coastal program, New Jersey is eligible to receive implementation funds under Section 306 of the federal Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act. DEP received $800,000 in FY 1979, for example, after approval of the program for the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. The Department made avail- able $50,000 of this implementation money to selected county and municipal govern- ments included within the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment boundary by inviting them to submit proposals for planning projects which would help to fulfill the objectives of the Coastal Program, and selected projects in Toms River and Bridgeton. In FY 1980, the Department received a second year implementation grant of $840,000, of which $86,000 is being passed through to six local governments. After receiving Federal approval for the complete coastal program, New Jersey will be eligible for increased Section 306 funds to implement the entire program. DEP intends to continue to make a part of this money available for local govern- ments to assist with projects which will help to carry out the goals and objectives of the coastal program. Other States have, for example, granted funds to local governments for the development of beach access plans or projects, land use analyses, zoning ordinance revisions, and downtown revitalization projects. 45 DEP has also been receiving funds for the past four years, under Section 305 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, to develop the Coastal Management Program. In 1977, DEP passed through $180,000 of these planning funds to twelve coastal counties. In 1978, the Department granted $75,000 to eleven of the counties to enable them to write specific reports contributing to DEP's development of a coastal program. In 1979, DEP granted $110,000 to five municipalities in the developed coast to develop plans for projects which would further the State's coastal object@ives. DEP is currently receiving its last year of Section 305 federal coastal planning funds and will not be eligible to receive additional Section 305 funds. Coastal Energy Impact Program (308) Funds The Coastal Energy Impact Program, Section 308 of the Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act, provides funds to assist states in dealing with impacts from new or expanded energy facilities, and existing, expanded or new coastal energy activities. State agencies, counties and municipal governments are eligible to receive CEIP grants and loans from the Department of Energy, which is the state's designated lead agency for CEIP. New Jersey has been alloted almost $2 million in grants and $3 million in loans since the program's inception in 1977. The CEIP is explained in more detail in the section above which discusses the Department of Energy. Supplementary Implementation Programs in DEP There are a number of programs in DEP which require that new development meet regulations and standards concerning the maintenance and enhancement of water and air quality, the regulation of soil erosion, and the protection of flood hazard areas, wild and scenic rivers, and specified park areas. Programs in these areas will be useful in implementing particular coastal policies. They will be subject to the Coastal Resource and Development Policies to the extent allowed by their enabling legislation. This extent is narrow in the case of programs dealing with the quality of the ambient environment (i.e. air and water quality regulation), but is broader where a program involves land use regulations. The policies of these programs are generally consistent with and, in several cases, are identical with the proposed Coastal Policies. The Coastal Policies on Water and Air Quality and Solid Waste adopt by reference the policies being devel- oped by the divisions of the Department with greatest expertise in each field. The Division of Coastal Resources continues to monitor and review proposed changes to these policies through the rule-making process, and if a change were to violate the adopted Coastal Resource and Development Policies, the DEP Commissioner could refuse to allow the change. Water Quality Program - The Federal Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 USC 466 et seq.) sets a framework f achieving a national goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters and ensuring that they be fishable and swimmable. This is to be accomplished by Federal-state partnerships under which EPA sets increasingly strict effluent standards for wastewater discharges and the states set quality standards for rivers, bays and the ocean, and develop a strategy for their attainment. The key regulatory element is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and the key planning element is the Areawide Water Quality Management (208) Plan. These elements, as well as State wastewater treatment facility requirements, are the key programs for attaining the State's water quality goals in the coastal zone and throughout the state. 46 The attainment and maintenance of water quality in New Jersey is the responsi- bility of DEP's Division of Water Resources. The Division of Coastal Resources also plays a role in water quality enhancement through the enforcement of water quality resource policies in decision-making under CAFRA, the Wetlands Act and the Waterfront Development Law. The Division of Water Resources will consider other coastal policies not related to water quality to the extent statutorily permissible. NPDES Permits - Any point source discharge into the waters of the United States, including the territorial sea, must receive a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) from either EPA or the State. There are 1,396 facilities currently regulated by NPDES in New Jersey. Perhaps as many as half of these facilities are located in the coastal zone. In New Jersey, permits are issued by EPA, Region II, but the State now has enabling legislation (the Water Pollution Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 et seq.) which allows DEP to take over the permitting function. Under the present arrangement, DEP's Division of Water Resources must certify that a proposed discharge will not prevent the attainment of the State's water quality standards before EPA may issue a NPDES permit, and can therefore prevent the issuance of that permit. This certification, which is required by Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act, focuses on the chemical and biological impact of the proposed discharge on attainment of the water quality standards for the receiving body of water. For example, water classified as TW-1, the highest classification for tidal waters, must be suitable for shellfish harvesting where permitted. If a proposed discharge would threaten the shellfish beds in TW-l waters, the Division of Water Resources would have to withhold Section 401 Certification, and thus preclude EPA from issuing a NPDES permit. The NPDES permit process could be used to implement many of the proposed coastal policies for point sources of discharges. When EPA approves a State program for issuing NPDES permits, the requirements remain the same -- compatibility with Federal effluent guidelines and state water quality standards -- but in New Jersey, DEP rather then EPA would make the initial permit determination. EPA would then have the authority to overrule DEP concerning any permit, just as DEP can currently prevent EPA from issuing a permit by not providing the Water Quality Certificate. Section 6(b) of the State's Water Pollution Control Act also authorizes the Division of Water Resources to adopt regulations placing pre-construction require- ments on anyone planning to build a new facility which would discharge wastewater. So-called "Preliminary Facility Approval" Regulations were proposed in the summer of 1977 which would require any person proposing to build a facility to first examine its potential impact on water quality. DEP could prevent construction or require modifications in the plan until it was satisfied that the completed facil- ity would be compatible with State water quality requirements, thereby controlling water pollution by regulating the siting and construction of facilities in addition to regulating effluents. Adopting such regulations could significantly increase the types of development which DEP could require to follow the coastal policies. .The proposed rules, however, were not well accepted and are presently being studied and revised. The Coastal Management Program' will adopt' by reference the State's water quality standards as its standards, and the Division of Coastal Resources will comment on any proposed revisions. This is the same procedure adopted for the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, which recognizes and relies upon the Division of Water 47 Resources' expertise. The Division of Coastal Resources will use its permitting authority, in consultation with the Division of Water Resources, to approve only those projects which will not prevent attainment of State water quality standards. Areawide Water Quality Management (208) Plans A Water Quality Management Plan developed according to Section 208 of the Clean Water Act is a comprehensive and implementable strategy for the control of water pollution in a county or multi-county area. Federal and State legislation require that the Coastal Management Program and 208 Plans be consistent. Through a Federal agreement between the Department of Commerce and the Environmental Protec- tion Agency, and through a working relationship at the state level between the Divisions of Coastal Resources and Water Resources, the policies of the two pro- grams are being coordinated and made consistent for both point and non-point sources of pollution. Each 208 plan is to consist of a set of policies and a management system detailing how and by which agencies these policies will be enforced. The Coastal Zone is to be addressed by nine separate 208 Plans.: Counties Planning Agency Status as of July 1980 1. Middlesex Middlesex County Planning Board Certified by Governor 2. Mercer Mercer County Planning Board Certified by Governor 3. Burlington/Camden/ Delaware Valley Regional Planning Certified by Governor Gloucester Commission 4. Salem/Cumberland DEP-Division of Water Resources Certified by Governor 5. Bergen/Hudson/Essex/ DEP-Division of Water Resources Certified by Governor Passaic/Union/Somerset 6. Monmouth DEP-Division of Water Resources Certified by Governor 7. Ocean Ocean County Planning Board Draft Plan Completed 8. Atlantic Atlantic County Division of Draft Plan Completed Planning 9. Cape May Cape May County Planning Board Draft Plan Completed The Division of Coastal Resources will not issue CAFRA, Waterfront Development or Wetlands permits to development proposals which conflict with a certified 208 Plan. Similarly, all other regulato'ry programs in DEP will not issue permits to projects in conflict with a certified plan as required by N.J.S.A. 58:11A-10. The Division of Coastal Resources has been participating in the 208 planning process to assure that the plans are not only consistent with Coastal Policies, but also contain policies and strategies designed to protect water-related coastal resources. Thus, in implementing 208 plans through regulatory and other strategies, DEP, the counties and other agencies will also be implementing elements of the Coastal Management Program. Wastewater Treatment Facilities - DEP is actively involved in the planning, financing and regulation of wastewater treatment facilities. The State Water Pollution Control Act (N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 et seq.), authorizes instal- DEP's Division of Water Resources to require a permit for the lation, modification or operation of any wastewater treatment facility, including 48 but not limited to sewage treatment plants, sewage collection systems including interceptors, sewer outfalls, industrial wastewater treatment plants, and cooling towers and ponds. Through another program authorized by the Water Pollution Control Act, the Division may place a ban on extensions to a sewerage system when that system is found to be receiving flows in excess of design capacity or to be discharging inadequately treated sewage. Under the Water Supply and Sewer Systems in Realty Improvements Act (N.J.S.A. 58:11-23 et seq.), the Division must certify the adequacy of the proposed water supply and wastewater disposal system for any development involving fifty or more houses, or other structures producing wastewater, before a municipality may give the necessary subdivision approval. This requirement assures that proposed major subdivisions in the coastal zone and the entire state which employ on-site sewage disposal will not be built unless the disposal system is adequate "with respect to wells or other sources of water supply, topography, existing individual sewage disposal systems on adjacent properties, water table, soil characteristics, avail- able area and expected volume of sewage" and meets State standards regarding design (N.J.A.C. 7:9-2.5). This law is of importance primarily in areas without regional sewerage systems. In the proposed coastal zone, this includes significant portions .of Cumberland, Salem, and Cape May Counties. In September, 1979, EPA delegated administration of the Wastewater Con- struction Grant Program under Section 201 of the Federal Clean Water Act to the Division of Water Resources. Under this program, DEP determines the eligibility of proposed municipal facilities for federal aid for facility planning (Step I), engineering (Step II), and construction (Step III). Since all wasterwater facili- ties require a Waterfront Development permit (and a CAFRA -permit if located in the CAFRA zone), DEP and EPA in 1977 entered into an agreement which requires that applicants obtain these permits before Step II engineering funds are released. This practice will continue under the delegated program. This insures that waste- water treatment facilities are planned, funded and built in accordance with Coastal Policies. The State Public Sanitary Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act of 1965, (N.J.S.A. 26:2E-1 et seq.), authorizes DEP to give grants of up to 30 percent of the State-local c(Ts-t-3-f construction projects which qualify for the 75 percent Federal construction subsidy under Section 201. The State construction aid program is designed to complement the federal sewerage construction grants, and DEP's funding priorities are in accordance with Federal priority guidelines and Areawide Water Quality Management (208) Plans. This funding program will help to carry out coastal policies related to secondary impacts and the protection of environmentally critical or sensitive areas. Stream Encroachments and Flood Hazards No structure or alteration within the 100 year floodplain of any stream may be made without a permit from DEP's Division of Water Resources. This permit responsibility existed under the Stream Encroachment Act (N.J.S.A. 58:1-26) until its repeal and transfer to the Flood Hazards Area Control Act (N.J.S.A. 58:16A-50 et seq., as amended, see P.L. 1979, c.359). The program is intended primarily for flood protection, "to safeguard the public against danger from waters impounded or affected by such structures". 49 Administration of this program supports the preservation of stream channels in their natural state, and will allow further implementation of the Coastal Policies related to hydrology and flood hazards. Of 500 stream encroachment permit applica- tions received in 1978, DEP granted 450. The Division of Coastal Resources and Water Resources are discussing procedures for waiving the Stream Encroachment Permit requirement for projects requiring a Waterfront Development Permit. The Flood Hazards Area Control Act also authorizes DEP to adopt land use regulations for delineated floodways -"designed to preserve (their) flood carrying capacity and to minimize the threat to the public 'safety, health and general welfare". Under the Act, municipalities may conduct the delineation and adopt regulations concerning their use in zoning ordinances, provided that they meet the minimum standards of the DEP regulations. DEP has adopted, or proposed for adoption, floodway delineations in various parts of the proposed coastal zone (See Resource Policy on Flood Hazard Areas in Chapter Four) . The Act only applies to riverine flood hazard areas, however, so its use in coastal flood zones is extremely limited. Wild and Scenic Rivers. The purpose of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1977 (N.J.S.A. 13:8-45 et seq.) is to preserve, protect and enhance the natural and recreational value _oT some of the State's most significant river segments. The Act allows the Commis- sioner of DEP to designate river segments as "wild", "scenic", "recreational", or "developed recreational". In any river segment so designated, all construction activities would be either prohibited or regulated within the river's flood hazard area. This would expand upon DEP's authority under the Flood Hazards Area Control Act in the areas designated, by permitting a much wider range of considerations as criteria for DEP's regulatory decisions. Before any designations can be made, the flood hazard area of a river under consideration must be delineated. The geographic extent of river designation is the flood hazard area, except that DEP owned lands beyond the flood hazard area which are important to the river may also be included in the designated river area. A designation study, assessing the river's values, and the impact of designation must be prepared and will be subject to public review and hearings. The types of development that are controlled under the Act will depend on which designation is applied to the segment, with "wild" rivers having the strictest prohibitions and "developed recreational" the most lenient. DEP's Green Acres Administration has published guidelines for designation of the State's rivers under which both the Lower Delaware River and the Hudson River could be charac- terized as developed recreational segments. Examples of river segments which may be designated include: Hudson River from the New Jersey-New York border to Liberty State Park (only characteristics of the New Jersey side, including views of Man- hatten, would be considered), or the Rancocas Creek from head of tide to confluence with the Delaware. DEP has proposed flood hazard area delineations for the Rancocas Region under the Flood Hazard Areas Control Act. 50 The.Delaware and Raritan Canal State Park Act (N.J.S.A. 13:13A-1 et seq.) This law is similar to, but was enacted three years before, the State's Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Preservation of the sixty mile Delaware and Raritan Canal is entrusted to the Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission, which is in but largely independent of DEP. The Department is required by the law to administer all State-owned lands along the Canal as a State park, in accordance with a master plan adopted by the Commission in May, 1977. The Commission is given project review authority over proposals within a delineated review zone which includes the Canal Park and any land on either side of it in which development will have drainage or visual impact on the park. Within this zone, the Commission has the authority to 11review and approve, reject or modify any project ..." (N.J.S.A. 13:13a-14c). The projects to be reviewed by the Commission are set by rules adopted in 1979 (N.J.A.C. 7:45-1.1 et seq.): Within 1,000 feet of the Canal Park (the 'W' zone), all projects wilr-b@T_reviewed for drainage, visual, noise or other eco- logical impacts. Outside this area, but within watersheds of streams that enter the Canal Park (the "B" zone), projects will be reviewed only for drainage impacts. Projects to be reviewed in this latter area will be those involving construction or redevelopment of twenty-five or more dwelling units, projects which will cover one or more acres of land with impervious surfaces, and projects with any of the following uses: livestock pens, corrals or feed lots; pipelines, storage or distribution systems -for petroleum products or chemicals; liquid waste, storage, distribution or treatment facilities; solid waste storage, distribution or inciner- ation or landfill; quarries, mines or borrow pits; land application of sludge or effluents. Two small segments of the canal park, totalling approximately 288 acres, lie within the proposed coastal zone (See Figure 11). In the Northern Waterfront area, the Canal extends along the Raritan River from New Brunswick to the limits of tidal water. In the Delaware River area, it begins at Crosswicks Creek, Hamilton Township, and then leaves the coastal zone as it turns away from the river in Trenton. Within these segments, proposed development would have to meet the policy requirements of both the Canal Commission and the Coastal Management Program. The policies proposed by the Commission are consistent with the proposed Coastal Resource and Development Policies. Pinelands Protection The Pinelands Protection Act (P.L. 1979, Ch. 111; N.J.S.A. 13:18A-1 et seq.) establishes a framework for the comprehensive planning and regulation of develop- ment in the approximately 1,000,000 acres of fragile, highly valued pinelands that reach across central and southern New Jersey. The Pinelands Area and its sub-areas are mapped and the overlap between that area and the proposed coastal zone is shown in Figure 19 (Chapter 4). The Act is intended to accomplish the purposes of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625), which authorized federal support for Pine- lands protection through planning and land acquisition. The Federal Act directs the Department of the Interior to provide up to $3 million in planning assistance if requested by the Governor, and up to $26 million in implementation funds 51 .41. RA u on 'Ir kLoo @ighls 17 10 "0 t to roonv Pt N 10 Iro i N. Beacor, Lights /0 50 Iri /S . ..... olro 7 I NE J Lig 60 ,R A. c co 4TO 0. r4 0 0 1 '00 so C7. CrR,/,b @:m 10 V@l Inc 28M % 1124,0 0 I Coe 16M. 3000. F 4. 52 31 Sake N 0 0 0 "g- 0 C) < Ap U) 37, age" w4, arsha Ln. 0, 00 or @j m ad. 0 R 4 0 Towe iP BM Rad,u Ra To. Ol . . ........ "a following submission of an acceptable master plan. Both the planning process and a moratorium on State permit approvals and financial assistance were initiated by a Governor's Executive Order (EO No. 71, 1979) in March, 1979. The Pinelands Protec- tion Act was subsequently passed and signed into law on June 28, 1979. The Act establishes the following policy goals for the Pinelands: 1. The goal of the comprehensive management plan with respect to the entire pinelands area shall be to protect, preserve and enhance the significant values of the resources thereof in a manner which is consistent with the purposes and pro- visions of this act and the Federal Act. 2. The goals of the comprehensive management plan with respect to the protection area shall be to: (a) Preserve and maintain the essential character of the existing pinelands environment, including the plant and animal species indigenous thereto and the habitat therefor; (b) Protect and maintain the quality of surface and ground waters; (c) Promote the continuation and expansion of agricultural and hor- ticultural uses; (d) Discourage piecemeal and scattered development; and (e) Encourage appropriate patterns of compatible residential, commercial and industrial development, in or adjacent to areas already utilized for such purposes, in order to accommodate regional growth influences in an orderly way while pro- tecting the pinelands environment from the individual and cumulative adverse impacts thereof. 3. The goals of the comprehensive management plan with respect to the preservation area shall be to: (a) Preserve an extensive and contiguous area of land in its natural state, thereby insuring the continuation of a pinelands environment which contains the unique and significant ecological and other resources representative of the pine- lands area; (b) Promote compatible agricultural, horticultural and recreation uses, including hunting, fishing and trapping, within the framework of maintaining a pinelands environment; (c) Prohibit any construction or development which is incompatible with the preservation of this unique area; (d) Provide a sufficient amount of undeveloped land to accommodate specific wilderness management practices, such as selective burning, which are necessary to maintain the special ecology of the preservation area; and (e) Protect and preserve the quantity and quality of existing surface and ground waters. 54 The Act created a 15 member Commission (in but independent of DEP), and directed the Commission to develop a comprehensive Pinelands management plan by August 8, 1980. On June 8, 1980, the Commission released a draft Comprehensive Management Plan including a land use map and development standards. Since the plan's release, legislation has been enacted to extend the deadline for plan adoption from August 8 to December 15, 1980, to allow adequate time for comment and revision. The stand- ards for the Preservation Area, however, will take effect on August 8, 1980 as called for in the initial legislation. Within one year of the plan's adoption, every county and municipality located in whole or in part in the Protection Area must submit to the Commission a master plan and/or zoning ordinance which complies with the adopted policies. Also following adoption, state regulatory and capital spending decisions in the area must comply with the policies. The Act continues and extends to county and municipal approvals the moratorium on decision-making in the Pinelands area. The construction of single family dwellings is exempted from the moratorium in the Protection Area if the building lot was owned by January 7, 1979 by the person who is to occupy the dwelling, has access to a sewer system or, where no sewer is available, is greater than one acre in area. The Commission may grant exceptions from the moratorium when necessary to alleviate extraordinary hardship or to satisfy a compelling public need, or where it has been determined that the project is consistent with the Act's purposes and would not result in substantial impairment of the Pinelands area's resources. The Commission has not yet adopted regulations governing this process. The Pinelands National Reserve overlaps with the coastal zone in portions of Ocean, Burlington, Atlantic and Cape May Counties (see Figure 19), and in the Mullica River watershed there is also overlap between the coastal zone and the Pinelands Area under the jurisdiction of the State Pinelands Act. In this later area, coastal permits and approval from the Pinelands Commission will both be required for new development. This area is designated a part of the Preservation Area by the Pinelands Protection Act and a Limited Growth Region by the Coastal Resource and Development Policies, indicating a consistency of policies. In the area of overlap between the coastal zone and the National Reserve which is not under the jurisdiction of the Pinelands Protection Act, the Coastal Management Program will be the principal means of implementing the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan. The amendment to Coastal Growth Ratings in Ocean County (Chapter 4, Section 7:7E-5.3) and revisions to the Resource Policy on Buffers and Compatibility of Uses (Chapter 4, 7:7E-8.15), are both intended to make the coastal program more consistent with the draft Comprehensive Management Plan. Similarly, Section 22 of the State Pinelands Protection Act requires that DEP review its coastal policies and make any revisions "as may be necessary to effectu- ate the purposes of this act and the Federal Act". DEP believes that the Coastal Resource and Development Policies, as amended in this document, are basically 55 consistent with Federal and State Pinelands objectives and with the draft Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan. Nonetheless, between now and the time of adoption of the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan, DEP and Pinelands Commission staff will be meeting to discuss modifications to both programs to increase their con- sistency. Regulation of State Owned Land The Natural Areas System Act (N.J.S.A. 13:lB-15.12a et seq.) calls for the Department to designate and regulate State-owned lands f37 Fh-e purpose of pro- tecting and enhancing their natural values. The natural area regulations govern state agencies administering lands designated as part of the system, and ensure that any critical areas purchased by the State for preservation or conservation purposes are adequately protected. The Natural Areas System Act is a regulatory adjunct to those coastal policies encouraging the preservation of open space and the protection of critical environmental areas. There are ten designated Natural Areas in the proposed coastal zone. These are described in Chapter Five under Geographic Areas of Particular Concern. Parts of Rancocas State Park in Burlington County and the Delaware and Raritan State park in Middlesex and Mercer Counties are also in the proposed coastal zone. These parks and any other State-owned lands managed by DEP within the coastal zone, including forests and fish and wildlife management areas, will be managed con- sistent with the Coastal Policies. Development proposed on DEP managed lands is reviewed by the Division of Coastal Resources to assure consistency, if it requires one or more coastal permits. Coastal resources along the Hudson River north of the George Washington Bridge, most notably the Palisades, are protected by inclusion within the Palisades Interstate Park. The park is managed by the Palisades Interstate Park Commission, a bi-state agency of New Jersey and New York. Federally owned land is excluded from the coastal zone (see Appendix B). Air Quality Programs As the New Jersey agency designated to administer the Federal Clean Air Act, DEP's Division of Environmental Quality conducts the planning for and the moni- toring of air quality. The Division's Bureau of Air Pollution Control has promul- gated, and is further developing programs by which the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) will be attained. In compliance with the 1977 Amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act, New Jersey has submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency outlining strategies for attain- ment and maintenance of the Standards. The Bureau of Air Pollution Control has an extensive permitting program which reviews proposals for any operation which would result in air pollution emissions. Thus, any proposal to construct or operate manufacturing facilities, non-commercial fuel burning equipment, storage tanks to hold fuel and other organic substances, and commercial fuel burning equipment with a heat output rate of one million BTU/hour or more must receive a permit from DEP. In addition, the Bureau requires permits to install any incinerator unless it will serve a multi-family dwelling of six units or less. 56 The purpose of requiring permits under the State's Air Pollution Control Act is to impose controls necessary to meet established standards on potential sources of new air pollution. The Act, therefore, will serve to implement the Coastal Policies on air quality. Permits are granted when the Bureau has ascertained that the application complies with Federal and State air pollution regulations, and that its emissions control system reflects "Best Available Control Technology", also considered "state of the art" technology. In any year, the Bureau reviews 6,000 to 7,000 applications and approves all but about 120. Solid Waste The Solid Waste Management Act, N.J.S.A. 13:IE-1 et seq. authorizes DEP to supervise the collection and disposal of all solid wast7s- gn-d related operations, including the location of disposal sites. Proposed facilities and sites are to be reviewed with reference to the quality of groundwater, erosion control, and "such other measures as shall be deemed necessary to protect the public health and safety of the environment "(N.J.S.A. 13:IE-6). Because numerous environmental impacts may be considered under this Act, DEP would apply all of the proposed Coastal Policies as criteria for site selection for solid waste collection and disposal facilities. Under the New Jersey Solid Waste Management Act and the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, P.L. 94-580), every county in the State as well as the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission must draft a solid waste management plan. After the plans are adopted, they will control the siting of solid waste disposal facilities. RCRA states that for a plan to receive EPA implementation funds, it must provide that all solid waste be recycled or disposed of in sanitary land fills meeting federal requirements. The Division of Coastal Resources will review developing solid waste management plans for consistency with coastal policies. Harbor Clean-Up The "New York Harbor Collection and Removal of Drift Project" is a joint State/Federal undertaking, supervised by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and administered at the state level by the Bureau of Capital Improvements in DEP's Division of Fiscal and Support Services. The plan calls for the Corps to remove all abandoned sources of drift from both public and private property, from mean high water seaward to a depth of 20 feet. Disposal methods include burning at sea, landfill, and land incineration, with burning at sea found preferable. Some dredging may be required to reach structures scheduled for removal. Local govern- ments are to be responsible for subsequent maintenance of facilities, and no funds are provided for the revitalization of cleared areas. New Jersey's share of the project's cost, $10 million, was authorized by the voters of the State as part of the $30 million Beaches and Harbors Bonds Act of 1977. The Act states in part that "the state's growing population, expanding commercial development, and tourist industry all require and should have a clean, adequate, and accessible shoreline" (Section 2b). OTHER STATE AGENCIES A number of state agencies, in addition to DEP, make decisions affecting land and water uses in coastal areas. 57 Unlike the operating divisions of DEP, these agencies are bound by the Rules on Coastal Resource and Development Policies only when their activities require a DEP permit. ' Only the Department of Energy (DOE) is specifically obli- gated to follow the adopted Coastal Resource and Development Policies, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding with DEP. The sections which follow describe those activities of other state agencies which affect coastal land or water uses and which could, if conducted consistently with the Coastal Policies, enhance the program's effectiveness. All major State public construction projects will be consistent with the coastal policies by virtue of the Governor's Executive Order 53 of 1973, which requires that any State project costing $1.0 million or more, or State projects costing less than $1.0 million which by reason of their nature or location have the potential for substantial adverse environmental impacts, be first reviewed by DEP for environmental impacts. Department of Agriculture - The Department of Agriculture shares with DEP the regulatory responsibir-ity of the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act (N.J.S.A. 4:24-39 et seq. as amended). The Act is administered by the State Soil Conserva- tion Com-mitFe_e, which includes the Commissioners of the two Departments, and local Soil Conservation Districts. The Act controls erosion and sediment during the construction phase of development. It mandates site plan review of proposed sediment control practices for all construction, excluding individually developed single family homes, resulting in a soil disturbance of at least 5,000 square feet. Reviews are conducted according to regulations (N.J.A.C. 2:90-13) describing standards for techniques to establish ground protection and control of runoff, such as diversions, sediment basins, slope protection structures and channel stabilization. The Coastal Resource and Develop- ment Policies pertaining to soil are based on the-Act, thereby assuring conformity between the two. In addition, local Soil Conservation Districts and the South Jersey Resource Conservation and Development Council, with technical assistance from the USDA-Soil Conservation Service, have worked with several municipalities on dune stabilization and dune management. Department of Community Affairs - The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is responsible for the administration -of a broad range of social programs, including those affecting housing. The Department does not, however, play a significant role in the formal management system of the Coastal Program, with the possible exception of the activities of its Housing Finance Agency. Under Section 701 of the Federal Housing and Community Development Act and the State law which established the Division of State and Regional Planning (N.J.S.A. 13:lB-15.50), DCA has prepared a State Development Guide Plan (Preliminary Draft - September 1977). The major policies of the Tu@idePlan are: Maintain the quality of the environment, preserve the open space necessary tor an expanding population, provide space and services to support continued economic expansion, and enhance the quality of life in urban areas. These policies, and the regulatory and funding decisions made under them, are consistent with the proposed coastal policies. 58 DCA's Housing Finance Agency (HFA) provides financing for private housing, and makes its decision on the basis of the Guide Plan and other State policies. Because all HFA proposals involve projects 777F -costs exceeding $1.0 million, DEP is able to use Executive Order 53 to insure that they aredesigned consistently with the Coastal Resource and Development Policies. In addition, HFA-financ@d projects with 25 units or more require a CAFRA Permit, and all HFA-financed projects in the coastal zone outside the CAFRA area will require either a-"Water- front Development or Wetlands permit. Department of Labor and Industry - The Department of Labor and Indust ry's (DLI) regulatory programs are, for the most part, not land-u-se related. However, the Department, through its office of Business Advocacy, plays an important role in siting and financing business and industry in the State. As part of this effort, DLI assists industrial developers in obtaining the State permits necessary for siting and operating plants, and will therefore work with DEP on industrial siting decisions. In addition, the Department can speed the development review process by steering potential developers towards sites on which development would be consistent with the Coastal Policies. Economic Development Authority - The Economic Development Authority (EDA), arranges low-interest, long-term financing for projects (including commercial fisheries), and is authorized to enter into contracts and buy and sell land and buildings. It is governed by a seven member board which includes the Commissioner of DEP. The Authority works closely with the Division of Economic Development within the Department of Labor and industry. In 1977, it provided $265 million for low interest loans throughout the State. DEP is working with EDA to explore the opportunity for consistency between EDA funding criteria and the proposed Coastal Policies. This could lead to coordinated planning for industrial development. Department of Transportation - The Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for the plann-ir-ng,construct ion, and maintenance of state highways, the review and funding of local highway projects, the planning of state and regional transportation strategies, and the regulation of some transportation facilities. DOT construction projects affecting DEP-regulated lands or resources are subject to DEP regulatory authority, insuring their conformity with the coastal policies. As part of their planning responsibilities, DOT and DEP have a working relationship for planning in coastal areas. Department of Health - The Department of Health shares with DEP the regulatory responsibilities for shellfish control activities including depuration and for recreational sanitation. Additionally, the Department of Health is responsible for the administration of a broad range of health programs, including health facilities planning, which may impact on the development of coastal policies. COUNTY LAND USE AUTHORITY The major role played by counties in the coastal program management system is that of planners. County land use authority is limited to the review and approval of subdivision and site plans for traffic impacts on county roads, and for drainage impacts on county facilities (see N.J.S.A. 40:27-1 et seq.). Most counties have prepared master plans or studies analyzing county issues and concerns to guide their decision making. The Municipal Land Use Act (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et seq.) mandates coordination between county and municipal authorities by requiring Ch-a-t municipal master plans include a statement concerning the relationship between the municipal plan and the county master plan. S9 Other county functions which could help to carry out a coastal program include the 208 water quality planning responsibility some counties have undertaken and the counties' responsibility to prepare Solid Waste Management plans. Under the County ,-Environmental Health Act of 1978, each county can formulate and enforce environ- mental health ordinances to control air pollution, solid waste, noise and water polhution. These ordinance must be consistent with applicable state laws, rules and regulatio 'ns. The Act gives the Commissioner of DEP authority to delegate admini- stration o-f--the environmental health laws it administers to the counties. To date, this authority has not been exercised, nor have the Act's programs been funded. Most coastal counties have been actively involved in the planning and develop- ment of the New Jersey's coastal program. For two years, DEP sponsored a state- county coastal coordination project with every county in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and Salem, Camden, Gloucester, Burlington (one year), Middlesex, Hudson and Union (one year) counties. Using funds made available under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, DEP contracted with the counties for the provision of information and analysis which is being used in the development of the Coastal Program. The counties have generated ideas, and in some cases, suggested a bound- ary and policies for their section of the coastal zone. MUNICIPAL LAND USE AUTHORITY New Jersey's municipalities derive their power to enact and enforce zoning ordinances from the State, and possess extensive regulatory authority over land uses. The Municipal Land Use Law, (NJSA 40:55D-1 et seq.), requires municipal planning boards to prepare master plans to guide munMc1p=aland use. It requires that all 'municipal zoning ordinances be consistent with or designed to carry out the land use element of the master plan. The State and municipality act as a check on each other in areas subject to State land use regulatory authority. A locally approved proposal cannot be con- structed without receipt of relevant state approvals, and a State-approved project, with certain exceptions in which the State has eminent domain authority, must receive appropriate local approvals. The Division of Coastal Resources has been soliciting municipal participation in the development of the coastal program for years by sharing draft documents with municipal officials and holding public meetings throughout the state. In addition, the Division will continue to encourage municipalities to review and comment on State coastal permit applications. Active involvement of the municipalities and consistency between local plans, ordinances and policies and state Coastal Policies is important for the successful development and full implementation of the Coastal Program. REGIONAL LAND USE AUTHORITY Delaware River Area In the Delaware River area, authority to implement the Coastal Policies is complemented and enhanced by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC). The DRBC was created in November 1961 up@n enactment of concu@_ren@' l-eg-li-slation by the Congress of the United States and by the respective legislatures of the States of Delaware, New Jersey, and New York, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is charged with the responsibility for development and effectuation of plans, policies 60 and projects relating to the water resources of the multi-state Delaware River Basin. The members of the DRBC are the Governors of the signatory States and one commissioner appointed by the President of United States. The Governors appoint alternates to the act as their representatives. The Commission exercises its powers and duties within the limits of the Delaware River Basin, defined in the Delaware River Basin Compact as the area of drainage into the Delaware River and its tributaries, including Delaware Bay (see Figure 12). Under the provisions of the Compact, DRBC has broad powers in relation to management of water supplies, water quality, pollution control, flood protection, watershed management, recreation, fish and wildlife, hydro-electric power, and regulation of water withdrawals and diversions. Under Section 3.8 of the Compact, no project having a substantial effect on the water resources of the basin may be undertaken without the Commission's approval. Under Article 11, all public pro- jects affecting the water resources of the Delaware Basin must be planned in consultation with the Commission. The Delaware River Basin Compact requires that the DRBC develop and adopt a comprehensive plan for the water resources of the Basin. The Comprehensive Plan differs from the usual "master plan" in that it serves not only as a guide for development of the water resources, but also as a management and regulatory mech- anism. It sets water quality standards for the basin, which together with state standards are the criteria for water quality certification of NPDES permits. it also establishes an interstate waste load allocation program for the Delaware River Estuary. In October, 1979, the DRBC produced a report titled The Delaware River Basin containing generalized recommendations and strategy for updating the Compre- hensive Plan. The report was the product of a comprehensive basinwide (Level B) study of the basins's water resources. The Comprehensive Plan includes Commission administrative actions and deter- minations, and the Plan continues to grow in scope as the Commission regularly adds new policies, criteria, standards and projects. For example, in 1978 the Commis- sion adopted a wetlands policy similar in substance to the State's proposed Wet- lands Special Area Policy, as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The plan, therefore, goes beyond the presentation of programs and facilities for meeting various needs; it includes a codification of administrative decisions governing water resources use, development and conservation. DEP hopes to modi 'fy an existing administrative agreement between DRBC and DEP for the purpose of coordinating DEP coastal permit programs with DRBC project review in the Coastal Zone. Although such an agreement is not essential for federal approval of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program, it would supplement the coastal permit programs by ensuring that DRBC, upon the request of DEP, will use its authority under Section 3.8 of its Compact to review proposed projects significantly affecting the water resources of the Delaware River Basin. A recently completed coordination project between DRBC and DEP-DCR provided input to the Department in drafting the proposed Coastal Resource and Development Policies and concluded that the policies are not in conflict with the DRBC Comprehensive Plan. The administrative agreement would ensure that DRBC will consider adopted Coastal Resource and Development Policies to the maximum extent feasible as criteria in its project review decisions. The Department will also work with DRBC and the Delaware and Pennsylvania coastal management programs to develop a unified set of coastal policies for consideration for future incorporation into the DRBC Comprehensive Plan. 61 OVERLAP 'BETWEEN DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION (DRBC) JURISDICTION AND 'COASTAL ZONE HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS SUSSEX DISTRICT ,".PASSAIC i BERGE MORRIS 'ESSEX 0 NORTHERN WATERFRONT AREA u 10 DRBC JURISDICTION .:40MERSET-,,!@ .14 ON AREA -dMIDDLESEX MONMOUTH Elicl.R DELAWARE RIVER AREA OCE SAY A ND OCEAN SHORE AREA oo@ 00" HACKENSACK N OV.ERLA -tXAMDEN MEADOWLANDS AREA ")GkCUCE R N DISTRICT S kLEW BAY AND OCEAN SHORE AREA ATL TIC AN DRBC JURISDICTION cillill, A OVERLAP AREA MAX, ... ... ...... ......... :. STME OF NE* ARSEY L PROTECTION FNVIRODNEMPE"NTTALl"n OF @@ISUSSEX Mol 4, 62 Another regional agency in the Delaware River Area is the Delaware River Port Authori ty (DRPA). The DRPA is a self-sustaining bi-state public agency o nnsyl- vania and New Jersey. It owns and operates four bridges which span the Delaware River connecting Southeastern Pennsylvania and Southern New Jersey, and through its subsidiary PATCO operates the Lindenwold High Speed Line. Although the Delaware River Port Authority does not own or operate any port facilities along the Dela- ware, it promotes trade and commerce for the ports of the Delaware River, collec- tively known as Ameriport. As part of its efforts to plan for and promote the Delaware River Port area, the Delaware River Port Authority is currently working to develop a Delaware River Regional Port Planning Study which will be funded by the federal Maritime Admini- stration. The study will make recommendations concerning development of twenty- seven sites wholly or partly within the New Jersey coastal zone. DEP-has analyzed these sites and determined.that under the Rules on Coastal Resource and Development Policies water dependent development would be acceptable provided Special Area, Use and Resource Policies are complied with. On two sites the presence of wetlands substantially limits the developable area. A map of the twenty-seven sites and DEP comments on their acceptability for development are available at DEP-DCR offices in Trenton. DEP will continue to coordinate closely with DRPA as their regional port planning study progresses. Although the DRPA is specifically exempted from State regulation (N.J.S.A. 32:3-6), it must obtain permission for the acquisition or use of State-owned tidelands from the Tidelands Resource Council. The Delaware River and Bay Authority was created by an interstate compact between New Jersey and Delaware. The Authority operates the Delaware Memorial Bridge and the Cape May-Lewes Ferry, and is empowered to operate marine terminals. Northern Waterfront Area In most of the northern waterfront, the Coastal Policies are enforceable only through the Waterfront Development and Tidelands Management programs. Near the Raritan Bay, DEP also has regulatory authority over development in mapped coastal wetlands. In addition, DEP will fund capital spending projects only when they are consistent with the Coastal Policies. The Coastal Policies can be further implemented, however, through coordination with several interstate and regional agencies having jurisdiction in the area. One of these agencies, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, is a self- supporting corporate agency formed in 1921 by the States of New York and New Jersey "to deal with the planning and development of terminal and transportation facili- ties, and to improve and protect the commerce of the Port District". The Port District encompasses a large area surrounding New York harbor and includes all of the Northern Waterfront coastal zone. The Authority's operations are not exempt from DEP's regulatory and tidelands authority (see N.J.S.A. 32:1-35.11 and 32:1-32.35). Because of the Port Authority's active involvement in the development and management of port, transportation and industrial facilities and its mandate to protect and promote commerce through the Port of New York and New Jersey, the Division of Coastal Resources is working closely with the Authority in policy 63 development. The planning and development of large northern waterfront sites by this interstate agency could be an important step toward revitalization of urban waterfront areas. In 1978, legislation was enacted in New Jersey and New York enabling the Port Authority to undertake an industrial park development program intended to revita- lize the inner cities of the Port District and to create an estimated 30,000 jobs over the next ten years. The Port Authority program to develop sites for manufac- turing plants in the hard-pressed central cities would require an investment of more than $1 billion in public and private funds over the next ten years, of which the Port Authority would invest up to $400 million on a self-supporting basis. The Interstate Sanitation Commission was formed in 1936 by the states of New Jersey, New York and Mnecticut to c-ontrol pollution in the tidal waters of the New York metropolitan area. More recently the Commission has become concerned with air pollution as well, and monitors and conducts research concerning both air and water quality. Under its compact (Article 17 . as revised October 1970), the Commission may "develop and, after public hearing place in force ... classifica- tions of waters and effluent standards within the District". A NPDES permit may not be issued for any discharge which would violate the Commission's standards. Waterfront planning and management in the Northern Waterfront Area may also benefit from the Hudson River Waterfront Study, Planning, and Development Commis- sion. This Commission was established by Governor Byrne in Executive Order No. 69 on January 11, 1979 to "conduct a thorough study and investigation of the various alternatives for the planning and redevelopment of the Hudson River Waterfront South of the George Washington Bridge". The Commission is composed of State legislators, representatives of Hudson and Bergen Counties, the mayors of 15 waterfront municipalities in those counties and other citizens appointed by the Governor. The Commission has released a Working Draft Report (March 1980) and will present its recommendations, including a proposal for a permanent regional agency which will prepare a Riverfront Plan to guide the redevelopment and revita- lization of the waterfront, to the Governor in September 1980. DEP's Bureau of Coastal Planning and Development serves as staff to the Commission. Federal Agency Authority Section 307 of the FCZMA allows states with approved coastal management programs to object to direct federal activities, federal permits or funding activities in or affecting the coastal zone which would violate elements of the Coastal Program. Also covered by Section 307 are federally licensed and permitted activities described in Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) exploration plans. The meaning of "Federal Consistency" has been subject to much debate since it was first included in the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1972. At a minimum, it leads to increased coordination between DEP and federal agencies near the coast. it increases opportunities for more efficient and effective review of coastal projects which require both state and federal approvals and it establishes a formal process for resolution of differences. Once the State has an approved coastal management program, any OCS plan for exploration, development or production from any tract affecting New Jersey's coast would have to be certified as consistent with the State Coastal Management Program. This is now in effect as a consequence of federal approval for the Bay 64 and Ocean Shore Segment As opposed to past procedures which only allowed the State to exercise review and comment on OCS plans, the consistency provisions go one step further by allowing the State to enforce its coastal policies through a consistency certification process. Federal consistency applies only after a State's coastal program is approved and cannot be used by a state to help demonstrate that it has sufficient authority to meet the standards of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. Federal Con- sistency is discussed in detail in Chapter Five. Public Participation Public participation is an essential element in the development of a viable coastal management program. The New Jersey program offers opportunities for participation not only in program development, but also in regulatory decision- making and continued planning. The three coastal permit programs (CAFRA, Wetlands, and Waterfront Develop- ment) 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 appro- priate county planning board, county environmental commission, municipal planning board, county environmental commission, soil conservation district, and the Dela- ware Valley Regional Planning Commission and Tri-State Regional Planning Commis- sion. In addition, owners of land adjacent to the site proposed for development will be informed of the application. All pending applications are listed in the DEP Bulletin which is distributed -free and has a current circulation of 1,600. The Dep3-rtment is also cooperating with the "coast watch" program, sponsored by the American Littoral Society, to inform more people about pending coastal decisions and other events. DEP holds a public hearing 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 tidelands are made by the Tidelands 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 coastal zone. This involvement takes several forms, and, the Department will remain open to additional public participation techniques which may be suggested. Substantive changes in the Coastal Management Program and its policies will be subject to the notice and hearing requirement of both the federal regulations and the New Jersey rule-making process. The Division of Coastal Resources will continue to publish The Jersey Coast several times each year to inform interested people of future public meetings, available reports, and coastal planning and regulatory activities. Division staff will continue to make themselves available to meet with interested groups and the Division will continue to convene a series of public meetings throughout the coastal zone at least twice a year. in addition, Division staff will continue to meet periodically with the leaders of statewide environmental groups, builders groups, and other groups which express interest. 65 Part of public participation is public education, and DEP will continue 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 DEP action, to the DEP Commissioner or to a 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 Tidelands Resource Council (DEP has proposed to change the procedure.so appeals will be to the Commissioner), and then to the courts. There is no administrative process for appealing the decision of a State agency to adopt a rule, but the adoption of any rules, including the Rules on Coastal Resource and Development Policies, may be challenged by bringing an action in the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. The Department of Energy (DOE) may appeal decisions affecting the construction or location of an energy facility to the Energy Facility Review Board. 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 C explains this process. it is important to note, however, that between July 1977 and the present, the DEP/DOE conflict resolution process has not been neces- sary. The Management System for the Coastal Program does not appear likely to generate 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 subject to the Coastal Management 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. 66 Chapter 4: Coastal Resource and Development Policies CHAPTER FOUR - COASTAL RESOURCE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES Note to Reader This chapter defines substantive coastal policies to guide public decisions about significant proposed development and management of resources of New Jersey's coastal zone. A three step decision-making process involving Location, Use and Resource Policies is used in order to increase predictability and add more speci- ficity to the coastal decision-making process. Coastal policies for the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment were adopted as admini- strative rules (N.J.A.C. 7:7E-1.1 et seq., effective September 28, 1978), and appeared on pages 27-163 of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and Final Environmental Impact Statement (August 1978). As adopted, M policies apF=1ed only to the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. The poli- cies will be amended effective September 26, 1980, to expand their jurisdiction to the entire coastal zone. The policies will be the criteri 'a for permit decisions under CAFRA, the Wetlands Act and the Waterfront Development Act, and will guide DEP recommendations to the Tidelands Resource Council and management actions anywhere in the coastal zone. These amended rules apply to all CAFRA applications found complete for review on or after September 26, 1980, and for all Wetland Act and Waterfront Development Act applications found complete for filing on or after September 26, 1980. How- ever, these amended rules also apply to applications found complete for review or filing before September 26, 1980, at the request of the applicant. 67 CHAPTER TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBCHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION 71 7:7E-1.1 Purpose 71 7:7E-1.2 Authority 71 7:7E-1.3 Jurisdiction 71 7:7E-1.4 Severability 74 7:7E-1.5 Review, Revision, and Expiration 74 7:7E-1.6 Coastal Decision-Making Process. 75 SUBCHAPTER 2 - LOCATION POLICIES 79 7:7E-2.1 Introduction 79 7:7E-2.2 Classification of Land and Water Types 79 7:7E-2.3 Mapping and Acceptability Determination 79 SUBCHAPTER 3 - SPECIAL AREAS 81 7:7E-3.1 Introduction 81 7:7E-3.2 Shellfish Beds 81 7:7E-3.3 Surf Clam Areas 82 7:7E-3.4 Prime Fishing Areas 83 7:7E-3.5 Finfish Migratory Pathways 84 7:7E-3.6 Submerged Vegetation 85 7:7E-3.7 Navigation Channels 85 7:7E-3.8 Canals 86 7:7E-3.9 Inlets 87 7:7E-3.10 Ma rina Moorings 88 7:7E-3.11 Ports 88 7:7E-3.12 Submerged Infrastructure Routes 89 7:7E-3.13 Shipwrecks and Artificial Reefs 89 7:7E-3.14 Estuarine or Marine Sanctuary 90 7:7E-3.15 Wet Borrow Pits 91 7:7E-3.16 Intertidal Flats 93 7:7E73.17 Filled 'Water's Edge 96 7:7E-3.18 Existing Lagoon Edge 96 7:7E-3.19 Natural Water's Edge - Floodplains 98 7:7E-3.20 Alluvial Flood Margins 100 7:7E-3.21 Beach and Dune Systems 100 7:7E-3.22 Central Barrier Island Corridor 106 7:7E-3.23 Wetlands 107 7:7E-3.24 Cranberry Bogs 109 7:7E-3.25 Wet Borrow Pit Margins 110 7:7E-3.26 Coastal Bluffs ill 7:7E-3.27 Intermittent Stream Corridors 113 7:7E-3.28 Farmland Conservation Areas 115 7:7E-3.29 Steep Slopes 116 7:7E-3.30 Dry Borrow Pits 116 7:7E-3.31 Historic and Archaeological Resources 118 7:7E-3.32 Specimen Trees 119 7:7E-3.33 Endangered or Threatened Wildlife or Vegetation 119 Species Habitat 7:7E-3.34 Critical Wildlife Habitats 120 68 CHAPTER TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued SUBCHAPtER 3 - Continued 7:7E-3-35 Public Open Space 121 7:7E-3.36 Special Hazards Areas 122 7:7E-3.37 Excluded Federal Lands 122 7-7E-3.38 Special Urban Areas 123 7:7E-3.39 Pinelands National Reserve and Pinelands Protection 124 Area 7:7E-3.40 Hackensack Meadowlands District 127 7:7E-3.41 Wild and Scenic River Corridors 127 SUBCHAPTER 4 - GENERAL WATER AREAS 131 7:7E-4.1 Definition 131 7:7E-4.2 Policy Summary Table 131 7:7E-4.3 Ocean 131 7:7E-4.4 Open Bay 138 7:7E-4.5 Semi-enclosed and Back Bay 139 7:7E-4.6 Tidal Guts 139 7:7E-4.7 Large Rivers 140 7:7E-4.8 Medium Rivers, Streams and Creeks 140 7:7E-4.9 Lakes, Ponds and Reservoirs 141 7:7E-4.10 Acceptability Conditions for Uses 141 5 - GENERAL LAND AREAS 151 7:7E-5.1 Definition 151 7:7E-5..2 Acceptability of Development in General Land Areas 151 7:7E-5.3 Coastal Growth Rating 151 7:7E-5.4 Environmental Sensitivity Rating 15 5 7:7E-5.5 Development Potential 157 7:7E-5.6 Definition of Acceptable Intensity of Development 162 7:7E-5.7 Land Acceptability Tables 167 SUBCRAPTER 6 - GENERAL LOCATION POLICIES 175 7:7E-6.1 Policy on Location of Linear Development 175 7:7E-6.2 Basic Location Policy 175 7:7E-6.3 Secondary Impacts 175 SUBCHAPTER 7 - USE POLICIES 177 7:7E-7.1 Purpose 177 7:7E-7.2 Housing Use Policies 177 7:7E-7.3 Resort/Recreational Use Policies 181 7:7E-7.4 Energy Use Policies 184 7:7E-7.5 Transportation Use Policies 201 7:7E-7.6 Public Facility Use Policies 203 7:7E-7.7 Industry Use Policies 205 7:7E-7.8 Mining Use Policies 206 7:7E-7.9 Port Use Policies 207 7:7E-7.10 Commercial Use Policies 209 7:7E-7.11 Coastal Engineering 212 7:7E-7.12 Dredge Spoil Disposal on Land 214 7:7E-7.13 National Defense Facilities Use Policy 215 69 CHAPTER TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued SUBCHAPTER 8 - RESOURCE POLICIES 217 7:7E-8.1 Purpose 217 7:7E-8.2 Marine Fish and Fisheries 217 7:7E-8.3 Shellfisheries 217 7:7E-8.4 Water Quality 219 7:7E-8.5 Surface Water Use 2j9 7:7E-8.6 Groundwater Use 220 7:7E-8.7 Runoff 220 7:7E-8.8 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation 222 7:7E-8.9 Vegetation 223 7:7E-8.10 Important Wildlife Habitat 225 7:7E-8.11 Air Quality 225 7:7E-8.12 Public Services 227 7:7E-8.13 Public Access to the Shorefront 228 7:7E-8.14 Scenic Resources and Design 229 7:7E-8.15 Buffers and Compatibility of Uses 229 7:7E-8.16 Solid Waste 230 7:7E-8.17 Energy Conservation 231 7:7E-8.18 Neighborhoods and Special Communities 232 7:7E-8.19 Traffic 232 7:7E-8.20 High Permeability Moist Soils 233 7:7E-8.21 Wet Soils 233 7:7E-8.22 Fertile Soils 234 7:7E-8.23 Flood Hazard Areas 235 7:7E-8.24 Decommissio'ning of Projects 237 7:7E-8.25 Noise Abatement 238 7:7E-8.26 Barrier Free Design 238 70 SUBCHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 7:7E-1.1 Purpose This chapter presents the substantive policies of the Department of Environ- mental Protection regarding the use and development of coastal resources, to be used primarily by the Division of Coastal Resources in the Department 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 fr-oi-ram, N.J.S.A. 12:5-3. The rules also -17r-ovide a basis for recommenda- tions by the Department to the Tidelands Resource Council on applications for riparian grants, leases, or licenses. By adopting these policies as administrative rules, according to the Admini- strative Procedures Act, the Department 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 11public 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. 7:7E-1.2 Authority These rules ate 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., the Waterfront Development Permit Program N.J.S.A. 12:5-1 et seq., and the riparian lands statutes (generally N.J.S.A. 12:3-1 et seq.). Th@_se rules are consistent with the purpose and intent of the 90 ITa-y 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 Ac-t, N.J.A.C. 7:7A-1.0 et seq., and the rules that define the permit application proce- dures under CAFRA, N.j_.A.C. 7:7D-2.0 et seq. The Coastal Resource and Development Policies are derived from the legislaMive=ntent of the CAFRA, Wetlands, Waterfront Development, 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. 7:7E-1.3 Jurisdiction (a) General These rules shall apply to five categoxies, as defined in Section 7:7E-1.3(c) to (g), 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: (1) coastal permits, (2) consistency determinations, (3) financial assistance, (4) DEP management actions affecting the coastal zone, and (5) DEP planning actions affecting the coastal zone. 71 (b) Geographic Scope of the New Jersey Coastal Zone These rules shall apply geographically to the New Jersey Coastal Zone which is defined as the Coastal Area under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (N.J.S.A. 13:19-4), all other areas now or formerly flowed by the tide, shorelands subject to the Waterfront Development Law, regulated Wetlands listed at N.J.A.C. 7A-1.13, and the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission District as defined by N.J.S.A. 13:17-4. (c) Coastal Permits These rules shall apply to all 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.). (d) Consistency Determinations These rules shall app ly to decisions on the consis 'tency or compatibility of proposed actions by federal, state, and local agencies with the Coastal Resources and Development Policies, inlcuding but not limited to determinations of federal consistency under Section 307 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, determinations of consistency or compati- bility under the 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. (e) 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 Coastal Zone, to the extent permissible under existing statutes and regulations. (f) DEP Management Actions These rules shall apply, to the extent statutorily permissible, to the following DEP management actions in or affecting the coastal zone in addition to those noted above: TIDELANDS RESOURCE COUNCIL (1) Conveyances of State owned tidelands (N.J.S.A. 12:3-1 et seq). DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES (1) Permits for use of a floodway (N.J.S.A. 58:16A-50) (2) Promulgation of regulations concerning land use in delineated flood hazard areas (N.J.S.A. 58:16A-50) (3) Permits for point source discharges under the National Pollution Dis- charge Elimination System (N.J.S.A. 58:10-1 et seq.) presently issued by EPA under Section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act. 72 (4) Certification under Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act (water quality certificates) (5) Approval of wastewater treatment works, sewage collection systems, and outfall sewers (N.J.S.A. 5:10A-6) (6) Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants (N.J.S.A. 26:2E-1 et seq.) (7) sewerage connection ban exemptions (N.J.S.A. 58:10A-4) (8) Designation of Critical Sewerage areas (N.J.S.A. 58:11-44) (9) Permits for 50 or more sewerage (septic) facilities (N.J.S.A. 58:11-23) (10) Approval of Sewerage facilities in Critical Areas (N.J.S.A. 58:11-45) (11) Permit to divert surface and/or subsurface or percolating waters for public water supply (N.J.S.A. 58:1-37, 58:4A-2) (12) Approval of diversions for water supply (N.J.S.A. 58:1-17) (13) Permit to drill wells (N.J.S.A. 58:4A-14) (14) Permits to construct new or modified public water supply sources, treatment plants, and distribution systems (N.J.S.A. 58:11-2,3, 10) (15) Permits to install or maintain a physical connection between an approved public potable water supply and an unapproved supply (N.J.S.A. 58:11-9 to 9.11) (16) Dam Permits (N.J.S.A. 58:4-1) DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (1) Permit to construct, install, or alter control apparatus or equipment (N.J.S.A. 26:2C-9-2) (2) Certificate to operate control apparatus or equipment (N.J.S.A. 26:2C- 9.2) (3) The Approval of a variance to exceed an air quality standard (N.J.S.A. 26:2C-9.2) SOLID WASTE ADMINISTRATION (1) Approval of sanitary landfill sites (N.J.S.A. 13:1E-1 et seq.) GREEN ACRES AND RECREATION (1) Adoption of regulations concerning use of state owned lands (N.J.S.A. 13:8-20 et seq.) (2) Designation of state owned lands for inclusion in the Natural Area system (N.J.S.A. 13:IB-15.12a et seq.) 73 (3) Allocations of Green Acres Grants (N.J.S.A. 13:8A-19 et seq.) (4) Inclusion of and adoption of regulations concerning river areas in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System (N.J.S.A. 13:8-45 et seq.) DIVISION OF FISH, GAME AND WILDLIFE (1) Adoption of regulations concerning use of land and water areas under the control of the Division (N.J.S.A. 13:IB-30 et seq., 23:1-1 et seq., 23:4-28) ALL DIVISIONS (1) Management of state-owned lands by DEP. (g) DEP Planning Actions These rules shall provide the basic policy direction for the following planning actions undertaken by DEP in the Coastal Zone as the lead state agency for coastal management under Section 306 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. DIVISION OF COASTAL RESOURCES Coastal Zone Management Shore Protection DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Areawide water quality management ("208") DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Air quality planning Solid Waste management GREEN ACRES AND RECREATION Planning for public acquisition of coastal lands 7:7E-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 appli- cation of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby. 7:7E-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. 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, amend or readopt the rules before the five year deadline under Executive Order No. 66 of 1979 for periodic review of administrative rules. 74 7:7E-1.6 Coastal Decision-Making Process (a) General Decisions on uses of coastal resources shall be made using the three step process comprising the Location Policies (Subchapters 2 through 6). the Use Policies (Subchapter 7), and the Resource Policies (Subchapter 8) 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. Decisions on the use of coastal resources in the Hackensack Meadowlands District will be made by the Hackensack Meadow- lands Development Commission, as lead agency, and by the Department, consistent with the Hackensack Meadowlands District Master Plan, its adopted components and management programs. (b) 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 interests in defining these policies, which reduce but do not presume to eliminate all conflicts among competing 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 contrast to other resource management programs which have a more limited scope of concern. Decision-making on individual proposed actions using the Coastal Resource and Development Policies must therefore consider all three steps in the process, and weigh, evaluate, and inter- pret 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, specific interest groups, corporations, and citizens into the coastal decision-making process. In the application of administrative discretion, DEP officials will be guided by eight basic coastal plicies, which summarize the direction of the specific policies. 1. Protect and enhance the coastal ecosystem. 75 2. Concentrate rather than disperse the pattern of coastal residential, commercial, industrial, and resort development and encourage the preser- vation 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. 5. Promote public access to the waterfront through linear walkways and at least one waterfront park in each waterfront municipality. 6. Maintain active port and industrial facilities, and provide for necessary expansion in adjacent sites.' 7. Maintain and upgrade existing energy facilities, and site additional energy facilities determined to be needed by the N.J. Department of Energy (DOE) in a manner consistent with the policies of this Coastal Management Program. S. Encourage residential, commercial, and recreational mixed-use redevelop- ment of the developed waterfront. (c) Definitions The Coastal Resource and Development Policies are stated in terms of actions that are encouraged, required, acceptable, conditionally acccept- 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 Subsection (b), the following words have the following meanings. (1) $faction", "activity", "development", "project", "proposal", or flusell are used interchangably to describe the proposed use of coastal resources that is under scrutiny using the Coastal Resource and Development Policies. (2) 11site", "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. This shall include the site of a proposed use as well as the sur- rounding area or region that may be affected by or affects the proposed use and is therefore appropriate for evaluation as part of the coastal decision-making process, as well as alternative sites. (3) 11prohibited" means that a proposed use of coastal resources is unacceptable and that DEP will use its legal authority to reject or deny the proposal. 76 (4) "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. In cases where DEP considers the 'proposed use to be in the public interest despite its dis- couraged status, DEP may permit the use provided that mitigating or compensating measures are taken so that there is a net gain in quality of the affected ecosystem. (5) "conditionally acceptable" means that a proposed use of coastal resources is likely to be acceptable provided that conditions speci- fied in the policy are satisfied. (6) flacceptable" means that a proposed use of coastal resources is likely to be approved. (7) "encouraged" means that a proposed use of coastal resources is accep- table and 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. (8) "water dependent" means development that must have direct access to the body of water along which it is proposed in order to function. Maritime activity, commercial fishing, public waterfront recreation and marinas are examples of water dependent uses, but only the portion of a development requiring direct access to the water is water dependent. The test for water dependency shall assess both the need of the proposed use for access to the water and the capacity of the proposed water body to satisfy the requirements and absorb the impacts of the proposed use. A proposed use will not be considered water dependent if either the use can function away from the water or if the water body proposed is unsuitable for the use. For example, in a maritime operation a dock or quay and associated unloading area would be water dependent, but an associated warehouse would not be water dependent. Housing, hotels, motels, casinos and restaurants are not water dependent. (9) O'navigable" means navigable in fact, including by canoe, at mean low tide. (d) Pre-Application Phase At an optional pre-application conference with a prospective applicant, DEP shall employ the Coastal Resources and Development Policies as a basis for a candid, informal and non-binding evaluation of the merits of a proposed use, location and design. (e) 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 77 zone. Decisions may be issued with conditions or pre-conditions as permitted by the procedural rules of the Department and as reasonably necessary to carry out the spirit and intent of the Coastal Resource and Development Policies. 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 (EIS) 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 (1 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, shall be required to be supplemented as necessary by site-specific data presented by an applicant in the environmental impact statement. 78 SUBCHAPTER 2 - LOCATION POLICIES 7:7E-2.1 Introduction 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 environment as well as different *social and economic implications. Different policies are therefore required for different locations. This section defines the Location Policies of the Coastal Program. These policies are also known as the Coastal Location Acceptability Method or CLAM. 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. 7:7E-2.2 Classification of Land and Water Types The Location Policies classify all land and water locations into a General Area and some into one or more Special Areas. Special Areas are so naturally valuable, or so important for human use, or so hazardous, or so sensitive to impact, or so particular in their planning requirements, as to merit focused attention. Special Areas are defined and given special policies in Subchapter 3. Special Area types are grouped under four broad headings: Special Water Areas; Special Water's Edge Areas; Special Land Areas; and Special Coast Wide Areas. General Areas are general types of locations which classify the whole coastal zone with the exception of the Water's Edge, which is entirely a Special Area. Parts of General Areas may also be classified. as one or more Special Areas. General Areas are defined and given general policies in Subchapters 4 and 5. General Area types are grouped under two broad headings: General Water Areas (Subchapter 4) and General Land Areas (Subchapter 5). 7:7E-2.3 Mapping and Acceptability Determination The Coastal Location Acceptability Method (CLAM) is a nine step process which determines DEP policy for any proposed coastal use in any coastal location. The first six steps are the mapping and policy determination process to assess Location Acceptability, which is the subject of this section. Steps 7 and 8 refine the Location Acceptability Determinations by reviewing the proposed use in terms of Uses and Re'sources Policies. Step 9 is the synthesis of Location, Use and Resource Policies. CLAM Location Policy Analysis: Step 1 - Identify and map site and surrounding region Step 2 - Identify and map Special Areas Step 3 - Determine and map Special Area Policies Step 4 - Identify and map General Areas 79 Step 5 - Determine and map General Areas Policies Step 6 - Map Final Location Acceptability and list Location Policy conditions CLAM Use Policy Analysis: Step 7 - Identify applicable Use Policies, evaluate the proposed use, and, if necessary, modify the Location Acceptabitlity Determi- nation and list Use Policy conditions CLAM Resource Analysis: Step 8 - Identify applicable Resource Policies, evaluate the proposed use, and, if necessary, modify the Location Acceptability Determination and list Resource Policy conditions CLAM Synthesis: Step 9 - Determine final acceptability of proposed use Summarize and synthesize the final acceptability of a proposed use at a proposed location in terms of the applicable Location, Use and Resource Policies. Approval will only be given if a proposal satisfies all three sets of policies. In particular, applicants should note that applica- tions that do not satisfy Location Policies will not be approved even if the Use and Resource Policies are satisfied. 80 SUBCHAPTER 3 - SPECIAL AREAS 7:7E-3.1 Introduction Special Areas are those 39 types of coastal areas which merit focused atten- tion and special management policies. This subchapter divides Special Areas into Special Water Areas (Section 7:7E-3.2 through 7:7E-3.16), Special Water's Edge Areas (7:7E-3.17 through 7:7E-3.27), Special Land Areas (7:7E-3.28 through 7:7E- 3.30), and Coastwide Special Areas (7:7E-3.31 through 7:7E-3.41). Special Water Areas extend landward to the mean high water line. Special Water's Edge Areas extend from the mean high water line (or the level of normal flow in non-tidal streams) to one of the following: the inland limit of alluvial soils with a seasonal high water table equal to or less than one foot; the one hundred year flood hazard line, whether tidal or fluvial; the inland limit of water's edge fill; or the inland limit of coastal bluffs, whichever is the most extensive. Special Land Areas are landward of the Water's Edge. Coastwide Special Areas may include Water, Water's Edge or Land Areas. , All land or water locations, except Special Water's Edge Areas, are subject to either the Land Area or Water Area General Policies. In addition, certain loca- tions are subject to one or more Special Area policies. All Special Water's Edge Areas are subject to one or more Special Area Policies. Where the applicable General and Special Area policies differ, the Special Area Policies shall be applied. 7:7E-3.2 Shellfish Beds (a) Definition Shellfish Beds are defined as estuarine bay or river bottoms (tidelands) that are productive for hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria), soft clams (Mya arenaria), eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica), bay scallops (Argopecten irradians), or blue mussels (Mytilus edulis). A productive bed is one which can be shown to have a history of natural recruitment for one or more of these species, or is leased by the State of New Jersey for shellfish culture, or is a State Shellfish Management Area. (b) Policy (1) Any development which would result in the destruction of presently productive Shellfish Beds is prohibited. The term destruction includes actions of filling to create fast land, overboard dumping or disposal of solids or spoils which would smother present shell- fish populations or create unsuitable conditions for shellfish colonization, or the creation of bottom depressions with anoxic water conditions. Development within Shellfish Beds is condi- tionally acceptable if the development is of national interest and no prudent and feasible alternative sites exist. (2) Any coastal development which would result in contamination or condemnation of Shellfish Beds is prohibited. Development which would significantly alter the salinity regime, substrate character- istics (as through runoff and sedimentation), natural water circu- lation pattern, or natural functioning of the Shellfish Beds, during the construction or operation of the development is prohibited. 81 (3) Water dependent development which requires dredging adjacent to shellfish beds is discouraged and must be managed so as not to cause significant mortality of the shellfish resulting from increase in turbidity and sedimentation, resuspension of toxic chemicals, or to otherwise interfere with the natural functioning of the shellfish bed. New dredging within shellfish beds is prohibited. Maintenance dredging of existing navigation channels is conditionally acceptable with state managed shellfish recovery programs encouraged prior to dredging. (4) if there is a delay of more than one year between completion of permit application review and initiation of approved activity, the site may be required to be resurveyed as the shellfish resource value may have changed during the interim. (c) Rationale Estuarine shellfish are harvested by both commercial and recreational fishermen, with the sport group concentrating on hard clams. Oysters, bay scallops and soft and hard clams are -predominantly commercial species. Commercial dockside landing values in New Jersey for 1978 were $3.43 million for estuarine mollusks, with an estimated retail industry value of $8.6 million. The commercial harvest is estimated to support employment of 1,500 persons in fishing, distribution, processing, and retail. Sport clammers numbered 21,200 in 1978. 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. 7:7E-3.3 Surf Clam Areas (a) Definition Waters within the territorial sea of the State of New Jersey which can be demonstrated to support significant commercially harvestable quantities of surf clams (Spisula solidissima), or areas important for recruitment of surf clam stocks. This includes areas where fishing is prohibited for research sanctuary or conservation purposes by N.J.A.C. 7:25-12.1(d)4. (b) Policy Development which would result in the destruction, condemnation, or contamination of Surf Clam Areas is prohibited. Development within Surf Clam Areas is conditionally acceptable only if the development is of national interest and no prudent and feasible alternative sites exist. (c) Rationale The surf clam fishery accounted for dock-side landing values (wholesale) of $7.5 million during 1978 and estimated retail value of $18.9 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 82 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. 7:7E-3.4 Prime Fishing Areas (a) 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 or commercial 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. While this information source applies only to the Delaware Bay and Atlantic Ocean shorefronts, prime fishing areas do occur throughout the coastal zone. (b) Policy Permissible uses of Prime Fishing Areas include recreational and commer- cial finfishing and shellfishing, as presently regulated by NJDEP Divi- sion of Fish, Game, and Wildlife, 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. (c) 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 invertebrate species which are essential to marine ecosystem functioning. These areas are heavily utilized by recreational and commercial' fishermen. Commer- cial fishing occurs primarily along the Delaware Bay and Atlantic ocean. Over 2.7 million people annually participate in marine sport fishing and shellfishing in New Jersey. This represents 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. 83 7:7E-3.5 Finfish Migratory Pathways (a) Definition Waterways (rivers, streams, creeks, bays inlets) which can be demon- strated to serve as passageways for diadromous 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 por- tions 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 (Alos-a-s-a-p-ldissima), striped bass (go-rone saxatili"M, and American eel. (b) Policy Development, such as dams, dikes, spillways and intake pipes, which creates a physical barrier to the movement of fish along finfish migra- tory pathways is prohibited, unless acceptable mitigating measures such as fish ladders, erosion control, or oxygenation are used. Develop- ment which lowers water quality to such an extent as to interfere with the movement of fish along finfish migratory pathways or to violate State and Delaware River Basin Commission water quality standards is prohibited. Mitigating measures are required for any development which would result in: lowering dissolved oxygen levels, releasing toxic chemicals, raising ambient water temperature, impinging or suffocating fish, causing silta- tion, or raising turbidity levels during migration periods. Water's edge development which incorporates migration access structures, such as functioning fish ladders, will be conditionally acceptable, provided that the NJDEP, Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife approves the design of the access structure. (c) 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 and Hudson Rivers, where there is an active sport fishery. A much reduced commercial fishery exists in the Delaware Bay and River. Herrings are important forage species and spawn annually in many of New Jersey's tidal tributaries including the Raritan and Hackensack Rivers. Herrings are fished during spring runs, for direct human consumption, garden fertilizer and for use as bait. 84 7:7E-3.6 Submerged Vegetation (a) Definition This special area consists of estuarine water areas supporting rooted vascular seagrasses such as widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) and eelgrass (Zostera marina). Eelgrass beds are limited -to sMaTT-owport ions of the Shrewsbury River, Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor. Widgeon grass is for the most part limited to shallow areas of upper Barnegat Bay. Detailed maps of the distribution of the above species for New Jersey, and a method for delineation, are available from DEP in the DEP-DCR sponsored study, The New Jersey Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Distribution Atlas (Final Report T February, 1980, conducted by Earth Saterri@teCor- poration. (b) Policy Destruction of submerged vegetation beds is prohibited. 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. (c) Rationale New Jersey's estuarine waters are relatively shallow, rich in nutrients and highly productive. The submerged 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-TE-eroot networks 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 water- fowl drastically decreased, threatening their survival. The oyster industry of the Atlantic coast was ruined. Bays became choked with silt and new mud flats were formed. 7:7E-3.7 Navigation Channels (a) Definition Navigation channels include water areas in tidal rivers and bays pre- sently maintained by DEP or the Army Corps of Engineers and marked by U.S. Coast Guard with buoys or stakes, as shown on NOAA/National Ocean Survey Charts: 12214, 12304, 12311, 12312, 12313, 12314, 12316, 12317, 12318, 12323, 12324, 12326, 12327, 12328, 12330, 12331, 12332, 12333, 12334, 12335, 12337, 12341, 12343, 12345, 12346, and 12363. Navigation channels also include channels marked with buoys, dolphins, and stakes, 85 and maintained by the State of New Jersey, and access channels and anchorages. Navigation channels are approximately parallel to the river bed. Access channels are spurs that connect a main navigation channel to a terminal. Anchorages are locations where vessels moor within water at or near the water's edge for the purpose of transferring cargo, or awaiting high tide, better weather, or fuel and terminal availability. (b) Policy New or maintenance dredging of existing navigation channels, is condi- ,tionally acceptable providing that the condition under the new or main- tenance dredging policy is met (see Section 7:7E-4.10(e) and (f)). Development which would cause terrestrial soil and shoreline erosion and siltation in navigation channels shall utilize appropriate mitigation measures. Development which would result in loss of navigability is prohibited. (c) 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. Navigational channels, access channels and anchorages form a network of areas that have a depth sufficient to enable marine trade to operate at the limiting depth of the channel. If one part of the system is not maintained, the entire system might be unable to function. 7:7E-3.8 Canals (a) Definition Canals are navigation channels for boat traffic through land areas which are created by cutting and dredging or other human construction technique sometimes enlarging existing natural surface water channels. The Cape May, Bay Head-Manasquan, and Delaware and Raritan Canals are the princi- pal examples in the New Jersey Coastal Zone. (b) Policy The Cape May and Bay Head-Manasquan Canals are man-made tidal guts. Development in these canals must be consistent with the General Water Area policies for Tidal Guts (7:7E-4.7) as well as with the following policies: 1. In canals presently used for navigation, such as the Cape May and Bay Head-Manasquan canals, the following policies shall apply: (i) Aquaculture, filling, dams and impoundments,-and any other use which would interfere with existing or proposed canal boat traffic is prohibited. 86 (ii) Maintenance dredging is encouraged as needed provided that an acceptable spoil disposal site is available and turbidity is controlled. 2. In the Delaware and Raritan Canal, and in the surrounding Review Zone established by the Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission, development must be consistent with the Rules and Regulations of the Review Zone of the Delaware and Raritan Canal State Park (N.J.A.C. 7:45-1-1). (c) Rationale Canals represent a large capital investment to create boat traffic routes. Of the coastal canals, the Cape May and Manasquan-Bay Head canal are still used extensively for their original purpose. Maintenance of this original function is encouraged. Abandoned canals offer recreational opportunities. The Delaware and Raritan Canal is being redeveloped as a State park with recreational boating and continued use as a water supply facility. This re-use is encouraged. 7:7E-3.9 Inlets (a) Definition Inlets are natural channels through barrier islands allowing movement of fresh and salt water between the ocean and the backbay system. Inlets naturally have delta fans of sediment seaward and landward de- posited by the ebb and flow of the tide. The seaward limit of an inlet is defined as the seaward extent of the ebb delta fan. The landward limit is defined as the inland extent of the flood delta fan. If there is doubt about the extent of these fans, the applicant shall submit up-to-date bathymetric surveys and DEP staff will determine the boundary on a case-by-case basis. (b) Policy Inlets consists of an ocean portion and a Semi-enclosed or Back Bay portion. Development in Inlets must be consistent with the General Water Area Policy for one of these water area types, and with the following policies. 1. Filling is prohibited. 2. Submerged Infrastructure is discouraged. (c) Rationale Inlets play a vital role in the estuarine ecosystem. They control patterns of backbay currents, salinity and nutrient distribution and provide migratory pathways between the ocean and the back bays for marine and estuarine species. 87 Submerged infrastructure is a hazard in inlets since the strong currents may expose and break the pipes or cables. There is also a possibility of anchors snagging and breaking the infrastructure. 7:7E-3.10 Marina Moorings (a) Definition Marina moorings are areas of water that provide mooring and boat maneuv- ering room as well as access to land and navigational channels for recreational boats. Typically maintenance dredging is required to preserve water depth. (b) Policy 1. Any use that would detract from existing or proposed recreational boating use in marina mooring areas is discouraged. 2. Maintenance dredging in the marina mooring and access channel is encouraged provided that turbidity is controlled and that there is an acceptable dredge spoil disposal site. (c) Rationale Marinas are a key element in New Jersey's coastal resort economy. The maintenance of existing marina areas and the protection of these areas from competing uses which would detract from the recreational service they provide is, therefore, a high priority. 7:7E-3.11 Ports (a) Definition Ports are water areas having, or lying immediately adjacent to, concen- trations of shoreside marine terminals and transfer facilities for the movement of waterborne cargo (including fluids), and including facilities for loading, unloading and temporary storage. Ports are found in Newark, Elizabeth, Jersey City, Weehawken, Hoboken and Camden. NOTE: Policies for a docking facility or concentration of docks for a single industrial or manufacturing facility may be found under the General Water Area Policy for Docks and Piers (Section 7:7E-4.11). (b) Policy 1. Any use which would preempt or interfere with port uses of this water area is prohibited. 2. Aquaculture and dumping of solid or semi-solid waste is prohibited. 3. Boat ramps for recreational@boating are discouraged. 4. Docks and piers for cargo movement are an encouraged use. 5. Filling to create docks or quays is conditionally acceptable if docks and piers built on pilings are not feasible. 88 (c) Rationale The ports of New Jersey are components of two of the nation's three largest port districts -- the New York-New Jersey Port District and the Delaware River Port District. The Port of Newark-Elizabeth is the nation's largest containerport. Shipping is a major industry in the state as well as an important contributer to the well-being of other state industries. A set of policies aimed at encouraging the use and expansion of existing ports, while discouraging the sprawl of port uses into undeveloped areas will, therefore, be an element of coastal policy. 7:7E-3.12 Submerged Infrastructure Routes (a) Definition A submerged infrastructure route is the corridor in which a pipe or cable runs on or below a submerged land surface. (b) Policy Any activity which would increase the likelihood of infrastructure damage or breakage, or interfere with maintenance operations is prohibited. (c) Rationale Submerged infrastructure routes are a large capital investment and much depends on the safe functioning of the infrastructure. Both human and natural systems suffer from accidental breakage, especially of large oil or gas pipelines. Activities which increase hazard for submerged infra- structure must therefore be excluded. 7:7E-3.13 Shipwrecks and Artificial Reefs (a) Definition This Special Area includes all permanently submerged or abandoned remains of vessels which serve as a special marine habitat and are within the ocean waters of the State of New Jersey three mile territorial sea, but outside of Navigation Channels. 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 Off the New Jersey Coast (1966) and B.L. Freeman and L.A. Walford Angler's Guide to the United States Atlantic Coast Fish, Fishing Grounds, and Fishing Facilities (1974). Uso included in this' category are artificial M-hingreefs which serve the same natural function as a habitat for living marine resources. (b) Policy Acceptable uses include recreational and commercial finfis hing 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. 89 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. (c) Rationale Shipwrecks and other natural or artificial materials can serve as cri- tical 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 lobstering. Shipwrecks are also fragile historic and cultural resources. Scuba diving club members from New Jersey and other states visit these resources. This policy applies only to ocean areas and does not conflict with waterfront clean- up efforts. 7:7E-3.14 Estuarine or Marine Sanctuary (a) Definition An Estuarine or 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 disapproved. 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 Coastal Zone Management within NOAA is presently reviewing all recom- mendations, including those within the Mid-Atlantic states. DEP sub- mitted six recommendations 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 Estuarine or 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 1981. New Jersey is currently pursuing the nomination of an estuarine, but not a marine sanctuary. (b) 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 excep- tional areas. After designation, activities not compatible with the basic purposes will be prohibited 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. 90 (c) 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 development. It is in the long-term interest of the people of the Nation to identify, protect, and manage these special areas. 7:7E-3.15 Wet Borrow Pits (a) Definition Wet borrow pits are scattered perennial man-made lakes that are the results of surface mining for coastal minerals extending below ground- water level to create a flooded depression. This includes but is not limited to, flooded sand, gravel and clay pits, and stone quarries. (b) Policy 1. Proposed uses which would promote the wildlife habitat and scenic amenity values of wet borrow pits are encouraged. 2. Surface mining is conditionally acceptable provided the Use Policies for Mining are complied with. 3. Recreational use of wet borrow pits is acceptable provided that wildlife habitat disturbance in minimized. 4. Disposal of dredge spoil is conditionally acceptable provided that: (i) the spoil is clean and non-toxic, of an appropriate particle size for the site, and will not disturb groundwater flow or quality. (ii) at least half of the water area in existence at the time of the first coastal permit application for filling of the pit remains as surface water in pattern designed to maximize wildlife habitat value and create wetland areas, except that the entire lake may be filled if necessary to prevent the lake from acting as a channel for salt water intrusion into aquifers. 5. Filling of wet borrow pits for residential construction is conditionally acceptable provided that: (i) the fill is clean and will not degrade groundwater quality, (ii) at least half of the water area in existence at the time of the first coastal permit application for filling of the pit is left as open water, (iii) land-water edges are maximized and vegetated to promote native wildlife, 91 (iv) there is designation of a water quality buffer zone around water areas of at least fifty feet. Structures and paving, except at limited water access points, are prohibited in the water quality buffer. In general, the water quality buffer area shall be allowed to succeed naturally to water's edge wetland and forest with minimum disturbance and runoff, (v) a program for water quality monitoring and maintenance is included with the application, and (vi) that recreational uses in water and water quality buffer areas minimize wildlife disturbance. 6. Discharge of liquid or solid waste, other than clean dredge fill of acceptable particle size, is prohibited. (c) Rationale Wet Borrow Pits are a special category of the General Water Area type Lakes, Ponds and Reservoirs. The Special Area Policies for Wet Borrow Pits are less restrictive than the policies for other Lakes, Ponds and Reservoirs in that they allow Sand and Grave Extraction, Dredge. Spoil Disposal and Filling, under specified conditions. This is because they are already disturbed sites. Also, they are of relatively recent origin and, typically, vegetative succession is not as far advanced as along natural lakes. Wet Borrow Pits, therefore, tend to be less important as wildlife habitats then natural lakes. Finally, they are not connected to the wider estuarine system by streams. On the other hand, their separation from streams means that they are most susceptible to water quality impacts caused by runoff. The water is still, and the only water loss is through groundwater seepage and evaporation. Sediment collects quickly, enlarging marsh areas, and the eutrophic conditions that lead to sudden oxygen loss are concentrated by evaporation. Low levels of toxicity are quickly bio-magnified to fatal levels. In general, these still waters are much more sensitive to impacts of all kinds than flowing water. Undisturbed wet borrow pits can become wildlife habitats for aquatic, amphibian and terrestrial species, offering productive edges, shallow waters, wetland areas and important breeding and migratory habitats. Proposals that include borrow pits as wildlife preserves are, therefore, encouraged. Low intensity recreation which takes advantage of the scenic amenities of these lakes is also desirable if wildlife disturbance is minimized. Wet borrow pits were created by mining operations. Continued mining of sand and gravel at these sites would be less environmentally dis- ruptive than mining operations at new sites. There is a severe shortage of dredge spoil disposal sites in New Jersey. The filling of wet borrow pits is essentially a reverse of the mining operation which created them, and is less impactive than filling natural 92 depressions, provided that the spoil is clean and non-toxic and the particle size matches the neighboring natural substrates closely enough as not to disturb groundwater movement. If the filling of wet borrow pits is designed to retain some surface water area, and to maximize land-water edges, much of the wildlife value can be preserved while providing needed spoil disposal sites. The value of Wet Borrow Pits as wildlife habitat may be enhanced by limited fingers of fill to enlarge the land-water interface. Filling can also create sites for waterfront housing. Since residential con- struction sites near surface water are much in demand, it is desirable to allow some residential and related uses, provided that housing is consistent with Location and Use Policies, water quality is maintained, and a water quality buffer is preserved along the water's edge. The buffer would not block visual or physical access to the water, but would preserve water quality and provide wildlife habitat. Medford Lakes provides an example of an attractive residential community built around Wet Borrow Pits, but siltation and eutrophication provide evidence for the need for a water quality buffer area. 7:7E-3.16 Intertidal Flats (a) Definition Intertidal Flats are extensive areas between the mean high water line and mean low water line along tidal bayshores. Intertidal flats are found along Delaware Bay in Cape May County and in other tidal bayshores. (b) Policies 1. Development, filling, new dredging or other disturbance of inter- tidal flats is discouraged. 2. Submerged infrastructure is conditionally acceptable, provided that (i) there is no feasible alternative route that would not disturb intertidal flats, (ii) the infrastructure is buried deeply enough to avoid exposure or hazard, and (iii) all trenches are backfilled with naturally occuring sediment. (c) Rationale Intertidal flats play a critical role in estuarine ecosystems. They are a land-water ecotone, or ecological edge where many material and energy exchanges between land and water take place. They are critical habitats for many benthic organisms and are critical forage areas for many migrant waterfowl. The sediments laid down in intertidal flats contain much organic detritus from decaying land and water's edge vegeta- tion, and the food webs in these areas are an important link in the maintenance of estuarine productivity. Pre-servation is, therefore, the intent of these policies, with limited exceptions to allow for needed water-dependent uses and submerged infrastructure. 93 SPECIAL WATER IS EDGE TYPES - MAINLAND (Schematic of Typical Stream Corridor Outside Bay and Ocean Shore Area) Figure 13 500' GENERAL LAND AREA 500' !S"`@@@@ . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERMITTENT A w STREAM BORROW PIT .. . .... . . .. . . . . . . .. .. .. .. ... STREAM Ub= Al COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY WETLANDS INTERMITTENT STREAM CORRIDOR r772!2= COASTAL BLUFF ROAD OCEAN GRANBERRY BOG WET BORROW PIT MARGIN ALLUVIAL FLOOD MARGIN FLOODPLAIN 94 F(WKE 14: <-PEC-(AL- WATLR'S SD(.C- TYMS - 13ARMeIR I.SLAND W 4r,.l &I(TIZAL 'AMO I OCEAR WEI MkINLArNO I ifilt I PONE RIER CENTICAL BAR (%kmv CoUlDoit- C04'rit ^L M&TO P- At L. lktSA4 ;ILLED 2. CKOSS temom - I ima cslc- AtM FILLED PTAUVED HEAD WA&L K Fillsil N (m LAWk EM-14 DUNG& s"161A #L BACK13AY WETLAND ATLARnr- OCON MAI -CEMTkAL OILZIbOlt ir -RLLEb Wkieo,S EXPE: IK P& 95 7:7E-3.17 Filled Water's Edge (a) Definition Filled Water's Edge areas are existing filled areas lying between Wetlands or Water Areas, and either: (1) the upland limit of fill, or (2) the first public road or railroad landward of the adjacent Water Area, whichever is closer to the water. Some existing or former dredge spoil and excavation fill areas are Filled Water's Edge Area. (b) Policies 1. Water dependent (see section 7:7E-1.6(c) for definition) uses are acceptable in the Filled Waters' Edge. 2. Non-water dependent development in the Filled Water's Edge is conditionally acceptable provided (a) it would not preempt use of the waterfront portion of the Filled Water's Edge for potential water dependent uses, and (b) it would not prevent public access along the water's edge. (c) Rationale Filled Water's Edge areas are of less environmental concern than u ndis- turbed 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 acceptable to allow certain kinds of development up to the limit of fill. Because the waterfront is a scarce resource, it is desirable to limit waterfront development in these areas to uses that are water dependent unless, because of their location, they do not have the potential to attract water dependent uses. 7:7E-3.18 Existing Lagoon Edge (a) Definition Existing Lagoon Edges are defined as existing, undeveloped, man-made land areas resulting from the dredging and filling of wetlands, bay bottom and other estuarine areas for the purpose of creating waterfront lots along lagoons for residential and commercial development. The land area may be stabilized by a retaining structure. Existing Lagoon Edges extend upland to the limit of fill, or the first public road or railroad generally parallel to the Water Area, whichever is less (Figure 15). (b) Policy Development of Existing Lagoon Areas is acceptable provided that: 1. reclamation of the site to its natural state is infeasible, 2. the proposed development is compatible with adjacent land and water uses, 96 Figure 15 EXISTING LAGOON EDGE q,H LIMIT OF A A A A 04 FILL @@. @ mig flHn, A A A A A 0 FIRST ROAD TIDAL WATERS::,@@ OR RAILROAD A A A ^.0-. A @A A A A E] EXISTING LAGOON EDGE 97 3. existing unstabilized slopes are stabilized using vegetation, to the maximum extent practicable, and 4. existing retaining structures are adequate to protect the proposed development, or appropriate improvements are proposed for the retaining structure. (c) Rationale This policy is designed to promote the reclamation of as much filled land. as possible. Filled lands adjacent to water areas, especially existing, undeveloped lagoons, represent potential problems for water quality. The slope must be stabilized in order to prevent eros iion, turbidity and loss of estuarine productivity. These problems have been well documented in Grant F. Walton, et al., Evaluation of Estua- rine Site Development Lagoons (New Bruns_71"c'@_, N Rutgers-Water Resources Research Institute, 1976). Thousands of undeveloped build- ing lots exist along stabilized and unstabilized 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 revegetated, or retained, since the fundamental and near irretrievable damage to the natural environment of these areas took place a decade or more ago. State coastal policy now precludes the development of new lagoons for residential development. 7:7E-3.19 Natural Water's Edge-Floodplains a) Definition Natural Water's Edge-Floodplains are the Flood Hazard Areas around rivers, creeks and streams as delineated by DEP under the Flood Hazard Area Control Act (N.J.S.A. 58:16A-50, or by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); or the Flood Hazard Area around other coastal water bodies as defined by FEMA. Floodplains include the areas subject to both tidal and fluvial flooding. Where Flood Hazard Areas have been delineated by both DEP and FEMA, the DEP delineations shall be used. Where Flood Hazard Areas have been delineated by neither DEP nor FEMA, the 10-foot contour line shall be used as the inland boundary of the Floodplain. The seaward boundary shall be the mean high water line. The Natural Water's Edge-Floodplain policy shall not apply on Barrier Islands Spits or Headlands nor in portions of a Fl-oodplain which meet the dehnition of another Special Water's Edge type (Filled Water's Edge, Exising Lagoon Edge, Alluvial Flood Margins, Beach and Dune Systems, Central Barrier Island Corridor, Wetlands, Cranberry Bogs, Wet Borrow Pit Margins, Coastal Bluffs, Intermittent Stream Corridors). A complete list of streams where DEP has delineated the Flood Hazard Area can be found at N.J.A.C. 7:13-1.11 et seq. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has delineated the tidal Floodplain for FEMA in most Coastal Zone municipalities. The geographic extent of the tidal flood hazard areas are indicated on USGS topographic maps at a scale of 1:24,000 as "flood prone" areas. 98 (b) Policies 1 Development is prohibited in the Natural Water's Edge-Floodplains within 100 feet of a navigable water body, unless the use is water dependent. NOTE: "Navigable" and "water dependent" are defined at 7:7E-1.6(c). 2. Development elsewhere in the Natural Water's Edge-Floodplains is discouraged unless: (i) it has no feasible alternate site, and (ii) it would not preempt use of the waterfront portion of the Floodplain for potential water dependent use. 3. Development must be consistent with all other coastal policies, in particular the performance standards found in the Flood Hazard Area Resource Policy (7:7E-8.23). 4. Detention basins are prohibited in river floodplains. (c) Rationale The goal of this policy is to reduce losses of life and property result- ing from unwise development of floodplains, but to allow uses compatible with. periodic flooding -- agriculture and forestry, recreation, and fish and wildlife habitat -- and uses which require a Water's Edge location. This policy is consistent with national objectives as expressed in the President's Executive Order 11988 on Floodplain Management. It is also consistent with the State Waterfront Development Law's objective of safeguarding port facilities and waterfront resources for the public's overall economic advantage. The policy will ensure that the State's waterfront is not pre-empted by uses which could function equally well at inland locations. River Floodplains are subject to flooding in severe fluvial storms. They are also critical elements of the coastal ecosystem, providing flood storage capacity, physical and biochemical water filtration, primary productivity and wildlife habitats. For these reasons, the preferred policy is to preserve these corridors in their natural state with native adapted forest vegetation, allowing limited exceptions for water dependent uses and uses for which there is no feasible alternate location. This policy applies only to Floodplains which have not been disturbed by filling. Sites subject to this policy, therefore, tend to be in a more natural state than sites subject to the Filled Water's Edge Policy. Accordingly, this policy is more restrictive, discouraging development which has an alternate feasible location or which would unnecessarily disturb vegetation, and requiring water dependency within 100 feet of a navigable water body. 99 By discouraging development which has a feasible alternate location, this policy will tend to be most restrictive in undeveloped parts of the state, where there will tend to be more alternate locations for proposed development. An alternate location will not be considered feasible if it conflicts with adopted State policy. For example, if a commercial development is proposed in an urban downtown, which happens to be a Natural Water's Edge-Floodplain, a suburban location would not be considered a satisfactory feasible alternative. Development found acceptable in Floodplains would, of course, have to be found consistent with public safety objectives and would have to meet the floodproofing requirement of the Flood Hazard Area Resource Policy. 7:7E-3.20 Alluvial Flood Margins (a) Definition Alluvial Flood Margins are mainland areas adjacent to, and upland from, Floodplains. They extend inland to the limit of alluvial soils with a seasonal high water table equal to, or less than, one foot. Alluvial soils are those developing in recent sediment deposited by surface water and exhibiting essentially no modification of the deposited materials. NOTE: Where an Alluvial Flood Margin is also an Intermittent Stream Corridor, only the Intermittent Stream Corridor Policies (Section 7:7E- 3.27) shall apply. (b) policy 1. Wildlife refuge and low intensity recreational use is encouraged. 2. Development is discouraged in Alluvial Flood Margins unless no feasible alternative site exists, or it is a landward extension of a water dependent use. (c) Rationale Alluvial flood margins are parts of floodplains. Although above the 100 year flood level, they have been deposited by flood waters and do provide flood storage capability in the severest storms. If left undisturbed they contribute to the critical water quality buffering and wildlife habitat functions of floodplains and provide some primary productivity to estuaries through nutrients flushed to adjacent bays, rivers or streams. The high water table and compressiblility of these areas make them costly for development. Conservation is the preferred use. 7:7E-3.21 Beach and Dune Systems (a) Definition Beach and Dune Systems include five components: Beaches, Dunes, High Risk Beach Erosion Areas, Sand Accretion Areas, and Overwash Areas (See Figure 16). These components are defined as follows: 100 F IGORE 14D 5clifmhrlc 'or- SEACM AND DOME wpnit A ATLANTIC OCIA.M ME Roi All p t47 -Q 0 0-1 r 4Q ip .0 13EM A. A* 01%. 0% 0 101 1 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 physio- graphic 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", 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. While New Jersey Beaches are located primarily along the Delaware and Raritan Bays and the Atlantic Ocean, a few beach areas also exist elsewhere -- in Perth Amboy and along the Delaware River, for example. 2. A dune is a ridge or mound of loose wind-blown material, usually sand, sometimes vegetated, roughly parallel and upland from a beach. Its inland limit is the landward extent of the deposited material. Dunes include the following subcategories: (i) foredunes or primary dunes. These are the front dunes imme- diately behind the backshore of the beach, (ii) primary backdunes and secondary and tertiary dunes. These are backslope of the foredune and extend from the dune ridges immediately landward of the foredune to the inland toe of the most inland slope, (iii) migrating dunes. These are dunes which have changed location through time. Coastal dunes generally migrate inland, (iv) artificial dunes. These are accumulation of sediment in dune form which have been built by any non-natural process such as bulldozing or sand fencing, (v) stabilized dunes. These are dunes maintained in a fixed location by artificial means, (vi) dune fields. These include but are not limited to any combi- nation of the dune types defined in this section. 3. High Risk Beach Erosion Areas are ocean or inlet shorelines that are eroding and/or have a history of erosion, causing them to be highly susceptible to further erosion and damage from storms. High Risk Beach Erosion Areas may be identified by any one of the following characteristics: (1) Lack of beaches (2) Lack of beaches at high tide (3) Narrow beaches (4) High beach mobility (5) Foreshore extended under a boardwalk (6) Low dunes or no dunes (7) Escarped foredune 102 (8) Gaps in dune fields (9) Steep beach slopes (10) Cliffed bluffs adjacent to beach (11) Insufficient dune or bluff vegetation (12) Exposed, damaged or breached jetties, groins or seawalls (13) High long-term erosion rates (14) Pronounced downdrift effects of groins (jetties) High Risk Beach Erosion Areas extend inland to the limit of the area likely to be eroded in 'less than 50 years or to the first public paved road, whichever is less. The illustrative High Risk Beach Erosion Areas identified by DEP in 1977 may become Overwash Areas, Guts, Ocean or some other land or water type after a storm. 4. Sand Accretion Areas are areas where littoral offshore or other natural currents or storms have deposited sufficient sand that new land is forming. In some cases dune grasses and other water's edge vegetation may be starting to grow. 5. Overwash Areas consist of an overwash fan and throat. An overwash fan is a gently sloping, conical accumulation of sediment deposited landward of the beach by the overwash processes that result from storm wave activity. An overwash throat is a low narrow area through the foredune where water passes during storms and carries sediment to the overwash fan. The seaward limit of overwash sedi- ment is the throat. The landward limit of overwash is the inland limit of sediment transport. (b) Policies 1. Activities that adversely affect the natural functioning of the Beach and Dune System are discouraged unless, specifically permitted by policies 2, 3, 4, or 5. 2. The following activities are conditionally acceptable in the Beach and Dune System. M Demolition and removal of paving and structures, (ii) Sediment deposition to create new dunes, (iii) Planting of adapted vegetation, (iv) Development of limited unpaved pedestrian walkways through dunes and overwash areas to the beach, W Shore Protection Structures which meet the Use conditions of Section 7:7E-7.11(e). 3. Public access to beaches is encouraged. Coastal development that unreasonably restricts public access to beaches is prohibited. 4. If a Sand Accretion Area obstructs a navigation channel, main- tenance dredging is conditionally acceptable provided that an acceptable dredge spoil disposal site is used (See Sections 7:7E- 4.10(g) and 7:7E-7.12). 103 5. Shore protection structures or other waterfront developments in or adjacent to High Risk Beach Erosion Areas that would contribute to significant updrift or downdrift erosion or accretion are dis- couraged. (c) Rationale 1. Beaches 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 prevdnt or minimize loss of life or property from storms and floods, except for some shore protection structures and linear facilities, such as pipelines, when nonbeach locations are not prudent or feasible. Wet sand beaches have been designated a Geographic Area of Particular Concern (GAPC) by DEP under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. 2. Dunes Ocean and bayfront dunes are an irreplaceable physical feature of the natural environment possessing outstanding geological, recrea- tional, scenic and protective value. Protection and preservation in a natural state is vital to this and succeeding generations of citizens of the State and the Nation. The dunes are a dynamic migrating natural phenomenon that helps protect lives and property in adjacent landward areas, and buffers barrier islands and barrier beach spits from the effects of major natural coastal hazards such as hurricanes, storms, flooding and erosion. Natural dune systems also help promote wide sandy beaches and provide important habitat for wildlife species. Extensive destruction of dunes has taken place in this century along most of the coast. This disruption of the natural pro- cesses of the beach dune Sy stem has led to severe erosion of some beach areas, jeopardized the safety of existing structures on and behind the remaining dunes and upland of the beaches; increased the need to manage development in shorefront areas no longer protected by dunes; interfered with the sand balance that is so essential for recreational beaches and the coastal resort econ- omy; necessitated increased public expenditures by citizens of the entire State for shore protection structures and programs; and increased the likelihood of major losses of life and property from flooding and storm surges. The policy encourages the natural functioning of the dune system and encourages restoration of destroyed dunes, to protect and enhance the coastal beach dune areas, and to devote these precious areas to only those limited land uses which preserve, protect and enhance the natural environment of the dynamic dune system. 104 3. High Risk Beach Erosion Areas 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 entitled Coastal Geomorphology of New Jersey, which analyzed the problems of shoreline erosion, classiFled -the shoreline and identified fourteen specific examples of high risk erosion areas: 1. Cumberland County - Delaware Bay Shore (developed 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 Ord 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) 14. Sea Isle City (southern half) 4. Sand Accretion Areas Natural shoreline processes transport sand eroding in one place and deposit it in another. The sand accretes in deposition areas to form new beaches and dunes. This process is an important part of the natural shore protection against storms and should not be hindered. The practice of bulldozing these accretion areas for beach nourishment or other purposes is specifically against the intent of this policy. 5. Overwash Areas Overwash Areas indicate weaknesses in natural and bu ilt shore protection. Hazard has been demonstrated, often with extensive property damage. This is a natural shoreline movement process associated with storms and rising sea level and is one of the processes by which barrier islands migrate inland. Overwash Areas 105 are unsuitable locations for further development, and public funds should not be used to rebuild damaged shore protection struc- tures. The return of these areas to a natural state, particularly if new dune formation is promoted is, therefore, desirable. 7:7E-3.22 Central Barrier Island Corridor (a) Definition The Central Barrier Island corridor is that portion of barrier islands and s.pits or peninsulas (narrow land areas surrounded by both bay and ocean waters and connected to the mainland) that lies upland of Wetlands, Beach and Dune Systems, Filled Water's Edges, and Existing Lagoon Edges that line the ocean and bay sides of a barrier island or spit. Central Barrier Island Corridor does not apply to the headlands of northern ocean County, Monmouth County, and the tip of Cape May County, which are part of the mainland. (b) Policies 1. 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 7:7E-5.5). 2. The acceptable density of new development shall be determined using the high-rise policy for residential structures. (c) 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 accept- ability for development is to be determined by the Location Policy's 7 criteria for residential development on Land Areas. Use of the high development potential criterion will generally accept infill projects and discourage extensions 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. Implementa- tion 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. 106 7:7E-3.23 Wetlands (a) Definition Wetlands are areas where the substrate is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions which are subject to the Wetlands Act, or the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) or the Waterfront Development Law. Wetlands regulated under the Wetlands Act of 1970 are delineated at a scale of 1:2,400 on official maps as listed at N.J.A.C. 7:7A-1.13. All coastal wetlands situated in the Raritan Basin, south along the Atlantic Ocean and north along Delaware Bay and River are subject to the Wetlands Act. Under CAFRA, DEP regulates freshwater wetlands and forested wetlands such as white cedars on sites proposed for the major developments requiring a CAFRA permit. Generalized location maps of White Cedar Stands and other woody wetlands can be found in J. McCormick and L. Jones, The Pine Barrens Vegetation (1973), and forest type maps within DEP's Bureau of Forestry, and, in some areas, in the vegetation maps prepared by the N.J. Pinelands Commis- sion for the Comprehensive Management Plan. The Waterfront Development Law under the proposed rules will regulate all wetlands north of the Raritan Basin, except for some areas within the Hackensack Meadowlands District, and all coastal wetlands along the Delaware River not regulated under the Wetlands Act. Generalized locations of some wetland types can be found in county soil surveys prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. (b) Policy 1. In general, development of all kinds is prohibited in wetlands, unless DEP can find that the proposed development meets the fol- lowing four conditions (see also N.J.A.C. 7:7A-1.5 and 1.7): M 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 water- ways), NOTE: This means that the use must be water dependent as defined in Section 7:7E-1.6(c)8. (ii) Has no prudent or feasible alternative on a non-wetland site, 107 (iii) Will result in minimum feasible alteration or impairment of natural tidal circulation (or natural circulation in the case of non-tidal wetlands), and (iv) Will result in minimum feasible alteration or impairment of natural contour or the natural vegetation of the wetlands. 2. In particular, dumping solid or liquid wastes and applying or storing certain pesticides on wetlands are prohibited. 3. 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 are encouraged. The Division of Coastal Resources previously has 'required restoration of temporarily disturbed wetlands and will continue to do so on a case-by-case basis. 4. Under the Wetlands Act, the activities of DEP, the Tidelands Resource Council, the State Mosquito Control Commission and county mosquito control commissions are exempted from the coastal wetlands' policies within mapped coastal wetlands. Voluntary administrative compliance with the regulations adopted by DEP under to the Act is not, however, precluded. 5. Development that adversely affects white cedar stands is prohibited. (c) 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 the most envi- ronmentally valuable land ;r-eA-within the coastal zone. Coastal wetlands contribute to the physical stability of the coastal zone by serving as: M a transitional area between the forces of the open sea and upland areas that absorb and dissipate wind-driven storm waves and storm surges, (ii) a flood water storage area, and, (iii) a sediment and pollution trap. Also, wetlands naturally perform the wastewater treatment process of removing phosphorous and nitrogenous water pollutants, unless the wet- lands 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 algal mats convert inorganic nutrients into organic plant material through the process of photo- synthesis. In this way, the primary base for estuarine and marine food webs is provided. The principal direct dietary beneficiaries of organic wetland detritus are bacteria and protozoan, which are in turn fed upon by larger invertebrates. Important finfish, shellfish, waterfowl, and other resources feed upon these invertebrates. 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 estuarine, and, therefore, wetlands-dependent. 108 Inland herbaceous wetlands, such as bogs, play an important role in regulating the quality of water in streams that flow to the estuaries. They retard runoff and store storm waters. They are important areas of primary productivity for estuarine systems. They are critical habitats for several species of plants and animals that are endangered or threatened. They are productive habitats for other game and non-game animals, such as deer. These wetlands also serve as fire.breaks, and may limit the spread of forest, brush, or grass fires. They are inappro- priate development sites due to poor drainage and load bearing capacity of the underlying soils. Forested Wetlands play a critical role in coastal ecosystems. Roots and trunks stabilize shorelines and trap sediment. They are physical and biochemical water filter areas maintaining tidal stream water quality. They provide primary protection to estuarine areas from decaying plant material flushed down by streams. They are critical habitats, breeding areas and movement corridors for many coastal species including rare and endangered species. High productivity, high water availability and high edge to area ratio make these areas especially productive wildlife areas. 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 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 underlain 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. 7:79-3.24 Cranberry Bogs (a) Definition Cranberry Bogs are areas around streams which have been impounded and are now, or have formerly been, used for cranberry farming. These areas are intermittently flooded in the process of cranberry growing. (b) Policy 1. Cranberry farming is encouraged provided that water quality and diversion standards are satisfied. 2. Wildlife refuges in former Cranberry Bogs are encouraged. 3. other uses of former Cranberry Bogs shall conform to the policies for Wetlands (7:7E-3.23). 109 (c) Rationale Cranberry farming is a small but locally significant part of the coastal economy and should be protected and promoted. Growing cranberries requires plentiful supplies of high quality ground and surface water. Care must be taken, therefore, so that cranberry growing does not unac- ceptably impact local hydrology or water quality. Abandoned Cranberry Bogs are ideal wildlife refuges if properly managed since habitat quality can be improved by intermittent flooding and the mechanisms to do this exist. Proposals that include wildlife management programs within Cranberry Bogs will therefore be favored. Abandoned Cranberry Bogs, if undisturbed, take on wetlands characteristics. 7:7E-3.25 Wet Borrow Pit Margins (a) Definition Wet Borrow Pit Margins are areas surrounding Wet Borrow Pits (see defini- tion 7:7E-3.15(a)). They extend from normal water level in the borrow pit below to the inland limit of a Water Quality Buffer. The width of this buffer will vary by substrate texture. Where soils are coarse, i.e. sands or gravels, the width will be 100 feet; elsewhere, it will be 50 feet. (b) Policy 1. Surface mining is conditionally acceptable provided that other coastal policies, particularly the Use Policies on Mining, are satisfied. 2. Wildlife habitat uses are encouraged. 3. Non water dependent uses are prohibited unless acceptable filling (See Section 7:7E-3.15(b) 3 and 4) in the Wet Borrow Pit removes these areas from the Water's Edge and reclassifies them. 4. If residential development takes place landward of the Wet Borrow Pit Margin, use of the margin must be consistent with the require- ments for a water quality buffer around Wet Borrow Pits (see Section 7:7E-3.15(b) 4(v)). 5. All proposed uses shall grade all banks at the immediate water's edge, except those in acceptable water access areas, to a slope not greater than 33 percent, and shall stabilize the surface and ini- tiate succession of native vegetation adapted to water's edge conditions. 6. Limited recreational use of the Wet Borrow Pit Margin is acceptable providing that the water buffer disturbance is limited in extent and wildlife habitat disturbance is minimized. 110 (c) Rationale Wet Borrow Pit Margins are the water quality buffer areas of Wet Borrow Pits. The still water in the lakes is very susceptible to all types of impacts. A Water Quality Buffer provides a biophysical filter and bank stabilization. Preserving this area also maximizes the important wild- life habitat value of the land-water interface. The policy on Wet Borrow Pits allows limited filling of the lakes and this may remove Wet Borrow Pit Margins from the water's edge. The former margin areas shall then be reclassified as appropriate, and policy analy- sis shall proceed on the new classes. Mixed use projects that include wildlife habitats, and low and high intensity waterfront recreation are an acceptable use of some former borrow pits, since they realize the scenic and recreational value of the lakes and waterfront while preserving wildlife value. Care should be taken in the layout and design of the site to provide adequate separation and barriers to protect wildlife areas from human disturbance. Recreational use of Wet Borrow Pit Margins is possible without losing the wildlife value, provided that intensive disturbance is limited to occasional concentrated water access points, and elsewhere banks are stabilized, native habitats promoted and human access controlled. 7:7E-3.26 Coastal Bluffs (a) Definition A coastal bluff is a steep slope of consolidated (rock) or unconsolidated (sand, gravel) sediment that is formed by wind and water erosion forces, and which is adjacent to the shoreline or demonstrably associated with shoreline processes. A bluff is composed of three main features (see Figure 17): (1) the toe or the interface of the beach or other bottom area (water, wetlands, etc.), (2) the face of the slope, and (3) the crest of.the top of the slope where the bluff becomes the flat tableland. The waterward limit of the bluff is the toe buffer, which extends 25' waterward of the toe of the bluff face. The inland limit is the first cultural feature, such as a road or structure. The term "cliff" will be used as a synonym for bluff, and the same policies will apply, although the cliff face is typically steeper than the bluff face, presenting an almost vertical surface. Steep slopes (Section 7:7E-3.29) are isolated inland areas with slopes greater than 15 percent. All steep slopes associated with shoreline processes, i.e. adjacent to the shoreline or contributing sediment to the system, will be considered coastal bluffs. (b) Policy 1. All development on bluffs, from the waterward limit of the toe buffer to the first cultural feature, that will endanger the health, safety and welfare of people and property, is prohibited. Figure 17 Coik$TAL bLUFFEs EY&LOPIA15NI-1 PRO 14 11bilto ICON I>i nDWA(.L1( EGC-TATl\jG S.7TAP.4LIZAr(DN 112, L-G F-MCouRA&ET). w T 4c 01 LIU LL 0 69 U. qu 'FAr,5 0 IS J W Ul T@OT-1`01A W, wcT'L-A N Db, WATER) M OR UNCONSO m arr,= lilt I LEI, if - :F--- F1 IZ@F 1511 111411,1KI Mill "SLUFF PROFILE" D fig- 2. All development is prohibited on the bluff face and within the crest and toe buffer areas. The stabilization of the face and buffer areas through vegetation is encouraged for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of people and property. 3. Structural mitigation measures designed for the purpose of slowing bluff erosion are conditionally accepted, provided that they do not interfere with natural shoreline sediment supply. 4. All development on the tableland is conditionally acceptable, based on the rate of bluff erosion. In general, structures are prohibited in areas which will be eroded during the life of the structure. If a bluff has an erosion history of five feet a year and the projected life of the structure is fifty (50) years, then the structure is prohibited within 250 feet (50 x 5) of the crest buffer. Appli- cants shall submit historical evidence recording bluff movement and submit a realistic estimate of the life of the structure, noting that most structures are used well beyond their nominal lifetimes. (c) Rationale Coastal bluffs are most prominent in New Jersey along the Delaware River at Roebling and Florence and along the Raritan Bay at Aberdeen Township and Atlantic Highlands. They have a significant function in storm damage prevention and flood control, by eroding in response to wave action and resisting erosion caused by wind and rain runoff. Bluff erosion is also an important source of beach sediment where the coastal bluff faces an open water body. Disturbance of coastal bluffs which undermine their natural resistance to wind and rain erosion increase the risk of their collapse and cause cuts in the bluff. This increases danger to struc- tures at the top of the bluff and reduces the bluff's ability to buffer upland areas from coastal storms. Vegetation helps stabilize bluffs and can reduce the rate of erosion caused by wind and rain runoff. 7:7E-3.27 Intermittent Stream Corridors (a) Definition Intermittent Stream Corridors are areas including and surrounding surface water drainage channels in which there is not a permanent flow of water. They are also called swales and ephemeral stream corridors. The inland extent of these corridors is either the inland limit of soils with a seasonal high water table equal to, or less than one foot, or a distance of 25 feet on either side of the channel, whichever is greater (see Figure 18). (b) Policy 1. Uses that promote undisturbed growth of native vegetation and wildlife habitat value are encouraged. 2. Cutting, filling, damming, detention basins for runoff recharge paving, structures or any other activities that would directly degrade the function of Intermittent Stream Corridors, except for linear infrastructure for which there is no feasible alternate route, is prohibited. 113 Figure 18 INTERMITTENT STREAM CORRIDOR STREAM .-Intermittent Stream 25 foot margin on each side of corridor Limit of soils with seasonal high water table equal to, or less than, one foot //I////// Intermittent Stream Corridor Note: Although Area A has a high water table, that high water table is associated with the stream rather than with the tntermittent stream. Ll Area A, therefore, would be some Special Water Edge type other than Intermittent Stream Corridor 114 (c) Rationale Intermittent Stream Corridors are the spring areas for coastal streams. They are very susceptible to surface and subsurface disturbance. The water quality of coastal streams and estuaries depends in part on undis- turbed spring areas. They are productive areas since water is at or near the surface, and are important wildlife habitats. For these reasons the intention of the policies is preservation. 7:7E-3.28 Farmland Conservation Areas (a) Definition Large, contiguous areas of 20 acres or more (in single or multiple tracts) with soils of classifications in the Capability Classes I, II 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 Cranberries which are actively farmed, suitable for farming, or forested, and located in Cape May, Cumberland or Salem Counties are defined as Farmland Conservation Areas. (b) Policy 1. Farmland Conservation Areas shall be maintained and protected for open space or farming purposes to the maximum extent practicable. 2. Continued, renewed, or new farming is encouraged in Farmland Conser- vation Areas. 3. Conversion of Farmland Conservation Areas to development is accept- able only when the predominant surrounding pattern of development is urban or suburban and continued, renewed, or new farming is likely to produce unacceptable urban-agricultural conflict. (c) Rationale Farmland Conservation Areas are an irreplaceable natural resource essen- tial 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 o If mini- mizing conflicts between farm and urban areas. In the coastal zone, only Cape May, Cumberland and Salem Counties, have significant acreage of agricultural soils located in a manner generally compatible with present or future farming. In Cape May County, approxi- mately 40 percent 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. 115 7:7E-3.29 Steep Slopes (a) Definition Steep slopes are areas with slopes greater than 15 percent, which are not coastal bluffs (7:7E-3.26). (b) Policy Development on steep slopes greater than 20% is prohibited, unless the regrading of a very small part of a site (typically, less than 5%) is essential to the overall landscaping plan for the site, in which case the grading shall be done to less than a 10% slope. Man-made steep slopes above the slope at which the sediments normally stabilize (angle of repose) shall either be regraded to a slope at least 20% below the angle of repose, or stabilized and planted with native woody vegetation. (c) Rationale Only a few Steep Slopes Areas exist in the relatively flat Coastal Plain of New Jersey. Isolated steep slope areas are found near headwaters of coastal streams. Preservation of steep slopes controls soil erosion, protects up-slope lands, minimizes pollution of surface waters, reduces flooding, preserves banks of streams and intermittent streams and maintains water flow in headwaters. 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 sedimentation usually follow which can cause reduction of productivity and flood water storage capacity. Aesthetics are also affected when erosion occurs and topsoil is lost. Slope maps are available from NJDEP-DCR based on U.S.G.S. Topographic Quadrangle sheets (1:24,000 scale). These maps show slopes in the following ranges. 0-2%, 2-5%, 5-10%j 10-15%, and more than 15% in the coastal plain; and 0-3%, 3-8%, 8-15%, and 15-25% in other parts of the State. There are some man-made steep slopes left after such activities as mining and road grading. If such slopes are above the angle of repose of the sediments, there is danger of slumping. 7:7E-3.30 Dry Borrow Pits (a) Definition Dry Borrow Pits are excavations for the purpose of extracting coastal minerals which have not extended below the ground water level. This includes, but is not limited to, dry sand, gravel and clay pits, and stone quarries. 116 (b) Policy 1. Surface mining is conditonally acceptable, provided the Mining Use Policies (7:7E-7.8) are complied with. 2. Channeling clean surface runoff into dry sand and gravel pits for the purposes of aquifer recharge is encouraged. Pavement runoff may be channelled into dry borrow pits provided that it is adequately filtered to remove pavement contaminants. 3. Discharge of clean effluent from liquid waste treatment facilities for aquifer recharge is encouraged (e.g. tertiary sewage effluent) provided ground water quality is monitored and maintained. 4. Storing water in impermeable dry borrow pits is conditionally acceptable. 5. Dredge spoil disposal is conditionally acceptable provided that: W the spoil will not degrade groundwater quality, (ii) the spoil is of a particle size that will not disturb ground water hydrology, and (iiiY spoil disposal is compatible with neighboring uses. 6. Solid waste disposal other than clean dredge spoil and not including radioactive or carcinogenic waste, is conditionally acceptable on a case by case basis provided that: M waste disposal is compatible with neighboring uses, (ii) the borrow pit is lined with clay, plastic or other impermeable material; leachate is collected, treated and discharged to the ground through an injection well or other technique that will not degrade groundwater quality; and maintenance will be available for the life of the landfill, (iii) the solid waste is stacked and interlayered with inert material, (iv) a reclamation plan is submitted with the application showing naturalistic final grading, surface improvement with topsoil and organic additives and planting to initial native succes- sions with guarantees of survival for the first five years, (v) Elevations of landfill do not exceed original surface eleva- tions before mining, (vi) The reclamation proposals are worked towards during dumping and completed at conclusion, and (vii) The applicant can demonstrate that even during accidental failure of a treatment plant, the leachate cannot degrade ground or surface water. 117 7. Filling or grading for construction is conditionally acceptable provided that: (i) other coastal policies are satisfied, and (ii) The fill is clean and of a texture not to disturb local ground water flow. 8. All proposed uses must reduce all banks to a slope of less than one in three, stabilize them, prepare them for planting and ini- tiate native successions. (c) Rationale Dry borrow pits have been used successfully in Long Island to recharge depleted aquifers by channeling surface runoff and tertiary sewage effluent into them. These uses are encouraged in New Jersey's coastal areas, especially where there is a history of saline intrusion. Water shall be discharged, wherever possible, into the aquifer layer most impacted by saline intrusion. There is a critical shortage in coastal areas of disposal sites for dredge spoil and solid waste. Dry Borrow Pits offer opportunities of low-impact disposal if they are compatible with existing uses, the leachate is carefully- controlled and the site reclaimed on conclusion. Dry Borrow Pits have comparatively low environ- mental value and so are acceptable sites for development if all other policies are satisfied. 7:7E-3.31 Historic and Archeological Resources (a) Definition Historic and Archeological Resources include objects, structures, neighborhoods, districts, and man-made or man-modified features of the landscape, including archaeological 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 at N.J.A.C. 7:4-4.2. (b) Policy 1. Development that detracts from, encroaches upon, damages, or destroys the value of Historic and Archeological Resources is discouraged. 2. Development that incorporates Historic and Archeological Resources in adaptive reuse is encouraged. 3. Scientific recording and/or removal of the Historic and Archeolog- ical Resources or other mitigation measures must take place, if the proposed development would irreversably and/or adversely affect Historic and Archeological Resources. 4. New development in undeveloped areas near Historic and Archeological Resources is conditionally acceptable, provided that the design of the proposed development is compatible with the appearance of the Historic or Archeological Resource. 118 (c) Rationale The range of Historic and Archeological Resources along the coast is broad and diverse, from the oceanfront Victorian "gingerbread" archi- tecture, to examples of New Jersey's maritime heritage, to colonial homes, to Indian artifacts. @The public interest requires the preserva- tion of both representative and unique examples of Historic and Archaeo- logical (cultural) resources of the coast, in order to provide present and future generations with a sense of the people who lived, worked, and visited the coast in the past. DEP's office of Historic Preservation maintains an up-to-date list of properties on the New Jersey State Register of Historic Places (N.J.S.A. 13:lB-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 Environmental Review advise DEP's Division of Coastal Resources on the historic resources aspects of coastal decisions. 7:7E-3.32 Specimen Trees (a) Definition Specimen trees are the largest known individual trees of each species in New Jersey. The DEP-Bureau of Forestry maintains A list of these trees (see New Jersey Outdoors, September-October 1977 for a listing of speci- men trees). in addition, large trees approaching the diameter of the known largest tree shall be considered Specimen Trees. (b) 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 other- wise injure 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 greater. (c) 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 and scenic resource. Often these trees have also been associated with historical events. 7:7E-3.33 Endangered or Threatened Wildlife or Vegetation Species Habitats (a) Definition Land, Water's Edgej or Water Areas known to be the habitat of any wild- life (fauna) or vegetation (flora) identified as "endangered" or "threat- ened" species on official federal or state lists of endangered or threatened species, or under active consideration for state or national listing, are considered special areas. The definition also includes a sufficient buffer area to insure continued survival of the species. DEP intentionally restricts dissemination of data showing the geographic distribution of these species habitats, in order to protect the habitats. (b) 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. (c) Rationale Endangered and threatened species are organisms which are facing possible extinction in the immediate future due to loss of suitable habitat, and past overexploitation through human activities or natural causes. Extinction is an irreversible event and represents a loss to both future human use, education research and to the interrelationship of all living creatures with the ecosystem. At present, the official list of endangered wildlife (fauna) species in New Jersey, available from DEP, Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife (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. No official state or federal list of endangered or threatened vegetation (flora) species exists, although the Smithsonian Institution did submit a report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1975 identifying seventeen species of New Jersey plants for considera- tion for adoption on federal lists (see 40 FR, No. 1217: 27863-27864, July 1, 1975). Habitats of species eligible to be on the list are included 'in the definition so that the policy will apply to species identified since the last promulgations of the official list. 7:7E-3.34 Critical Wildlife Habitats (a) Definition Critical Wildlife Habitats are specific areas known to serve an essential role in maintaining wildlife, 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 parti- cularly 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. Definitions and maps of Critical Wildlife Habitats are currently avail- able only for colonial waterbird habitat in 1979 Aerial Colony Nesting Waterbird Survey for New Jersey (NJDEP, Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife). Until additional maps are available, sites will be considered on a case by case basis by the NJDEP Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife. 120 (b) Policy Development that would adversely affect Critical Wildlife Habitats is discouraged, unless: (i) minimal feasible interference with the habitat can be demonstrated, (ii) there is no prudent or feasible alternative location for the development, and (iii) the proposal includes appropriate mitigation measures. DEP will review proposals on a case by case basis. (c) 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 use, education, research, and enjoyment by future generations. 7:7E-3.35 Public Open Space (a) Definition Public Open Space constitutes land areas owned and maintained by state, federal, county and municipal agencies or non-profit private groups (such as conservation organizations and homeowner's associations) 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:IB-15.12a et seq.) within DEP-owned and managed lands. (b) Policy 1. New or expanded public or private open space development is encour- aged at locations compatible or supportive of adjacent and surround- ing land uses. 2. Development that adversely affects existing public open space is dis- couraged. 3. Development within existing public open space, such as campgrounds and roads, is conditionally acceptable, provided that the develop- ment complies with the Coastal Resource and Development Policies and is consistent with the character and purpose of the public open space, as described by the park master plan when such a plan exists. (c) Rationale As the rapid urbanization of New Jersey continues and leisure time increases, open space will play an increasingly important role.in main- taining a desirable 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. 121 Not only is open space the basic resource for recreation facility devel- opment, 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 contiguous 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 continuity and to afford users continued movement through the public open spaces. 7:7E-3.36 Special Hazard Areas (a) 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 seaplane landing areas and potential evacuation zones around major industrial and energy facilities. (b) Policy Coastal development, especially residential and labor-intensive economic development, within Special Hazard Areas is.discouraged. All development within Special Hazard Areas must include appropriate mitigating measures to protect the public health and safety. (c) 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 and energy facilities may adequately address the concern in this area. 7:7E-3.37 Excluded Federal Lands (a) Definition Excluded Federal Lands are those lands that are owned, leased, held in trust or whose use is otherwise by law subject solely to the discretion of the United States of America, its officers or agents, and are excluded from New Jersey's Coastal Zone as required by the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. (b) 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. 122 (c) Rationale While the federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires that federal lands be excluded from a statels 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. 7:7E-3.38 Special Urban Areas (a) Definition Special urban areas are those areas defined in urban aid legislation (N.J.S.A. 52:27D-178) which designate municipalities qualified to receive State aid to enable them to maintain and upgrade municipal services and offset local property taxes. This Special Area includes the following 21 coastal municipalities: Asbury Park Elizabeth Long Branch Passaic Atlantic City Hoboken Millville Perth Amboy Bayonne Jersey City Neptune Twp. Rahway Bridgeton Keansburg New Brunswick Trenton Camden Lakewood Newark West New York North Bergen (b) Policy 1. Development that will help to restore the economic and social viability of special urban areas is encouraged. Development that would adversely affect the economic well being of these areas is discouraged, when an alternative more beneficial to them is feas- ible. Development that would be of economic and social benefit and that serves the needs of local residents and neighborhoods is encouraged. 2. Housing, hotels, motels, and mixed use development are acceptable in water areas on existing pilings, and in Filled Water's Edge Areas. 3. Development is prohibited that does not provide public access to the waterfront, except in locations where such access cannot be safely provided. (c) Rationale This policy helps link the Coastal Management Program with other State efforts to focus on and restore New Jersey's urban areas. The policy would be applied to State actions on major proposals, such as shopping centers, outside urban areas which could drain resources from nearby urban areas, as well as to projects both in and out of urban areas which could help stimulate social and economic activity in urban areas. The Filled Water's Edge policy which reserves the waterfront for water dependent uses should not be strictly applied in Special Urban Areas. Housing, hotels, motels and other commercial developments, which benefit from a waterfront location and stimulate the revitalization of a Special Urban Area would be consistent with State coastal objectives. 123 7:7E-3.39 Pinelands National Reserve and Pinelands Protection Area (a) Definition The Pinelands National Reserve includes those lands and water areas defined in the National Parks and Recreation act of 1978, Section 502 (P.L. 95-625), an approximately 1,000,000 acre area ranging from Monmouth County in the north, south to Cape May County and from Gloucester and Camden County on the west to the barrier islands of Island Beach State Park and Brigantine Island along the Atlantic Ocean on the east (see Figure 19). The. Pinelands Protection Area is a slightly smaller area within the Pinelands National Reserve. It was designated for State regulation by the Pinelands Protection Act of 1979 (N.J.S.A. 13:18-1 et seq). The Pinelands Commission has been mandated by the law to develop a comprehensive management p .Ian for the area by December 15, 1980. Within the Pinelands Protection Area, the law delineates a Preservation Area, where the plan shall "preserve an extensive and contiguous area of land in its natural state, thereby insuring the continuation of a pinelands environment ..." (section 8c). Within the Pinelands National Reserve, there is also an area designated a Critical Area under the authority of N.J.S.A. 58:11-43 et seq. DEP has adopted special Central Pine Barrens Ground and Surface Water Quality Standards (N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.6i and j). This Central Pine Barrens Region is also the oil and gas pipeline exclusion area as defined in Use Policy 7:7E-7.4. The coastal municipalities wholly or partly within the Pinelands National Reserve Area include: Atlantic County Brigantine City Hamilton Township Corbin City Mullica Township** Egg Harbor City* Port Republic* Egg Harbor Township Somers Point City Estell Manor Township Weymouth Township Galloway Township Burlington County Bass River Township** Washington Township** Cape May County Dennis Township Upper Township Middle Township Woodbine Borough Cumberland County Maurice River Township 124 PINELANDS JURISDICTION FIGURE 19 NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION F-MW ACT OF 1976 STATE PINELANDS PROTECTIPN ACT MT HOLLI cAM T 41@ I.W s."w Lw M y C.d.. my E-, N. D I." R, o 55 F. ' ,"A P E PINELANDS AREA (STATE PINELANDS PROTECTION ACT) L A W A R c MIN OVERLAP BETWEEN PINELANDS AREA 41 ON. 8 A Y CkPE Mll AND COASTAL ZONE CMRT MM OVERLAP BETWEEN PINELANDS NATIONAL RESERVE AND COASTAL ZONE d- PRESERVATION AREA --d 125 Ocean County Barnegat Township Lakehurst Borough Beachwood Borough Little Egg Harbor Township** Berkeley Township Manchester Township Dovi!r Township Ocean Township Eagleswood Township* South Toms River Borough Lacey Township Stafford Township Tuckerton Borough municipalities with areas in both the Pinelands Protection Area and the Coastal Zone. These areas are all within the Preservation Area of the Pinelands Protection Area (N.J.S.A. 13:18A-1 et seq.). municipalities included within the Pinelands Protection Area area, the Central Pine Barrens Region as defined by N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.6i and j and the Coastal Zone. (b) Policy Coastal development shall be consistent with the intent, policies and objectives of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, P.L. 95-625, Section 502, creating the Pinelands National Reserve, @and the State Pinelands Protection Act of 1979 (N.J.S.A. 13:18A-1 et seq.). (c) Rationale The New Jersey Pinelands contain approximately 1,000,000 acres of high quality surface and groundwater resources. In response to the need to protect, preserve and enhance the unique features of the Pinelands and the significant ecological, natural, cultural, recreational, educational, agricultural and public health resources of the Pinelands area, the federal government passed the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, (P.L. 95-625), the Governor issued Executive Order No. 71 in February 1979, and the Legislature passed the Pinelands Protection Act in June, 1979. Prior to these actions, under Executive Order No. 56, issued on May 28, 1977, the Governor created the Pinelands Review Commiteee to delineate a Pinelands region and develop a plan to guide State actions affecting that Region. The report of the Pinelands Review Committee, completed in February 1979, stressed the need to take strong action to manage devel- opment in the Pinelands. Because the living marine resources in the bays and estuaries of the coastal zone depend on the flow of freshwater from the Pinelands, changes to the quality and quantity of the Pinelands water resource caused by pollution and contamination would have a significant impact on coastal resources. The Pinelands Protection Act (Section 22) recognized the overlap between Pinelands and coastal management interests and mandated that DEP, in consultation with the Pinelands Commission, review the environmental design for the coastal area prepared as required by CAFRA (see N.J.S.A. 13:19-10) which is also within the boundaries of the Pinelands Area. This overlap area extends from Pleasant Mills to the Garden State Parkway on both sides of the Mullica River. 126 7:7E-3.40 Hackensack Meadowlands District (a) Definition The Hackensack Meadowlands District is a 19,730 acre area of water, coastal wetlands and associated uplands designated for management by a State-level regional agency known as the Hackensack Meadowlands Develop- ment Commission (HMDC) by the Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Development Act of 1968 (N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et seq.) (See Figure 20). (b) Policy The HMDC will act as the lead coastal planning and management agency within this Special Area. State coastal management actions within the Hackensack Meadowlands District are governed by the District Master Plan and its adopted components and management plans, and the zoning rules adopted thereunder. The HMDC Master Plan Zoning Rules (N.J.A.C. 19:4-1 et seq.) are adopted as part of the Coastal Management Program (see Appendix 1, and the Hackensack Meadowlands District is designated a Geographic Area of Particular Concern (see section on GAPCs in Chapter 4).* (c) Rationale The District Master Plan was mandated by the Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Development Act. The Master Plan, together with its components, management plans and zoning regulations, embody adopted State policies for the District. The BMDC has a professional staff of natural scientists, engineers and planners with the experience and expertise to apply State coastal policy to this Special Area. 7:7E-3.41 Wild and Scenic River Corridors (a) Definition Wild and Scenic River Corridors are components of the New Jersey Wild and Scenic Rivers System designated by the DEP Commissioner under N.J.S.A. 13:8-45 et seq. River corridors include the river and adjacent upland to the limit of the Flood Hazard Area or to the limit of State owned lands, whichever is furthest inland. It should be noted that the Hackensack Meadowlands District designations for wetlands development do not preclude federal agency recommendations and deci- sions contrary to such development. The Hackensack Meadowlands District Plan does not meet the definition of a "Comprehensive Planning Process" under Section 404(b) (1) of the Clean Water Act and associated regulations. Therefore, federal agencies will evaluate proposed projects in the Hackensack Meadowlands District on a case by case basis. Wetland modification will require proper analysis and documentation under Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act regardless of adopted plans and ordinances. The 404(b)(1) process currently requires four tests to be met and properly documented through a public process including: 1) acceptance of unavoidable impacts; 2) alternatives analysis; 3) demonstration of water dependency; and 4) demonstration of need. 127 Figure 20 N. I - . J Now SIP C-L TETERBORO -rrl I ROCAFIELD A: k KAS ER WOOD RK" MOONACHIE.*' I"w CARLSTADT LIP wLrrHLRFORD 4"@,lcA T RUT IF 21 7 > Ly:!@rsla- 0 M SECAUCUS NORTH J"FRSEY r Y E@l KEARNY J I TO NEW VORIS \7 District Boundaries HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT 123 (b) Policy 1. Development may be permitted in designated river areas in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:38-1.1 et seq., including special regulations for a particular river, or sections thereof, adopted upon designations to the New Jersey Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 2. Development which provides general public recreational use of and access to a designated river area, consistent with classification and flood plain regulations, is encouraged. 3. Development must be consistent with all other coastal policies, in particular the performance standards found in the Flood Hazard Areas Resource Policy (7:7E-8.23) and other Special Areas policies. (c) Rationale This policy reflects and incorporates the goals of the New Jersey Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which recognizes the outstanding scenic, recrea- tional, fish and wildlife, floral, historic, cultural and similar values of certain rivers of the State, in addition to the goals of reducing loss of life and property resulting from unwise development of floodplains. Uses compatible with the recognized values of designated river areas and their classification as "wild", "scenic", "recreational", or "developed recreational" river areas may be allowed to further the use and availa- bility of the open space resources which the river areas represent. River Corridors will be administered according to N.J.A.C. 7:38-1.1 et seq., according to four classifications: 1. "Wild", meaning a river or section thereof, that is free of impound- ment, and generally inaccessible by trail, with watershed or shore- line essentially primitive and undeveloped and water unpolluted. Wild river areas are also consistent with Natural Areas; 2. "Scenic", meaning a river, or section thereof, that is free of impoundment, with watershed or shoreline still largely primitive and undeveloped, but accessible in places by road; 3. "Recreational", meaning a river, or section thereof, that is readily accessible, that may have some shoreline development, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion; and 4. "Developed Recreational", meaning a river, or section thereof, that is readily accessible, that may have substantial shoreline develop- ment, that may have undergone substantial impoundment or diversion, but which remains suitable for a variety of recreational uses. 129 SUBCHAPTER 4 - GENERAL WATER AREAS 7:7E-4.1 Definition General Areas are first divided into Water and Land by the same defini- tions used for Special Areas, Section 7:7E-3.1. Water and land are further sub- divided into General Area types. The water's edge has no General Area types since all water's edge areas are one or more Special Area types. This subchapter defines General Water types, assigns General Area poli- cies to each and summarizes the rationale and intent of the policies. In many cases, an area already identified as a Special Area will also fall within the definition of a General Area. In these cases, both General and Special Area policies will apply. In case of conflict between General and Special Area policies, the more specific Special Area Policy shall apply. General Water Areas are areas which lie below either the Mean High Water Line or the normal water level of non-tidal waters. Except at times of drought or extreme low tide, these areas are permanently inundated. General Water Areas are divided by volume and flushing rate into: Oceans; Open Bays; Semi Enclosed and Back Bays; Tidal Guts; Large Rivers; Medium Rivers, Creeks and Streams; and Lakes, Ponds and Reservoirs. Some of these types are further divided for policy purposes into different depths. 7:7E-4.2 Policy Summary Table The Policy Summary Table (Figure 21) indicates the Location Policy for the introduction of various uses in each of the General Water Areas. This table is included for quick reference. For further details on conditions for acceptability of uses, see Section 7:7E-4.10. 7:7E-4.3 Ocean (a) Definition This basin type has two depth levels W-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 (see Figure 22). (b) Policy See Policy Summary Table Section 7:7E-4.2. (c) Rationale 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 131 WATER AREA POLICY SUMMARY TABLE Water Ocean Open Bay Semi Enclosed Tidal Large Medium Rivers, Lakes, Ponds Area and Back Bay Guts Rivers Creeks and and Use Type 181+0-181 181+,6-181,0-6' 61+,0-61 Streams Reservoirs Aquaculture C C C C C C C C C C C Boat Ramps P C C C C C C C NJ Docks (cargo) C C C C C C C P* C C Docks (recreation) C C C C C C C C C C C Dredging (maintenance) C C C C C C C C C C C Dredging (new) C C D D D D D D* C C C Spoil Disposal C C C C D C D P* C P C Dumping P P P P P P P P P P P Filling D D P D D D D D D D P Piling D C D C C C C C C C D mooring C C C C C C C C C C C Sand, Gravel Extraction C D D D D D D P C C P Bridges D D D D D C C C P Submerged Infrastructure C C C C C C C D* C C C Overhead Lines P P P P P C D C P Dams & Impoundments P D P P D Outfalls & Intakes C C C C C C C C C C C Realignment D D D D D D D D D miscellaneous C C C C C C C C C C C *Conditionally acceptable in the Arthur Kill and Kill Van Kull P = Prohibited C = Conditionally Acceptable Note: Depths are mean depth of water D = Discouraged = impractical tigg 4ft ..... .... .. 70-1-1 X E. 09*94" WATIKIN MEA TYPES PORT ..... .. .. . ..... .. X: ........... SEMI ENCLOSED 13 AY %W TIDAL OUT X-- 4 XXv WA PES SPECIAL WATER AREA TYPES . ..... ........... NAVIGATION NAVIGATION CHANNEL "Ke CHANNEL V .... ....... PORT ......... X .................. 1: 24,000 ..... p :::::::w Nye. - 00 X. 0. 1000, tooo, 3= .. ..... a Tir SEMI - El la .......... A 4% . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J ..... . . .... "N ........... x. X.: ..... ................. ........... ............... ................ R OUT Flayground x Ruins :X DwIand Hook 'RICHMOND Island N r rVE&F REA6H POIN Portj.V 1 70, - - - - - - - t ZWe ISLANQ R e aE ^:S q, -Iin t Yar n E D St JA dM!* E, ollgete r 27 1-izabeth USGS Topo Quad, 19 Q-13 L-1 LA _j 15x WAT E R BODY TYPES -A L -7-A. _7 f@- @7 w 7 Z: 'pe (W-'- CL Z. X A Cov .......... X.- -4@ X. - GENERAL WATER AREA TYPES STO FFER Gl.phk Alt, CREEKS TIDAL GUTS LARGE RIVER OPEN BAY LAKES N 1: 24, 000 01 100w am$ now Figure 22b 134 t Canton USGS Topo Quadf 19.7 2 Figure 22c WATER BODY TYPES 4 GENERAL WATER AREA @7t 20 TYPES OCEAN Talern.@ld- 23 SEMI ENCLOSED VOW BACK SAY '47. @ennett 7. TIDAL GUTS c7 f;z J, 5 _J Ji v MEDIUM RIVERS CREEKS &STREAMS -JI- V 7., Sda P SPECIAL WATER AREA z TYPES xe -:F t-7. - 4w CANAL N 1: 24,000 0 1000, 2000, P4. z C A_N A L kt. 0 .0@r_& 3; py z Basin A qr. rg, 4 Doc'. wa'ef e,)-. E N@, 1 44 -4 - 91i'.11.), kr -la. 0 n UAit N B @ I- I P.E IVIN '10 G o-1 f, -,--Cap k-IV[ Course m <@X OCEAN N .14 .4@_Z P5 Cape May USGS Topo Qu d .972 135 /WATER BODY TYPES..- igu 2 0 f P OPEN BAY > 17 GENERAL WATER AREA TYPES OCEAN OPEN SAY Li g hl B N1 14 (-NAVIGATION TIDAL OUT CHANNEL 04 MEDIU11 RIVERS Plum CREEKS STREAWS F. Island ,-Z4 SPECIAL WATER MIA "_4 TYPES /9- n .,Fo NAVIGATION CHANNEL 1:24,000 5 C .4 0 1000, 2000, 3 @oo L /* S!Adpipe Locu .0 ei@ch 1c, AIF, FORC -sin Beach Nave 3 Pea 11 Bright MEDIUM ER ok USGS Topo 1970 .11L qrn 136 mso lsla.nd -0 ean 1972 S City USGS Topo Quad, WATER BODY TYPES A (fA jb, ...... .... Ls ................. -j X. -10 BACK BAY -orK I s' . @i n ci - n,, e ed. nd .. ......... R .......... k 'o X5 J" N Xrl@@-*' U U I L- cz@ A 1-24,000 vo'. J X. GENERAL WATER AREA TYPES OCEAN SEMI-ENCLOSED SAY SEMI ENCLOSED BACK SAY ............. .... ............. TIDAL OUTS SPECIAL WATER AREA ........ ......... ... ..... 5h TYPES ........... INLFT S 22e Figure assimilative capacity of the ocean is not unlimited, nor are all the benthic and pelagic and surface organisms equally resilient to stresses. The high energy marine system simultaneously provides opportunity for various uses such as recreation and navigation 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 this location. Uses located within deeper portions have less potential to adversely impact coastal resources or induce impacts such as ocean shoreline instability. 7:7E-4.4 Open Bay (a) Definition This basin type has three depth levels (0'-6', V-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. (b) Policy See Policy Summary Table, Section 7:7E-4.2. (c) Rationale Open bays are the largest estuarine systems within the New Jersey coastal zone. All estuaries provide critical nursery habitat for marine finfish and shellfish and provide organic nutrients for marine/ estuarine food webs. open bays have traditionally been used as commercial shipping entrances to the New Jersey/New York harbors and New Je rsey/Pennsylvania/De I aware harbors, and have consequently suffered from extensive human perturba- tions, with the northern area being more severely disturbed. Open bays have large rivers discharging into their upper portions. Although a less vigorous 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 commer- cial fin and shellfish has been constrained by sewage pollution. These water bodies are subdivided into three categories based solely on water depth. The criteria of depth was used as this factor is closely related to dilution potential. 138 7:7E-4.5 Semi-enclosed and Back Bay (a) Definition This basin type is a partially confined estuary with direct inlet con- nection 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 the 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 two depth levels (0-6', and 6'+). (b) Policy See Policy Summary Table, Section 7:7E-4.2. (c) Rationale 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 perpetua- tion of the coastal ecosystem. Their physically protected geography allows more sensitive or fragile organisms to survive than in the more vigorous ocean and open bays. The vast majority of important marine finfish, shellfish and aquatic birds utilize these areas as critical nursery habitats. 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 flushing. These estuarine water bodies are subdivided into three categories based solely upon the criteria of relative water depth. Deeper water portions 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 biologically detoxify toxic agents. Th i s assimulative capacity is not unlimited however. Shallow water area generally have less potential dilution and flushing. 7:7E-4.6 Tidal Guts (a) Definition This channel type includes tidal waterway connections between two estua- rine bodies of water. Also known as thorofares, tidal guts have no significant freshwater drainage, are tidally influenced and vary in flow rates and natural water depths. Examples range from the Arthur Kill and Kill Van Kull in the developed coast, to Clam Thorofare, Beach Thoro-r fare and Wading Thorofare in the Shore region. 139 (b) Policy See Policy Summary Table, Section 7:7E-4.2. (c) Rationale Tidal Guts are critical areas for estuarine ecology, controlling the mix of salt and fresh water nutrient transport, and movement corridors for aquatic organisms. Guts serve as important access ways for human navi- gation, physical water circulation and tidal flushing of estuaries. 7:7E-4.7 Large Rivers (a) Definition This channel type includes flowing waterways with watersheds greater than 1,000 square miles, which means the Delaware, Hudson, and Raritan Rivers. The Delaware River is a tidal river from the Bridge Street Bridge in Trenton to its mouth at Delaware Bay, defined as a line between Alder Cove, Lower Alloways Creek Township and the Delaware River Basin Com- mission River and Bay Memorial at Liston Point, Delaware. The Hudson River is a tidal river from the New York State Line to its mouth at Upper New York Bay at the Morris Canal, Jersey City. The Raritan River is a tidal river from the Interstate Route 287 Bridge between Piscataway and Franklin townships to its mouth at Raritan Bay and the Arthur Kill. (b) Policy See Policy Summary Table, Section 7:7E-4.2. (c) Rationale Large rivers are the principal freshwater input to the Open Bays, and the critical estuarine functions performed by these bays depends, in large part, on maintenance or improvement of water quality and flow patterns in tidal rivers. These water bodies have a long history of intensive human use, especially in commerce. 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. 7:7E-4.8 Medium Rivers, Streams and Creeks (a) Definition This channel type includes rivers, streams and creeks with a watershed area of less than 1,000 square miles. This includes watercourses such as the Hackensack, Passaic, Oldmans, Big Timber, Pennsauken, Navesink, Manasquan, Toms, Wading, Mullica, Great Egg, Maurice, Cohansey, Salem and Rancocas and smaller streams. 140 (b) Policy See Policy Summary Table, Section 7:7E-4.2. (c) Rationale Medium rivers have from moderate to small discharge rates. Many are tidally influenced and most are relatively shallow, and of smaller volume than large rivers. These factors combine to render these features more susceptible to degradation through human activities. 7:7E-4.9 Lakes, Ponds and Reservoirs (a) Definition This category includes lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, virtually all of which in the unglaciated coastal plain of southern New Jersey are man- made (impoundments). These types are relatively small water bodies with no tidal influence or salinity. . Many are groundwater fed, while others are known to serve as surface aquifer recharge areas. This General Water Area type includes enclosed freshwater basins, both shallow and deep, with little or insignificant flow. Due to the limited extent of this water type, no depth subdivisions are made. Lakes that are the result of former mining operations are not included here, but are defined separately as Wet Borrow Pits. (b) Policy See Policy Summary Table, Section 7:7E-4.2. (c) Rationale Lakes, ponds, and reservoirs have a severely limited ability to flush pollutants owing to limited freshwater inflow and lack of tidal inunda- tion. Pollutants which enter these areas can precipitate to the bottom, remaining a continuing-source of contamination. Certain lakes, ponds and reservoirs also serve as potable surface water sources. 7:7E-4.10 Acceptability Conditions for 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 the important uses of water areas managed by the Coastal Management Program and the conditions under which those uses are acceptable. Some projects involve combinations of uses, such as retaining structures, dredging, and filling. other uses, such as Shore Protection uses, are defined elsewhere under Use Policies. 141 (a) Aquaculture 1. Definition 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. 2. Acceptability Conditions Aquaculture is conditionally acceptable in all General Water Areas provided that: (i) It does not unreasonably conflict with resort or recreation uses, (ii) It does not cause significant adverse off-site environmental impacts, and (iii) It does not present a hazard to navigation. (b) Boat Ramps 1. Definition 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 sufficient to allow the boat to float. Boat ramps are most frequently paved with asphalt or concrete, or covered with metal grates. 2. Acceptability Conditions (i) Where boat ramps are conditionally acceptable, they must meet the following conditions: (a) there is a demonstrated need that cannot be met by existing facilities, and (b) they cause minimal practicable disturbance to intertidal flats or sub- aqueous vegetation. (ii) In all water areas, boat ramps shall be constructed of environ- mentally acceptable materials, such as concrete or oyster shell, and garbage cans shall be provided near the boat ramp. Public use ramps shall have priority over restricted use and private use ramps. (c) Docks and Piers (for Cargo Movement) 1. Definition Docks and piers (for cargo movement) are structures supported on pilings driven into the bottom substrate or floating on the water surface, used for loading and unloading cargo, including fluids, 142 connected to or associated with a single industrial or manufac- turing facility. Policies for docks and piers intended for multiple uses may be found under Use Policies for Ports Uses. Policies for docks composed of fill and retaining structures may be found under the category "Filling". 2. Acceptability Conditions Docks and Piers for cargo movement are conditionally acceptable in most General Water Areas, provided that: (1) they will not pose a hazard to navigation, and (2) the associated use of the adjacent land meets all Coastal Resource and Development Policies. (d) Docks and Piers (Recreational and Fishing) 1. Definition Recreational and fishing docks and piers are structures supported on pilings driven into the bottom substrate, or floating on the water surface, which are used for recreation or fishing or for the mooring of boats which are used for recreation or fishing, including commer- cial fishing. 2. Acceptability Conditions Docks and Piers are conditionally acceptable in General Water Areas bodies provided that: (i) there is a demonstrated need that cannot be satisfied by existing facilities, (ii) the associated upland use satisfies the location policies for water's edge areas, (i ii) the construction minimizes adverse environmental impact to the maximum extent feasible, (iv) the docks and piers are located so as to not hinder navigation or conflict with overhead transmission lines, and (v) there is minimum feasible interruption of natural water flow patterns. Docks and piers on pilings shall be preferred to construction on fill. Repairs and maintenance of existing docks and piers are generally acceptable. (e) Dredging-Maintenance 1. Definition Maintenance dredging is the removal of accumulated sediment from authorized and currently maintained navigation channels, marinas, or boat moorings, for the purpose of maintaining an authorized water depth and width. 2. Acceptability Conditions Maintenance dredging is conditionally acceptable to the authorized depth and width in all existing navigation channels, access chan- nels, anchorages and moorings within all General Water Areas to ensure that adequate water depth is available for safe naviga- tion, provided that an acceptable spoil disposal site exists and 143 turbidity is controlled using best available technology (reference: U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Dredged Material Research Program Report, TR DS-78-22). As necessary on a case-by-case basis to mitigate adverse impacts upon Shellfish Beds (7:7E-3.2), Surf Clam Areas (7:7E-3.3), Finfish Migratory Pathways (7:7E-3.9), and nursery areas for finfish, and to prevent reduction of ambient dissolved oxygen below critical levels, or the increase of turbidity or the resuspension of toxic substances above critical levels, seasonal limitations may be imposed on maintenance dredging. Maintenance dredging is necessary to provide access to marinas, docks, ports, and other appropriate water-dependent facilities. Beach nourishment shall be the priority use of clean dredge spoil when economically feasible. Scouring of channels, anchorages and moorings is acceptable on a case-by-case basis to permit small scale water dependent facilities. (f) Dredging - New 1. Definition 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, or the widening or deepening of navigable channels to a newly authorized depth or width. 2. Acceptability Conditions New dredging is conditionally acceptable in Oceans, Rivers, Creeks and Streams for boat moorings, navigation channels or anchorages (docks) providing that: M there is a demonstrated need that cannot be satisfied by existing facilities, (ii) the facilities served by the new dredging satisfy the location requirements for Special Water's Edge Areas, (iii) the adjacent water areas are currently used for recreational boating, commercial fishing or shipping, (iv) the dredge area causes no significant disturbance to Special Water or Water's Edge Areas, (v) the adverse environmental impacts are minimized to the maximum extent feasible, (vi) dredging will have no adverse impacts on groundwater resources, (vii) an acceptable dredge spoil disposal site exists, (viii) the dredged area is reduced to the minimum practical and (ix) turbidity is controlled during the dredging operation using best available technology (reference: U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Dredged Material Research Program Report, TR D5-78-22). As necessary on a case-by-case basis to mitigate adverse impacts upon Shellfish Beds (7:7E-3.2), Surf Clam Areas (7:7E-3.3), Finfish Migratory Pathways (7:7E-3.9), and nursery areas for finfish, and to prevent reduction of ambient dissolved oxygen below critical levels, or the increase of turbidity or the resuspension of toxic substances above critical levels, seasonal limitations may be imposed on new dredging. 144 New dredging or excavation to create new lagoons for residential development is prohibited. New dredging in Lakes, Ponds and Reser- voirs, Bays and Guts is discouraged. New dredging is conditionally acceptable to control siltation in Lakes, Ponds and Reservoirs. (g) Dredge Spoil Disposal 1. Definition Dredge spoil disposal is the discharge of sediments (spoils) removed during dredging operations. 2. Acceptability Conditions Dredge Spoil Disposal is prohibited in Tidal Guts, and Medium Rivers, Creeks and Streams, and discouraged in Open Bays and Semi- Enclosed and Back Bays when the water depth is less than 6 feet. Spoil disposal by sidecasting in these water body types when shallow waters preclude removal of the dredge spoil from the area is condi- tionally acceptable on a case by case basis. Disposal of dredge spoils in the ocean and bays deeper than six feet is conditionallly acceptable provided that it is in conformance with USEPA guidelines (40 CFR 230, 40 FR 41291, September 5, 1975) established under Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act. EPA guidelines require that consideration be given to the need for the proposed activity, the availability of alternate sites and methods of disposal that are less damaging to the environment, and applicable water quality standards. They also require that the choice of site minimize harm to municipal water supply intakes, shellfish, fisheries, wildlife, recreation, threatened and endan- gered species, benthic life, wetlands and submerged vegetation, and that it be confined to the smallest practicable area. Clean dredge sediments of suitable particle size are acceptable for beach nourishment on ocean or open bay shores. The use of clean dredge spoil to create new wetlands in any General Water Area is conditionally acceptable depending upon an evaluation of the biological value of the wetlands gained compared with the water area lost. Spoil disposal in Lakes, Ponds and Reservoir is conditionally acceptable provided that the spoil is adequately contained. Note: Conditions for Dredge Spoil Disposal on land are indicated in Section 7:7E-7.12. 145 M Dumping (Solid Waste or Sludge) I. Definition The dumping of solid waste or sludge is the discharge of solid or semi-solid waste material from industrial or domestic sources or sewage treatment operations into a water area. 2. Acceptability Conditions The dumping of solid or semi-solid waste of any description in any coastal water is prohibited. M Filling 1. Definition Filling is the deposition of inorganic material (sand, soil, earth, dredge spoils, etc.) into water areas for the purpose of raising water bottom elevations to create land areas. 2. Acceptability Conditions (i) Filling is prohibited in lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and open bay areas at depths greater than 18 feet. (ii) In all other water areas, filling is discouraged, but limited filling may be considered for acceptability provided that: (a) the use that requires the fill is water dependent, (b) there is a demonstrated need that cannot be satisfied by existing facilities, (c) there is no feasible or practical alternative site on an existing Water's Edge. (d) the minimum practical area is filled, (e) the adverse environmental impacts are minimized, and (f) minimal feasible interference is caused to Special Areas, and (g) pilings and columnar support or floating structures cannot serve the use. (iii) Filling to create docks and wharves is conditionally acceptable provided that construction of the dock or wharf on pilings would be infeasible. (iv) Filling using clean sediment of suitable particle size and composition is acceptable for beach nourishment projects (see the Coastal Engineering Use Policies 7:7E-7.11), and condi- tionally acceptable for the creation of new wetlands. (j) Piling 1. Definition Piling is the insertion of columnar structural members into the water bottom substrate. 146 2. Acceptability Conditions When pilings are an element of docks and moorings they must meet the acceptability conditions for those. uses. The placement of pilings for other purposes is discouraged in lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and ocean and bay waters greater than 18 feet in depth. Elsewhere pilings are conditionally acceptable provided that they are not a hazard to navigation. (k) Mooring 1. Definition A boat mooring is a temporary or permanent, piling or floating anchored facility in a water body for the purpose of attaching a boat. 2. Acceptability Conditions Temporary or permanent boat mooring areas are conditionally accept- able in all General Water Areas provided that the mooring area is adequately marked and is not a hazard to navigation. (1) Sand and Gravel Extraction 1. Definition Sand and gravel extraction is the removal of sand or gravel from the water bottom substrate, usually by suction dredge, for the purpose of using the sand or gravel at another location. 2. Acceptability Conditions Sand and gravel extraction is prohibited in Lakes, Ponds and Reser- voirs, and Tidal Guts. This activity is discouraged in all other General Water Areas except the deep Ocean and Rivers, Creeks, and Streams. In these General Water Area types, extraction is conditionally acceptable provided that: M Special Areas are not directly or indirectly degraded, (ii) turbidity and resuspension of toxic materials is controlled throughout the extraction operation through use of the best available mitigation technology, (iii) there is an acceptable disposal site for the waste from washing operations, and (iv) in rivers, creeks and streams, the depth of water at the mining site is at least six feet. 147 (m) Bridges 1. Definition A bridge is any continuous structure spanning a water body, except for an overhead transmission line. 2. Acceptability Conditions Bridges are conditionally acceptable over rivers, streams, and tidal guts provided that: (i) there is a demonstrated need that cannot be satisfied by existing facilities, (ii) applicable Location and Resource Policies are satisfied, with special attention to Resource Policies on Secondary Impacts, (iii) pedestrian use is provided for I and (iv) fishing catwalks and platforms are provided to the maximum extent practicable. (n) Submerged Infrastructure 1. Definition Cables are solid underwater lines such as telecommunication cables or electrical transmission lines. Pipelines are hollow underwater pipes laid, buried, or trenched for the purpose of transmitting fluids. Examples would be crude oil, natural gas, water, petroleum products or sewage pipelines. Con- struction of an underwater pipeline may involve trenching, temporary trench spoil storage, and back filling, or jetting as an alternative to trenching. 2. Acceptability Conditions Submerged Infrastructure are conditionally acceptable provided that they are not sited within Special Areas, unless no prudent and feasible alternate route exists. In the case of pipelines, the following conditions must also be met. (i) trenching takes place to a sufficient depth and is backfilled, either through natural or mechanical means to avoid puncturing or snagging anchors or sea clam dredges, and (ii) the pipeline is sufficiently deep to avoid uncov- ering by erosion of water currents, (iii) the conditions outlined for pipelines in the Use Policies (See Section 7:7E-7.4) are satis- fied. Temporary trench spoil storage and back filling as part of pipeline trenching is acceptable provided that bottom contours are rees- tablished following trench spoil removal to the original bottom contours, to the maximum extent practicable. Jetting pipelines into bottom sediments is conditionally acceptable provided that trenching and backfilling are impractical. In the case of Cable routes, the following additional conditions must be met: M the route avoids areas where anchors may foul the cable, and (ii) the alignment of the cable route is marked at the landfall and by buoys at the surface. 148 (o) Overhead Transmission Lines 1. Definition Overhead transmission lines are electrically conducting wires hung between supporting pylons for the transmission of electrical power from generating plant to the site of consumption. i 2. Acceptability Conditions Overhead transmission lines are prohibited or discouraged, except over Rivers, Streams, Creeks and Tidal Guts, where transmission lines will be considered for acceptability provided that: M there is a demonstrated need that cannot be satisfied by existing facili- ties, (ii) there is no feasible alternate route that avoids crossing water bodies, (iii) further development likely to be induced by the transmission lines is acceptable, (iv) the transmission line pro- vides adequate vertical clearance for masts, and (v) visual impacts are minimized to the maximum extent practicable. (p) Dams and Impoundments 1. Definition 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. 2. Acceptability Conditions Dams and impoundments are impractical in many water body types, prohibited in other water body types, and discouraged in specified water body types (see Figure 21), unless essential for water supply purposes or the creation of special wildlife habitats. (q) Outfalls and Intakes 1. Definition Outfalls and intakes are opening in pipes that are located in Water Areas for the purpose of intake of water or discharge of effluent including sewage, stormwater and industrial effluents. 2. Acceptability Conditions Outfalls and intakes are conditionally acceptable in most water bodies provided that the use associated with the intake or outfall meets the Coastal Resource and Development Policies. The Water Areas policy applies only to the location of the mouth of the pipes, not to the effluent or the amount of diversion. 149 (r) Realignment of Waterways 1. Definition Realignment of waterways means changing the configuration of any water body. 2. Acceptability Conditions M Realignment of natural (naturally occurring, unaltered) water- courses is discouraged. (ii) Realignment of previously altered watercourses is conditionally acceptable, provided that is can be demonstrated that no adverse environmental impacts (i.e. water quality, flood ,hazard, species diversity reduction/alteration) will result, or other Resource Policies will be contravened, by the realign- ment; that a net recreational/ecological benefit will demon- strably accrue; and that there is no net loss (in linear feet or area) of river bed environment. (s) Miscellaneous 1. Definition Miscellaneous includes uses of Water Areas not specifically defined in this section or addressed in the Use Policies. 2. Acceptability Conditions 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. 150 SUBCHAPTER 5 - GENERAL LAND AREAS 7:7E-5.1 Definition General Land Areas include all mainland land features located upland of Special Water's Edge Areas. General Land Areas begin at the inland limit of soils with a seasonal high water table equal to, or less than, one foot; the one hundred year flood hazard line, whether tidal or fluvial; the inland limit of water'-s edge fill; or the inland limit of coastal bluffs, whichever is farthest inland from the water's.edge. 7:7E-5.2 Acceptability of Development in General Land Areas (a) 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: 1. Coastal Growth Rating, 2. Environmental Sensitivity, and 3. Development Potential Assessment of these three factors indicates the appropriate pattern of development from a broad, regional perspective and provides a method for determining the acceptable intensity of development of specific sites, as well as entire regions. (b) Determination of the specific policy for a Land Area site is a four step process. First, the Coastal Growth Rating is determined. Second, the Environmental Sensitivity and Development Potential of the site are determined. Third, the Land Acceptability Table (Section 7:7E-5.7) for the appropriate region is consulted to determine the acceptable intensity of development of the site, given the three possible combinations of Development Potential and Envi- ronmental Sensitivity factors for the site or parts of the sites. Fourth, the proposed intensity of development of the site is com- pared with the acceptable intensity of development for the site. (c) Coastal development which does not conform with the acceptable intensity of development of a site is discouraged. 7:7E-5.3 Coastal Growth Rating (a) Introduction The coastal zone is classified into thirteen different regions on the basis of the varied pattern of existing coastal development and natural and cultural resources (see Figure 23). For these regions, DEP uses three broad regional growth strategies: 151 1 Development Region - This region is already largely developed. From a coastwide pFr-spective, development in this region would be in fill development. In accordance with the coastal policy on concentration of development, development in this region is preferred over devel- opment in other regions, other factors being equal. Infill, exten- sion and some scattered development is acceptable here. Development in these regions, however, must be consistent with Recreation and Public Access Policies. 2. Extension Region - This region is the region where development sGuld be channelled after full development of the Development Region. Generally, infill and some extension of development is acceptable here. 3. Limited Growth Region - This region contains large environmentally sensiti've areas. Generally, only infill development is acceptable here. (b) Barrier Island Region The oceanfront barrier islands and spits constitute the Barrier island Region. The Land Areas Policy does not apply to the Barrier Island Region, which is composed entirely of various Special Areas. (c) Urban Areas Region Each of the Urban Aid municipalities identified below is considered an urban area. The urban areas are designated development areas. Atlantic Monmouth Atlantic City Asbury Park Keansburg Camden Long Branch Camden Neptune Township Cumberland Ocean Wrl"d-geton Lakewood Millville Passaic Essex Passaic Newark Hudson Bayonne Hoboken Union Jersey City E7izabeth North Bergen Rahway West New York Middlesex Mercer New Brunswick Trenton Perth Amboy 152 GROWTH REGIONS OF THE COASTAL ZONE %---- P,% 3 3 -0 M R SL HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS t- DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT REGION NORTHERN WATERFRONT EXTENSION REGION S 0 AREA m--rA", 1, S__@ LIMITED GROWTH REGION - ----- (Development BARRIER ISLAND D Revlon) HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT iAl, E"r- E A t NORTH SHORE A@ III 'M,,' 0 uNJ OUTSIDE OF COASTAL ZONE NOTE' SNOWTN DESIGNATIONS APPLY ONLY WITHIN DBMS%&, LAND AMILAG. ----------- DELAWARE RIVER AREA (Development CENTRAL SHORE Region) 0 U Ri, L I N @--T PENNSYLVANIA r@v WESTERN OCEAN 77 1 DELAWA ur E 7- "",7" C C M - ------------ f, BARRIER ISLAND 017C E BARNEGAT CORRIDOR 5 k-JIZ-,,E 1101 --7 Y'- MULLICA SOUTH OCEAN IL A W,, T I TUCKERTON BARRIER ISLAND 6 ABSECON SOMERS POINT *DELAWARE SH RE GREAT EGG HARBOR . ........ .. D E L\@ W A R E THE CITIES OF SAIDGET 0 B\A Y AND MILLVILLE 401 0!:,.:: ATED O1V9LOFN 1, @-9-L SOUTH ERNN Riga I-E 153 (d) North Shore Region The No@_th-Shore Region includes those portions of Monmouth and Middlesex County that @@::-within the Bay and Ocean Shore Region and is designated a Development Region. (e) Central Shore Region The Central Shore 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 designated a Development Region. M 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 an Extension Region. (g) 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 an Extension Region. (h) Mullica-Southern Ocean Region The Mullica-Southern Ocean Region 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 (Jimmy Leeds Road), located within the Bay and Ocean Shore Region, and is designated a Limited Growth Region. W Tuckerton Region The Tuckerton Region is bounded on the west by the Burling ton-Ocean County border, on the north by U.S. Highway 9, Otis Bog Road, Nugentown Road and the Tuckerton Borough Line, and on the south and east by Little Egg Harbor, Big Thorofare, Big Creek, Great Bay and the Mullica River The Tuckerton Region is designated an Extension Region.* (j) Absecon-Somers Point Region The Absecon-Somers Point Region includes those mainland portions of Atlantic County south of County Road 561 (Jimmy Leeds Road), and east of Garden State Parkway, and is designated a Development Region. W 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 Limited-Growth Region. 154 (1) 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 and Barrier Island Region, is designated an Extension Region. (m) Delaware Bayshore Region All of Cumberland County and Salem County within the Bay and Ocean Shore Region is designated a Limited Growth Region, with the exception of the Cities of Bridgeton and Millville which are designated a Development Region. (n) Delaware River Region The area north of the Delaware Memorial Bridge to the coastal zone boundary in Trenton is designated a Development Region, except for land designated as a Low Growth Area by the State Development Guide Plan Concept Map. Such land is along Oldmans Creek eastward of Route 1-295, and along Rancocas Creek and its tributaries in Medford and Southampton Townships, and is designated for Limited Growth. (o) Northern Waterfront Region The entire coastal zone from Cheesequake Creek in Middlesex County to the New York State boundary is designated a Development Region. 7:7E-5.4 Environmental Sensitivity Rating (a) Introduction Environmental Sensitivity is a composite indication of the general suitability of a land area for development based on three factors -- (1) vegetation, (2) fertile soils, and (3) high permeability wet soils -- that are combined to indicate 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. (b) High Environmental Sensitivity High Environmental Sensitivity Areas are land areas with: (1) forest vegetation, and (2) high soil productivity or high permeability wet soils adjacent to a stream channel (permanent or ephemeral), as defined below. All of the following Special Area types shall also be considered High Environmental Sensitivity areas: Farmland Conservation Areas, Steep Slopes, Endangered or Threatened Wildlife or Vegetation Species Habitats, and Critical Wildlife Habitats. (c) Moderate Environmental Sensitivity Moderate Environmental Sensitivity Areas are neither High nor Low Envi- ronmental Sensitivity Areas. 155 (d) Low Environmental Sensitivity LowEnvironmental Sensitivity Areas are areas with: (1) onsite paving or structures on at least 50% of the project site or (2) areas with bare earth or herbacious vegetation or early successional meadow with low soil fertility, and large depth to seasonal high water table. (e) Definitions of Environmental Sensitivity Factors 1. Forest vegetation is defined as a natural community of trees and shrubs with tree species predominantly those of the late succes- sional stage for the region with a majority of trees more than ten years old. 2. High soil productivity is defined as soils with Agricultural Capa- bility Class I, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in National Cooperative Soil Surveys. Low soil productivity is any soil designated by Agricultural Capability Class IV-VIII. 3. High permeability 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 pri- marily the following coastal soils series: Atsion (At), Hammonton (HaA), Klej (KmA), and Lakehurst MaA, LeB, and LeC)] (LmA and LhA). 4. Large depth to seasonal high water table is defined as a depth to seasonal high water table of more-than five feet. Rationale 1. High Environmental Sensitivity This ranking is given to land areas where combinations of environ- mental 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. These 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 absorption. These areas have value both for the functions they now perform in a developing area and as a limited land bank of the most productive soils. Second, where forest vegetation coincides with a rapid soil percolation rate and a shallow depth to 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 depth to water table are especially sensi- tive 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 156 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. 2. Medium Environmental Sensitivity These are land areas that are neither especially sensitive or insensitive to development. 3. Low Environmental Sensitivity This ranking is given to areas where there would be particularly little loss of valued resources or sensitivity to impacts of concern if development took place. All 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 rela- tively large distance to ground water and therefore little potential for transferring adverse impacts. 7:7E-5.5 Development Potential (a) Introduction Development Potential has three levels -- High, Medium and Low -- depend- ing 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 cate@- gories 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. (b) Residential Development Potential 1. scope The Residential Development category includes housing, including retirement communities, hotels, motels, and minor commercial facili- ties of a neighborhood or community scale. 2. High Potential sites meet all of the following criteria: W Roads - Direct access from the site to an existing paved public road with sufficient capacity to absorb satisfactorily the traffic generated by the proposed development, or in Develop- ment Regions, direct access to roads which either in their 157 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. (ii) Sewage - Direct access to a wastewater treatment system, fncluding 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 Development Regions, access to existing or an approved wastewater treatment system. (iii) Infill - At least 50% of the boundary length of the site is eit Eer immediately adjacent to, or directly across a railroad or public road from any of the following types of development: - residential development at densities of at least one dwelling unit per 2 acres - commercial development - industrial development, including warehouses - schools and other public institutions - ballfields - public park areas developed for recreational use - transportation facilities including train stations and airfields. Site boundaries adjacent to wetlands or surface water shall not be included when making infill determinations. (See Figure 24) Medium Potential sites do not meet all of the criteria for High Potential sites and do not meet any of the criteria for Low Poten- tial sites. 3. Low Potential sites in Low or Moderate Growth Regions meet any one of following criteria: (i) Roads - Site located more than 1,000 feet from the nearest pav7epublic road, (ii) Sewage - Site located more than 1,000 feet from an adequate wastewater treatment system, or soils unsuitable for on-site sewage disposal systems, (iii) Infill - No development at a comparable scale or density is adjacent to the site boundary. 4. In Development Regions, Low Potential sites meet either of the fol- lowing criteria: W Roads - Site located more than 1,000 feet from the nearest 1_7 existi"ng paved or proposed public road, or (ii) Sewage - Site located more than 1,000 feet from existing or approved adequate wastewater treatment system. (iii) Infill - No requirement. 158 Figure 24 INFILL CRITERIA FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ...... .......... -STREET DEVELOPED UNDEVELOPED THIS IS INFILL STREET < 50% OF BOUNDARY LENGTHS DEVELOPED ------ UNDEVELOPED THIS IS INFILL STREET :EVELOPIO L------ FOOEVELOPM L THIS IS. NO INFILL 159 (c) Major Commercial and Industrial Development Potential 1. Scope The Major Commercial and Industrial Development category includes all industrial development, warehouses, manufacturing plants, wholesale and major regional shopping centers, and major parking facilities. 2. High Potential sites meet all of the following criteria: (i) Roads - Direct access from the site to a paved public road with s=uicient capacity to absorb satisfactorily the traffic generated by the proposed development, or in Development Regions direct access to roads which either in their existing state, or with improvements included in the proposed develop- ment, provide adequate capacity. Sites shall also be within two miles of an existing intersec- tion 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. (ii) 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. In Development 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 capacity. 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. (iii) Infill - A part of the site boundary shall be either immedi- ately adjacent to, or immediately across a road from, existing major commercial or industrial development, or in Development Regions, either the property proposed for development, or an adjacent property, is adjacent to existing commercial or residential devleopments. 3. Medium Potential sites do not meet all of the criteria for High Potential sites and do not meet any o-f-the criteria for Low Poten- tial sites. 160 4. Low Potential sites meet any one of the following criteria: (i) Roads - A site located more than 1,000 feet from the nearest paveT public road and more than 5 miles from the nearest intersection with a limited access highway, parkway or express- way, except in Development Regions where the site may be located more than 1,000 feet from the nearest paved public road. (ii) Infill - A site located more than one-half mile from the nearest existing commercial or industrial development of more than 20,000 square feet building area. (d) Campground Development Potential 1. Scope A campground development provides facilities for visitors to enjoy the natural resources of the coast. Typically, this type of devel- opment seeks sites somewhat isolated from other development and with access to water, beach, forest and other natural amenities. 2. High Potential sites meet all of the following criteria: W Roads - Sites shall have direct access to a paved public or private road of adequate capacity to serve the needs of the development. (ii) 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. (iii) Region - The region surrounding the site is natural, unde- veloped and contains either beaches, streams, or forests, and is readily accessible by foot to campground u.sers. 3. Medium Potential sites do not meet all of the criteria for High Potential sites ind do not meet any o-r-the criteria for low poten- tial sites. 4. Low Potential sites meet any one of the following criteria: (i) Roads - More than one-half mile to the nearest public paved road. (ii) Sewage - More than 1,000 feet to the nearest sewer with suffi- 7-ient capacity for the needs of the development and soils unsuitable for subsurface sewage disposal systems. (iii) Region - The region surrounding the site is at least partially developed or is not accessible by foot to campground users. 161 (e) Energy Facility Development Potential Development Potential Rankings for energy facilities shall be jointly determined by NJDEP and NJDOE on a case by case basis pending completion of energy facility siting studies. (f) 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 concen- trate the pattern of development by serving as infill to existing pat- terns 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 perspec- tive. Use of the development potential factor stresses the advantages of existing settled areas and emphasizes the disadvantages of sparsely. settled areas in determining the acceptability of locations. This factor promotes efficient capital investment in public infrastructure and community facilities, as well as conservation of open space. 7:7E-5.6 Definition of Acceptable Intensity of Development (a) introduction The Location Policy for General Land Areas is expressed in terms of three acceptable intensities of development of the site as determined by consulting the Land Acceptability Tables for the appropriate region. Th e acceptable intensities of development are expressed in terms of maximum and minimum acceptable percentages of the gross area of the 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. The acceptable maximum and minimum figures are percentages of the gross site area. Thus if a site were 100 acres of land with no special areas and the analysis showed acceptability for high intensity development, 80-90 acres of the site could be developed with paving and structure. on sites with Special Areas which must remain undeveloped the developable area would be reduced. For example, if a site is 100 acres with 10 acres of wetlands and 20 acres of Endangered Species Habitat, only 70 acres would be acceptable for structures and paving, even if the land analysis showed acceptability for high intensity development which would allow 80-90 acres of a site to be developed (See Figure 25). In some sites, clustering of development may be necessary if an applicant wishes to realize the acceptable maximum percentages. For example, on a 100 acre site proposed for housing with 20 acres of Floodplain and 30 acres of wetland and an acceptability for moderate intensity development, 30-40 acres of paving and structures would be acceptable. This repre- sents 60%-80% of the General Land Area. These percentages are associated with higher density clustered housing rather than detached structures. In the General Land Area, the minimum vegetation figures are relaxed since vegetation is preserved in the water's edge or special areas. 162 Figure 25 ACCEPTABLE, INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT CASE 2 SPECIAL AREAS CASE I NO SPECIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTED IN 30 AC. SPECIAL AREA 100 AC. 100 AC. Ia. HIGH INTENSITY ACCEPTABILITY 2a HIGH INTENSITY 80 - 90 AC. ACCEPTABILITY 70 AC. S. A. lb. MOD. INTENSITY ACCEPTABILITY Zb. MOD. INTENSITY 30 - 40 AC. ACCEPTABILITY 30 - 40 AC. S. A.I V//) Ic. LOW INTENSITY ACCEPTABILITY 2c. LOW INTENSITY 3 - 5 AC. ACCEPTABILITY 3-5 AC. 9. A. Ed AREA WHERE DEVELOPMENT IS ACCEPTABLE VA 9 163 (b) High Intensity Development This level of development permits extensive development of paving and structures. Typically, if analysis showed that most of a large area was acceptable for intensive development, the landscape that would be pro- duced would be urban or heavily industrialized. The photomaps below show examples of typical High Intensity Development landscapes. _4( k Vr jr- A- IBM I 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 Maximum 80% 90% 95% - Minimum - - 5% 5% (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 microclimate con- trol, aquifer recharge and visual screening. A developer planning to use pervious paving can, as a bonus, develop a larger percentage of the area. ::@X_171 164 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 shall be at least 6 feet high at a minimum density of 1 per 100 sq. ft. Forest areas shall be pro- tected from trampling. 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 In tensity Development must be compatible in density with its sur- rounding region. (c) Moderate Intensity Development At this level of development, between 30 and 40 percent of a site can be developed in paving and structures. Typically, if analysis showed that most of a large area was acceptable for moderate intensity develop- ment, the landscape that would be produced would be suburban. The photomaps below show examples of Moderate Intensity Development land- scapes. 4- z' /A 165 For sites 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% The 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 vegeta- tion is preserved or planted for microclimate control, energy conserva- tion, soil stabilization, aquifer recharge and wildlife habitat. Where the site has no existing forest, this percentage 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 I 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. (d) Low Intensity Development At this level of development intensity, the existing conditions of the site are not to be disturbed, except for selective removal of vegetation for agricultural use or maintenance purposes. Also, no grading, paving or structures would be allowed except for agriculture related use. Typically the landscape Of Low Intensity Development areas would be rural, agricultural, or forest, as shown below in the photomaps. An exception to this general rule is the removal of vegetation for agri- cultural or silvicultual purposes or for recreational use that does not disturb soils. Unless the vegetation is in a special area, the following figures are applicable. 166 Low Intensity Structures and Permeable Development Impervious Paving Paving Herb and Shrub Forest Maximum 3% 5% 95% - Minimum - - - 5% fi, P.111 4k. 7:7E-5.7 Land Acceptability Tables (a) Introduction The Land Acceptability Tables, one for each of the three regional growth types, indicate the acceptable intensity of development of a site or parts of a site, for each of the nine possible combinations of Environ- mental Sensitivity and Development Potential factors in each table. Since Development Potential applies to an entire site, each site can have a maximum of three different levels of acceptable intensity, if it has three areas with different levels of Environmental Sensitivity. 167 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 I 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 H Land Acceptability Table: High Growth Region (Urban Areas, NortherLW!ten ont, Northern, Central, [and) c.n-9..er Point g@o and belaware Kiver) ACCEPTABLE DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL SENSITIVITY INTENSITY Lin High Moderate Low Numb:r High Medium Low Low Medium High Intensity In tensity Intensity I 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 Ix I I x x 9 IX I I I XI I Land Acceptability Table: Low Growth (Mullica-Southern Ocean, Great Egg Harbor River Basin, and Delaware Bayshore Regions) ACCEPTABLE DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL SENSITIVITY INTENSITY Lin High Moderate Low N,b:r High Medium Low Low Mediu High Intensity Intensity Intensity 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 168 (b) 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 features of the site. DEP has categorized the Coastal Zone into fourteen regions because the coastal zone is not uniform. Descriptions of the regions make possible a more graphic, though still generalized, picture of its future. The regions are: Barrier Island, Urban Areas, Northern Waterfront Area, Northern, Central, Western Ocean, Barnegat Corridor, Mullica-South Ocean, Tuckerton, Absecon-Somers Point, Great Egg Harbor, Southern Bay Shore, and Delaware River Area. Also, different broad growt@ policies -- Development, Extension of Development and Limited Growth are appropriate for these regions. Environmental Sensitivity is wdighed more heavily in Limited Growth Regions than in Development Regions. Development Potential is weighed more heavily in Development Regions. The fourteen regions of the coast are divided into three regional growth types as follows: Development: Urban, Northern, Central, Absecon-Somers Point, Northern Waterfront and Delaware River Area; Extension of Growth: Western Ocean County, Barnegat Corridor, Tuckerton and Southern; Limited Growth: Delaware Bayshore, Mullica-Southern Ocean and Great Egg Harbor River Basin. The general growth policies are the basis for the distribution of the development acceptability. The three land acceptability tables show that in Development Regions, - development potential is favored to promote growth, and in Limited Growth areas environmental sensitivity is favored to promote conservation. This general policy affects the tables as follows: 1. Development Regions (Urban, Northern Waterfront, Northern, Central, Absecon-Somers Point and Delaware River) The general policy in these regions is to promote growth through infill and limited extension. In the Northern and Absecon areas, as well as urban areas throughout the coastal zone, most growth will take place in high potential infill sites because of the pattern and density of exist- ing development. In the eastern Central region, growth may occur through both infill and extension. The question here is how much to limit the extension and scattering of development so that orderly growth is pro- moted that does not induce sprawl without unreasonably interfering with the sequence in which sites are developed. In this Development category, the criteria of both high and low develop- ment potential are changed to make it easier to obtain a high or medium ranking. For example, proposals for residential developments 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 169 planned growth,. the requirement that a site must be infill to qualify for medium development potential does not apply. This definition identi- fies areas where growth is currently planned and then assigns acceptable development intensities as if the infrastructure were in place, which allows non-sequential development. The definition of levels of environ- mental sensitivity is the same throughout the tables. Area Types 1, 2, 3 In these areas development potential is high. Basically these are infill sites. In a Development Region these are prime development areas, satisfying the policy of concentration, so development potential is weighed heavily. Area 1 There is no conflict in this area. Sites with high development potential and low environmental sensitivity are suitable for any intensity of devel- opment compatible with their surroundings. Area 2. There is little conflict in this area. In Development Regions 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. Area 3. This is an area of high conflict. Development in these areas encroaches upon fertile forests and forested areas around streams with wet high permea- bility soils. However, because of the high potential and Development Region designations, moderate intensity development is considered acceptable to promote growth. Development on sites, or parts of sites, that are included on this area shall minimize disturbance 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 essen- tial. Areas 4, 5, 6 In these three areas the development potential moves to medium. In Development Regions development potential is also weighed heavily, though less than in the first three areas. The balance is designed to conserve the limited areas of high sensitivity that occur in Development Regions as open space for surrounding developments. Area 4. The environmental sensitivity is low and development of any compatible intensity is appropriate to promote growth. 170 Area 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 moderate sensitivity areas. Area 6. This is an area of conflict. Here high environmental sensitivity overrides development potential. Almost all the high sensitivity areas in the Development 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. Areas 7, 8, 9 In these three areas, 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 Development Regions 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 Development Regions. 171 Area 7. This is the only area of these three where conflict arises between the policy of promoting development in Development Regions and the policy of discouraging sprawl. The criteria for low potential in Develop- ment Regions 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 area to restrict scattered development in unsewered sandy soils. Areas 8 & 9 In these two areas, environmental sensitivity over- rides development potential to prevent scattered development into areas of low potential where resource loss and impacts are of concern. 2. Extension Regions (Western Ocean County, Barnegat Corridor, Tucker- ton and Sout ern 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 trans- portation systems, particularly buses. Because of this policy, development acceptability is more limited in areas of extension. Environmental sensitivity is weighed more heavily than in Development Regions. The criteria for inclusion in development and extension 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 Extension Regions. Areas 1, 2, 3 In these three areas, 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. Areas I & 2 Here development potential overrides environmental sensitivity. The acceptable development intensity is kept high in both areas to promote clustering in the growth nodes. Area 3. This is an area 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 172 area 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. Areas 4, 5, 6 In these three areas, 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 the Southern Region, 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 there- fore possible. To allow limited growth, development potential partly overrides environmental sensitivity in all but the most sensitive areas to allow moderate intensity development. Areas 4 & 5 Here moderate intensity development is acceptable to allow very limited extensions of existing road- side developments. Area 6. Here the most sensitive areas are conserved from ribbon development both to prevent sprawl in Exten- sion Regions and to protect valued and sensitive land areas. Areas 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. 3. Limited Growth Areas (Delaware Bayshore, Mullica-Southern Ocean Great Egg Harbor River Basin) The general policy in these areas is that conservation is more important than development and environmental sensitivity is there- fore weighed more heavily than other areas. In the Delaware Bay- shore, 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 sensi- tivity. Areas I & 2 These areas 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. 173 Areas 3 to 9 In these areas development is restricted in Limited Growth Regions either because the lower development potential implies ribbon or scattered sprawl in conf1ict with the subregional growth policy or, to conserve the environmentally sensitive areas which are more valuable in Limited Growth Regions than elsewhere. (c) Determination of Location Acceptability The location acceptability of a coastal development proposed for a General Land Area is determined by comparing the site plan of the proposed development, with the acceptable minimum and maximum percentages of the site for structures, paving, herb and shrub vegetation, and forest vegetation, as specified in the three levels of acceptable devel- opment intensity in the Land Acceptability Tables that apply to the site or parts of the site. The percentages of the proposed development's site plan shall conform with the percentages determined using the Land Accept- ability Tables, to the maximum extent practicable. 174 SUBCHAPTER 6 - GENERAL LOCATION POLICIES 7:7E-6.1 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 acceptable route, to the maximum extent practicable. If part of the proposed alignment of a linear development is found to be unacceptable under the specific location policies, that alignment (perhaps not the least possible 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 long term loss of unique or irreplace- able areas, (c) 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. 7:7E-6.2 Basic 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. 7:7E-6.3 Secondary Impacts (a) Definition Secondary impacts are the effects of additional development likely to be constructed as a result of the approval of a particular proposal. (b) 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 analy- sis are expected to vary depending upon the type of development. Minor projects may not even require such an anaylsis. Transportation and 175 wastewater treatment systems are the principal types of development that require a secondary impact analysis, but major industrial, energy, commercial, residential, and other projects may also require a rigorous secondary impact analysis. Secondary impact analysis must include an analysis of the likely geo- graphic extent of induced development, its relationship to the State Development Guide Plan Concept Map, an assessment of likely induced point and non-point air and water quality impacts, and evaluation of the induced development in terms of all applicable Coastal Resource and Development Policies. Models for secondary impact analysis may be found in New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Division of State and Regional Planning, Secondary Impacts of Regional Sewerage Systems (1975) and in USEPA, Manual for Evaluating Secondary Impacts of Wastewater Treatment Facilities (EPA-600/5-78-003, 1978). (c) Rationale Further development stimulated by new development and the cumulative effects of coastal development, including development 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. 176 SUBCHAPTER 7 - USE POLICIES 7:7E-7.1 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. Use policies are policies and conditions addressed to parti- cular kinds of development. Use policies do not pre-empt location policies which restrict development, unless specifically stated. In general, they introduce conditions which must be satisfied in addition to the Location Policies, and the Resource Policies described in the follow- ing section. 7:7E-7.2 Housing Use Policies (a) Definition Housing 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. (b) Water Area and Water's Edge Housing 1. Policy M New housing development is prohibited in Water Areas outside Special Urban Areas except for reconstruction of existing residential structures on pilings located on guts, canals, lagoons and ports which have been damaged by causes other than wind, water or wave, which is conditionally acceptable. In Special Urban Areas, new housing development is acceptable in Water Areas on existing pilings, provided public access between the residential units and the water body is not restricted. (.ii) New Housing development is conditionally acceptable in the Filled Water's Edge, provided that: (a) it would not preempt use of the waterfront portion of the Filled Water's Edge for potential water dependent uses, (b) the site fulfills the General Land Area criteria for moderate or high intensity development, and (c) public access along the water's edge is not restricted. (iii) New housing development involving the stabilization of existing lagoons through revegetation, bulkheading or other means is conditionally acceptable provided that the conditions of the Existing Lagoon Edges policy are satisfied. 2. Rationale Housing is not dependent on water access, and does not generally qualify for exceptions to the policy of restricting non-water dependent development along the water's edge. In addition to this general restriction, most of the Special Area policies contain specific restrictions that have the practical effect of discouraging or prohibiting new development, including housing, from sensitive areas. 177 (c) Cluster Development 1. Policy Housing developments are encouraged to cluster dwelling units on the areas of sites most suitable for development. 2. 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 define 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, appli- cants 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 appropriate, especially for the protection of sensi- tive areas. Cluster developments lessen the impact of construction by preserving valued soil, open space, vegetation and aquifer recharge resources. Some cluster developments also increase insulation and reduce energy consumption due to shared walls between units. (d) Residential mix 1. Policy Housing development that provides for a mix of dwelling types and for persons of different age and income groups is encouraged. 2. 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 post-war pattern of highly stratified development that has taken place in the process of suburbanization of the coastal zone. At the same time, the coastal region already provides specialized dwelling types for particular groups, such as senior citizens. (e) Fair Share Housing 1. Policy Residential development is encouraged to help municipalities to accommodate their fair share of the regional need for low and moderate income housing, as defined in "A Revised Statewide Housing Allocation Report for New Jersey" (Department of Community Affairs, 178 Division of State and Regional Planning, Bureau of Urban Planning, May, 1978). Residential developments shall provide least cost housing where feasible, especially in Development Regions and in municipalities not presently providing their fair share of low and moderate income housing. 2. 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 Division of State and Regional Planning in the Department of Community Affairs to prepare a state- wide fair share housing allocation plan. Developments in the coastal zone that contribute to meeting judicial intent concerning municipal fair shares are encouraged. Atlantic City is a unique case in that is has more than its fair share of least cost housing, but as casinos increase the demand for and cost of housing, it is necessary that new least.cost housing be provided in the city and its surrounding coastal region to accommo- date persons forced out of housing by rising costs as well as people attracted to the region by new jobs. (f) Housing and Transportation 1. Policy (a) The development of housing at locations and densities that contribute to the feasibility of public transportat ion is encouraged. (b) Residential developments are encouraged to include bicylcle paths to activity centers and bicycle storage facilities. (c) Residential developments are encouraged to provide pedestrian amenities which include lighted walkways with benches, lighted sidewalks with curb ramps and intersections, shade trees, and pedestrian controlled traffic lights. 2. 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 alternatives to reliance on private automobiles. 179 (g) Housing Rehabilitation 1. Policy Residential development involving the demolition and redevelopment of existing structures is discouraged, unless rehabilitation of the existing structures is demonstrated to be impract ical, infeasible, or contrary to the public interest. 2. 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 is often more labor intensive than con- struction of a new building. This means that more jobs are created and less energy is consumed through the production of new building materials. (h) High Rise Housing 1. 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: (i) high-rise structures within the view of coastal waters must be separated from coastal waters by at least one public road or an equivalent area physically and visually open to the public, (ii) the longest lateral dimension of any high-rise structure must be oriented perpendicular to the beach or coastal waters, (iii) the proposed structure must not block the view of dunes, beaches, horizons, skylines, rivers, inlets, bays, or oceans that are currently enjoyed from existing residential struc- tures, public roads or pathways, (iv) the structure must not overshadow beaches between May and October, or waterfront parks year round, (v) 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, (vi) the proposed structure must not have an adverse impact on air quality, traffic, and existing infrastructure. 180 2. 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 cast shadows on beaches and parks. 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 residential structures anywhere in the coastal zone. Large-Scale Residential Development 1. Definition Large-scale Residential Developments are free standing, planned developments, which include at least 500 residential dwelling units. They may also include commercial, industrial, and recrea- tional, uses. 2. Policy Large-scale Residential Developments are conditionally acceptable, provided that they carry out the basic coastal policy to concentrate the regional pattern of development, contribute to regional housing needs, and do not cause significant adverse secondary impacts. Large-Scale Residential Developments need not meet the Land Area Policies, except in the High and Moderate Environmental Sensitivity portions of Limited Growth Regions, where only the roads and sewage criteria will be used in determining if the Development Potential is High, Medium or Low (See Policy 7:7E-5.5(b)). 3. 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. 7-:7E-7.3 Resort/Recreational Use Policies (a) Definition Resort-recreation uses include the wide range of small and large develop- ments attracted to and often dependent upon locations along the coast. Resort-recreation uses include hotels, motels, marinas, boating facili- ties, campgrounds, amusement piers, parks and recreational structures such as bath houses, natural areas, open space for active and passive recreation, and linear paths for bicycling and jogging. 181 (b) Recreation Priority 1. Policy (i) Each waterfront municipality should contain at least one waterfront park on each body of water within the munici- pality. Municipalities or private developments that do not currently provide, or have active plans to provide, access to the water will not be eligible for Green Acres or Shore Pro- tection Bond Funding. (ii) Resort/Recreation Uses shall have priority over all other uses, in Monmouth, Ocean, Atlantic, and Cape May, Cumberland and Salem Counties 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. 2. 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 recrea- tion which should be expanded by public policy and action, including priority setting. (c) Recreation Areas Within Developments 1. Policy Recreation areas shall be incorporated in the design of all residen- tial, industrial and commercial development, to the maximum extent practicable. 2. 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. NOTE: See Resource Policy on Public Access to the Shorefront (7:7E-8.13) (d) Marinas 1. Policy (i) 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 182 (b) the proposed marina includes the development of an appropriate mix of dry storage areas, public launch- ing facilities, and berthing spaces, depending upon the site conditions and (c) the proposed marina provides adequate pump out stations for wastewater disposal from boats in a manner consistent with federal and state water quality laws and regulations. (ii) New marinas or boat launching facilities that provide primarily for sail and oar boating are encouraged. (iii) Expansions of existing marinas shall be encouraged by limiting non-water dependent land uses that preclude support facilities for boating. (iv) Publicly funded marinas shall be designed to be part of multiple use parks, to the maximum extent practicable. (v) Recreational boating facilities are acceptable provided that they are designed and located in order to cause minimal feasible 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. Waiting lists for slips at existing marians-would be one type of evidence of regional need for additional facilities. 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. (e) Amusement Piers, Parks and Boardwalks 1. Policy New amusement piers are prohibited, except in areas with privately held 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 discouraged unless the proposed development meets the following conditions: M the amusement pier, parks, or boardwalk does not unreason- ably conflict with aesthetic values, ocean views, other beach uses, and wildlife functions, and (ii) public access to the shorefront is not limited, and (iii) the surrounding community can adequately handle the activity and uses to be generated by the proposed development. 183 2. 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 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 main- taining the visual quality of the oceanfront. Also, amusement parks are not a water-dependent use; these facilities may be located inland on less sensitive land and water features. 7:7E-7.4 Energy Use Policies (a) 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. (b) General Energy Facility S iting Procedure 1. Policy (i) 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 on Coordination of Permit Reviews. (ii) 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: - the existing sources of supply will not be adequate to meet future levels of demand, including careful consideration of the potential effects of conservation, - that no better technological alternative exists to meet future levels of demand, - that no better locational alternative to the proposed site exists. (iii) NJDEP will determine the acceptability of coastal energy facilities using the Coastal Resource and Development Policies supported by appropriate, technically sound analyses of alter- natives. 184 iv) If NJDOE has submitted an Energy Report to DEP, the DEP deci- sion 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. (v) Where NJDOE and NJDEP disagree on the acceptability of a specific proposed coastal energy facility (for example, on a speci-fic 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. 2. 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. (c) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 1. Policy , Rapid exploration of the Mid-Atlantic, North Atlantic, and other offshore areas with potential reserves of oil and natural gas is encouraged, as long as no long term adverse impacts will result, onshore or offshore and such activities are conducted in accordance with the policies of the program. Onshore activities related to the exploration, development and production of offshore hydrocarbons shall be carried out according to the specific energy facility policies of this section. 2. Rationale The decision of the U.S. Department of Interior to lease offshore tracts for oil and natural gas exploration presents New Jersey with new onshore and marine-related environmental problems and opportunities (See Figure 26). New Jersey supports offshore explor- ation, recognizing the national need to identify new energy sup- plies, 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 quantities of natural gas and/or oil are found off the New Jersey coast, there may be considerable onshore and offshore activity during the development stage of OCS operations that is necessary for production of these hydrocarbon resources. Development activity will diminish once production begins. 185 Figure -26 - OCS OIL AND GAS LEASING AREAS Ky. R1. CT eo"ele 0. 10 41* ow York N PA. Philadelphia NJ. JIM Atlantic CiIV7 -3e DE. Mo. .38 VA. LEGEND CALL AREA- SALE 59 TRACTS SELECTED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SALE 59 STUDY TRACTS LEASED -SALES 40&49 SOURCE, 0 PARTMENT OF THE iNTIRM E 4 BUREAU (W LAND 0141RA011169"WT.1 0- 0 10 25 miles 0 72 740 73 a 71 A number of natural gas strikes have been made on tracts leased in the Mid-Atlantic OCS Region. To date, these strikes do not consti- tute a commercial discovery. To minimize the impact of needed facilities, DEP encourages the location of OCS-related facilities, except oil and gas transporta- tion facilities, in developed areas where the infrastructure and labor market already exist to absorb such activity. During the construction of onshore oil and gas facilities, there may be an influx to the coastal zone of the marine service and engineer- ing industry. This service sector office-oriented activity will be encouraged to locate in urban centers, 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 platforms. 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. (d) onshore Support Bases 1. Policy New or expanded onshore support base s and marine terminals to support offshore oil and gas exploration, development, and produc- tion (including facilities for work boats, crew boats and heli- copters, pipelaying barges, pipeline jet barges, ocean-going tugs, anchor handling vessels, and limited, short-term storage facili- ties), are encouraged at locations in built-up urban coastal areas 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 facili- ties for storing oil spill containment and cleanup equipment for offshore operations and emergency crew transport facilities, including crew boat operations will, however, be acceptable along the Atlantic Ocean or Delaware Bay where such a location would facilitate and expedite offshore emergency operations. 2. Rationale offshore exploratory activity began off New Jersey in the Baltimore Canyon on March 29, 1978. If the exploratory drilling is success- ful, 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. 187 (e) Platform Fabrication Yards and Module Construction 1. Policy Platform fabrication yards and modu 'le construction are encouraged in built-up coastal areas of the coastal zone, along the Hudson, Raritan and Delaware Rivers which have the requisite acreage, adequate industrial infrastructure, ready access to 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. They are discouraged elsewhere in the coastal zone.. 2. Rationale The development phase of OCS activity in the Mid-Atlantic may require additional platform construction yards. The need for such facilities is dependent on the long term OCS development in frontier areas of the Atlantic Coast and the worldwide demand for such structures. 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 of less developed communities and areas. For these reasons, offshore platform construction yards are encouraged to seek loca- tions in the already developed areas of the New Jersey coast. However, the height restrictions of bridges on certain other New Jersey waterways may sharply limit the suitability of sites in New Jersey. Existing under-utilized shipyards may be used, however, for platform module construction. (f) Repair and Maintenance Facilities 1. Policy Repair and maintenance facilities for vessels and equipment for offshore activities are encouraged in the Delaware River and Northern Waterfront Areas. Repairs can be accommodated on an emergency basis in existing ship repair facilities in the Atlantic Ocean and Delaware Bay area, but not on a continual, long term basis. 2. Rationale Ship repair yards presently exist in the developed coastal areas and should be utilized by OCS vessels that will be based in the same portion of the coast. Small shipyards within the Bay and Ocean Shore region can serve valuable repair functions on an emergency basis because of their proximity to the offshore leased areas. Utilization of repair yards in this region on a continuing basis, however, is not encouraged because of problems in meeting the OCS vessel draft requirments and because of possible conflicts with recreational vessels. 188 (g) Pipe Coating Yards 1. Policy 0 Pipe coating yards are discouraged along the Atlantic Ocean and Delaware Bay and encouraged along the Delaware River and in the port area under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 2. Rationale Pipe coating yards constitute an industrial activity that is generally incompatible with the suburban and rural character of the Delaware Bay and Atlantic Ocean shore region. Further, pipe coating yards typically require 100-150 acres, and wharf space with a preferred depth at the wharf of 20 to 30 feet. These siting requirements suggest that highly industrial port areas are preferred locations. (h) Pipelines and Associated Facilities 1. 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 are conditionally acceptable, subject to the following conditions and restrictions: (i) 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, affected industries, and the general public, (ii) The pipeline corridors for landing oil or natural gas are to be located in or adjacent to existing already developed or dis- turbed road, railroad, pipeline, electrical transmission or other rights-of-way, to the maximum extent practicable, (iii) Oil and gas pipelines are subject to the following restric- tions, respectively, regarding the Central Pine Barrens and other particularly sensitive areas: 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 27 -- and discouraged in other undeveloped parts of the Pine Barrens, 189 -- Pipeline corridors for natural gas are discouraged in the Central Pine Barrens as defined above, unless the devel- oper can demonstrate that construction and operation of the proposed pipeline will meet the adopted nonrdegrada- tion standards for water quality and cause no long term adverse environmental impacts, (iv) Proposals to construct offshore oil and gas pipelines, origina- ting on the Outer Contintental Shelf and all of the contem- plated ancillary facilities along the pipeline route such as, for example, gas separation and dehydration facilities, gas processing plants, oil storage terminals, and oil refineries will be evaluated by DEP and the New Jersey Department of Energy, in terms of the entire pipeline corridor through the State of New Jersey and the adjacent territorial sea, (v) To preserve the recreational and resort character of the coastal areas, the following conditions and prohibitions shall apply to oil and gas pipe 1 ine-rel ated facilities. New major pumping stations and other ancillary facilities associated with offshore oil and gas pipelines shall be discouraged from locations in the Bay and Ocean Shore area. Gas separation and dehydration plants and compressor stations and other facilities associated with natural gas pipelines which are approved shall be protected by ade- quate visual, sound, and vegetative buffer areas, and Offshore platforms for pumping or compressor stations are encouraged to locate out of sight of the shoreline. (vi) 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. (vii) Pipelines shall be buried to a depth sufficient to withstand exposure by scouring, shipgroundings, anchors, fishing and clamming and other potential obstacles on the sea floor. Trenching operations shall be conducted in accordance with applicable federal regulations. 2. 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. The impact of pipelines are most evident during the construction phase. 190 Figure 27 PINE BARRENS EXCLUSION AREA SUSSEX ,"PASSAIC 114 BERGE* WARREN MORRIS X @ESSEf DSO x UNIGIN HUNTERDON @40MERSET S EX MERCER MONMOU ..'"LINGTO PINE BARRENS VEGETATION OFFSHORE OIL OR GAS PIPELINE SALEM EXCLUSION AREA ON c STATE OF NEW JERKY DEAVATMENT OF FWW ONWNTAL MOYFCTN* However, these impacts will generally be short term provided proper construction technologies, mitigating measures, scheduling prac- tices, and restoration efforts are utilized. At the same time, particular attention should be focused on the potential onshore effects of pipelines on the sensitive ecosystem of the coast and the Pine Barrens. These effects and the visual, noise, and odor impacts which may be created by facilities associated with OCS pipelines, require that New Jersey proceed cautiously and prudently in select- ing 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, is participating in the intergovernmental offshore oil and gas transportation planning process being coordinated by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). BLM has promoted the concept of a common carrier pipeline in recent years by including a stipulation in all lease sales which requires pipelines constructed on the OCS to be placed in designated corridors. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which has the overriding responsibiity for siting natural gas pipelines, has also endorsed the concept of designated utility corridors. Gas Separation and Dehydration Facilities 1. Definitions Separation is defined as the removal of fre@ liquids from a gas stream. They may be either hydrocarbon liquids, which may be processed into fuels such as ethane, butane and propane, or free water. Dehydration is the removal of water vapor from the gas stream after separation of the liquid from the gas. 2. Policy Separation and dehydration facilities are discouraged in the Bay and Ocean Shore area. Such facilities that are approved shall meet all applicable air and water quality standards, and be protected by adequate visual, sound, and vegetative buffers. Separation and dehydration facilities will be reviewed as part of the overall proposed gas transportation system by NJDEP and NJDOE. 3. Rationale It is anticipated that natural gas extracted from the Mid-Atlantic OCS will contain natural gas (mostly methane) and water, along with relatively small amounts of liquid hydrocarbons. Most of the water can be removed from the natural gas stream on the production plat- form. The liquid hydrocarbons, or condensate, will be returned to the gas stream downstream of gas measurement equipment on the platform and transported to shore with the gas in a single pipe- line. The natural gas liquids and small amounts of water which 192 reach landfall by the pipeline must be separated from the gas stream before it reaches an existing interstate natural gas transmission line. This can, from a technological standpoint, occur at any point along the onshore corridor. Separation/dehydration facilities essentially remove water, natural gas liquids, and other impurities from the gas stream. The natural gas liquids are temporarily stored in fixed-roof storage tanks with vapor recovery systems until transported offsite by rail, tank truck or pipeline to a gas processing plant. Water will be disposed of either by deep well injection or by trucking to an approved offsite disposal location. Basic siting criteria requires up to 50 acres of fairly level land, with 20-30 acres intensively utilized and the remaining acreage serving as a buffer zone around the plant. Additionally, easy access to either highway and/or railroad facilities is desirable. (j) Gas Compressor Stations 1. Definition Compressor stations are facilities located along natural gas pipe- lines which raise the pressure of the gas in order to transport the resource more efficiently and economically. 2. Policy Compressor stations are encouraged to be located out of the sight of the shoreline on platforms in offshore waters. They are discouraged from locations in the Bay and Ocean Shore area. 3. Rationale The pressure of the gas at the well is the driving force for pushing the gas through a pipeline to shore, and, once ashore, to a connec- tion with an existing interstate transmission line. In some cases, gas pressure at the well is sufficient to free flow the gas to shore. Once ashore, the gas will continue through the pipeline to a separa- tion and dehydration facility and then to the interstate trans- mission line. it is not expected that the pressure losses due to friction and the presence of natural gas liquids and water in the gas stream will be sufficient to require compression of Mid-Atlantic natural gas. However, if they are required, it is feasible to place them anywhere along the pipeline corridor. (k) Gas Pigging Facility 1. Definition A pig is a scraping tool that is forced through a pipeline to clean out accumulations of wax, scale, gas liquids or any foreign mater- ials from the inside walls of the pipe. The pig is inserted off- shore and would be removed at an onshore location called a pigging facility. 193 2. Policy A pigging facility, which may or may not be associated with a separation and dehydration facility, is discouraged in the Bay and Ocean Shore area. The need for and location of the facility will be reviewed within the context of the entire natural gas pipeline system. 3. Rationale A pipeline must be periodically "pigged" in order to ensure its efficient operation and to safeguard against damage. Water and hydrocarbon vapor may condense as pressures drop along the length of a natural gas pipeline and may collect in low points in the pipe- line. The condensate must be removed to maintain efficiency in the transmission of gas. (1) Gas Processing Plants 1. Definition A gas processing plant is designed to recover liquifiable hydro- carbons from a gas stream before it enters a commercial transmission line. A gas processing facility may include treatment, recovery and fractionation equipment to separate the recovered liquid hydrocarbon stream into its various components including, for example, ethane, butane and propane. 2. Policy Gas processing plants proposed for locations between the offshore pipeline landfall and interstate natural gas transmission lines shall be prohibited from sites within the Bay and Ocean Shore area and shall be located the maximum distance from the shoreline. The siting of gas processing plants, will be reviewed in terms of the total pipeline routing system by DEP and NJDOE. 3. Rationale Gas processing plants may be needed if commercially recoverable quantities of natural gas are found off New Jersey's shore. These facilities, however, do not require locations on the shore- line. If the amount of liquids separated from the gas stream is minimal, the liquids can be trucked or transported by rail to exist- ing facilities which could process these liquids. A gas processing plant may induce the location and/or expansion of chemical plants since gas and its byproducts often provide the feedstock for the petrochemical industry. 194 To promote the most efficient use of land, gas processing plants could be located close to existing interstate natural gas transmis- sion pipelines. Alternatively, where natural gas is associated with oil and oil pipelines, gas processing plants should be located close to refineries to which the oil pipeline will be routed. Thus, gas processing plants which are ecnomically and technically feasible and which do not exceed new source and performance standards regarding air and water quality are conditionally acceptable in the Delaware River and Northern Waterfront areas. (m) Other Gas-Related Facilities 1. Policy Additional facilities related to a natural gas pipeline such as metering and regulating stations, odorization plant's, and block valves are conditionally acceptable in the Bay and Ocean Shore area provided they are protected by adequate visual, sound, and vegeta- tive buffer areas; are approved by DEP and NJDOE; and are in com- pliance with U.S./DOT regulation. 2. Rationale Certain ancillary facilities, in addition to pipeline, may be necessary to assure the safe, efficient and economical transporta- tion of natural gas to shore. The impacts of these facilities will be evaluated in the overall analysis of the gas transportation system. (n) Oil Refineries and Petrochemical Facilities 1. Policy New oil refineries and petrochemical facilities are conditionally acceptable outside of the Bay and Ocean Shore area provided that: M they are consistent with all applicable Location and Resource policies, (ii) there is a need for the facility as determined by NJDOE, and (iii) an EIS determines that the facility will have no unacceptable impacts. New oil refineries and petrochemical facilities outside the Bay and Ocean Shore area are encouraged to locate in established industrial areas accessible to their potential labor force. New oil refineries and petrochemical facilities are prohibited in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. Expansion in capacity of existing oil refineries and petrochemical facilities at existing sites, which are all located outside of the Bay and Ocean Shore Region, will be acceptable if such expansion does not violate applicable State air and water water quality standards. 2. Rationale Refineries are large-scale industrial facilities that are neither c oas tal -dependent nor compatible with the character of the Bay and Ocean Shore Region. However, new refineries or additions to existing refineries using advanced technology to control air and water pollution and other hazards could be compatible with existing development in the Delaware River Area or northern wat*rfront. 195 (o) Storage of Crude Oil, Gases and Other Potentially Hazardous Liquid Substances 1. Policy The storage of crude oil, gases and other potentially hazardous liquid substances as defined in N.J.A.C. 7:1E-1.1 under the Spill Compensation and Control Act (N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11) is prohibited on barrier islands and discouraged elsewhere in the Delaware and Raritan Bay and Atlantic Ocean Shore region. In the Northern Waterfront and Delaware River areas, such facilities are condi- tionally acceptable if they meet air and water Resource Policies and are compatible with or adequately buffered from surrounding uses. They are not acceptable along the water's edge unless they are supplied by ship in which case they are acceptable on the Filled Water's Edge subject to the above conditions. They are not accept- able where they would limit or conflict with a potential recrea- tional use. 2. Rationale Major storage facilities for potentially hazardous substances are not entirely c oas tal -dependent and will not be permitted where storage might limit or conflict with recreational or open space uses of the coast. (p) Tanker Terminals 1. Policy New or expanded tanker facilities will be acceptable only in existing ports and harbors where the required channel depths exist to accommodate tankers. Multi-company use of existing and new tanker terminals 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 terminals will be discouraged in other parts of the coast. 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. 2. 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 estab- lished port areas. Deepwater ports appear attractive to industry due to increasingly larger tankers, limitations on dredging and the scarcity of waterfront land. However, a deepwater port may, depend- ing on its location, cause severe adverse primary and secondary impacts on the built, natural, and social environment. 196 (q) Electric Generating Stations 1. Policy New or expanded electric generating facilities (for base load, cycling, or peaking purposes) and related facilities are condi- tionally acceptable subject to the conditions that follow. Con- version or modification of exsiting generating facilities for pur- poses of fuel efficiency, cost reduction, or national interest are conditionally acceptable provided they meet applicable State and federal laws and standards. M The construction and operation of the proposed facility shall comply with the Coastal Resource and Development Poli- cies, with special reference to air and water quality standards and policies on marine resources and wildlife, NJDEP and NJDOE shall find that the proposed location and design of the electric generating facility is the most reason- able alternative for the production of electrical power.that NJDOE has determined is needed. The finding shall be based on a comparative evaluation by the applicant of alternative sites within the coastal zone and inland, and of alternative tech- nologies for the transportation and conversion of energy as well as the productive use of plant residuals, including thermal discharges. (iii) Fossil fuel (coal, oil or gas) and hydroelectric generating stations are discouraged in scenic or natural areas that are important to recreation and open space purposes, (iv) 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/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 gener- ating facility, through techniques such as land use controls or buffer zones, (v) The construction and operation of a nuclear generating station shall not be approved unless DEP finds that the proposed method for disposal of the spent fuel to be produced by the facility: M will be safe, (ii) conforms to standards established by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 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. 197 (vi) 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 detract from scenic or recreational values. The cogeneration of electricity and process steam for industrial, community and commercial use is also encouraged. 2. Rationale The siting of an electric generating station is an extraordinary 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 contemplated 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, especially along Barnegat Bay and Delaware Bay, 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 1980 two nuclear generating units were in operation in the coastal zone. Salem Unit I on Artificial Island 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 contem- plated 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 Artificial Island would be a more suitable site than Newbold Island because of popula- tion density concerns. Until PSE&G decided to withdraw its pro- posal, New Jersey's coastal zone was also the site of two proposed floating nuclear reactors, the Atlantic Generating Station, Units I and 2, at a site in the Atlantic Ocean east of Little Egg Harbor. The coastal zone also includes generating stations that have used various fossil fuels depending upon the price and availability 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 electricity produced in adjacent 198 states. In short, New Jersey is an integral part of the Pennsyl- vania-New Jersey-Maryland interconnecting 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. The need for converting some existing facilities from oil-fired to coal-fired generation is recognized by the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA) P.L. 95-620. The FUA restricts, through mandatory and discretionary prohibitions, the use of natural gas and petroleum as primary energy sources in existing powerplants. In the FUA, the national objective to decrease dependency on imported fuel is combined with the desire to achieve self-sufficiency in a manner that minimizes environmental and social costs. These objectives are considered sufficiently flexible in their achievement as to ensure that the environmental impacts are acceptable (see Fuel Use Act, EIS, April 1979, U.S. DOE).. New Jersey also recognizes that most electric generating facilities may not be c oas tal -dependent but do require access to vast quanti- ties 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 interests 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 recognition of the state's progress in attaining and maintaining high air quality. Given the use of appropriate control technology, coal-fired gener- ating 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 CAFRA. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities 1. Policy (i) New marine terminals and associated facilities that receive, store, and vaporize liquefied natural gas, for trnsmission by pipeline to a base load electric generating station are dis- couraged in the coastal zone unless (a) a clear and precise 199 justification for such facilities exists in the national interest, (b) the proposed facility is located and constructed so as to neither unduly endanger human life, property nor otherwise impair the public health, safety and welfare, as required by N.J.S.A. 13:19-10f, (c) such facilities comply with the Coastal Resource and Development Policies. LNG facilities shall be sited in accordance with the standards set forth in P.L.96-129, Title I Subtitle B, Pipeline Safety Act of 1979, Section 6(a)(3) which states that no new LNG facility may be operated unless an accident contingency plan is found to be adequate by the Department of Transportation under the Natural Gas Act. In determining the acceptability of proposed LNG facilities, DEP will consider siting criteria such as: (a) the risks inherent in tankering LNG along New Jersey's water ways, (b) the risks inherent in transferring LNG onshore, and (c) the compatibility of the facility with surrounding land uses, population densities, and concentrations of commercial or industrial activity. (ii) New LNG facilities that liquefy, store and vaporize LNG to serve demand during peak periods shall be located in generally remote, rural, and low-density areas where land use controls and/or buffer zones are likely to be maintained. 2. Rationale The Pipeline Safety Act of 1979, P.L. 96-129, amended the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 and sets forth requirements for the safe operation of pipelines transporting natural gas and liquefied petroleum gases, and provides standards with respect to the siting, construction, and operation of liquefied natural gas facilities. The State recognizes the responsibilities of various federal agen- cies, including the U.S. 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 opera- tions of LNG facilities. Importation facilities for LNG are discouraged in view of the present sources of LNG from politically unstable counties. The use of natural gas for base load electric generation purposes is incon- sistent with the Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, P.L. 95-620. The availability of domestic sources of LNG and a demonstrated need that such importation facilities are in the national interest dictate considering applications for.such facili- ties on a case by case basis. 200 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 terminals along inter- state waterways. New Jersey therefore recommends that the siting of LNG facilities be treated as a regional issue on an interstate basis. 7:7E-7.5 Transportation Use Policies (a) Roads 1. Policy New road construction shall be limited to situations where: (i) a clear need exists, taking into account the alternatives of upgrading existing roads and of using public transpor- tation to meet the need, (ii) provision is made to include construction of bicycle and foot paths, except where these would not be feasible, (iii) provision is made for coordinated construction of public transportation rights-of-way and facilities, such as bus lanes, rail lines, and related transit stop or station facili- ties and parking, except where such construction would not be feasible, (iv) surrounding land does not lose its recreational and aesthetic opportunity, and (v) induced development in conflict with coastal policies would not be expected to result. 2. Rationale This policy is based on two assumptions: (i) that the coastal zone, is for the most part adequately served already by the existing road network, and (ii) that further capital investment in trans- portation facilities for the coastal region should emphasize those kinds of facilities which would minimize environmental damage and energy use . Consequently, new road construction should be under- taken only where the burden of proving need is met after less damaging and more fuel efficient alternatives have been considered. in addition, fur:ther investment in road construction should include coordinated investment in low-damage, highly fuel-efficient modes whereover possible. (b) Public Transportation 1. Policy New and improved needed public transportation facilities, including bus, rail, air, and boat travel and related parking facilities, are encouraged. 201 2. 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 in the Delaware Ba y, Raritan Bay and Atlantic.Ocean shore areas, bus facilities and parking systems appear appropriate, particularly as a solution to the transportation problems of barrier island resorts. In the more developed parts of the coastal zone, expansion, improve- ment and new construction of all forms of public transportation are the most appropriate ways to meet the new transportation needs generated by goods and people. (c) Bicycle and Foot Paths 1. Policy M The construction of internal bicycle paths, foot paths and sidewalks in residential, commercial, and industrial develop- ments is required to the maximum extent practicable. (ii) Linear bicycle and foot paths are encouraged along the edges of all water bodies, provided they would not disturb Special Areas or subject the user to danger. (iii) Existing bicycle and foot paths must be continued around development when it is not practical to pass through deve Top- ment. 2. Rationale Paths for pedestrians and bicycles provide active outdoor recreation and may lead to reduced dependency on cars, especially if settlement patterns are made more compact. (d) Parking Facilities 1. Definition Parking facility policies apply to all parking facilities, in part or wholly within the area subject to the Waterfront Develop- ment Act, and to parking facilities for 300 or more cars elsewhere in the coastal zone. 2. Policy Parking lots, garages and large paved areas are conditionally acceptable, provided that they will not interfere with existing or planned mass transit services, the extent of paved surfaces is minimized, and landscaping with indigenous or preferred species is maximized, the development satisfies the Resource Policies for air, water, and runoff, and the development is compatible with its surroundings and satisfies the.Location Policies. 202 3. Rationale Parking facilities provide a necessary transportation facility, but one that may cause air and water impacts. 7:7E-7.6 Public Facility Use Policies (a) Definition Public Facilities includes a broad range of public works for the produc- tion, transfer, transmission, and recovery of water, sewerage and other utilities. The presence of an adequate infrastructure makes possible future development and responds to the needs created by present develop- ment. (b) General Public Facilities 1. Policy New or expanded public facility development is conditionally acceptable provided that: (i) The public facility would serve a demonstrated need that cannot be met by an existing -public facility at the site or region, (ii) Alternate technologies, including conservation, are an imprac- ical or infeasible approach to meeting all or part of the need for the public facility, (iii) The public facility would not generate significant second- ary impacts inconsistent with the Coastal Resource and Develop- ment Policies, and Upgrading existing facilities to meet development and redevel- opment needs in developed waterfront areas is encouraged. 2. Rationale Public facilities provide all important public services, 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 need for the facility require scrutiny. In developed areas, some inadequate public facilities need to be upgraded and improved. (c) Solid Waste 1. Policy Solid waste conservation techniques such as recycling, resource and energy recovery and volume reduction, must be explored and proved infeasible before a new or expanded sanitary landfill preferably at a regional scale, is deemed acceptable. 203 Sanitary landfills that locate in the upland must demonstrate that the leachate will not adversely impact the ground or surface waters, by iusing a lining and/or a leachate filtration plant. Acceptable plans for restoring the site must be submitted with the original proposal. 2. Rationale Solid waste is a resource whose potential for recovery must be evaluated before locating new sanitary landfills. Further, regional solutions to solid waste management are mandated under State law. In addition, the development of new landfills is subject to the regulations of DEP's Solid Waste Administration. (d) Wastewater Treatment 1. Policy M Coastal development that does not employ the most energy- efficient wastewater treatment system practicable is dis- couraged. Energy efficient systems are encouraged. (ii) on-site sewage disposal systems which recycle nutrients and water for productive use are encouraged where the design, installation, operation, and maintenance will be consistent with applicable ground and surface water quality statutes and regulations. (iii) Wastewater treatment systems that recharge the groundwater with highly treated effluents are encouraged, provided that con- sistently high quality effluents and acceptable recharge techniques are demonstrated. (iv) Wastewater treatment facilities shall, to the maximum extent feasible, provide for multiple use of the site, including open space and recreation use. 2. Rationale Wastewater treatment systems range in scale from on-site sewage disposal systems to regional treatment systems with centralized plans, major interceptors, and ocean outfalls. In the past decade considerable wastewater treatment system construction has taken place or been authorized in developing parts of the coastal zone with corresponding improvements in water quality. New wastewater treatment systems must be carefully evaluated in terms of water quality impacts and secondary impacts. The federal Clean Water Act encourages federally funded wastewater treatment facilities to provide for multiple use of the site. The Coastal Policies support and extend this federal policy by requiring that all new wastewater treatment facilities in the coastal zone consider the.feasibility of multiple use. 204 7:7E-7.7 Industry Use Policies (a) Definition Industry uses include a wide variety of industrial processing, manufac- turing, storage and distribution activities Industry is defined by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 2011 to 3999, except for 2991 (petroleum refining), which is covered by Use Policy 7:7E-7.4(i). 1. Policy (i) Industry is encouraged in Special Urban Areas and conditionally acceptable elsewhere provided it is compatible with all applic- able Location and Resource Policies. Particular attention should be given to Location Policies which reserve the water's edge for water dependent and water related uses (Sections 7:7E-3.17 and 7:7E-3.21); to Resource Policy 7:7E-8.15, which requires that the use be,compatible with existing uses in the area or adequate buffering be provided; and to Resource Policy 7:7E-8.13, which places public access requirements upon the use. (ii) New industrial development is encouraged to locate at or adjacent to existing sites, to the maximum extent practicable. (iii) industry that is easily accessible to its labor force by foot or public transportation is encouraged. (iv) Marine resource dependent industry, such as commercial fishing, is encouraged and shall have priority over other waterfront uses, except for recreation. (v) The cogeneration of electricity with process steam is encour- aged. 2. Rationale A strong industrial base is vital if an area is to be healthy and vibrant. Many of the developed parts of the coast are suffering from a declining industrial base. Land which had been productive is now vacant and in need of redevelopment. The industrial policies encourage industry to locate in the vacant areas of the the cities of the Northern and Delaware waterfronts. However, the policies recognize that a healthy waterfront will host a mix of uses. By asking waterfront industries to create public access to the water and to make sites they would vacate available to the public, the policies also recognize the waterfront as a valuable public resource. The industrial policies address the conflicting demands and effects of industrial waterfront development. The policies recognize several factors which must be considered in the decision making process. First, water dependent industry must locate somewhere along the waterfront. Other industry which needs water for operat- ing or processing, some or all of the time, might also require a 205 location near the waterfront, but landward of the water's edge. Second, as a result of environmental degradation, urban areas are suffering from unmet recreation and open space needs. Third, urban areas typically suffer from high unemployment and deteriorating tax bases. Fourth, city dwellers must be supported in their efforts to rejuvenate and revitalize their cities, making them pleasant and economically viable places to live. 7:7E-7.8 Mining Use Policies 1. 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 General Land Areas policy, but shall comply with the Special Areas, and General Water Areas): (i) the location of mining operations, 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, (ii) the location of new or expanded mining operations is generally contiguous with or adjacent to sites of existing mining opera- tions, 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, (iii) 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, (iv) 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 surrounding region, once the mineral resource is depleted, (v) 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, (vi) the mining operations control and minimize to the maximum extent practicable adverse impacts from noise and dust, surface water pollution, and disposal of.spoils and waste materials and conform to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and standards, 206 (vii) 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 including the long term irretrievable impact of use of the non-renewable mineral resource. 2. 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 Cumber- land 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 land- scape, and irretrievably consumes the depletable mineral resource. Many of these impacts can be ameliorated by incorporating prop er, 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. Reasonable balances must therefore be struck 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 contribution 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. 7:7E-7.9 Port Use Policies (a) Definition Port uses are concentrations of shoreside marine terminals and transfer, facilities for the movement of waterborne cargo (including fluids), and including facilities for loading, unloading and temporary storage. 207 (b) Policies M Port related development and marine commerce is encouraged in and adjacent to established port areas. Water dependent development shall not be preempted by non-water dependent development in these areas. (ii) New port use outside of existing Ports (see definition, Section 7:7E-3.11) are acceptable only when there is a clear -demonstra- tion of need, and when suitable land and water area is not available in or adjacent to an existing port. (iii) New or expanded ports must be compatible with surrounding land uses and provide for maximum open space and physical and visual access to the waterfront, provided that this access does not interfere with port operations or endanger public- health and safety. New or expanded ports must also not interfere with national, state, county or municipal parks, recreation areas, or wildlife refuges. (iv) New, expanded or redeveloped port facilities must have direct access to navigation channels of sufficient depth for antici- pated vessel access with minimal dredge and fill requirements, adequate access to road, rail transportation, and adjacent land with sufficient load bearing capacity for structures. (v) Limited water-dependent, port-related activity, such as commercial fishing, support facilities and emergency oil spill clean up stor- age, is acceptable at the small commercial harbors in the coastal zone. (c) Rationale New Jersey's port areas "are a regional, national and international resource. The existing ports, located largely in the Delaware and Northern Waterfront Areas contain unused and underused areas which can be refurbished to meet increases in demand. The state must never- theless allow for possible unanticipated future needs for port area. As in the past, port activities will continue to be a vital part of the economy of New Jersey. However, changes in shipping technology have caused once thriving ports such as Jersey City and Hoboken to become the scene of dilapidated docks and piers and acres of vacant land. The port policies recognize the changing ship technology and will encourage new or expanded needed modern facilities in areas where port facilities would be compatible with existing uses. The poli- cies recognize modern facilities require large expanses of land to. accommodate specialized equipment and host a full array of services. However, the policies seek to avoid construction of a modern facil- ity which meets the needs of today but could become obsolete tomor- row. For this reason, facilities are encouraged not to over-specialize. At the same time, the policies recognize the need to have large bulk cargo facilities to avoid construction of numerous small port facilities. 208 Recognizing the value of the water as a public resource and the need for environmental controls, the policies require facilities to be designed with provision for minimum environmental degradation. The policies endorse the concept of multimodalism and encourage port facili- ties to make use of existing infrastructure. In addition, the policies encourage an integrated port system which uses container ships where ship channels are deep enough to accommodate these vessels, but provides for use of smaller barges to move goods to inland waterways or along shal- lower channels. Recognizing the value of the waterfront to the public, the policies require port facilities to provide for the maximum public visual and physical access to the waterfront consistent with safety and security concerns. The policies accommodate port usage of the waterfront, where needed and appropriate, while encouraging redevelopment and other uses which would be in the best interest of the public. 7:7E-7.10 Commercial Facility Use Policies (a) Hotels and Motels 1. Definition Hotels and motels are commercial establishments, known to the public as hotels, motor-hotels, motels, or tourist courts, primarily engaged in providing lodging, or lodging and meals, for the general public. Also included are hotels and motels operated by membership organizations, whether open to the general public or not. 2. Policy (i) New, expanded or improved hotel-motel developments are condi- tionally acceptable provided that the develo pment: (i) com- plies with all Location and Resource Policies and with the policy for high-rise housing, and (ii) is compatible in scale, site design, and architecture with surrounding development. (ii) Hotels and motels are not water dependent. Hotel and motel development is encouraged if it promotes revitaliza- tion of an urban area and meets all policy requirements. In special Urban Areas, new hotel and motel development is acceptable in the Filled Water's Edge on existing pilings, provided public access between the hotel or mote and the water body is not restricted. 3. Rationale Hotels and motels enable New Jersey residents and tourists to visit the coast. They 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. 209 (b) Casino Hotels 1. Definition Casino hotels are hotels with casinos as provided for in the Casino Control Act (P.L. 1977, c. 100, as amended). 2. Policy Hotel-casino development in Atlantic City shall be located in the city's traditional resort area (along the Boardwalk), and in the State Marina area to the maximum extent practicable. Hotel-casino development is discouraged in existing residential areas and in areas where access by public transportation between the proposed hotel-casino and the Boardwalk is limited. Hotel-casino development is discouraged along the access highways to Atlantic City. Hotel- casino development shall comply with the high-rise housing policy. Hotel-casino development and new residential development are encour- aged in Atlantic City to ensure that the objectives of the 1976 constitutional referendum on casino gambling, including the stimula- tion of new construction and the revitalization of Atlantic City and its region, are achieved. The policies of the program shall be interpreted consistent with these objectives. 3. Rationale This hotel-casino location policy serves several purposes: (1) protecting Atlantic City's existing diverse neighborhoods, (2) facilitating public transportation 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 Gardner's Basin and Inlet area. (c) Retail Trade and Services 1. Definition Retail trade and service is a broad category including establish- ments selling merchandise for personal and household consumption, such as food stores and clothing stores; service establishments such as banks and insurance agencies; establishments such as restaurants and night clubs; and establishments for participant sports such as bowling alleys and indoor tennis courts. 2. Policies (i) In Special urban Areas, new or expanded retail trade and service establishments are encouraged in Filled Water's Edge Areas as part of mixed use developments, provided that the development: (a) is compatible in scale, site design and architecture with surrounding development 210 (b) promotes public use of the coast, and (c) promotes revitalization of the urban area (ii) Elsewhere in the coastal zone, new or expanded retail trade and service establishments are conditionally acceptable in Filled Water's Edge Areas, provided that the development: (a) is water related, and (b) adjacent to, and compatible with, existing Water's Edge Development (iii) New or expanded retail trade facilities are prohibited in most Special Water's Edge Areas, other than the Filled Water's Edge. 3. Rationale Commercial development in the urban waterfront area is consistent with the state's economic development policy to target loans and bond assistance for commercial and retail establishment to urban areas. Commercial development, however, must be situated so it does not harm or threaten the resources which attract people to the waterfront. (d) Convention Centers and Arenas 1. Definition Convention centers are facilities designed primarily for holding conventions. Arenas are commercial facilities designed primarily for spectator sporting events. Arenas do not include indoor tennis courts, bowling alleys and other facilities primarily designed for participant sports, nor arenas affiliated with schools and colleges. 2. Policy New convention centers and arenas are encouraged in Special Urban Areas, and conditionally acceptable in Development regions, provided that the developm&nt: (a) is compatible in scale, site design, and architecture with surrounding development, and (b) is accessible by public transportation. New convention centers and arenas are discouraged in Barrier Island, Extension and Limited Growth regions. 3. Rationale Convention centers and arenas would provide social and cultural benefit to residents and visitors to the waterfront areas. They would also support the economy of the area. However, they can also generate traffic and induce additional development. They must, therefore, be located so that such impacts can be easily absorbed. The buildings must be located, however, so they do not harm or threaten the resources which attract people to the coast. 211 7:7E-7.11 Coastal Engineering (a) Definition Coastal Engineering includes a variety of structural and non-struc- tural 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, dredged spoil disposal and the construction of retaining structures such as bulkheads, revetments and seawalls are all examples of coastal engineering. The Location Policies on General Water Areas and Special Areas are directly relevant to most coastal engineering uses. These Coastal Engineering Use policies do not apply to uses associated with ports, commerce, and industry. (b) Shore Protection Priorities 1. policy Non-structural solutions to shoreline erosion problems are preferred over structural solutions. The infeasibility and impracticality of a non-structural solution must be demonstrated before structural solutions may be deemed acceptable. 2.. 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 an inadequate and incomplete solution. Bulkheads are deteri- orating. 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 evaluated 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. (c) Dune Management 1. 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. 212 2. Rationale A natural dune field provides a strong measure of natural protection for adjacent land uses. (d) Beach Nourishment 1. Policy Beach nourishment projects, as a non-structural shore protec- tion measure, are encouraged, provided that: (i) 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, (ii) the elevation, width, slope, and form of proposed beach nourishment project are compatible with the charac- teristics of the existing beach, and (iii) the sediment deposition will not cause unacceptable shoaling in downdrift inlets and naviga- tion channels. 2. 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. (e) Structural Shore Protection 1. Policy (i) The construction of new shore protection structures including jetties, groins, seawalls, bulkheads, and other retaining structures to retard longshore transport and/or to prevent tidal waters from reaching erodible material acceptable only if it meets all of the following six policies: (1) The structure is essential to protect water dependent uses or heavily used 'public recreation beach areas in danger from tidal waters or erosion, or the structure is essential to protect existing structures and infrastructure in developed shorefront areas in danger from erosion. (2) The structure is designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. (3) The structure will not create net adverse shoreline sand movement conditions downdrift, including erosion or shoal- ing. (4) The structure will cause minimum feasible adverse impact to living marine resources. (5) The structure is consistent with the State Shore Protection Master Plan. 213 (6) If the proposed project requires filling of a Water Area it must also be consistent with the General Water Area Policy for Filling (Section 7:7E-4.10(i)). (ii) A new, short retaining structure that connects two existing lawful retaining structures is normally acceptable provided that extensive filling is not involved. (iii) Maintenance or reconstruction of an existing retaining struc- ture is conditionally acceptable, provided it does not result in extension of the structure by more than 18 inches in any direction. Maintenance or reconstruction of an existing retaining structure which results in extension by more than 18 inches shall be considered new construction. (iv) Rip-rap is a preferred construction material for retaining structures as it provides a habitat for aquatic life and helps absorb wave energy. 2. Rationale 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 conse- quences of natural shoreline sand systems. Retaining structures are necessary in some cases to stabilize existing development or to allow limited appropriate infill or new development. This is particularly important in an area between two existing bulkheads where a connecting structure could halt the formation of a trap situation, which could trap debris, produce odors, and eliminate the opportunity for use of the land. 7:7E-7.12 Dredge Spoil Disposal on Land (a) Definition Dredge spoil disposal is the discharge or of sediments, known as spoils, removed during dredging operations. The following policies govern Land and Water's Edge disposal only; the policies regulating dredge spoil disposal in Water Areas are found in Section 7:7E-4.10. (b) Policy Dredge spoil disposal is conditionally acceptable under the following conditions: (i) sediments are covered with appropriate clean material that is similar in texture to surrounding soils, and (ii) the sediments will not pollute the groundwater table by seepage, degrade surface water quality, present an objectionable odor in the vicinity of the disposal area, or degrade the landscape. 214 Dredge spoil disposal is prohibited on natural undisturbed wetlands, and on formerly spoiled wetlands that have revegetated with wetland species The use of uncontaminated dredge material of appropriate quality and particle size for beach nourishment is encouraged. Creation of useful materials such as bricks and light weight aggregate from the dredge material is encouraged. The use of uncontaminated dredge material for purposes such as restoring landscape, enhancing farming areas, creating recreation oriented landfill sites including beach protection and general land reclamation, building islands, creating marshes, capping contaminated spoil areas, and making new wildlife habitats is encouraged. Effects associated with the transfer of the dredged materials from the dredging site to the disposal site shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Dredge spoil disposal in wet and dry borrow pits is conditionally accept- able, see policies 7:7E-3.15, 7:7E-3.25 and 7:7E-3.30. (c) Rationale 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 water area 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 and the need for land disposal sites. Use of inefficient equipment and methods in the movement of dredge spoils, and resulting spillage of fuels, emission of toxic or noxious gaIses, loss of dredged materials, and noise and vibrations produced by faulty or worn out equipment and machinery may cause water pollution, air pollution and discomfort both for the crews and for the human population along the disposal route and in nearby areas. 7:7E-7.13 National Defense Facilities Use Policy (a) Definition A national defense facility is any building, group of buildings, marine terminal, or land area owned or operated by a defense agency (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard) and used for training, research, material support, or any other defense-related use. (b) Policy National Defense facilities are conditionally acceptable, and will be approved if one of two findings can be made: 215 1. The proposed facility is consistent with all relevant Coastal Resource and Development Policies; or 2. The proposed facility is coastal dependent, will be constructed and operated with maximum possible consistency with Coastal Resource and Development Policies, and will result in minimal feasible degrada- tion of the natural environment. The construction of new facilities or expansion of existing facilities on land not owned by a defense agency is discouraged, unless it can be shown that the facility cannot feasibly be accommodated on an existing base. (c) Rationale Providing for the national defense is the responsibility of the federal government, and the New Jersey Coastal Management Program will not question the findings of a federal defense agency with respect to national security needs. The requirements that a coastal dependent facility comply with the Coastal Resource and Development Policies only to the maximum extent feasible is in keeping with Section 306(c)(8) of the Federal CZMA, which requires consideration of the national interest in the siting of facili- ties necessary to meet requirements which are other than local in nature. 216 SUBCRAPTER 8 - RESOURCE POLICIES 7:7E-8.1 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 ag well as in its sur- rounding region. These policies serve as standards to which proposed development must adhere. 7:7E-8.2 Marine Fish and Fisheries (a) Policy Coastal actions are conditionally acceptable to the extent that minimal feasible interference is caused to the natural functioning of marine fish and fisheries, including the reproductive and migratory patterns of estuarine and marine estuarine dependent species of finfish and shell- fish. (b) 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 expenditures of approximately $375.8 million per year, with fishing yielding approximately $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 shellfish in New Jersey during 1978 were 163,603,000 lbs., valued at $44.35 million dockside and an estimated $110.9 million retail value, according to Department of Commerce sta- tistics. The 1956 landings of 540 million pounds of all finfish and shellfish indicate the true potential of this industry. Interference with fish resources includes blockage of diadromous finfish spawning runs, reduction in the critical capacity of estuaries to func- tion as finfish nursery areas, reduction of summer dissolved oxygen level below 4 ppm stimulating 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. 7:7E-8.3 Shellfisheries (a) Definition Shellfisheries are estuarine bay and river bottoms which are potentially productive for hard clams, soft clams, eastern oyster, bay scallops or blue mussels. Potentially productive areas are those which do not have a history of natural recruitment for any of the above species, but could be used as a shellfish culture planting area. 217 NOTE: Presently productive shellfish beds, and those with a history of natural recruitment, are addressed by Special Area policy 7:7E-3.2. (b) Policy (i) Any development which would result in the destruction of a poten- tially productive shellfish area is discouraged. (The term destruction is defined in 7:7E-3.2.) (ii) Any development which would result in the contamination or condem- nation of a potentially productive shellfish area is prohibited. Water dependent development which requires new dredging in these areas is discouraged. Maintenance dredging in these areas is conditionally acceptable. (iii) Any project which would discharge untreated or improperly treated domestic or industrial waste waters or toxic or hazardous substances directly into waters so as to adversely affect a potentially productive shellfishing area is prohibited. (c) Rationale Estuarine shellfish are harvested by both commercial and recreational fishermen, with the sport group concentrating on hard clams almost exclusively. Hard clams are a very significant species. Oysters, bay scallops and soft clams are predominantly commercial species Commercial dockside landing values in New Jersey for 1978 were $3.43 million for estuarine mollusks, with an estimated retail industry value of $8.7 million. The commercial harvest is estimated to support employ- ment 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, and crabs and migratory waterfowl, especially the diving species. Hard clams are widely distributed in New Jersey's coastal estuaries inhabiting most waters where the salinity is about 15 parts per thousan@ or greater. Suitable bottom substrate and dissolved oxygen are also important determining factors. Hard clams usually recolonize areas that are dredged, provided that anoxic conditions are not present, although it may take a number of years. Water presently condemned for shellfishing may not be directly or imme- diately important to human economics although these areas have been used as resource recovery programs, relay and depuration, source areas. These areas however serve for restocking fishable areas through production of motile larvae. Shellfish in condemned waters also are not lost to estuarine ecological food-webs, but serve as a food source to other species of wildlife. 218 7:7E-8.4 Eater Quality (a) Definition As required by Section 307(f) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, federal, state and local water quality requirements established under the Clean Water Act shall be the water resource standards of the coastal management program. In the Delaware River Area, water quality standards established by the Delaware River Basin Commission shall also be stand- ards of the coastal management program. State surface and groundwater quality statutes, regulations and standards, are established and admini- stered by DEP's Division of Water Resources (see N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.0 et seq.). (b) Policy Coastal development which would prevent attainment of the defined stand- ards for surface or groundwater is prohibited. Coastal development in conflict with any State certified Areawide Water Quality Management (208) Plan is also prohibited. (c) 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, pathogenic organisms, toxic and hazardous wastes, thermal discharges, suspended sediments, and saline intrusion into freshwater 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. 7:7E-8.5 Surface Water Use (a) Definition Surface water is the water in lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, bogs, wetlands, bays, and ocean that is visible on land. (b) 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 or reserve capacity and that construction of the facility will not cause unaccept- able surface water disturbances, such as drawdown, bottom scour, or alteration of flow patterns. Coastal development which use design processes and fixtures which minimize consumptive water use will be encouraged. Coastal development shall conform with all applicable DEP and, in the Delaware River Area, Delaware River Basin Commission, requirements for surface water diversions. 219 (c) Rationale The surface waters of the New Jersey coastal zone are an invaluable natural resource. Fresh waters maintain the propagation of established and natural biota. They serve as commercial, recreational, industrial, agricultural, and aesthetic resources. Any development that affects surface water quantity and quality will have a negative impact on these uses. 7:7E-8.6 Groundwater Use (a) Definition Groundwater is all water within the soil and subsurface strata that is not at the surface of the land. It includes water that is within the earth that supplies wells and springs. (b) 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 the groundwaters of the zone, will not degrade groundwater quality, will not significantly lower the water table or piezometric surface, or significantly decrease the base flow of adjacent water courses. Groundwater withdrawals shall not exceed the aquifer's safe yield. Coastal developments which use design, processes and fixtures which minimize consumptive water use are encouraged. Development plans are also encouraged to incorporate aquifer recharge techniques. Coastal development shall conform with all applicable DEP and, in the Delaware River Area, Delaware River Basin Commission, requirements for .groundwater withdrawal and water diversion rights. (c) Rationale Groundwater is a primary source of water for drinking and industrial use. In some areas of the coastal zone, especially areas in Essex, Middlesex, Monmouth, Salem, Camden, and Cape May Counties, excessive amounts of groundwater are being withdrawn. The problem stems from the overpumping of groundwater, industrial, agricultural and municipal landfill leakage into groundwater and reduction of aquifer recharge caused by increased development and population. This has led to a progressive lowering of the water table or piezometric surface, altered groundwater flow pat- terns, changed groundwater recharge/discharge relationships, is increas- ing salt water intrusion into the groundwaters, may damage the base flow conditions of streams, and may lead to well closings because of contami- nation. 7:7E-8.7 Runoff (a) Definition Runoff is that portion of precipitation on the land is not absorbed by the soil, but instead runs off to surface water bodies. 220 (b) Policy (i) Coastal development shall use the best available technology to minimize off-site storm water runoff, increase on-site infiltration, simulate natural drainage systems, and minimize offsite discharge of pollutants to ground or surface water and encourage natural filtra- tion functions. Best availabe technology may include measures such as retention basins, recharge trenches, porous paving and piping, contour terraces, and swale lagoon systems provided such techniques can be demonstrated to satisfy these policies. Provisions for elimination of curbs, reduction of roadway widths, and rooftop recharge basins are strongly encouraged. (ii) The goal of runoff control methods shall be to prevent the rate of off-site storm water runoff during the construction and operation of a development under any storm conditions, from exceeding the rate of runoff that would occur under the existing predevelopment conditions of the site. For some sites, with existing predevelopment condi- tions such as cultivated land, bare earth, or partial paving, the goal of runoff control methods shall be 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 predevelopment conditions. (iii) the off-site stormwater sewers may not discharge into sanitary sewer systems, (iv) the amount of pollutants in the stormwater runoff discharge to surface water bodies shall be minimized and the discharge shall satisfy the applicable DEP-established surface water quality standards of the receiving water body using measures such as sedi- ment traps, oil skimmers and vacuum street cleaners. Pollutants of major concern include petrochemicals and heavy metals from vehicle spillage, de-icing salts, aromatic hydrocarbons from blacktop paving, and pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers from lawn and garden areas. (v) the volume and quality of stormwater discharged offsite will not cause adverse impacts to the receiving water body, and must conform with the requirements of the DEP Stream Encroachment Permit Program (N.J.S.A. 58:1-26 and rules). (vi) Groundwater infiltration areas such as detention ponds or swales shall be sited as far horizontally from surface water and as far vertically from groundwater as is practicable. Infiltration areas are discouraged in soils with a seasonal high water table between 1 1/2 and 3 feet. Limited infiltration swales may be acceptable on a case by case basis provided that: swales in these areas are not the principal infiltration areas and only serve to recharge runoff generated with the area of soils with seasonal high water tables between 1 1/2 and 3 feet. 221 - maximum swale slopes are 2%. - time of concentration is maximized by maximizing the length of the swale. - swales are planted with native woody species at sufficient densi- ties to delay surface water flow and promote evapotranspiration. Infiltration and water retention areas of all kinds are prohibited in soils'with a seasonal high water table of 1 1/2 feet or less. Infiltration areas, detention and retention basins, or any other techniques of delaying runoff are prohibited in soils with a seasonal high water table of 1 1/2 feet or less. (vii) In designing the site plan, including detention and retention facilities, the stormwater runoff calculations shall be based on 24 hour storms of 25 years and 100 years 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, Technical Release No. 55, Jan,4ary 1975. (c) 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 will 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 tur- bidity, decreased aquatic productivity, lowered water tables, reduced groundwater quality and supply. The policies anticipate these concerns and treat a development site as a closed system within which drainage systems must be designed to contain runoff and ground and surface water pollution increases within the site in order to minimize offsite impacts. Examples of stormwater runoff management techniques may be found in two source books: J. Tourbier and R. Westmacott, 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, reviseT 1-975). 7:7E-8.8 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation (a) Definition Erosion is the detachment and movement of soil or rock particles by water, wind, ice or gravity, while sedimentation is the action or process of depositing soil or rock particles. 222 (b) Policy Coastal development is required to restrict soil loss and control soil erosion and sedimentation during the construction of development to the standards specified in Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey adopted by the State Soil Conservation Committee in 1972, revised in 1975 and any other soil conservation standards or plans adopted by State Soil Conservation Committee, local Soil Conservation Districts or municipalities pursuant to the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act (N.J.S.A. 4:24-39 et seq.). In addition, development on slopes between 8-15 percent is discour- aged, unless: M 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 charac- teristics of - the site in visual, physical, and engineering terms, (iii) Minimal feasible site disturbance and maximum practicable revegeta- tion take place. (c) Rationale Erosion is the detachment and movement of soil or rock particles by water, wind, ice or gravity. Erosion can be significantly increased by human activities including construction practices such as the clearance of vegetation, excavation, grading, and stockpiling, agricultural culti- vation and silviculture (timber harvesting). Erosion and sedimentation cause 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 pre- vented from reaching and affecting coastal waters. Many techniques are available to control sediment loss, including mini- mizing the area of soil exposed at one time, baling and contour ter- racing 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. See also the Special Area Policies on Steep Slopes and Coastal Bluffs. 7:7E-8.9 Vegetation (a) Definition Vegetation is the plant life or total plant cover that is found on a specific area, whether indigenous or introduced by humans. 223 (b) 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. (c) Rationale The steady loss of vegetation is a nearly inevitable result of urbaniza- tion. 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 selection 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 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: (i) Barrier Beach Sites - Plants tolerant of salt spray and occasional saline flooding, such as American holly, red cedar, black cherry, beach plum, beach grass, bayberry, beach heather, etc. (ii) 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, blue- berry, etc. (iii) 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. (iv) Piedmont Sites - Oak, hickory, beech, ash, elm, hemlock, dogwood and laurel cherry. 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 wildlife or other desirable traits are favored for new planting. 224 7:7E-8.10 Important Wildlife Habitat (a) Definition Important wildlife habitats are areas of general importance to the maintenance of a range of wildlife species, providing high primary productivity, good mixes of habitat types, surface water, cover, or movement corridors. These areas are not as critical as Critical Wildlife Habitats. If they were depleted the effect on wildlife population would not be as catastrophic as the loss of a Critical Habitat, but serious depletions of wildlife populations would occur. Definitions and maps of Important Wildlife Habitats are currently available from DEP-DCR only for Cape May County. Until additional maps are available, sites will be considered for importance on a case by case basis by the NJDEP Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife. (b) Policy (i) Coastal development which does not incorporate management techniques which minimize disturbance to important wildlife habitats, is discouraged. (ii) Development that would significantly restrict the movement of wildlife through the site to adjacent habitats and open space areas is discouraged. (c) Rationale Important Wildlife Habitats are areas that provide primary p@roductivit y or primary habitat for a wide range of game and non-game species. Depletion of this resource would cause a general population decline of species that are not rare or endangered. Wildlife is an important 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 move- ment corridors, placement of nesting boxes, and planting of vege- tative wildlife food species. 7:7E-8.1l.Air_ quality (a) Definition The protection of air resources refers to the attainment of State and federal air quality goals and the prevention of degradation of current levels of air quality. (b) Policies Coastal development shall conform to all applicable state and federal emissions regulations, ambient air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration criteria, nonattainment criteria, any other policies of New Jersey's State Implementation Plan, and other regulations and guidelines established to meet requirements of the federal Clean Air Act as amended in 1977. 225 (c) Rationale The attainment and maintenance of high air quality is vital for the health of and welfare of New Jersey's residents and visitors. 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. DEP's Division of Environmental Quality administers the State's air quality program and determines compliance with the coastal policy on air quality. Furthermore, the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, Section 307(f) requires that the air resource standards of the coastal management program be the local, state and federal policies established in fulfill- ment of the Clean Air Act and its amendments. 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 re- strictions 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. Also, under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, major wilderness areas of over 5,000 acres are mandatory Class I-Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or Pristine Areas. In New Jersey's Delaware Bay and Atlantic Ocean Shore areas, this designation applies to the wilder- ness 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. The entire proposed Northern Waterfront and Delaware River areas of the proposed coastal zone violates the NAAQS for carbon monoxide and ozone, and most of the area violates particulate standards. Such widespread nonattainment results from the area's density of residential, commercial and industrial development and the heavy amounts of traffic generated. 226 The State Implementation Plan does not suggest halting all further development. The Plan outlines policies which will serve to locate and control new development as well as regulate and minimize the emissions of existing pollution sources. Policies which will specifically apply to new development in the areas of the coastal zone which violate the NAAQS are: Emissions Offset, New Source Performance Standards, Prevention of Significant Deterioration for Class II areas, regulations for indus- trial emissions of particulates and organic substances which contribute to ozone production, and a series of strategies aimed at the control of emissions generated by motor vehicles. The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) system allows develop- ment to generate incremental amounts of certain pollutants for which the area is in compliance. For the developed areas of the coastal zone, this means that moderate growth generating a limited increase in sulfer dioxide is sanctioned. The Emissions Offset policy, allowing for emissions tradeoffs between proposed new and existing sources in nonattainment areas, can also be called upon to allow development that might not otherwise be permitted. Finally, a variance system exists which allows the Administrator of the EPA to waive requirements if it is determined that the State is making progress in achieving the NAAQS and other federal -mandated requirements. 7:7E-8.12 Public Services (a) 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 developments. (b) Policy Coastal development shall insure, to the maximum extent practicable, that adequate levels of public services will be provided to meet the addi- tional demands for public services likely to be generated by the proposed development. (c) Rationale New development places additional demands on public services. Unless the existing supply can satisfy these demands or extensions 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. 227 7:7E-8.13 Public Access to the Shorefront (a) Definition Public access to the shorefront is the ability of all members of the community at large to pass physically and visually to, from and along the ocean shore and other waterfronts. (b) Policy Coastal development adjacent to all coastal waters, including both natural and built-up waterfront areas, shall provide perpendicular and linear access to the waterfront to the maximum extent practicable, including both visual and physical access. Shorefront development that limits public access and the diversity of shorefront experiences is discouraged. All development adjacent to water shall, to the maximum extent practi- cable, provide, within its site boundary, a linear waterfront strip accessible to the public. If there is a linear waterfront path on either side of the site, and the use, due to operation or security reasons, cannot allow continuation of passage along the water's edge, a pathway around the site must be designed that connects to the other parts, or potential parts of the waterfront path system in adjacent parcels. Municipalities or private development that do not currently provide, or have active plans to provide, access to the water will not be eligible for Green Acres or Shore Protection Bond funding. (c) Rationale New Jersey's coastal waters and adjacent shorelands are valuable public resources which are limited in area. They are protected by New Jersey's Shore Protection and Waterway Maintenance Program and patrolled by the New Jersey Marine Police which are both financed by all State residents. 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 water- front access inconvenient, 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, funded by DEP each summer since 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 came in part from the research in the report entitled Public Access to the Oceanfront Beaches: A Report to the Governor and the Legislature of New Jersey, April 1977, pre- pared in pTr_t-T_yDEP-OCZM. 228 The developed waterfront, due to its past industrial utilization, has been closed to the people that live adjacent to the waterfront. DEP intends to promote a horizontal network of open space at the water which could be visualized as a narrow strip used for walking, jogging, bicyc- ling, sitting, or viewing, which is continuous, even if the path must detour around existing or proposed industry due to security needs or the lack of pre-existing access. The path or strip will connect future and existing waterfront parks, open space areas, and commmercial activities. The goal of this policy is the piecing together of a system that will provide continuous linkages and access along the entire waterfront. 7:7E-8.14 Scenic Resources and Design (a) Definition Scenic resources include the view of the natural and/or man made land- scape, while design is defined as the elements that compose the man-made landscape such as structures, including their geometry, texture and color. (b) 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 different in design and visual impact than existing devel- opment or adversely affects the scenic resources of the region is dis- couraged, unless the nea development upgrades the scenic and aesthetic resources of a site and its region. (c) 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. The visual quality of diverse coastal locations is essential to maintaining a "sense of place". 7:7E-8.15 Buffers and Compatibility of Uses (a) Definition Buffers are natural or man made areas, structures, or objects that serve to separate distinct uses or areas. Compatibility of uses is the ability for uses to exist together without aesthetic or functional conflicts. (b) Policy Development shall be compatible with adjacent land and water types, as defined in the Location Policies, to the maximum extent practicable. 229 Development that is likely to adversely affect adjacent areas, parti- cularly Special Areas (7:7E-3.1 through 7:7E-3.41), is discouraged unless an adequate buffer is provided. The purpose, width and type of the required buffer shall vary depending upon the type and degree of impact and the type of adjacent area to be affected by the development, and shall be determined on a case-by-case basis. Developments that are incompatible with adjacent residental development shall provide vegetated and other types of buffers at the site boundary of sufficient width to reduce the incompatibility, to the maximum extent practicable. (c) 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 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. Buffers serve several important functions, including maintenance of wildlife habitats, water purification, open space and recreation, and control of runoff. Buffers may include fences, landscaped berms, and vegetated natural areas. 7:7E-8.16 Solid Waste (a) Definition "Solid Waste" shall mean garbage, refuse, and other discarded materials from industrial, commercial and agricultural operations and from domestic and community activities, and shall include all other waste materials including liquids except for liquids which are treated in public sewage treatment plants and except for solid animal and vegetable wastes col- lected by swine producers licensed by the State Department of Agriculture to collect, prepare and feed such wastes to swine on their own farms (N.J.S.A. 13:IE-1 et seq.). (b) 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:IE-1 et seq.) and the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (P.L. 9-475-8-07. If resource and energy recovery are impractical, solid waste including litter, trash, refuse, and demolition debris shall be han@led and disposed of in a manner acceptable to the standards of DEP's Solid Waste Administration. 230 (c) 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. The recycling of materials from the waste stream: - reduces energy used in the industrial process, - conserves landfill space, - provides material feedstock for local industries, - provides a domestic source of energy or fuels, and - provides a local source of jobs, taxes, and profits. Recyclable materials can replace scarce or imported resources such as bauzite, iron ore, zinc, soda ash, and oil in the production of new materials or energy. The markets for such resources exist in the State. Recycling is an energy-efficient, environmentally sound, and economically viable industry for the State of New Jersey. 7:7E-8.17 Energy Conservation (a) Definition Energy Conservation is the use of techniques which minimize the amount of energy used by a facility and maximize the productivity of the energy that is used. (b) Policy Coastal development shall incorporate energy conservation techniques and alternative sources of energy, including passive and active solar power and wind turbines, to the maximum extent practicable. The technical and economic feasibility of employing such measures shall be evaluated in an energy plan preparedy by the appilcant. The plan shall specify the energy conservation techniques and alternative sources of energy to be utilized as well as anticipated energy require- ments for space heating, cooling, ventilation and lighting, indus- trial processes and other uses. (c) Rationale This policy assists the Department of Energy and Community Affairs in implementing New Jersey's Energy Conservation Plan, State Energy Master Plan, and the energy subcode of the Uniform Co ucFion Code (N.J.S.A. !=27D-119 et seq.). New Jersey's 1977 Energy Conservation Plan admini- stered by 5--e-Ige-w 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 231 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 include the siting of buildings with an understanding of the micro-climate conditions of a site, use of clustering, provision of bicycle paths, and the location of housing close to public transportation. 7:7E-8.18 Neighborhoods and Special Communities (a) Definition Neighborhoods, small towns, and communities are discrete districts and areas 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. (b) Policy Coastal development that protects and enhances the physical coherence in neighborhoods and special communities is encouraged. Development that would adversely affect neighborhoods and special communities is discour- aged. (c) Rationale 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 com- munity should be valued, reinforced, and preserved. 7:7E-8.19 Traffic (a) Definition Traffic is the movement of vehicles, pedestrians and ships along a route. (b) Policy Coastal development that induces marine and/or land traffic is con- ditionally acceptable provided that it does not cause unacceptable congestion and safety problems. (c) 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. 232 7:7E-8.20 High Permeability Moist Soils (a) Definition High Permeability Moist Soils are soils contiguous with stream channels 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. These soils are distinguished from the High Permeability Wet Soils, with a depth to seasonal high water table less than or equal to three feet, which are discussed in the Location Policies. (b) Policy Coastal development shall avoid filling, building, paving, disturbing soil, or discharging effluent to groundwater on High Permeability Moist Soils, to the maximum extent practicable. In particular, coastal devel- opment shall be designed such that onsite roads, parking lots, struc- tures, subsurface sewage disposal areas, and discharge basins avoid High Permeability Moist Soils, particularly in the proximity of surface water bodies and wells. Development that is determined by DEP to be acceptable in these areas shall conform to the Wet Soils policy (7:7E-8.21). (c) 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 dis- posal fields be at least four feet above the seasonal high groundwater table. 7:7E-8.21 Wet Soils (a) 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. (b) Policy Development in wet soils is discouraged unless the following conditions are met: (i) Basements are prohibited. 233 (ii) 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. (iii) The air spaces beneath ground floor slabs are adequately ventilated, using mechnical ventilation, if necessary. (iv) 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. (v) 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. (vi) Porous concrete is prohibited, although other porous pavements such as lattice concrete or gravel are acceptable. (vii) The lowering of the water table by pumping that would disturb adapted vegetation is prohibited. (viii) Detention basins, swales and other runoff retention and groundwater recharge areas are discouraged in soils with a seasonal high water table between 1 1/2 feet and 3 feet, although limited swales may be acceptable on a case by case basis (see 7:7E-8.7). Runoff retention and groundwater recharge areas are prohibited in soils with a seasonal high water table of 1 1/2 feet or less. 7:7E-8.22 Fertile Soils (a) 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, Me and a K value of less than 0.20, and IIIw if well drained, or Woodland Suitability Rating of 1. (b) Policy Location Policies restrict development in Farmland Conservation Areas. Elsewhere, 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. (c) Rationale Fertile soils are the product of millenia of soil forming processes and, once paved, are irraperably lost. The Farm Conservation Special Area policy preserves large contiguous acreages of fertile soils for commer- cial production of food and fiber, but smaller areas of fertile soils in 234 the open spaces between development are a natural resource of consider- able 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 relative 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. 7:7E-8.23 Flood Hazard Areas (a) Definition Flood Hazard Areas around rivers, creeks and streams are being delineated by DEP under the Flood Hazard Area Control Act (N.J.S.A. 58:16A-50 et seq.), and by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Flood Hazard Area Control Act mandates DEP to "delineate as flood hazard areas, areas as in the judgment of the Department, the improper development and use of which would constitute a threat to the safety, health and general welfare from flooding" (N.J.S.A. 58:16A-52). Where Flood Hazard Areas have been delineated by both DEP and FEMA, the DEP delineations shall be used. Flood Hazard Areas around water bodies other than rivers, creeks and streams are delineated only by FEMA. Where Flood Hazard Areas have been delineated by neither FEMA nor DEP, the 10-foot contour line shall be used as the inland boundary of the Floodplain. The seaward boundary shall be the mean high water line. Floodway is defined as "the channel of natural stream and portions of the flood hazard area adjoining the channel, which are reasonably required to carry and discharge the flood water for flood flow of any natural stream" (N.J.S.A. 58:16A-51). Floodways are being delineated by DEP (see Figure 28). A complete list of streams where DEP had delineated the Flood Hazard Area can be found in the N.J.A.C. 7:13-1.11 et.seq. In the tidal areas, 100 year tidal elevations have been identified for FEMA in most municipalities within the coastal zone 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). (b) Policy (i) Dedication of undeveloped flood hazard areas for purposes of public open space is encouraged, especially where such areas are designated to the New Jersey Wild and Scenic Rivers System. (ii) 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, 235 Figure 28 FLOW 1,4AZARD A" A MOOD. P.00D RDODWA'f R I N66 C 14ANNE FLOOD INGE FLOODWA'li CHANNEL FLOODY40 r-LOObFZIt4GE.J FLUVIAL FL20-D HAZARD AREA VPLAND FLATS WeTLhmrj 10OVEAR s.) N-,,__,,,,/'TlDAVkLEVATl0N IAL "Am UL INL V- IL %L lu IL ly UL MAL) wwi ft W V, V9L * **L WJ * OL A IA 'ALI 41L 3w qk WETLANDS sL Aw OR FLATS 41L V qL IN WL w, ILL vu Nor JAN Uji w Aw Igo Mul -CXEAN 1@s@ 'BACk SAV COASTAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA R-1 r@b FLMD HAZARD AREA5 236 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 tanks for residential or commercial use (see N.J.A.C. 7:13-1.2 et seq.). Not affected by this policy are hazard-free activitij-s- i7c_h 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 prohibited 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. (iii) Most land uses are also regulated, under State Flood Hazard Areas Control law and rules, in the flood fringe. Structures for occu- pancy by humans are conditionally acceptable provided that: the first habitable elevation is one foot above the 100 year flood prone line established by HUD Flood Insurance Maps, and the structure will not increase flood damage potential, by obstructing flood waters. (iv) 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. (v) In river areas designated as components of the New Jersey Wild and Scenic Rivers System, land uses are regulated or prohibited in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:38-1.1 et seq. including special regula- tions adopted for a particular Miver, or sections thereof, upon designation to the system. (c) 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 Hazard Areas 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 produc- tivity. Flood plains serve as important wildlife habitat for endangered and threatened species, game and fur-bearing species, and rare species of vegetation. Flood Hazard Areas can also be key elements in the creation of stream corridor-oriented open space, hiking or cycling trails, and passive recreation areas. 7:7E-8.24 Decomissioning of Projects (a) Definition Decommissioning is the shutdown of a development and the return of the site to a state suitable for future use. 237 (b) Policy Coastal development applications must state the anticipated life of the proposed project and address the steps necessary to adapt the site to another use once the proposed project is no longer functional. Develop- ment proposals in which the applicant takes the long-term responsibility for making the site available for another use are encouraged. (c) Rationale The coast, particularly in urban areas, is littered with the remains of projects which outlived their usefulness and were abandoned. These derelict piers, deserted warehouses and crumbling buildings depress the immediate surrounding areas and make more difficult the task of rehabilitating the urban waterfront. This policy is intended to make the long-term future use of a site one of the factors considered when evaluating a current proposal. Applicants should bear at least some of the responsibility for insuring that their use of a site does not eventually render it a hazard to health or the local or regional economy. 7:7E-8.25 Noise Abatement (a) Definition Noise is any sound of such level to be injurious to human health or welfare, or which would unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property throughout the State or in any portion thereof, but excludes noise emanating from reisdential structures and all aspects of the eraployer-employee relationship concerning health and safety hazards within the confines of a place of employment (N.J.S.A. 13:1G-3). (b) Policy Noise levels must conform with the standards established in N.J.A.C. 7:29-1.1 et seq. and administered by the office of Noise Control in the Division of Environmental Quality. (c) Rationale Noise can be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of people who live or work in the coastal zone. It can also diminish the enjoyment of people who visit the coast. 7:7E-8.26 Barrier Free Design (a) Definition Barrier free design is a plan for a project which would permit a handi- capped person to operate independently with comparative ease. 238 (b) Policy All development without barrier free design in public areas is prohi- bited, and multi-family residential 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 according to State Law (N.J.S.A.- 52:32-1 and 52:32-5). Barrier free design is encouraged in units of private resi- dential developments. All curb ramping, sidewalks, and grade changes on public property or on private property for public use shall be con- structed or reconstructed according to State Law (N.J.S.A. 52:32-14 et seq.) and pursuant standards promulgated by the Department of Transpo-r- -Ca-t i on . (c) Rationale Activities in the coastal zone should be available to all people, includ- ing 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 Treasury, Division of Building and Con- struction on July 15, 1977, defines the barrier free design requirements of public buildings. Design standards for curb ramps for the physically handicapped were published by the Department of Transportation July 19, 1976 and revised July 18, 1977. 239 I I Chapter 5: Special Requirements of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act Chapter 6: Next Steps in Coastal Management in New Jersey I CHAPTER FIVE - SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT Introduction Federal Consistency National Interests Regional Benefit Decisions Geographic Areas of Particular Concern Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission District Areas for Preservation and Restoration Special Coastal Planning Elements Energy Facility Planning Process Shorefront Access and Protection Planning Process Shoreline Erosion/Mitigation Planning INTRODUCTION This Chapter addresses the special federal requirements which must be part of a state's coastal management program under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. The Chapter describes the involvement and consideration of national interests in the development and implementation of the program. It discusses the process of assuring that federal actions are consistent with the Coastal Program to- the maximum extent practicable. it then describes how various conflicts between the national interests are balanced in the program and the process to assure adequate consideration of such issues. In addition, this Chapter describes how the New Jersey Coastal Program ensures that uses of regional benefit are not excluded from the coastal zone. Because some areas in the coastal zone have significant coastal value or face exceptional environmental pressures, they demand special management attention. This chapter describes the areas New Jersey has designated to receive special management consideration as geographic areas of particular concern, including the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission District, and areas for preservation or restoration. In addition, this chapter includes the three special coastal planning ele- ments the 1976 amendments to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act mandate be included in each State's coastal program. The special planning processes are the energy facility planning process, the shorefront access. and protection planning process, and the shoreline erosion/mitigation planning process. 241 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)(1) and (2), require that federal activities and development projects in or directly affecting the coastal zone be consistent (in some cases to the maximum extent practicable) with the State Coastal Zone Management Program. Section 307(c)(3)(A), 307(c)(B) and 307(d) require federally licensed and permitted activi- ties, 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. New Jersey will use the goals, objectives and policies of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program as the basis for making consistency determinations. Specifically, New Jersey will consider a federal action consistent if it does not conflict with the Coastal Resource and Development Policies as stated in Chapter Four. General Procedural Requirements The Federal consistency requirements outlined in this chapter describe the procedures that will be followed by DEP's Division of Coastal Resources in deter- mining the consistency of federal activities with the Coastal Management Program. These procedures incorporate the mandatory requirements of the federal consistency regulations (15 CFR Part 530) into a review process that is modelled on existing state permit review processes. . In most cases, an activity subject to the requirements of Section 307 of the Federal CZMA will also require a coastal permit. Consistency for these activities may be demonstrated by receipt of an approved State coastal permit (either a CAFRA, Waterfront Development or Wetlands Permit). The appropriate state permit application should, therefore, be submitted to DEP prior to or concurrent with the submission to the Federal licensing or per- mitting agency initiating the Federal review process. Should the Division of Coastal Resources receive a consistency certification for an activity which requires a state permit but for which no application has been submitted, the agency or person proposing to conduct the activity shall be advised that such a permit is required. Such activities will thereafter be reviewed under the State's regulatory authority, and not under Section 307. The Division shall issue, within the time limit relevant to the category of federal activity, a determination stating that the decision to grant or deny the State coastal permit shall constitute a con- sistency determinaiton. Review of applications for State coastal permits will follow the relevant State procedures. 242 Activities which would directly affect the coastal zone but are not regulated by a state permit program, activities on federal lands having "spillover impacts" on the coastal zone (see discussion of geographic scope below) and activities described in OCS plans will require reviews independent of any existing permit program. Geographic Scope The geographic scope of the consistency review process includes the entire coastal zone and, in some cases, areas outside the coastal boundary. Federal lands within the boundary are excluded from the coastal zone, and are not ordinarily subject to a consistency review. Activities on Federal lands and on other lands outside the zone are subject to consistency review if it is found that they may directly affect the coastal zone (15 CFR 930.33c). Whether these "spillover effects" will have such an impact will depend generally on the type of activity to be conducted, its magnitude, and its proximity to the coastal zone. Persons proposing to conduct an activity with potential spillover impacts should consult with the Division of Coastal Resources early in the planning process in order to avoid later problems. There are certain geographic areas outside the coastal zone in which activi- ties are likely to have direct and predictable impacts on the coastal zone. Any activity in a riverine area upstream of the coastal zone which reduces or otherwise alters flow, for example, is likely to directly affect downstream areas. This is particularly true where the water body is directly affected by the activity, as with damming, dredging, filling, or construction within the natural high water mark. if the affected downstream areas encompass Wetlands, Floodplains, or any of the other Special Areas listed in the Rules on Coastal Resource and Development Policies then it may be assumed that such activities will directly affect the coastal zone. Contents of a Consistency Determination or Certification Federal activities that require a coastal permit are subject to the informa- tion requirements of the particular permit program. When reviewing activities that do not require a coastal permit (e.g. activi- ties directly affecting the coastal zone but not regulated by the state, activities on federal lands and OCS activities), DEP will attempt to base its decision on the document or documents required for compliance with Federal laws and regula- tions. Notice of the receipt of Federal consistency determinations, certifications, and notifications, and the subsequent status of each consistency review will be published in the DEP Bulletin in accordance with the 90 Day Construction Permit Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:IC-1.6. A-Tree subscription to the DEP Bulletin may be obtained by writing to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Documents Distribution Center, P. 0. Box 1390, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. 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. 243 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 consistency on coastal energy facilities. As required by federal regulations (15 CFR 930.18), DEP shall receive, and forward promptly to DOE, all materials necessary for a con- sistency determination on coastal energy facilities. In the event of a disagree- ment, the Energy Facility Review Board will be convened to make a recommendation to' the Governor, who shall make the final determination within the applicable time limits as required by the federal consistency determination to the appropriate federal agency. Preliminary Conferences The Federal consistency regulations encourage early consultation and coordina- tion between state and Federal agencies or applicants. An agency or applicant may request a preliminary conference in writing or by telephone, advising PEP that the agency has identified an activity as one requiring, or possibly requiring, a consistency review that it wishes to discuss. This request should come at the earliest possible time and should be addressed to the Federal Coordinator, Bureau of Coastal Planning and Development, Division of Coastal Resources. 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. Direct Federal Activities and Development Projects Federal activities and development projects which are located in or directly affect the coastal zone must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the New Jersey 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, unless compliance with New Jersey's program is prohibited based on existing law applicable to the Federal agency's operations. Agencies and Activities Covered By This Section Direct activities and development projects include the planning, construction, modification, or removal of Federally owned public works, facilities, or struc- tures, including military facilities; the acquisition, utilization or disposal of land and water resources; Federal agency activities requiring a Federal permit; and Federal assistance to entities other than state and local governments. Examples of activities in New Jersey's codstal zone that were not previously subject to State review are the housing units presently under construction by the Coast Guard on federally-owned land in Cape May (because of their potential spill- over impacts) and the proposed expansion of the Naval, Weapons Station, Colts Neck, New Jersey. The following Federal activities and development projects, when conducted in whole or in part within the coastal zone, are likely to directly affect the coastal zone, and shall be reviewed for consistency. 244 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Location and design of proposed government prop- erty acquisition and building construction. Disposal and transfer of surplus Federal lands. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Army Corps of Engineers Proposed projects authorizatiori for dredging, chan- nelworks, 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 non- federal coastal lands and waters. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - Management of Coal Conversion Program. Federal Energy Regulatory 73-mmission - Approval of construction and operation of an inter- state natural gas transmission pipeline. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management - OCS Leases and pre-leasing activities. Fish and Wildlife Service Management of national wildlife refuges and pro- posed acquisition. National Park Service National Park and seashore management and proposed acquisition. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Coast Guard Location, acquisition and design of new or enlarged installations. Materials Transportation Bureau Formation and enforcement of minimal federal safety standards for transportation of oil, gas and pipeline facilities. Federal Highway Administration Highway construction. .Federally Licensed and Permitted Activities Applicants for Federal licenses or permits for activities directly affecting the coastal zone or for renewals or amendments to such licenses or permits shall provide DEP with a certification that the proposed activity is consistent with the coastal policies. DEP shall make a determination that the activity is or is not consistent with Coastal Policies within six months of. 'receipt of the certifca- tion. Should DEP fail to make a determination within six months, the State's 245 concurrence with the certification shall be conclusively presumed. Federal agen- cies may not issue a license or permit if the State objects unless the U.S. Secre- tary of Commerce finds that a proposal is consistent with the purpose of the Federal CZMA or is necessary in the interest of national security. New Jersey will consider an activity consistent if it does not conflict with the Coastal Resource and Development Policies. In approving the New Jersey Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, the Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, made-FIFF following finding: "With respect to any Federal license or permit, the State's review of the application for that license or permit, for Federal consistency purposes, will be limited to the scope of the review of that application as established under State and Federal law."* In order to comply with this finding, DEP examined the legislation and regulations governing the Federal regulatory programs listed in this section and found that Federal agencies are required to examine the potential environmental impacts of their actions, regardless of the scope of review established for the particular permit or license involved. These requirements stem from the National Environ- mental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1966, Executive Order 11514 (Protection and Enhancement. of Environmental Quality), Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands), and Executive Order 11988 (Floodplains). The fact that every Federal action is assessed for the significance of its impacts on the environment within the meaning of NEPA (including NPDES permits for new point source discharges), and for its impact on floodplains, wetlands, fish, and wildlife means that the issuance of Federal licenses and permits listed in this section, with two exceptions, will be reviewed with reference to the full range of coastal policies contained in Chapter Four. The two exceptions are NPDES permits for existing point source discharges, which are subject only to Resource Policy 7:7E-8.4 (Water Quality); and decisions under prevention of significant deteriora- tion. (PSD) regulations of the Clean Air Act, which are subject only to Resource Policy 7:7E-8.11 (Air Quality). Licenses and Permits Covered by this Section Licenses and permits include any authorization, certification, approval, or other form of permission which a Federal agency is empowered to issue to an appli- cant, including amendments to or renewals of such permits. Activities under the following Federal permits and licenses, when conducted by an applicant in whole or in part within the coastal zone, are likely to signifi- cantly affect the coastal zone and.will be subject to a consistency review: *Findings of Robert W. Knecht, Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management. Approval of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, September 29, 1978, p. 47. 246 Army Corps of Engineers Permits to regulate construction of any dam or dike across any navigable water of the U.S. under Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899. Permits to regulate the obstruction or alteration 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. (Exception: placement of bulkheads and other retaining struc- tures, construction of docks, piers and boat ramps, or excavation from or depositing material within a man-made lagoon). Permits and licenses to regulate transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it in ocean waters under Section 103 of the Marine Pro- tection, 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 United States at specified disposal sites under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and amendments unless such permitting activity has been delegated to the State. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Licenses required for non-Federal hydroelectric projects and primary trans- mission lines under sections 3(11), 4(e), and 15 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(11), 797(e), and 808). orders for interconnection of electric transmission facilities under section 202(b) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(b)). Certificates of public convenience and necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities including both interstate pipe- lines and LNG termianl facilities under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717f(c)). Permission and approval for the abandonment of natural gas pipeline facilities under Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717f(b)). U. S. Coast Guard Permits for construction and operation of deepwater ports under the Deep- water Port Act of 1974. Permits for construction of bridges under 33 USC 401, 491, 525. Federal Aviation Administration Permits and licenses for the construction, operation, or alteration of airports. 247 Enviro i@ienta-l Protection Agency National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, unless such permitting author- ity is delegated to the State. Decisions under Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations under the Clean Air Act of 1976. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 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. Economic Regulatory Administration opinions and orders for permission for delivery of imported LNG. 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: 11...any person who submits to the Secretary of the Interior any plan for the exploration or development of, 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". The Department of the Interior must supply DEP with a detailed description of all proposed Federally licensed or permitted activities and facilities for OCS activities which significantly affect the coastal zone. Federal Agencies may not issue a license or permit if the state objects, unless the U.S. Secretary of Commerce finds the proposal meets the objectives of the Federal CZMA or is necessary in the interest of national security. New Jersey will consider an activity consistent if it does not conflict with the Coastal Resource and Development Policies. Permits and Licenses Covered by this Section Any Federally licensed or permitted activity described in any OCS plan for all lease sales on the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States under which New Jersey is identified as an "affected state". Federal Assistance to State and Local Governments Federal assistance to state and local governments for projects directly affecting the coastal zone may not be granted until DEP certifies that the activity will be consistent with the New Jersey Coastal Management Program unless the Secretary of Commerce finds that the proposal meets the objectives of the Federal 248 CZMA or is necessary in the interest of national security. DEP 'will use the A-95 Project Notification and Review Process to monitor proposed Federal assist- ance 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. New Jersey will consider an activity consistent if it does not conflict with the Coastal Resource and Development Policies. Activities and Agencies Covered by this Section The term Federal assistance includes grants, contractual arrangements, loans, subsidies, guarantees, insurance, or other forms of financial aid. The term "state or local government" includes public entities such as special purpose districts. (Note: It is not clear at this time whether Community Development Block Grant and Urban Development Action Grant Program applications fall within the coverage of this section. Such applications often do not provide, nor are they required to provide, a level of detail adequate to enable a consistency determination to be made. DEP, therefore, shall review such applications, but it shall not issue a negative determination for lack of information for these two categories of grant programs. It shall, by letter and by A-95 comment, assess the applicant's consis- tency with the Coastal Management Program to the fullest extent possible.) DEP will monitor state and local Federal assistance applications affec- ting the coastal zone including, but not limited to the following programs (Refer- ence numbers are those used by the Federal Office of Management and Budget). Activities under these grant programs, when conducted in whole or in part in the coastal zone , are likely to significantly affect the coastal zone, and will be reviewed for consistency. Federal Regulations (15 CFR 930-94) requires that states list the specific Federal assistance programs subject to consistency review in their coastal manage- ment programs. Department of Agriculture Irrigation, Drainage, and Other Soil and Water Conservation Loans (10.409) Resource Conservation and Development Loans (10.414) (Exception: small projects costing under $7500 for erosion and sediment control and land stabilization for rehabilitation and coordination of existing irrigation systems). Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities (10.418) Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Loans (10.419) Community Facilities Loans (10.423) Department of Commerce Economic Development: Grants and Loans for Public Works and Development Facilities (11.300) 249 Economic Development: Public Works Impact Projects (11.304) Grants to States for Supplemental and Basic Funding of Title I, II, and IV Activities (basic grants only) (11.308) National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Se Grants Department of Energy State Energy Conservation Program Department of the Interior Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service Outdoor Recreation - Acquisition, Development, and Planning Grants (15.400) U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rare and Endangered Species Conservation (15.612) Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Adminstration Airport Development Aid Program (20.102) Federal Highway Administration Highway Research, Planning, and Construction (20.205) Urban Mass Transportation Administration Urban Mass Transportation Capital Improvement Grants (planning and construction only) (20.500) Urban Mass Transportation Capital Improvement Loans (planning and con- struction only) (20.501) Urban Mass Transportation Demonstration Grants (50.506) Urban Mass Transportation Capital and Operating Assistance Formula Grants (20.507) Environmental Protection Agency Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works (66.418) (Note: Public water treatment facilities in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment are subject to CAFRA). 250 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) (01 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 A. 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 aid 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. 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 the Location Policies, Use Policies, and Resource Policies described in Chapter Four, which will be used to guide actions in or affecting the coastal zone. These policies provide for wise management of the coastal zone and represent the State's effort to fulfill the federal mandate to give full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and aesthetic values as well as to needs for economic development. In so doing, the State has considered its responsibility to fulfill national needs for national defense, energy production and transmission, recreation and transportation. All decisions made under the program will follow the Coastal Resource and Develop- ment Policies described'in Chapter Four. An annual review of the Coastal Resource and Development Policies and the coastal permit application procedures described in Chapter Three will serve as the processes for assuring 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 coastal permit if they occur on non-federally controlled land. Furthermore, these facilities and any other development which would significantly affect the eleven resources described below as in the national interest, (e.g. water, air, etc.) are required to receive a coastal permit. Although other state permits would 251 be needed in some resource areas such as flood plains, the coastal permit would cover all these issues and thus has been identified as the single process during implementation of the Coastal Management Program for assuring the continued con- sideration of identified national interests. CAFRA and the Wetlands Act state 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" and the jurisdiction of the Statels Waterfront Development Permit Law (N.J.S.A. 12:5-3) to include a full consideration of national interests as described in this program. This interpretation is contained in Chapter Three of this document (Section 1.3.4) which is proposed as amendments to adopted rules. In addition, the Department of Energy will 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 interest in the siting of coastal energy facilities. 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. National Defense National defense is of obvious importance to all states. To define the national interest in national defense, DEP 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 fedetally 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 Department of Defense representatives in planning the use of lands and waters surrounding mili- tary installations. The only current or projected defense activity in the area addressed by the Coastal Program is the possible purchase of land by the U.S. Navy in the vicinity of the Naval Weapons Station, Colts Neck. DEP has reviewed the proposed expansion of this site and has made a determination (in September 1979) that it would be conditionally acceptable under the Department's Rules on Coastal Resource and Development Policies. 252 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 ; - 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) The National Energy Plan also notes that its "cornerstones" are "conservation" (page 35 of the Pla-n-T-.New Jersey's recognition of the need for energy conserva- tion 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 trans- portation, and the incorporation of energy conservation techniques into all pro- posed coastal development in accordance with the Energy Conservation Plan being administered by the N.J. Department of Energy pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. 253 oil and Gas Facilities New Jersey recognizes its key role in the transportation, transfer, treatment and storage of national oil and gas supplies. In addition, the exploration for crude oil and natural gas in the Baltimore Canyon has presented New Jersey with the propect of new offshore and onshore OCS related activities. Given the national interest in recreational and resource protection in the coastal zone, pipelines and pumping and compressor stations will be permitted in the entire coastal zone to the extent they can meet existing federal and state requirements. oil and gas facili- ties, other than pipelines, are encouraged to locate in the developed areas of the state where the infrastructure and labor market already exist to absorb such activity. The decision to encourage oil and gas facilities including certain OCS related activities in areas of the state which already house many oil and gas production facilities has been reached as a result of weighing the competing and conflicting national interest in recreation and resource protection as called for in the CZMA. A study undertaken for DEP by Rutgers University Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies (Onshore Support Bases for OCS Oil and Gas Development: Implications for New Jersey, 1977) as well as a study done by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to identify the New York Harbor's potential for OCS support bases contributed to this decision by indicating that sites which may be acceptable for oil and gas facilities exist along the Raritan Bay and River and the Hudson River. Electric Power The Coastal Program directs additional fossil fueled generating stations away from particularly scenic or natural areas that are important for recreation and open space purposes, and directs that they be built consistent with applicable air and water quality standards. (See Chapter Four, Section 7:7E-7.4(m). In considering the national interest in the development of nuclear power, New Jersey finds applicable the rules and regulations promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR 100) which provide firm siting criteria with guide- lines to prevent siting of future nuclear plants in densely populated locations, in valuable natural areas,- or in potentially hazardous locations. 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 II Generating Stations which received a CAFRA permit from DEP in 1975. The only other recent application for a nuclear facility filed in New Jersey was a 1974 application to construct two floating plants, which has since been cancelled by the applicant. The New Jersey Coastal program energy policies considering electric generating stations can be found in Chapter Four, Section 7:7E-7.4(q). Liquified Natural Gas - The National Energy Plan contains the following statements applicU_leto 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 254 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 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) 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 and Delaware 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. Recreation The New Jersey coast is a national recreational resource. in considering the national interest in recreation, New Jersey reviewed the Nation-wide Outdoor Recreation Plan, the New Jersey State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, and the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended. In addition, New Jersey has offered draft coastal docu- ments for review to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and its successor Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, U.S. 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 accelerate 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 Basic Coastal Policies require each waterfront municipality to provide or plan for at least one waterfront park. Residential, commercial and industrial projects are to be designed to include recreation areas, and public access to the water is to be part of waterfront development, whenever it is feasible. The Policies are consistent with the New Jersey State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), which was also prepared by DEP. 255 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. 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 and the regional Port Authorities. 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 7:7E-7.4(i), 7:7E-7.5, 7:7E-7.8 and 7:7E-8.19). 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 Clean Water Act, which provides the water resource standards of the Coastal Program and in consultation with the Environ- mental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and the Council on Environmental Quality. In addition, all coastal devel- opment must conform with any state certified areawide water quality management (208) plan. These goals, and the other resources in which there is a national interest which follow in this section'. are recognized by the first Basic Coastal Policy which states "Protect and enhance the coastal ecosystem", as well as by other more specific policies. Water quality is addressed by the Location Policies on General 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.Coastal Resources has a close working relationship 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) and the Safe Drinking water Act (See Chapter Three). 256 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, the State implementation Plan and any 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 7:7E-8.11),: Wetlands The New Jersey Coastal Program has considered the national interest in wet- lands through review of the President's Executive 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 Housing 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 coastal and freshwater wetlands as areas where development 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 7:7E-3.23,'7:7E-7.2 and 7:7E-8.15). 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. 257 The major objectives of the national interest in endangered flora and fauna are: - 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 Wildlife or Vegetation Species Habitats" and "Critical Wildlife Habitats" and by Resource Policies on "Vegetation", "Important Wildlife Habitat", 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 7:7E-3.33, 7:7E-3.34, 7:7E-8.9, 7:7E-8.10 and 7:7E-8.15) 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 Q_u_a_ri"t_y, and Oceanography. The Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. January, 1975. - 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. 258 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 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 plan for the management of marine sanctuaries in the state. Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Areas New Jersey has considered the national interest in floodplains 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, National Heritage Program and the Soil Conser- vation Service. 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 and high risk erosion areas. The national interest in flood control is reflected in the Coastal Program's designation of floodplains as a Special Area in the Location Policies in Chapter Four, Section 7:7E-3.19. Floodplain protection is also addressed by the Resource Policy on Flood Hazard Areas. (See Chapter Four, Section 7:7E-8.23) Development in High Risk Beach Erosion Areas is addressed in Chapter Four, Section 7:7E-3.21. 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 the Beach and Dune System and the Central Barrier Island Corridor which restrict or prohibit major development, and through the Use Policy on "Coastal Engineering" 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 7:7E-3.21, 7:7E-3.22, and 7:7E-7.11) 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 Recreation Service and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 259 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. The 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 and Archaeological Resource sites as a Special Area which encourages the protection of historic and cultural resources. (See Chapter Four, Sections 7:7E-3.13, 7:7E- 3.31 and 7:7E-8.18) 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 7:7E-7.8) 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, and there is a Resource Policy to protect fertile soils. (See Chapter Four, Sections 7:7E-3.28 and 7:7E-8.22) 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 south-central portion of New Jersey. A small part of this area overlaps with the coastal zone. The Coastal Program, through a Pinelands Special Area Policy, General Land Area Policies and the General Location Policy on Secondary Impacts, encourages the protection of the Pine Barrens and the State's other prime forest areas. (See Chapter Four, Sections 7:7E-3.39, 7:7E-5.3 and 7:7E-6.3) 260 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)). This method should include: (1) a definition of what constitutes unreasonable restrictions or exclusions, and (2) an identification of the methods that will be employed to isnure that such unreasonable restrictions or exclusions do not occur (15 CFR 923.12, comment). The comment to this regulation describes "use of regional benefit" as those which have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters and also affect more than one unit of local, county, or intrastate government. Using these criteria, the comment lists electric utilities, regional waste treatment plants, multi-county garbage disposal sites or landfills, state highways, or multi-county parks and beaches as uses of regional benefit. New Jersey agrees with both the criteria and the list as an accurate descrip- tion of uses that are of regional benefit, with the addition of beaches located entirely within one municipality. Many, if not most of the visitors to New Jersey's beaches come from non-coastal communities, yet many of these beaches lie entirely within one municipality. The beaches offer important recreational oppor- tunities for a wide geographic area, and are therefore considered as uses of regional benefit. In New Jersey, therefore, uses of regional benefit include energy generating and distribution facilities operated by public utilities (not refineries and tank farms), water and sewer facilities, solid waste collection and disposal systems, roads and highways, ports, 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. Three methods exist through which local governments are prevented from unreasonably excluding these uses. The most significant of these is the State's power to overrule local decisions which seek to deny approval to any public utility or solid waste facility. 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 Coordination 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. 261 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 unreasonable 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:IE-1 et seq.), DEP also has authority to override the local exclusion of a solid waste facility. In addition to these authorities, 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, recent judicial rulings have held that low and moderate income housing is a use of, regional benefit which municipalities must recognize through their zoning authority. The New Jersey Supreme Court has established in Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel, 67 N.J. 151 (1975) thaF-municl- palities 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 State 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. 262 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 these criteria, New Jersey proposes two generic GAPC's and thirteen specific GAPC's (see Figure 29). Clearly, many other areas in the coastal zone are important, but designation of them as GAPC's would not be meaningful or feasible, Af due to criterion C above. The New Jersey Coastal Management Program, therefore, relies primarily upon the Coastal Resource and Development Policies in Chapter Four and the Management System in Chapter Three to promote the wise use of each site in the Coastal Zone. When DEP asked the public in 1977 to nominate areas of particular concern, virtually every possible site in the potential coastal zone was mentioned. The Department used the public nominations to confirm, develop, and refine the Coastal Resource and Development Policies. In addition, the Department distributed a report entitled Nominated Areas of Public Concern in the New Jersey Coastal Zone (December 1977) to other State, municipal, county and federal agencies. The Department prepared a supplement to this report describing how each nominated area was addressed by the Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. Copies of both the report and the supplement Nominated Areas of Public Concern and the New Jersey Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment (December 1978) are available from DEP. New Jersey's Geographic Areas of Particular Concern are the following: all coastal wetlands, Higbee Beach, Pond Creek Meadow Area, wet sand beaches, ten state owned natural areas, and the Hackensack Meadowlands. Because management of the Meadowlands is more complex than management of the other areas, it is discussed under a separate heading at the end of this Section. 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 Three). 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 57 acres, with only 0.7 acres destroyed in 1979. Under the Coastal Program, New Jersey will continue to use the Wetlands Act to preserve coastal wetlands. 263 GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Figure 29 HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS A LIBERTY STATE PARK Is ALL COASTAL WETLANDS wm@ WET SAND BEACHE ff -Ne RANCOCAS NATURAL AREA SWAN POINT NATURAL AREA ISLAND BEACH STATE PARK MANAHAWKIN NATURAL AREA v GREAT, BAY NATURAL AREA NORTH BRIGANTINE NATURAL AREA TRATHMERE NATURAL AREA STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION HIGBEE BEACH CAPE MAY WETLANDS MEADOW AREA CAPE M,AY POINT 264 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. (c) Other development has lowest priority. 2. Higbee Beach - Pond Creek Meadow Area - This unique area of 424 acres, in Lower Township in Cape May, includes nve mini-ecosystems of bayshore beaches, dunes, wooded uplands, fields, and freshwater and tidal meadows (Figure 30). 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 hasbeen threatened by repeated efforts to build a campground within it. Mew 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 Three, to protect the area exclusively for recreation and wildlife. 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 126 miles of ocean shorefront form a natural resource 7hich 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 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 Waterfront Development Permit, as described in Chapter Two. The priority of uses in the wet sand beaches areas is: (a) recreation (b) navigation and commerce (c) development with no prudent or feasible location on a non-beach (wet sand) location (d) all other uses have lowest priority. Natural Areas In addition to the three GAPCs listed above and the Hackensack Meadowlands, ten specific state-owned areas in the coastal zone have been labelled "natural areasil 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 265 N@11N Figure @0 I!, HIGBEE BEACH GAPC W us Nc)rir- jetty Light 0 k I vwe,, n ca al Entfarrce' q South JOfy Light et, 4i 10. 15 %0 it 0 0 Gern'@ 7 IFI 27 0 77: + Wrai -.4 190 te to �r, 7 .4v, 27 /0 74@ ly T* % A 10 st Cape bo May Poin Bm 6 -NAVAL R5s R) r-O 9 Lighthou.8@ t nd 1o 17 us!_ ?3 or Mv,e@ /4 oar wa 25 :_@Pmi -:7_ 15 23 27 PROPERTY PURCHASED BY AREA STATE OF NEW JERSEY SITE OF HIGBEE BEACH CAMPSITE_CAFRA PERMIT DENIED N 1124,000 too*' woo' 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 preserva- tion 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 ten areas which are in the coastal zone 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; and (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 II 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,ten geographic areas of particular concern in the coastal zone and descriptions from the Natural Areas regulations are listed below: 4. Cape May Point Natural Area: An area of 100 acres in Cape May State Park, it demonstratg's -typical southern New Jersey sand dune and fresh- water marsh habitats, and is a bird sanctuary. 5. Cape May Wetlands Natural Area: An area of 2,000 acres acquired through @he Green Acres prog-r-am-,7t.-demonstrates the ecosystem complex of salt- marsh habitats, and is a sanctuary for colonial nesting and migratory birds. 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. 7. North Brigantine Natural Area: An area of 968 acres acquired with Green Kcres 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. 267 8. Great Bay Natural Area, Bass River, Ocean County. An area of 330 acres, it is a salt marsh=,abitat and an excellent example of New Jersey Bay ecosystem. it is a highly productive oyster area, and is a resting area for coastal birds. 9. Island Beach State Park: The New Jersey State Legislature has statu- torily reocgnized thaF-Island Beach State Park 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 topo- graphy, flora and fauna, and that island Beach State Park serves the citizens of the 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 State 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. (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 offical residence), it demonstrates dune habitat and is a botanical preserve. 10. Swan Point Natural Area, Brick Township, Ocean County: An area of 104 acres acquired throu-g7 the Green Acres program, it demonstrates salt marsh habitat, and is a part of the Barnegat Bay ecosystem. 11. Manahawkin Natural Area: An area of 64 acres and a national natural landmark, it demonstrates a mature bottomland hardwood forest. 12. Liberty Park Natural Area: An area of 60 acres which is included within Me master plan for Libe ty Park, it demonstrates salt-marsh habitat for a variety of water fowl. it is a valuable study area for tolerance to urban encoroachment. 13. Rancocas Natural Area: An area of 80 acres, located in Westhampton Township, Burlington -county, it demonstrates freshwater marsh and south- ern flood plain habitats. The north Branch of the Rancocas Creek follows along the southern and eastern boundaries of the area and the Timbuctoo Feeder of the North Branch follows the western boundary. To the north and west of the natural area is additional land belonging to Rancocas State Park. (Maps of designated natural areas are available from the Green Acres Program, New Jersey, DEP, Box 1389, Trenton, N.J. 08625) 268 14. THE HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT The Hackensack Meadowlands District is the fourteenth geographic area of particular concern and is proposed as a distinct unit of the Coastal Zone with its own management system and policies. The District consists of uplands and coastal wetlands interlaced by tidal rivers and streams. Inclusion of at least part of the District within the New Jersey Coastal Zone is, therefore, required by the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, which states that a coastal zone must include coastal waters and adjacent shorelands with a direct and significant impact on -the waters, transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands and beaches. Thei District was defined by the State Legislature in 1968 in the Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Development Act, which established the three goals of orderly development, solid waste management and environmental protection in the District. This occurred five years before the Legislature addressed the issue of development in the Raritan and Delaware Bays and Atlantic Ocean parts of the Coastal Zone through CAFRA, and four years before the enactment of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. Under the Coastal Management Program, the Hackensack Meadowlands District will be treated differently than other parts of the coastal zone. This is because the District is the only part of the coastal zone, in which comprehensive land use decision-making is governed by a powerful regional agency which is part of the State government and has objectives and policies generally compatible with the proposed coastal management program. Despite a location six miles from midtown Manhattan, pre-1968 use of the Meadowlands was limited to an unplanned scattering of landfills, warehouses and other uses not requiring dry soils. The region was underutilized, yet the uses present were severely degrading to the potentially valuable wetlands environment. Natural resource management and planned filling for development were both stymied by the division of the 31 square mile meadowlands into fourteen separate munici- palities in two counties. Because of the need for central planning direction if the wetlands environment were to be restored, and if the region were to meet its potential as a supplier of jobs and housing, the Legislature recognized the Meadow- lands as a unique area where local zoning would have to be superseded by regional controls. The response was the Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Development Act (N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et seq.), which defined the boundary of the Meadowlands District, and establishid-a management system which led to the adoption of a Master Plan Zoning Ordinance in 1972 and other management plans defining policies for resource management and development. it is this boundary, management system under the direction of the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (HMDC), and policies which the State is adopting as elements of the Coastal Management Program. The boundary and management system will be discussed first, followed by a discussion of policies for the District and their implications for coastal zone management. Lastly, the relationship between HMDC and the Division of Coastal Resources under an approved coastal management program will be described. Boundary The boundary of the Hackensack Meadowlands District of the Coastal Zone is depicted in Figure 31. In general, the District extends to the first major road or railroad upland of the tidally influenced meadowlands. The area of the district is 269 Figure @l RK>GE'FlEL P ILK -D @, 4 TETrROONO HAS Cx C t @5T L % RE@ Y V0000 RIDGE' N4010NACKIE,, =L C RLSTAUT A U JIGEN -bk 1@ V UTHMFORD H T =!@@RFO'40, w r 1C, ------ t C 7' LYND"s '0 (n T= v --,kt I-lAU Jm NOORTH JERSEY A A. CITY 0, KEARNY TO NEW YORK -7 /,_4 Ox, @7 VV/ N, -lL _V1 Z7 MILES C@j District Boundaries @ACKENSACK' MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT 270 19,730 acres of which, in 1972 ' 7,800 acres (40 percent) were developed, between 6,200 and 7,500 acres (31-38 percent) were vegetated coastal wetlands, and 1,400 acres (7 percent) were tidal waters. Management System The Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Development Act established the, Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (HMDC) as a political subdivision of the State, in but not of, the Department of Community Affairs. Among the Commis- sion's authorities are the power to issue bonds or notes, and to acquire or lease lands and to exercise the power of eminent domain; the power to reclaim, develop, redevelop and improve the land in its district; the power to recover the cost of improvement by special assessments based on the resultant increase in property values; the power to establish an inter-municipal tax sharing formula so that all municipalities will share equitably in the financial benefits of new Meadowlands development; and the powers to adopt and implement a master plan for the physical development of the District, to adopt and enforce codes and standards to implement the plan, and to review and regulate plans for any subdivision or development within the District. The HMDC is also both empowered and required to provide facilities for the disposal of the same large quantities of solid waste from within the State which was being deposited as of January, 1969. The HMDC consists of seven members, one of whom is the Commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs or an alternate. The other six members are appointed by the Governor subject to the requirement that two be residents of Bergen County municipalities within the District, two be residents of Hudson County municipalities within the District, and the remaining two consist of one resident of Hudson County and one resident of Bergen County. Four members of the Commission constitute a quorum and the Commission may exercise its power through the affirma- tive vote of a majority. The HMDC is provided with technical support by a twenty-three member profes- sional staff headed by an executive director. The executive staff is a multi- disciplinary team composed of a four member administrative branch, a thirteen member engineering branch and a six member environmental branch. The legislation creating the HMDC also created a Hackensack Meadowlands Municipal Committee consisting of the Mayor or elected chief executive of each constituent municipality of the District. The HtOC must submit the District master plan and amendments thereto, development and redevelopment plans, improvement plans, and codes and standards to the Committee for its review. The HMDC may not take final action on any proposal formally rejected by the Committee, except by a vote of 5/7 of the full membership. A public hearing is also required before any change may be made to the Master Plan. To insure that implementation of the master plan will not only balance uses, but will also preserve the most valuable wetlands, share the fiscal benefits of the plan among all the 14 constitutent municipalities, and, most importantly, put an end to pollution so that the Hackensack Estuary will once again become an attrac- tive place to both people and wildlife, a system of interlocking administrative tools were written. 271 The Master Plan Zoning ordinance (1972; N.J.A.C. 19:4-1) delineates what, where, and how development may take place.* The accompanying Open Space Map (1972) specifies which areas are to be left as marshland preservation and, which are to be parkland, and identifies the water courses for special protection, while the Wetlands Order (1972) defines the manner in which those wetlands will be respected. Since most of the Hackensack Meadowlands District is privately owned, the open Space Plan assembles a number of interdependent techniques -- zoning, tax sharing, riparian claim, easements, and cluster principle planning -- to maximize open space preservation without the infusion of extensive public dollars for purchase. The supporting administrative framework is completed with the Inter-municipal Tax Sharing Formula, the Building Code (1969), the Subdivision Regulations (1969), the Environmental Performance Standards (part of the zoning ordinance), the Socio- Economic/ Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines (1973), and the Ecological and Resource Management Plan (1978). Construction plans for major or minor subdivisions are reviewed by the Chief Engineer of HMDC for consistency with the Master Plan Zoning Regulations, the HMDC Subdivision Code, Building Code, Foundation Regulations, and the Wetlands Order. If the subdivision is to be built on lands to which the State has a riparian claim, the prospective developer must provide evidence of a riparian grant, lease or license and of a Waterfront Development Permit if applicable. When the complexity of the proposal warrants, the Chief Engineer is assisted 'in his determination by a member of an Environmental Design Committee, a committee of professionals in the field of environmental and architectural matters appointed by the Commission. A written decision of the Chief Engineer may be appealed by the prospective devel- oper to the HKDC, which can overrule the decision by a majority vote of a panel of at least three Commissioners. The detailed approval process is depicted in Figures 32 and 33. Variances from HKDC Zoning Regulations are decided by the Executive Director, but full or conditional approval of a variance requires a concurring vote of a majority of Commission members. The Master Plan Zoning Regulations require that six findings be made before a variance can be approved: (1) the variance request is the result of a unique situation of the property in question, (2) granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents, (3) failure to grant the variance will result in exceptional practical difficulties or hardships for the applicant, (4) the variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity or general welfare, (5) the variance will not have an adverse environmental impact, and (6) the variance will not substantially impair the intent of the Master Plan Zoning * It should be noted that the Hackensack Meadowlands District designations for wetlands development do not preclude federal agency recommendations and deci- sion contrary to such development. The Hackensack Meadowlands District Plan does not meet the definition of a "Comprehensive Planning Process" under Section 404(b) (1) of the Clean Water Act and associated regulations. Therefore, federal agencies will evaluate proposed projects in the Hackensack Meadowlands District on a case by case basis. Wetland modification will require proper analysis and documentation under Section 404(b) (1) of the Clean Water Act regardless of adopted plans and ordinances. The 404(b) (1) process currently requires four tests to be met and properly documented through a public process including: 1) acceptance of unavoid- able impacts; 2) alternatives analysis; 3) demonstration of water dependency; and 4) demonstration of need. 272 HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APPROVAL PROCESS FOR SUBDIVISION OUTSIDE OF SPA Figure 32 R I PARIAN INSTRUMENT SKETCH P7LAT MINOR SUBDIVISION MAJOR SUBDIVISION PPLI CATIONS FORSTATE AND FPRELIMINARY PLAT LOCAL WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE APPROVAL APPLICATION FOR TREAM ALTERATIO AUTHORIZA- r 7PUBLIC HEARING'..".'.'7 TION 7= FINAL PLAT RIPARIAN PLAT FILING WITH COUNTY INSTRUMENT DEED RECORDING OFFICER POSTING OF BUILDING PERMIT PERFORMANCE BONDS ZONING CERTIFICATE PLACEMENT OF FILL INSPECTION @ORSUBDI LOLAAdlilroTA OF OCCUPANCY MANDATORY UNLESS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSAL IS HELD BY THE MUNICIPALITY 273 HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS 'DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APPROVAL PROCESS FOR SPA AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS Figure 33 R I PARIAN NSTR UMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT GENERAL PLAT ASSESSMENT PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANTS FOR STATEAND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT LOCAL WATER SUPPLY AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN ASSESSMENT SEWERAGE APPROVALS, APPLICATIONS FOR STREAM ALTERATION OR DAM AUTHORIZATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT LEMENTATION PLAN ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS AND POSTING OF PERFORMANCE BONDS BUILDING PERMIT LACEMENT OF P FILL 7, IMPLEMENTATION PLAN UILDING CONSTRUCTION (applicant3 Fa fpynl MODIFICATION (applicant a option) BUILDING INSPECTION PUBLIC HEARING 47 SUBDIVISION PLAT FILING FCERTIFI CATE OFOCCUPA .NCY WITH COUNTY DEED RECORDING OFFICER L FINAL PLAT F P @usul F PPL'CANTS OCAL WATI SEWERAGE P! IC@@ to A IMP 274 Regulations or result in substantial detriment of the public good. Appeals from variance disapprovals may be made to the Commission with a majority vote of at least four Commissioners required to overrule the Executive Director. Between 1973, the first full year during which the Master Plan Zoning Regulations were in effect, and 1977, 459 variance decisions were made. Seventy-two decisions involved applications for use variances (variances for a non-permitted use-), and 53 (74 percent) of these use variances were approved. The remaining applications sought variances to bulk requirements (variances to bulk standards for a permitted use); 82 percent of these were approved. Public hearings must be held before a decision is made on use variance applications. A hearing is required on b 'ulk variance applications only when requested by-a person filing an adverse comment. Within the Meadowlands District there are twelve Specially Planned Areas (SPA) where planning and development must be carried out in a unified manner for the entire area (100 to 600 acres) consistent with the HMDC planning process and in compliance with the purpose and specific requirements of the individual zones. Six are to be predominantly residential SPAs, of which one, Harmon Cove, is already partially developed. Of the remaining six areas, two are to be transporta- tion centers accommodating major commuter transfer centers and office buildings; three are planned as special use areas for land uses of regional importance; and one is to be the Berry's Creek Center, intended to be a shopping, civic, cultural and transportation center which would serve as the focal point of the Meadowlands. A developer proposing a project for a Specially Planned Area must control at least 80 percent of the land in the SPA. Approval is granted in a multi-stage process with General, Development, and Implementation Plans as increasingly spe- cific review stages. Such large projects typically are built in sections over a period of years. If a development is staged, all regulations applicable to the entire area must be satisfied by each stage. First, the applicant must file a General Plan covering the entire Specially Planned Area. An environmental and socio-economic impact assessment in accordance with HKDC guidelines must accompany the applicant's General Plan, and a public hearing on the General Plan must be held. If the SPA is to be built on lands to which the State has a riparian claim, the general plan must be accompanied by evidence of a riparian grant, lease or license, and of a Waterfront Development Permit if applicable. Action, in the form of approval, approval subject to certain conditions, or disapproval must be taken by a Development Board composed of the Executive Director, the Chief Engineer, a Mayor of a constituent municipality selected by the Hackensack Meadowlands Municipal Committee, and two HKDC Commis- sioners selected by the Commission. In reaching its decision, the Development Board is to consider: (1) the HMDC Zoning Regulations for SPAs, (2) the HKDC Wetlands Order, which describes the various inventory, conservation, and environ- mental protection steps required within each SPA, (3) the HMDC Open Space Map, and (4) the HMDC Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, which are keyed to every step in the planning, construction and operation of SPAs. Figure 33 depicts the approval process for SPAs. Variances from SPA requirements specified in the Master Plan may only be granted if the Development Board finds that the "quality of development in the SPA will not be adversely affected", "the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Meadow- lands will not be adversely affected", and "the intent and purposes of all the applicable SPA regulations will not be impaired by the variance". 275 Following approval or conditional approval of a General Plan, the developer must file Development Plans for sections of the SPA in accordance with a timetable given by the Development Board in approving the General Plan. These Development Plans are more detailed plans which are reviewed by the Development Board for compliance with General Plan, with Development Plan requirements, and for any necessary riparian instruments or permits. Additional requirements may be imposed based upon the findings of an Environmental Design Committee. A decision of the Development Board regarding General and Development plans is subject to. certifica- tion by the full Commission. Next, the prospective developer must file a highly detailed set of plans called Implementation Plans for each section of the SPA. These Plans must be filed in accordance'with a timetable for development specified in the approval of the Development Plans. The General Plan, Development Plans and Implementation Plans must all include an assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed project. The Implementation Plans are reviewed by the Development Board and by the Environ- mental Design Committee for consistency with the Development Plans as well for consistency with specific Implementation Plan requirements. Should an Implementa- tion Plan be approved in full or with conditions, construction may commence following approval of engineering drawings by the Chief Engineer, approval of a final plat by the Development Board and the municipality, and posting of per- formance bonds. HMDC Policies and Their Implications The Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Development Act directed HMDC to respond to a three-fold mandate: to provide jobs, homes, and open spaces with need calculated at regional scale; to protect the delicate balance of nature and to protect against air and water pollution; to provide for solid waste management in perpetuity for all New Jersey municipali.t@.,2-_i tlien dumping in the Meadowlands. With the goals in mind, the HMDC was direct,@d by the Act to develop, adopt and from time to time amend 'a master plan for the physical development of the Meadowlands District. The result was a Comprehensive Land Use Plan developed by HMDC staff in December, 1971 and adopted in a revised form by the Commissioners in November, 1972 following a two-year construction moratorium. The Zoning Map has been revised following public hearings three times since 1972. In April 1977 the zoning classification of thirty-nine parcels of land was changed; in the Fall of 1978 the classification of eight parcels was changed; and in November, 1979 another five parcels were rezoned. These fifty-two changes involved about 2,250 acres of land or eleven percent of the total area of the Meadowlands District. The most signi- ficant changes involved the expansion of park and marshland preservation zones to create Richard de Korte State Park, at the expense of a planned research and distribution park and a parkside residential SPA. To compensate the loss of this residential zone, an Island Residential SPA was expanded into an area formerly designated for marshland preservation. Also, one Transprortation Center SPA was replaced by industrial zoning, while a new Special Use SPA was created in an area designated for light industry and marshland preservation (see Figure 34). 276 Figure 34 HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT OFFICIAL ZONING MAP ZONES ..................... Marshland Preservation Zone ERE- Park and Recreation Zen Waterfront Recreation Zone 7-4@@ Low Density Residential Zone 7 Commercial Zones Research, Industrial and Distribution Zones EAST RUTHERFORD IMPublic Utility zones 6 Airport Facilities Sports Complex 4., rc SPECIALLY PLANNED AREAS Parkside Residential Island Residential Transportation Center . . . . . . . 0 Special use Island Residential Mormon Cove K Me*rrys Crook Canter Oq Secaucus (Outside District) Pin- Proposed December 28, 1971. Includes all amendments through January ici@ 1980. 277 Table I - Developed Land Uses in Hackensack Meadowlands District (1972) Transportation 3,393 acres (includes Teterboro Airport) Industry 2,384 acres Utilities 786 acres Commercial 254 acres Residential 206 acres Vacant building and buildings under construction 133 acres Quarry 115 acres Marinas 42 acres Source: HMDC: "Open Space for the Hackensack Meadowlands", 1972. If the Meadowlands Master Plan were to be fully implemented in its present form, the amount of land in developed@uses would increase from 8,260 acres in 1972 to 13,104 acres (Figure 35). Most of the increase in developed land would be in the residential Specially Planned Areas, in light industrial, distribution, research and commercial zones, and in the already developed New Jersey Sports Complex. The amount of open space would decline from about 8,000 acres in 1972 (not counting sanitary landfills) to 6,626 acres. This is the maximum amount that the Meadowlands Commission believes can be designated for open space given the Legisla- tive mandate to provide for the orderly development of the District, and the constitutional mandate that the Commission not deprive property owners of the use of their land without compensation. This open space is to be preserved by a combination of techniques including the zoning of publicly owned land for open space use, the purchase of additional public lands, the regulation of a fifty foot wide natural buffer strip along stream corridors, and a requirement that a certain amount of land be preserved as open space in each SPA. This open space requirement ranges from 50 percent in Island Residential Areas to 15 percent in Transportation Centers. Land use and zoning consultants calculated that because of the strong demand for developable land in the Meadowlands Distrct, intensive, planned develop- ment of the remainder of the SPAs would allow the landowners a reasonable economic return on their land. Most of the loss in open space in the Hackensack Meadowlands District will involve wetlands. In 1972, DEP estimated that there were 6,900 + 690 acres of vegetated wetlands in the District, based on "Wetlands Ecological Value Overlay" maps produced for the purpose of tidelands delineation. In 1980 the HMDC estimated that these were 4,772 acres of wetlands in the District in April 1980.* However, the HMDC calculates that this represents a net gain in wetlands area of 162.6 acres. Between 1972 and 1980, 494.5 acres of wetlands were filled -- including 147.3 acres on the Sports Authority site and 97.1 acres by the Turnpike Authority. However, 657.1 acres of new brackish and fresh water wetlands have formed, pri- marily at the Kearny Marsh as the result of a man-made dike. The difference between the DEP and HMDC estimates of 1972 wetland area is largely attributable to Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission, Wetland Bio-Zones of the Hackensack Meadowlands: An Inventory, July, 1980. This report supercedes a report by the same name published in April, 1975, and quoted in the Proposed New Jersey Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental Impact Stafement. 278 Figure 35 1972 MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT LAND USE OTHER CLEAN (0-11%) FILL 960 AC. WATER (4%) AREAS 1400 AC. (7%) ACTIVE OR DEVELOPED INACTIVE SANITARY LAND FILL 2200 AC. 01 %) stso AC. (42 % WETLANDS 4610 - 6900 AC. (23- 36 %) PROJECTED MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT LAND USE UPON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MASTER PLAN OTHER OPEN SPACE PUNLIC 443 AC. PARKS (2%) MOE AC. WATER AREAS 1400 AC. WETLANDS DEVELOPED 3574 AC. 16. 104 ". %) SEE TABLE ONE BREAKDOWN 279 Figure 36 WETEAND-BIOZONES OF THE HACKENSACK ESTUARY MEADOW R-DOEFIEL LITTLE PER" PARK x"INIKAsax RIDGERWI60 WOOD NJ FNWAEW CARIST DT .Moonachie Creek Marshgs EAST coo Mill Creek and Cromakill Creek Basins LYWOHL"T Ec"CUS derson Creek Marsh Bull Bergen County Impouadme t- X ARLINOTON Penhorn Creek Sawmill C@eek Basin Wildlife Management ks@ Area Kearny Fresh Water N Marsh LEGEND WATERWAYS WATER ZONES y --------- MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY MAJOR ROADWAYS N, "APRISON HMDC DISTRICT BOUNDARY B a 'v,Mudflat Salt Marsh 7.. -High Salt Marsh IV Reed Marsh -BAY v .......... :Fresh Water 280 different wetlands definitions, with DEP including fields of Phragmites at eleva- tions less than 1 foot above local extreme high water, many ot which HMDC has classified as upland fields. It is also'possible that there has been some loss of wetlands through upland succession of fields from which tidal flow had long ago been excluded. In any event, use of DEP's 1972 methodology for wetlands delinea- tion would yield a figure higher than 4,772 acres. The HMDC Wetland Bio Zone Report divides the wetlands into six zones (see Figure 36): 1. Shallow Tidal Bays and Flats 988.0 acres 2. Low Salt Marsh 874.8 acres 3. High Salt Marsh 54.8 acres 4. Reed/Cattail Marsh 1,906.9 acres 5. Fresh Water Marsh 533.5 acres 6. Brackish Impoundments 414.0 acres 4,772.0 acres Of the 4,772 acres of wetlands, 533.5 acres (12 percent) are fresh water wet- lands, separated from the estuarine system by dikes or tidal gates, and 1,862.8 acres (39 percent) are within the intertidal zone (between mean high water and mean low water). Of the 3,576 acres (75 percent) of wetlands designated for preservation, at least 1,500 will be within SPAs as part of the open space requirement, and about 1,200 acres will be within the shallow tidal bays, fresh water marsh and Sawmill Creek State Wildlife Management Area of the proposed 2,000 acre Richard de Korte State Park. The amount of public parkland will be increased from fifteen acres to about 1,500 acres. Five hundred and thirty-five of these acres will be the open space areas required within Parkside Specially Planned Area. Eight hundred of these acres will be within the Richard de Korte State Park and will be created by the landscaping and vegetating of sanitary landfills. one hundred acres will be within Losen Slote State Park. The Commission's Solid Waste Management Plan (revised draft, March 1979) provides for the replacement of landfills by baling and resource recovery facilities, and for the transformation of existing landfills into parkland. Finally, the requirement that a fifty foot buffer strip along watercourses be kept in a natural state will result in the preservation of only fifty acres of open space, but these fifty acres will be the most biologically productive acreage in the District, as well as serving as filters for stormwater runoff. At the inception of planning for the Meadowlands District, the Hackensack River Estuary was a highly stressed ecosystem. Sewage and industrial discharges were allowed to flow untreated into the river and its tributaries; oil spills were a frequent occurrence; garbage and toxic wastes were dumped into landfills that were encroaching ever further into virgin marshland. By existing local zoning, the Hackensack Meadowlands were destined to disappear into a complex of industrial development and landfill. Adopted HMDC policy documents form an enforceable land use regulation system which has enabled the Commission to institute a massive revival effort in the Hackensack Estuary. Discharges into the river have been limited by performance standards specifying type, amount, and location. 281 Sanitary landfills have been restricted in size, with liquid wastes pro- hibited, ultimately to be replaced altogether by baling and resource recovery facilities . And most importantly, 1,100 acres of salt marsh, tidal bay and mud- flat, once destined for garbage dumps, is now dedicated by the State as the Sawmill Creek Wildlife Area. Improvement of water quality in the District, over the last 10 years, has been documented in an on-going joint monitoring program by the Commission and the New Jersey Institute of Technology. Yet the most significant and impressive evidence of the system's revival can be seen in the reappearance of blue claw crabs and crabbers, striped bass, and alewife herring; in the increasing utilization by over 230 species of wildfowl, shore and wading birds; in the discovery three years ago, of the first pair of breeding marsh hawks to be found in the state in thirty years; and in the desire of people to live and play on the banks of the Hackensack River. The Hackensack Meadowlands District is thus a case where balanced land use planning and regulation has produced not only an attractive human development, but one which coexists with a fast-recovering, manageable wetland ecosystem as well. Under the supervision of the HMDC, over $600 million of new construction was undertaken between 1970 and 1977, almost two thirds of it by private enterprise. One of the twelve Specially Planned Areas, Harmon Cove, is partially developed. This Island Residential SPA by Hartz Mountain industries, Inc. now includes 626 townhouse units, a major hotel, a hospital and office buildings. Across the Hackensack River from Harmon Cove is the New Jersey Sports Complex with a race- track and a professional football/soccer stadium already constructed and an indoor sports arena under construction. Employment space for nearly 25,000 people has been created since 1970. A result has been a decrease in wetlands areas, but the decrease is less than it would have been without the HMDC policy of wetland preser- vation in SPA, encouragement of cluster development and the policy prohibiting the horizontal expansion of landfills. Nothwithstanding HKDC's record of environmental preservation and recovery linked with meeting development needs, it is clear that implementation of the HMDC Master Plan would result in a lesser degree of preservation of environmentally sensitive land and water areas than would the Coastal Resource and Development Policies applied elsewhere in the coastal zone. The Coastal Policies, however, were not developed with a district that is one-third tidal marsh or water area in mind, nor for an area under intense development pressure because it represents the largest block of undeveloped land within ten miles of the center of the nation's largest metropolitan area. Literal application of the Coastal Policies in the Meadowlands District would violate the will of the State Legislature, which has called for the orderly development of the Meadowlands in compliance with the HNDC Master Plan and which specifically exempted the Meadowlands District from the Wetlands Act. The promulgation of different resource policies for different parts of the State in response to different needs has a precedent in the Coastal Policies for the rest of the coastal zone, which differentiate between developed, extension and limited growth areas based upon existing development, environmental sensitivity and State policies toward development patterns. State environmental policy, therefore, envisages a continuum of regions, ranging from sections of the Delaware Bay and Atlantic.0cean shores where low levels of growth and extensive preservation 282 are encouraged, up to the Meadowlands District where the HKDC Master Plan calls for extensive development consistent with an ecological and Resource Management Plan, Open Space Plan and Wetlands order. The Department of Environmental Protection, therefore, adopts by reference the Master Plan and its associated policy documents, with their dual concerns of promoting development and preserving the most produc- tive wetlands, as coastal policy for the District. Relationship Between Division of Coastal Resources and Hackensack Meadowlands DevelopmenF -Commission The HKDC is the lead agency for planning and regulation of development in the Meadowlands District under the New Jersey Coastal Management Program. The Division of Coastal Resources will be guided by the HKDC Master Plan, its adopted components and management plans in making decisions on Waterfront Development Permit applications (the only Division permit applicable in the Meadowlands), and will consult with HMDC staff concerning interpretation of these policies. The Division will be guided by adopted HKDC policies in its recommendations to, the Tidelands Resource Council concerning tidelands grants, leases and licenses, but the Council will also be guided by the need to obtain either a- fair market price to benefit the School Fund (a requirement of the New Jersey Constitution), or to obtain lands of equal or greater value to the public, in exchange for lands alienated. The Department will work together with HMDC to preserve wetlands and other Open Space designated for preservation by the HKDC Master Plan, and to identify additional parcels of land which because of their biological productivity or value for recreational purposes, should also be considered for preservation. The Depart- ment and the HKDC will explore public acquisition and other techniques for the preservation of these lands. Working together, the Department and HKDC will be able to ensure the preservation of at least as much wetlands and other open space as presently called for by the HMDC Master Plan. Amendments to the Zoning Regulations of the Hackensack Meadowlands District will be considered amendments to the Coastal Management Program, when they meet the definition for amendments found in 15 CPR 923.80(c): flamendments are defined as substantial changes in, or substantial changes to en'forceable policies or authorities related to: (1) boundaries; (2) Uses subject to the management program; (3) Criteria or procedures for designating or managing areas of particular concern or areas for preservation or restora- tion; and (4) Consideration of the national interest involved in the planning for and in the siting of, facilities which are necessary to meet requirements which are other than local in nature." It should be noted that the Master Plan has been amended three times since its adoption in 1972. In compliance with 15 CFR 923.53(a)(1), the Division of Coastal Resources will determine the consistency of federal activities with the Coastal Management Program in the Hackensack Meadowlands as elsewhere in the State. However, no federal consistency determination will be made in the Meadowlands District without first consulting with the HMDC concerning the consistency of the federal activity with the District Master Plan and other adopted HMDC policy documents. 283 AREAS OF PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION Section 306 (c)(9) of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires that a State's program "makes provision for 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 Administration (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 Administration also administers three other programs which provide DEP with the ability to indicate concern for the preservation or restora- tion of an area without the absolute certainty of success provided by land pur- chase. Under the Natural Areas Systems Act (N.J.S.A. 13:IB-15.12a et seq.) described in the Geographic Areas of Particular Concern section, DEP can idi'Mify 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, permits DEP to 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. Under the Heritage Program, Green Acres is beginning a historic and archaeological inventory in the area of overlap between the Pinelands and the coastal zone. The Division of Fish, Came and Wildlife 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 Hig bee 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 Registg-r. Such inclusion prohibits any federal, state, county or municipal agency from u7Tdertaking 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. 284 SPECIAL COASTAL PLANNING ELEMENTS The Coastal Zone Management Act amendments of 1976 require a State's coastal program to include special planning processes. These include a planning process for siting energy facilities in or affecting the coastal zone and managing their impacts, a planning process to provide for shorefront access and protection and a planning process to evaluate and mitigate shoreline erosion problems. ENERGY FACILITY PLANNING PROCESS Introduction Section 305 b (8) of the Coastal Zone Management Act as amended requires states to develop a planning process to anticipate and manage the impacts of energy facilities in or affecting the coastal zone@ As defined by NOAA's rules (15 CFR 923.13), the plan should address the following four elements (1) Identification of energy facilities likely to locate in or which may significantly affect the state's coastal zone; (2) Procedure for assessing the suitability of sites for such facili- ties and their impacts; (3) Articulation of state policies for managing energy facilities and their impacts and (4) Identification of how affected public and private parties may be involved in the process. These four elements are discussed below. 1. Identification of Energy Facilities Likely to Locate in or Significantly Affect the State's Coastal Zone Energy facilities referred to in the New Jersey Coastal Area Facility Review Act (N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 et seq.), the New Jersey Department of Energy Act (N.J.S.A. 52:27-S-1 et seq.) and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L. 92-583) are those most likely to be proposed in or signficantly affect New Jersey's coastal zone. They include but are not limited to electric generating plants fueled by coal, uranium, oil and gas; transmission lines; facilities relating to the development of outer continental oil and gas such as support bases or marine terminals, pipeline, compressor stations, gas processing, refineries, tank farms, pipe-coating yards and platform assembly yards; terminals for the transfer, storage and conversion of liquid natural gas (LNG) to natural gas (See also Figure 37). A more detailed resource list is contained in the Energy Use Policies of Chapter Four. To be located in the coastal zone, these facilities must comply with the relevant local, state and federal regulations and with the Coastal Resource and Development Policies in Chapter Four to be adopted as rules by DEP. Facilities likely to be located in New Jersey's coastal zone have also been addressed in a DEP 1977 Staff Working Paper on Energy Facility Siting Issues in New Jersey's Coastal Zone. II. Procedures to Assess the Suitability of Sites The general energy facility siting procedures are articulated in the Energy Use Policies in Chapter Four of Part II. The acceptability of all proposed new or expanded coastal energy facilities shall be determined by a review process that involves both the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New Jersey Department of Energy. The New Jersey Department of Energy is responsib-le for determining the need for a proposed energy facility, and the Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for determining the acceptability of coastal energy facility sites. 285 FIGURE 37 Energy Facilities which may be located in New Jersey's Coastal Zone and their Major Impacts M A J 0 K I M P A C T S Land Requirements Water's Edge Siting Emissions Buffer Fe'quirement Air Wate-r--R-a-d-11. -at ion Noise Re t s 15 acres 15 acres 1 quiremen or less or more ROW River/Coast/Channel ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANTS FUELED BY: x Coal x x x x x Uranium x x x x x Oil x x x x Gas Turbines (Peakload) x x x x Hydroelectric x x ASSOCIATED FACILITIES: Transmission Lines x OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF RELATED FACILITIES: Primary OD Support Base x x Submarine Pipeline Landfall and Right-of-Way x Pumping/Compressing Stations X Gas Separation/Dehydration Facilities x x x x Secondary Gas Processing x x x x x Refineries x x x x x Tank Farm x Marine Terminal x Tertiary Pipe-C ating x Platform Assembly x x LNG 2 x x x x Deepwater Ports 3 x Uranium Enrishment Plants Gasification IROW-right-of-way 2Deepwater ports require water site; associated facilities could include either pipelines or 3 marine terminals and storage tanks Impacts not yet identified; none proposed for New Jersey The Department of Environmental Protection will use the Coastal Resource and Development Policies, the three step decision making process discussed in detail in Chapter Three, to determine the suitability of proposed energy facility sites. In general, proposed facilities must comply. with the Location, Energy Use and Resource Policies. The first step in the CLAM method involves identification of the land and water features on a proposed site and a review of the coastal policies for the combination of features of which the site is composed. The Location Policies classify land and water features into three categories: Special Areas, General Water Areas and General Land Areas. The Coastal Resource and Development Policies identify several Special Areas in which development should be restricted, modified, or prohibited to insure their protection. The Location Policy for General Water Areas varies according to the depth of the water basin, flow of the water channel and proposed use of the water areas. The Waters Area Policy Summary Table presents policies for 18 types of uses in seven types of General Water Areas. In General Land Areas, the acceptable intensity for development is determined by the coastal region in which the site is located, environmental sensitivity of the site, and development potential of the site, using the Land Acceptability Tables in Section 7:7E-5.6. Once the location acceptability has been determined according to the location policies, a proposed development must pass through the second and third stages in the screening process, the Use and Resource Policies. For example, a proposed energy facility must comply with the Energy Use Policies. The Resource Policies, which involve a review of the proposed development's effect on the resources of the built. and natural environment, serve as standards to which proposed developments must adhere. III. Articulation of State Policies and Authority for Managing Facilities and Their Impacts New Jersey's two major industries are the petrochemical and tourism industry, which occupy first and second place respectively in the state's economy. As long as energy facilities were clustered in the northern waterfront close to the ports of New York, Elizabeth and Newark and along the Delaware close to the Philadelphia - Camden port area, the perceived potential conflicts with siting were few. But as utilities in recent years have turned to the building of larger energy facilities such as nuclear facilities, in the undeveloped sections of the State traditionally devoted to conservation, recreation, tourism and less land intensive uses, and as the need and potential for waterfront recreation in urban areas has been demon- strated, the potential for conflict among competing interests concerning land use has increased. The policy in New Jersey has been to promote energy production as long as it is not at the expense of the environment. This policy has been stated several times in the context of outer continental shelf development. For example, in January 1977, Governor Byrne said in his annual message to the Legislature: Although promoting new sources of energy is a primary goal of this Administration, we will not sacrifice our national resources in the name of energy exploration. We are in favor and will actively endorse devel- opment of fuel resources on the outer continental shelf -- in an environ- mentally and aesthetically sound manner. 287 (See also statements by the Governor before the Department of the Interior in Atlantic City in January 1976; before the House Ad Hoc Committee on the Outer Continental Shelf May 10, 1977, and before the American Bar Associiation in New York City August 8, 1978.) Such statements have consistently expressed New Jersey's need to balance energy with environmental safeguards. While articulating the State policy concerning energy development, the energy policies in the New Jersey Coastal Management Program represent the consideration of various confiicting, competing and contradictory local, state and national interests in the diverse coastal resources and in the diverse uses of coastal locations. By balancing the competing interests., the coastal energy policies provide a means to facilitate energy facility siting decisions in New Jeresy's coastal zone. Under the Coastal Area Facility Review Act of 1973, the Wetlands Act of 1970, the Waterfront Development Permit Law, and the Riparian Statutes, DEP has planning responsibility and exercises regulatory authority over the siting of energy facili- ties in the coastal zone. DEP was also designated by the Governor as the lead agency to plan for and implement the State's coastal program pursuant to the provisions of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. Under Sections 305 and 306 of the CZMA, a State's coastal program must specifically address planning for and siting of energy facilities. In 1977 the New Jersey Legislature created the Department of Energy (DOE) to address the energy issues which gained public prominence during the 1973-1974 OPEC embargo and in 1976 when a shortage of gas threatened the state's economy. DOE was conferred with co-extensive jurisdiction with any other state agency regulating energy facilities, which, in most cases, is DEP, administrator of the laws noted above. Because of their overlapping interests in the siting of energy facilities, DEP and DOE developed a memorandum of understanding to define their respective energy- related responsibilities. A signed copy is contained in Appendix C to the Coastal Management Program and in the DOE Energy Master Plan. Briefly, the memorandum of understanding states that once permit applications submitted under the CAFRA, Wetlands and Waterfront Development Permit Laws have been declared complete by DEP, the Department will forward a copy of the applica- tion to DOE for review. DOE will then make its findings on the need for the facility and relay these (in the form of an Energy Report) back to DEP 30 days before a decision is due. At the same time, DEP will invite DOE to attend any pre-application con- ferences or hearings that DEP may schedule. Should the two agencies disagree concerning the disposition of a proposed energy facility, they must (according to the Department of Energy Act of 1977) inform the Governor who must. convene an Energy Facility Review Board made up of the Director of the Division of Energy Conservation and Planning (in the Department of Energy) the head of the ag'ency disagreeing with DOE, and a third person to be appointed by the Governor. Since DOE was created in 1977, there have been no disputed energy facility decisions. Municipal and county governments retain their traditional land use authority with respect to the approval or denial of permits for energy facilities. 288 Coastal Energy Impact Program The Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP) , which provides assistance to states and localities to mitigate potentially adverse effects of energy installations is another technique for managing energy facilities and their impacts. Although the CEIP program is administered by DOE, DEP as the designated lead state agency on coastal zone management reviews all CEIP applications for consistency with the coastal program. In addition, DEP is a member of the Intrastate Allocation Com- mittee which selects CEIP projects for funding. other members of the Committee include representatives from the Departments of Energy, Community Affairs, the Treasury; the County and Municipal Government Study Commission and Advisory Council on Energy Planning and Conservation. As already mentioned, energy facilities have wide ranging implications for the social economy of a region. The federal Coastal Management Act requires states participating in the federal coastal program to consider the national interest that energy facilities located in their state might have. Although each states is not mandated to approve such facilities, the State must demonstrate that facilities in the national interest have been considered and it must indicate the process used to consider such facilities. The process by which New Jersey will consider the national interest in its energy planning is explained in the National Interest section of this Chapter and in Appendix A of the NJ DOE Master Plan. Briefly, DEP and DOE have agreed to consider the national interest in reviewing permit applications. DOE will also address the issue in the Energy Reports it prepares and in the implementation of the State Energy Master Plan. This arrangement was formalized in the Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies. IV. Identification of How Interested and Affected Public and Private Parties may be Involved in the Planning Process In New Jersey, participation in the coastal energy planning process takes place in several forms. A. Public Hearings and Meetings The CAFRA statute requires that a public hearing be held on each permit application. In addition, DEP may at its discretion hold public hearings as part of the review process for other permits issued by the Department. Interested persons may express their views at such meetings, which are usually arranged in close proximity to the site of a proposed project. Notice of public hearings and meetings on permit applications are contained in the DEP Bulletin and the local press. B. Informal Meetings DEP sometimes schedules meetings on controversial issues to obtain public comments to help in its decision-making. For example, DEP held a meeting in October 1978 in Forked River, Ocean County on the proposed salt-water cooling tower for the Nuclear Generating facility there. This meeting drew about 500 people. As part of the coastal planning process, over the past four years, DEP has held several series of public meetings to receive public comments on proposed coastal policies and regulations. 289 Before drafting the Energy Master Plan, DOE held several public meetings to solicit the views of the public con@cerning what the Master Plan should contain. C. Regularly Scheduled Meetings Environmental Advisory Group DEP meets regularly with an environmental advisory group which includes active representatives from the American Littoral Society, League for Conservation Legislation, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Association of N.J. Environ- mental Commissions, Sierra Club, N.J. Conservation Foundation, League of Women Voters and Public Interest Research Group and occasional representatives 6f other statewide environmental groups. Citizens who are unable to attend such meetings, but who wish to express their views may do so through one of these representatives or directly through DEPs Division of Coastal Resources. The Tidelands Resource Council The agency which serves as trustee over riparian lands is the Tidelands Resource Council. This is a group of twelve citizens appointed by the Governor, in but not of DEP, which meets twice a month to review applications for riparian grants, leases and licenses submitted under the State's Riparian Statutes. The meetings are open to the public. Advisory Council on Energy Planning and Conservation DOE meets monthly with the statutory Advisory Council on Energy and Conserva- tion. The 15-member Council is made up of representatives of the following inter- est groups: natural gas, bottled gas, home heating oil and coal, terminal opera- tors, refiners, utilities, environmental and consumer. Council meetings are closed to the public although a favorable vote of the Council might permit an individual to attend on a particular issue. As part of the coastal planning and implementation process, DEP and DOE also meet on request with particular interest groups such as the petroleum industry, utilities, consumer and environmental groups to discuss the implications that proposed energy policies and regulations may have on their activities. D. Call for Information In 1975, DEP involved the energy industry early in the coastal planning process by issuing a "Call for Information". Through this, DEP solicited informa- tion from industry concerning their projected plans to build energy facilities in New Jersey's coastal zone. One of the goals was to learn more about the siting and technical requirements for outer continental shelf development. While the oil and gas industry response was disappointing and not site specific, the state electric and gas utilities submitted some sites which they indicated they were holding for future consturction and/or 'expansion. From the information received from industry, DEP compiled a document Call for Information on Coastal Energy Facility Siting: An Analysis of Responses wh7i"ch @isavailable to the public. 290 E. Newsletters and Written Comments Members of the public may follow energy issues through newsletters issued by DEP and DOE which report on meetings, hearings and recent publications. The Jersey Coast is issued at least quarterly by the Division of Coastal Resources. DOE publi;h-esa monthly Energy Line which is devoted exclusively to energy issues in the state. DEP's Division of Coastal Resources also maintains a mailing list of over 5,000 names to which it sends the newsletter and other information of interest to the public. Members of the public wishing to comment in writing on various issues are urged to send comments to DEP and DOE. Comments in response to proposed rules will also be considered under the New Jersey Administrative Procedures Act. F. Office of Public Participation DEP established a special Office of Public Participation in 1979 which is staffed with an office chief and an assistant. This office serves as a formal mechanism to coordinate all public participation efforts in the Department. DEP Division of Coastal Resources public participation activities for all issues including energy facility siting are described in greater detail in Appendix A. 291 SHOREFRONT ACCESS AND PROTECTION PLANNING PROCESS Section 305(b)(7) of the Coastal Zone Management Act and rules adopted there- under (15 CFR 923.21) require coastal states to develop a planning process that will identify public shorefront areas appropriate for access or protection. The process must include the following elements: I. A definition of the term "beach" and an identification of public areas meeting that definition. II. A procedure for assessing public beaches and other public areas, including State owned lands, tidelands and bottom lands, which require access or protection, and a description of appropriate types of access and protection. III. Identification and description of enforceable policies, legal authorities, funding programs and other techniques that will be used to provide such shorefront access. These elements are outlined below. Beach access has not always been a controversial issue in the past, when many urban waterfronts were pre-empted by industrial uses. Access to the shoreline in built-up areas outside beach resorts has recently emerged, however, as an important issue. With new lifestyles and technologies and changing residential settlement patterns, much of the waterfront has become vacant and ready for reuse providing opportunities for urban revitalization and recreation. Shorefront access in this context includes both physical and visual access to the beach and along the urban waterfront. Before continuing, it may be useful to define what is meant by "beach" and the various forms of "access". I. DEFINITION OF "BEACH" AND IDENTIFICATION OF PUBLIC AREAS MEETING THAT DEFINITION The Beach Access Study Commission, staffed by DEP, recommended the following definition of beaches in 1977. "Beaches include both the dry sand area landward from the mean high water line to the vegetation line as well as the wet sand seaward of the mean high water line." Where there is no vegetation, the beach area ends at a seawall, road, parking lot or boardwalk. The wet sand area is known as the public trust land. It belongs to the state of New Jersey unless the state has conveyed a so-called riparian grant for the tide-owned land. (The public trust or commons refer to property to which all members of the community have a right). Access to the ocean for fishing, navigation and transportation has traditionally been regarded as a protected right. During the 1800's and early 1900's, the State of New Jersey sold riparian grants along about one third of the Atlantic Ocean. Even where sold by the State, tide-flowed (wet sand) or riparian lands remained impressed with a public trust and had to be open to the public for purposes of navigation and commerce. Tidelands which have been granted to a private entity may be built upon or filled in to the exclusion of the general public only upon issuance of a special riparian "waterfront development" permit. The grant of tidelands excludes any person other than the grant owner from seeking such a permit. 292 Access relates to legal, physical, and visual and financial considerations. These types are defined below: A. Legal Access. According to New Jersey law, land extending seaward of the mean high tide line is held in trust by the State on behalf of the public. These 11public trust lands" include the wet portion of the beach that is uncov- ered six of the 12 hours in a tidal cycle. In recent years, however, courts have come to recognize that the public trust doctrine extends to the dry portion of the beach, at least where that beach is municipally owned. In the haste to encourage growth and industrialization after the Nation's founding, portions of the beach were often granted to private interests and to municipalities. As increases in leisure time and improvements to transportation in the late 1960's and early 1970's attracted increasing numbers of people to the shore for recreation, efforts to exclude the general public from beach areas led to numerous lawsuits. The New Jersey courts have not regarded the public trust doctrine - which originally recognized only the public's right to use trust lands for fishing and navigation - as immutable. Rulings favoring increasing public access to municipally owned dry beaches have recognized the important role that recreation plans in today's post-industrial society. Legal access, is less of a problem in New Jersey today than physical or visual access. B. Physical Access. Physical access relates to the difficulties of reaching the water's edge because of lack of transportation to the water's edge and/or lack of parking facilities. Physical access to the shoreline, beach and ocean has also been blocked by private construction precluding access to the water for fishing, walking or simply viewing. C. Visual Access. Visual access is impeded where construction blocks off views to the beach and water. The protection of views can enhance the character of a place and contribute to protecting its natural features and property values. Views overlooking water also offer intangible social benefits to the public at large which have been recognized as worthy of protection. D. Fees, Changing Rooms and Parking. Merely getting to the beaches was a challenge in the past because of limited transportation facilities. Later when highways were built they brought large numbers of people to the shore. In response, some munici- palities and residents sought to restrict tourists by imposing various types of fees. While the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled as unconstitu- tional the imposition of differential beach fees (Neptune vs. Avon 61 NJ 296) between residents and non-residents, most municipa-ri-ties have imposed fees along the entire shorefront, with the exception of Keansburg, 293 Atlantic City (which levies an 8 percent luxury tax in its hotels), the Wildwoods and Upper and Lower Township in Cape May County. Because of the wide range in fee schedules, the New Jersey Beach Access Study Commission recommended to the Governor and Legislature in 1977 that beach fees be in line with the actual cost to the local government of maintain- ing and operating these beaches so that high fees should not deter potential-visitors. Access to the shorefront has also been impeded in the past in some communities by the imposition of high fees for parking and changing facilities. In light of adverse press publicity of such practices, successful litigation and the need for State funding by shorefront communities to cope with storm damage, and recently adopted state review policies as to how to maximize public funds, high parking and changing room fees are not expected to be a factor in the future. II. PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING PUBLIC BEACHES AND OTHER PUBLIC AREAS, INCLUDING STATE OWNED LANDS, TIDELANDS AND BOTTOM LANDS, WHICH REQUIRE ACCESS OR PROTECTION, AND A DESCRIPTION OF APPROPRIATE TYPES OF ACCESS AND PROTECTION New Jersey's small shoreline must serve the dense population of the state and region. This makes it desirable that as much of it as possible be visually and physically accessible to the public. This applies especially to those stretches closest to large seasonal and/or year-round populations. Much of the shorefront in the beach segment (Sandy Hook to Cape May) is open to the public. In the one county - Monmouth - where beach access is particularly restricted, the issue is being litigated by the Department of the Public Advocate. Along the rivers, much of the adjacent waterfront is in private ownership belonging to industrial, commercial or residential interests. Where this is the case, municipalities are encouraged in the Coastal Resource and Development Policies to take into account the need for providing visual and physical access where new waterfront development is contemplated. Because much of the waterfront in urban areas is vacant and in a state of decay (having been abandoned by rail- roads and formerly water-dependent facilities), the opportunity exists to bring urban populations back to waterfronts to enjoy the recreational amenities they afford. Diversity characterizes New Jersey's shorefront with different types of shorefront exhibiting different needs and requiring different management strate- gies. These types are characterized below. A. Shorefront Types There are two major types of shorefront in New Jersey: beach and urban waterfront. 1. Ocean Beach a. These include the ocean beaches between Sandy Hook and Cape May Point which are the magnets for the state's coastal resort economy. They are located in Monmouth, Ocean, Atlantic and Cape May Counties, and extend for about 124 miles. Of these, 32.6 miles or 26 percent are in private ownership or use; 63 miles or 51 percent are in municipal ownership, 11.5 miles or 9.2% are in state ownership and 294 16 miles of 13.4% are in federal government ownership. Most of the private or restricted beaches are located in Monmouth County which is also closest to the densely populated urban areas in the north- east. Overcrowding of beaches in Monmouth County is aggravated by the narrowness of the peninsula on which the beaches are located and the lack of ample parking space in an area where automobiles are the most common mode of transportation to the beach. Bay Head in Ocean County, whose entire beachfront is private, is being chal- lenged in the courts by the Department of the Public Advocate. Public debate and legal action related to the beach access issue have to date focused primarily on the beaches located in the counties cited above. 2. Bay Beach Bay beaches are protected by barrier beaches located along the mainland fronting the Atlantic Ocean. These include the beaches bordering the Manasquan, Navesink, Metedeconk and Shark Rivers; Barnegat Bay; Great and Little Bay; Absecon Bay, Great Egg Harbor and the Intra-coastal Waterway. Bay beaches also include those located along Raritan Bay going north toward the harbor of New York and New Jersey and along the Delaware Bay and River going towards Trenton. An inventory of the status of ownership and use of 345 miles of bay beaches was made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1973. This inventory indicated that much of the land bordering the bays was inac- cessible because of extensive wetlands. In the interests of conserva- tion, such land will probably continue to remain inaccessible to conform with the state's policy to protect wetlands which have been identified as geographic areas of particular concern. (The U.S. Army survey (National Shoreline Study) extended up to South Amboy in Raritan Bay and Pennsgrove on the Delaware River). B. Urban Waterfronts Lacking Beaches Waterfronts in the Harbor of New York and New Jersey, along portions of the Delaware River near Camden, the Arthur Kill, Newark Bay, and the Hudson, Rahway, Hackensack and Passaic Rivers typically do not have beach access, although exceptions do exist, such as at Perth Amboy. Railroads and industries have dominated the urban waterfront along the Hudson River, Arthur Kill and along the urban sections of the Delaware River near Camden. With the demise of ferries and waterfront terminals and the decline of railroads, much of this waterfront is abandoned and unused. To the extent that publicly-owned lands become candidates for redevelopment, state and local governments have an opportunity 'to stipulate, as a condition for issuing public funds, that access to the waterfront will be available to the public. C. Supply and Demand Ensuring the adequacy of access depends on the demand for access and the availability of land to supply these needs. New Jersey's shorefront is finite, while the number of people using it is expected to increase in the future. The 1977 edition of the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 295 (SCORP) predicts that the demand for swimming in salt water will increase from 61,884,252 occasions in 1976 to 68,525,884 occasions in 1985, an 11 percent increase. In 1996, the number of swimming occasions is expected to increase to 77,008,248, a 24 percent increase over 1976. As pressure on the finite waterfront increases, it becomes more important than ever to insure that the waterfronts remain open and accessible to the public. Recognizing such pressures, the state has taken steps to increase the op .por- tunities for waterfront uses. in the harbor which New Jersey shares with New York, Liberty State Park opened in 1976. While partially finished, it is already serving a demand for waterfront recreation in the densely populated northeastern counties of New Jersey. In addition, its proximity to historic Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty and its view of lower Manhattan, has made it a major regional, if not a national resource. D. Local Government Designation of Access Points and Corridors To the extent that public land will be needed in the future to furnish public access to beaches, based on projections and municipal resource inventories, local governments in the urban waterfront segment may have an opportunity, once New Jersey's coastal management program has been approved, to review the adequacy of existing access points and corridors as defined below and recom- mend where available access points and corridors may be needed. Access Corridors are paths or open space systems running parallel to the coast where tFe-y may link up with access points. Access points are paths which run perpendicular to the water from the first inland cu al feature to the water's edge where they may link up with the parallel corridors as defined below. In recommending access corridors or points of access, municipalities will be asked, at a minimum, to consider the following: 1. The amount and adequacy of shorefront that is available given ' the resident population and regional demand, using SCORP and/or other supply and demand figures. 2. Identification of access corridor and points of access in terms of their contemplated uses. (i.e. fishing, bicycling, viewing, picnicking, boat launching, photography, historic sites visitations, walking, etc.). 3. Identification of existing corridors in adjacent communities to encourage, to the extent possible, the planning for acquisition of a continuous public access corridor across the boundaries of several municipalities sharing a common waterfront. 4. Provision by each municipality bordering a waterfront beach or bay of at least one public waterfront park for some of the uses outlined above in accordance with the Basic Coastal Policies. 5. That access points serve the largest number of people without creating adverse impacts on the surrounding environment. 6. That access points not impinge on the rights of adjacent private property owners. 296 III. MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES: IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF ENFORCEABLE POLICIES, LEGAL AUTHORITIES, FUNDING POGRAMS AND OTHER TECHNIQUES TO PROVIDE S90REFRONT ACCESS The state has a variety of enforceable policies, legal authorities, funding programs and monitoring techniques which help maintain and increase public water- front access in New Jersey. These. are described below: A. Public Trust Doctrine As delineated in Appendix F (Legal Commentary), maintaining public access to the shorefront in the coastal zone evolved from the Public Trust Doctrine. This is property to which all members of a community traditionally had a right to use for fishing and navigation. The New Jersey Supreme Court extended the public trust doctrine to include recreation in its Neptune vs. Avon (61 NJ 296) decision of 1972. Until 1978, the Public Trust Doctrine did not apply to New Jersey's dry sandy beaches owned by either local, state or federal government or by private individuals or associations. In 1978 a New Jersey Supreme Court decision (Van Ness v. Deal [78 NJ 1'74]) extended the Public Trust Doctrine to apply to the dry sand of municipally-owned beaches: "whether natural, or man-made the beach is an adjunct to ocean swimming and bathing and is subject to the Public Trust Doctrine." It should be noted that the cases to date relate exclusively to publicly-owned lands. However, if New Jersey's coastal management program is approved, planning funds for the acqusition of waterfront sites would be available under Section 306 of the Act which could be combined with State Green Acres program funds to acquire, design and and develop shorefront access systems. B. Coastal Permit Review The authority to promote public access through regulatory action is contained in the four fundamental coastal laws summarized in Chapter Three: CAFRA, the Wetlands Act, the Waterfront Development Law, and the Tideland Statutes. Several applications for CAFRA permits were denied in 1976 and 1977 for, among other reasons, not giving adequate consideration to the issue of .shorefront access. The reasons for denial are stated in the following published opinions: Opinion I - Lehigh Construction (Toms River Condominium); Opinion 27 - Tranquillity Park; Opinion 35 - Riverview Heights; and Opinion 37 - Shark River Island development. Copies are available from the Bureau of Coastal Planning and Development. In addition, the State has an opportunity through its capital spending pro- grams (See Chapter Three) to insure that funds will be used to maximize the public's access to the shorefront. 297 C. Capital Spending 1. State Program (a) The Green Acres Program administered by DEP determines how funds from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund and State Green Acres bond issues may be spent for park and open space acquisition and development. Green Acres funds have been used to acquire several waterfront sites for public use. These include Higbee Beach (Cape May County), Seven President's Park (Monmouth County), Cattus Island (Ocean County) and Liberty State Park (Hudson County). (b) The New Jersey Conservation Foundation, a private organization, sometimes assists the state by acquiring options on land in emer- gency situations for later acquisition by DEP's Green Acres Admini- stration. (c) The Beaches and Harbor Fund Act provides funds to municipalities to restore shorefronts damaged by storms, hurricanes and the like. In administering the Shore Protection Program, State policy since 1972 has been to make the disbursement of funds to municipalities condi- tional upon their making the shorefront open to the public. This policy is also reflected in proposed rules under the Beaches and Harbor Fund Act of 1977. 2. Federal In Section 315 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended in 1976, Congress authorized the acquisition of lands to provide public access along shorefronts containing environmental, recreational, his- torical, scenic, ecological or cultural benefits. Unfortunately, these funds have not been appropriated to date. D. Other Techniques to Provide Shorefront Access A. Monitoring New Jersey's short 126 mile oceanfront beach stretch makes it possible to inspect it periodically by foot and/or by air. In 1976 and 1978, members of DEP and citizen representatives walked the length of the 124 mile shorefront to assess the state of the beaches with respect to erosion, storm damage and access. Along the way, they met with heads of municipal governments. Recommendations from these inspectiontours were included in a report to the Governor and Legislature in April 1977 by the Beach Access Study Commission which was appointed by the Governor in 1976 to study the issue of beach access. These recommendations have been incorporated into the policies of the Coastal Management Program. Similar beachwalks and surveys which will be continued in the future will form the basis for evaluating where additional points of access are needed and should be acquired. 298 Resulting from the 1976 beachwalk and the Beach Access Study Commission report was the publication in 1977 and annual updates in 1978, 1979, and 1980 of A Guide to New Jersey Beaches. This provides an inventory of New Jersey beaches, and the resources and facilities they afford. The inventory, which was distributed widely, to the public, includes the schedule of beach fees charged by various municipalities and indicates if parking and mass transit (mostly bus) are available. B. Beach Shuttle In 1977, DEP, with financial assistance from NOAA-OCZM, instituted a beach bus shuttle from the heavily travelled Garden State Parkway in Toms River to Island Beach State Park. The purpose of this experiment was to increase the use of the State Park whose limited parking facilities do not reflect the actual number of people that the park can safely and ecologically accommodate. The shuttle transported 7,594 people in 1977 at a cost of $50,000 or $6.08 per person and 7,714 people in 1978 at a cost of $42,000 or $4.95 per person (these costs were in addition to a per capita charge of $.50). The beach shuttle was also operated with State funds during the summers of 1978 and 1979 and is being operated during the summer of 1980. Because the shuttle allows more people to use Island Beach State Park and with a potential fuel shortage, DEP hopes to continue operating the beach shuttle each summer. The first year of the program was subsidized by the federal Office of Coastal Zone Management as a pilot project. The project has continued through the involvement of several units of government, including the New Jersey Departments of Transportation and Energy, the New Jersey Highway Authority, Ocean County, Dover Township, and the Dover Township Sewerage Authority. C. Enforceable State Policies Pertaining to Shorefront Access and Protection The State policies pertaining to shorefront access and protection (see Chapter Four) include the Special Area Policies for Beaches (7:7E-3.21); Coastal Wetlands (7:7E-3.23); and Central Barrier Island Corridors (7:7E-3.22). The Resource Policies address Public Access to the Shorefront (7:7E-8.13) and Scenic Resources and Design (7:7E-8.14). As outlined in an earlier section of this Chapter, New Jersey has designated the following shorefront areas as being of particular concern: Coastal Wetlands (generic) Wet Sands Higbee Beach Cape May Point Natural Area Cape May Wetlands Natural Area Strathmere Natural Area North Brigantine Natural Area Great Bay Natural Area Island Beach State Park Swan Point Natural Area Manahawkin Natural Area 299 Liberty State Park Rancocas Natural Area Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission District They have been singled out for special treatment because of their recognized ecological sensitivity and uniqueness under the Natural Areas System Regulation (N.J.A.C. 7.2-11.5-B); their regional, state and/or national significance and, not least, because of the availability of state legal authorities to protect them. CONCLUSIONS The most important aspects of the shorefront planning process will be to identify where access is or is not available. This will constitute the first step towards developing strategies, such as a possible acquisition schedule, to ensure adequate access to and along New Jersey's shorefront. Such planning becomes more feasible within the framework of a comprehensive coastal program and will become an implementation task after New Jersey's entire coastal management program is approved. 300 SHORELINE EROSION/MITIGATION PLANNING Introduction Under the federal Coastal Zone Managem 'ent Act, state coastal management programs must include a planning process for assessing the effects of shore- line erosion and studying ways to control the impact of such erosion and to restore areas adversely affected by such erosion. These specific federal requirements are defined in Section 305(b)(9) of the Act. The pertinent federal rules on this requirement are identified at 15 CFR 923.25. This planning process must include two parts: (1) A method for assessing the effects of shoreline erosion and evaluating techniques for mitigating, controlling or restoring areas adversely affected by erosionj and (2) identifying and describing enforceable policies, legal authori- ties, funding techniques and other techniques that will be used to manage the effects of erosion as the State's planning process indicates is necessary. Background Since the early 1920's, the State of New Jersey has been giving financial and technical assistance to help shorefront municipalities cope with shoreline erosion. in the early 1940's, new State legislation (P.L. 1940, C. 52; N.J.S.A.) authorized and empowered the then Department of Conservation and Economic Develop- ment, now the Department of Environmental Protection, to repair, reconstruct or construct bulkheads, seawalls, breakwaters, groins, jetties, beachfills, dunes, and any or all appropriate structures for shore protection purposes. The annual appropriation for this work was $1.0 million. In recent years, the need for shoreline erosion planning has been heightened as a result of major coastal storms, particularly the March 1962 storm, the cumulative effects of minor storms in the past decade and increased shoreline development. The New Jersey Capital Budgeting Commission recognized the annual $1 million appropriations for State aid to municipalities for shore protection purposes was inadequate and in 1977 the voters of the State approved a $30 million Beaches and Harbor Bond Issue, which provides $20 million for State aid for shore protection purposes. In brief, the State of New Jersey, has had a shoreline erosion planning and management process in place for several decades. This section of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program documents the process and outlines the work underway today and also that work likely to be undertaken in the future as the State con- tinues to confront the challenge of shoreline erosion. 1. Shoreline Erosion Assessment Method The New Jersey approach to assessing the effects of shoreline erosion has four components, First, review. previous studies of shoreline erosion; second, initiate shoreline erosion studies; third, participate in ongoing shoreline erosion studies by other agencies and organizations; and fourth, review site-specific development proposals in the coastal zone that may affect shoreline erosion. 301 The most significant previous studies of shoreline erosion in New Jersey that have been reviewed were conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, both the New York and Philadelphia Districts. In 1953, the Corps of Engineers, New York District conducted a comprehensive study and issued a report for the shore protec- tion required along the Atlantic oceanfront from Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet. In 1956, the Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District completed a similar study for the area from Barnegat Inlet to Cape May Point. More recently, the Cape May County Planning Board prepared a report on its beaches and inlets called Inlets and Beaches, Cape May County, March 1977. As part of the coastal planning process funded since 1974 under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, the Department of Environmental Protection has ini- tiated staff and consultant studies of shoreline erosion. The most comprehensive work to date, entitled Coastal Geomorphology of New Jersey, was completed in 1977, under contract to DEP, by the Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies 'at Rutgers University. Additional minor staff studies have been carried out in the past and are likely to be initiated in the future. The most significant study initiated by DEP currently is the preparation of a statewide Shore Protection Master Plan, by Dames and Moore, Inc. of Cranford, New Jersey, consulting engineers and scientists, who are assisting the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Treasury, Division of Building and Construction in carrying out the shore protection portion of the 1977 Beaches and Harbors Bond Issue. The Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies has begun a technical study to deter- mine the protective capacity of natural and man modified dune areas for the purpose of delineating dune management areas. As necessary, additional analytical studies will be initiated in the future. Third, the Department of Environmental Protection participates in ongoing shoreline erosion studies carried out by other agencies, particularly the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and relevant county and municipal agencies. The entire process of shore protection in New Jersey is a cooperative state-municipal, and often federal-state-county-municipal effort. As specific shoreline studies are completed to protect specific inlets, replenish beaches, or propose additional measures,, .these studies are closely coordinated by the Department of Environmental Protection as the lead agency in shore protection. Similar participation in joint studies will continue in the future. Fourth, the Department of Environmental Protection reviews site specific development proposals along the waterways (ocean, bays and rivers, etc.) of the State for a number of considerations, including shore protection. This site specific review provides opportunities for review of individual projects at specific locations. Fifth, field staff of the Department of Environmental Protection visually monitor the shoreline frequently, from the ground and the air in order to identify shoreline erosion problems. This surveillance method for assessing the effects of shoreline erosion will continue and will become an increasingly important monitor- ing method. DEP has also received updates on important local issues from the Coast Watchers, a group of concerned citizens organized by the American Littoral Society who live in and monitor the coast. 302 The general conclusion of all these reports is that the problem is quite severe, since the shoreline is receding with an annual loss of sand from the New Jersey beaches of approximately 2,600,000 cubic yards. The main problem is that there is no natural external supply of material to offset the annual loss of sand. This means that the sand available for accumula- tion on the updrift sides of groins and jetties is being eroded from existing beaches. It also means that to provide adequate. shore protection to beaches the sand has to be transported by hydraulic dredging or by trucking in the material. The source of sand material required for the artificial nourishment of the beach comes from nearby borrow areas in the interior bays and lagoons. When this source of sand material is not available, nearby land borrow areas will have to be used. Ultimately, the time will come when these nearby sources of sand material, i.e. bays, lagoons, and nearby land borrow sites for artificial beach nourishment, are depleted. Then it will be necessary to find sand on the mainland or offshore in the Atlantic Ocean. An economic way of removing sand from the ocean floor is under study by the Corps of Engineers, and as part of this study a pilot project of direct pump out of hopper dredges of the Philadelphia District was initiated at Sea Girt in 1962 to explore the utilization of offshore sand source. Presently the Division of Coastal Resources works with local engineers in the design of the needed jetties, groins, seawalls, bulkheads, revetments. and beachfill. The Division then advertises for bids and administers the contract and supervises their construction. Field personnel from the Division constantly monitor New Jersey's beaches, watching for developments which may be the forerunner of serious beach erosion problems. The creation of the Shore Protection Master Plan is the initial major task of the Bond Program. The Shore Protection Master Plan will be a regional statewide shoreline plan, to be financed by the Beach and Harbors Fund (1977). It will outline a method for designating areas for erosion control, mitigation and/or restoration. Some of the criteria for the study are listed below. The major objectives are to maintain and protect beaches through the identification of areas of concern for program development, including identification of State agencies involved, procedures for program administration and funding strategies, identifi- cation of legal authorities and funding programs and other techniques that can be used to meet management need. In part, the master plan will identify: 1) Coastal Features and Processes 2) The Status of the New Jersey Shore 13) Alternative Responses to Coastal Erosion and Public Policy 4) Shore Erosion Control Alternatives 5) Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Responses to Erosion 303 The Phases of the Bond Program will be: a) a comprehensive regional design phase creating a master plan, b) a municipal coordination phase, c) an individual reach design, phase and d) a construction phase for each reach. A major task will be the survey and assessment of the extent of damage or threat of damage and a priority listing of facilities, projects and programs, dealing with this damage. The objective is to physically alter the shoreline to correct for storm damage, retard or arrest erosion and increase the accretion process. This process will correct emergency conditions of storm damage, create larger protected beaches, provide additional and future shoreline protection from storms, rehabilitate existing shore protection structures and provide routine maintenance for shore protection facilities. The program will also increase public participation, appreciation and aware- ness of shoreline uses by providing greater beach access, increasing public owner- ship of shorefront lands, providing stimuli for initiating and improving local beach protection laws, providing incentives for increased local government land use planning and increasing State tourism and recreational use of the shoreline. A community's eligibility for fundable projects will be determined by whether it has: 1) an acceptable beach access policy and planning process, 2) an accept- able beach/dune protection policy and other management techniques and 3) an accept- able high risk beach erosion policy and other management techniques. The Division of Coastal Resources funded Rutgers University, Center for Coastal Environmental Studies in 1979 to delineate dune management areas. From 1952 to 1971, aerial photographs were taken by the Division of Coastal Resources in the spring and in the fall. These photographs created an excellent historical record of the shoreline. During 1972, the funds used for shore protec- tion flights were diverted to wetlands photography, which produced coastal photo- graphy for 1972. Between 1973 and 1976, no flights were made. Half of the 1977-78 flight was flown in the fall of 1977 and the other half was flown in the Spring of 1978. All of the photography produced by the Division has enabled careful assessment of the effects of shoreline erosion. To meet the specific "geographic areas of particular concern" requirements of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (Section 305(b)(3)), New Jersey has desig- natdd all coastal wetlands, the Higbee Beach-Pond Creek Meadow Area, wet sand beaches and the Hackensack Meadowland District as "geographic areas of particular concernif as defined under federal law. New Jersey has also defined ten areas under the State Natural Area System Act of 1976 as "geographic areas of particular concern New Jersey has decided not to designate any geographic areas of parti cular concern, under federal law7-for erosion purposes, although the wet sand beaches clearly are areas where erosion sometimes occur. Under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, states must also establish a process for identifying various preservation and restoration areas. The chief process employed by New Jersey for identifying suc@ areas in terms of shoreline erosion is the shore protection master plan currently underway. The aim of the master plan is to identify on a reach-by- reach basis, those areas in need of various types of shore protection. Areas appropriate for restoration will be included as part of this process. 304 New Jersey's basic procedure for managing the effects of shoreline erosion is the ongoing program of analyzing the shore protection needs of the State and responding to those needs, within the limits of available technical and financial resources, with appropriate construction activity. Each year, DEP's Division of Coastal Resources makes an annual determination on the projects likely to be funded in a particular year. Depending upon the availability of funds and the need for and the urgency of shoreline erosion, projects may range widely in scope. For example, current projects under consideration in 1979 include construction of three low profile groins at Sea Isle City (Cape May County), replacing the deteriorated timber bulkheads with aluminum bulkheads in Shark River in Neptune Township (Monmouth County), replacing steel bulkheads with reinforced slab bulkhead at Belmar (Monmouth County), replacing and repairing a stone seawall along ocean Drive at the northern tip of Avalon (Cape May County), constructing a jetty at Bidwells Creek Harbor of refuge at Middle Township (Cape May County), constructing a bulkhead at Wills Hole Thorofare, Point Pleasant Beach (ocean County), repairing the seawall at Sea Bright (Monmouth County), and beach replenishment in Atlantic City (Atlantic County). These illustrative projects are all managed jointly by DEP in conjunction with the appropriate municipality. In addition, DEP undertakes emergency shore protection action as necessitated by storms and natural disasters. Also, shore protection needs that develop through the ongoing inspection programs of the Division of Coastal Resources are addressed in this manner. Enforceable Policies, Legal Authorities and Funding Techniques for Shoreline Erosion Management New Jersey has proposed five key policies on shoreline erosion, which are contained in Chapter Four. The Special Area Policies on High Risk Erosion Areas, Beaches and Dunes (7:7E-3.19), Use Policies on Coastal Engineering (7:7E-7.11), and the Resource Policy on Flood Hazard Areas (7:7E-8.23) are the applicable policies. In addition, the more general policy on shoreline erosion, and the appropriation of shore protection funds can be found in the enabling legislation for the 1977 Beaches and Harbor Bond Issue. The statutory basis for New Jersey's shoreline erosion planning and management efforts rests upon several State laws. First, P.L. 1940, C. 42 authorized and empowered the Department of Environmental Protection to repair, construct or reconstruct bulkheads, seawalls and other shore protection structures, including beachfills and dunes as necessary to protect the environment. The Beaches and Harbors Fund established by the 1977 Beaches and Harbors Bond Issue also explicitly authorizes this Department to undertake shore protection planning and to implement the plan that is developed. The first appropriation of funds from the bond issue reiterated the importance of and reauthorized the Department's efforts. In addition, the enabling legislation establishing the Department in 1970 authorized the preparation of comprehensive plans for natural resource management. The planning mandate of the Coastal Area Facility Review Act also authorizes the Department to prepare a management strategy for the coastal environment, which includes the shoreline. The chief funding program available for shoreline erosion planning and management is the 1977 Harbors and Beaches Bond, Issue which provides for $20 million in funds that may be made available to municipalities on a matching basis. In previous years, an annual appropriation of $1 million was made available for shore protection purposes, a sum that proved inadequate to the task. In 305 addition,, funds may be available for large scale projects that are part of an approved federal project financed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This applies particularly to protective work for the major inlets along the Jersey shoreline. Finally, the land management activities regulated through New Jersey's coastal management program also address shoreline erosion planning to the extent that inappropriately located development is carefully scrutinized and prohibited where necessary, when it would adversely effect shoreline erosion problems. In 1977, recognizing the severity of the problem and the limited resources available, the Beach and Harbor Bond Act (P.L. 1977, c. 208) was passed. The Act authorized the creation of a debt of the State of New Jersey by the issuance of bonds of the state in the aggregate principal in the amount of $30,000,000 for the purposes of researching, planning, acquiring, developing, constructing and main- taining beach (and harbor) restoration. In 1978, the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, under the authority of "Beaches and Harbors Bond Act of 1977" P.L. 1977, c.208, N.J.S.A. 12:6A-1 et seq., and N.J.S.A. 13:1-11 et seq. proposed to adopt regulations to establish7-pi@o`cedures for governing the-opgr-ation of shore protection construction projects and research design programs that are financed, in part or in whole, by funds from the Beaches and Harbor Fund. The rules proposed prescribe procedures for application, selection, award, and administration of matching grants and design or construction contracts; provide guidance for deter- mining site specific considerations for locating shore protection structures; establish policies and procedures for distribution of operational funds for the purpose of making State matching grants to local governmental agencies for the planning, design and construction of shore protection facilities, dune restoration, and beachfill projects; establish procedures for contract construction. Also, the proposed rules provide guidance in developing a comprehensive shore protection plan. 306 CHAPTER SIX - NEXT STEPS IN COASTAL MANAGEMENT IN NEW JERSEY Introduction Management System Coastal Policies Data Management and Information System New Legislation Conclusion Introduction New Jersey has devoted growing attention to the management of its coastal zone over the last ten years. This New Jersey Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement presents the results of the efforts to date. The anticipated federal approval of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program will be an important step forward. New Jersey will then become eligible for increased grants to implement the program throughout the coastal zone under Section 306 of the CZMA. These grants will enable the State to' apply the program and to refine and improve it as necessary. The coastal activities New Jersey plans to pursue following program approval are summarized below. They are grouped into four general areas: Management System, Coastal Policies, Data Management and Informa- tion System, and New Legislation. Management System New Jersey will continue to work to improve the clarity and efficiency of its coastal regulatory programs. This will include following up the reorganization of the Division of Coastal Resources (formerly Marine Services) in the summer of 1979, with the preparation of one set of procedural rules to govern the CAFRA, Wetlands and Waterfront Development permit programs, and with further efforts to insure that only one review process is required for an applicant needing any number of approvals from the Division. In addition, the Division will further develop its monitoring and enforcement activities which were substantially upgraded by the Division reorganization. Staff will be added to the new Bureau of Coastal Enforcement and Field Services so that the Bureau will be able to insure that coastal activities subject to DEP regulation are, in fact, regulated and that coastal regulatory decisions made by the Division are followed. The Division of Coastal Resources will also work with other parts of DEP and other State agencies to maximize the use of the Coastal Resource and Development Policies, and to create additional procedures for the joint review of projects requiring permits and/or funding from several state sources. Similarly, the Division will continue to seek such opportunities with federal, regional, county and municipal agencies. The application of "federal consistency" to projects in New Jersey once the Coastal Management Program is approved should enhance State- Federal coordination. 307 The Division of Coastal Resources will also continue to seek specific local projects which can help further the Coastal Resource and Development Policies. The Division will pass through a limited number of small grants from its CZMA grants to municipalities and counties in the coastal zone. In addition, the Division will provide advice and technical support to regional and interstate agencies, munici- palities, counties for projects such as the review of plans, ordinances and spe- cific coastal proposals, and to help identify and coordinate other state, regional and federal agencies which may be able to collectively help realize a local coastal project. Lastly, DEP will continue its public participation program to insure that people affected by the Coastal Management Program are aware of it and understand it, and that interested people have opportunities to help improve it. DEP, therefore, will continue to publish The Jersey Coast, to produce reports, displays, and slide shows focused on coastal issues and to speak frequently at public meet- ings and events. Coastal Policies DEP will continue to develop the Coastal Resource and Development Policies to make them increasingly specific, predictable and easily understandable. At least once each year, the Department will consider whether revisions should be proposed to the administrative rules under which the policies will be adopted. The Department will incorporate the work products received from two con- tractual studies completed in 1979: an estuarine study and a development potential study. In addition, DEP will continue to seek and explore techniques to more fully integrate social and economic information into coastal decision making. DEP will also continue to analyze specific coastal issues of importance including fisheries management, the development of a shore protection master plan, and the appropriate location for marine and estuarine sanctuaries in New Jersey. The Department will then use the results of these analyses to propose revisions to the Coastal Resource and Development Policies and to take other steps which may be indicated. Data Management and Information System one major current and continuing activity of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program is the development of a geographic information system which would be useful for coastal planning and decision making by the Division of Coastal Resources and valuable for as many other DEP programs, and programs in other State, Federal and local agencies, as possible. one important goal of such a system is that it be stored on a computer so that information could be readily used for a wide variety of calculations and could also be routinely updated relatively easily and cheaply. The Coastal Location Acceptability Method (CLAM), the automating of CLAM (Auto-CLAM), and further adaptations require a wide variety of geographic and tabular data from a number of sources. Output quality is limited by the accuracy and updatedness of these data. Remote sensing data, both optical and digital, ground truth surveys, monitoring station data and published data must all be integrated and combined in a single analysis. This requires better survey updating and better indexing and cross referencing of geo-data than now exists. 308 New Legislation The New Jersey Coastal Management Program is based entirely on existing State laws. In the course of administering thes laws and of preparing the Coastal Management Program, interested citizens and DEP staff have suggested potentially desirable changes which could not take effect without enactment of one or more new laws. While such changes are not necessary to achieve federal approval of the coastal manag'ement program, DEP will work to explore in detail the desirability and feasibility of such changes to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Program. In Options for New Jerseyls Developed Coast (March 1979), DEP included for public comment a description of one possible new coastal law (pages 43-49). This is just one of the legislative options DEP will consider. In brief, the issues which DEP will pursue which may require new legislation include the following: - Protection of sand dunes and restriction of building in areas subject to storm damage. - Restriction of development which threatens or blocks public access to, or mars the view presented, by the Palisades. - Consolidation of the three current State coastal permits -- CAFRA, Wetlands and Waterfront Development -- into one permit program. This would include a reevaluation of the types of development subject to DEP regulation so that, for example, environmentally sensitive areas could be regulated more inten- sively than they now are, while less vulnerable areas would be less inten- sively regulated. - Delegation of some DEP regulatory responsibilities to county or municipal governments. This delegation would be proposed only for local governments with adopted plans and ordinances consistent with the New Jersey Coastal Management Program, and only if DEP retained the right to overrule local variances, amendments or modifications to local plans it had certified. Conclusion Changes to the program will be fully discused in public before they are' adopted, and will be incorporated according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Final Regulations for Amendments to and Termination of Approved Management Programs (CFR 9, Chapter IX, Part 923, Subpart'l). As this Chapter has demonstrated, Federal approval of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program will accelerate, rather than conclude, coastal planning and coastal management in the State. 309 1-1 DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW JERSEY COASTAL ZONE - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT A . I I .1 PART III - DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW JERSEY COASTAL ZONE: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Introduction Delineating the Boundary Municipalities Within the Coastal Zone Description and Visions of the Coastal Zone Northern Waterfront Area Bay and Ocean Shore Area Delaware River Area Introduction This part of the Final EIS describes the geographic area affected by the management program for the New Jersey Coastal Zone. The criteria used to delineate the coastal zone will be discussed, followed by a description of the coastal zone as it is today, together with a general vision of what the zone is likely to become following implementation of the Coastal Management Program. Delineation of the Boundary New jersey's coastal zone extends from the New York border south to Cape May Point and then north to Trenton. It encompasses the waters and waterfronts of the Hudson River and related water bodies south to the Raritan Bay, the Atlantic Ocean and some inland areas from Sandy Hook to Cape May, the Delaware Bay and some inland areas, and the waterfront of the Delaware River and related tributaries. The coastal zone encompasses areas in which the State, through the Department of Environmental Protection, has the authority to regulate land and water uses that have a significant impact on coastal waters. These authorities include the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA), the Wetlands Act, the Waterfront Develop- ment Law, riparian statutes, and the Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Devel- opment Act. The inland boundary for the portion of the coast traditionally regarded as the "Jersey Shore" from Sandy Hook to Cape May, plus adjacent areas along Raritan Bay and Delaware Bay (consisting of parts of Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Burling- ton, Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland and Salem Counties) is defined as: the landward boundary of the Coastal Area as defined in the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA), or the upper boundary of coastal wetlands located landward of the CAFRA boundary along tidal water courses flowing through the CAFRA area, whichever is more landward, including State-owned tidelands. In the more developed portions of the State (including portions of Salem, Gloucester, Camden, Burlington, Mercer, Middlesex, Somerset, Union, Hudson, Essex, Passaic and Bergen Counties) the coastal zone boundary is defined as: the landward boundary of the State's jurisdiction under the Waterfront Devel- opment Act (N.J.S.A. 12:5-3) or the Wetlands Act (N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1), or the landward boundary of State-owned tidelands, whichever extends farthest inland. 310 The boundary in these parts of the coastal zone coincides with the geographic jurisdiction of the Waterfront Development Law (discussed in "Principal Imple- mentation Programs" section of Chapter Three). The boundary of the Hackensack Meadowlands region is defined as: the boundary of the area defined as the Hackensack Meadowlands District by the Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Development Act (N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et seq.). The seaward boundary of the coastal zone is the three nautical mile limit of the United States Territorial Sea, and the interstate boundaries of the States of New York, and Delaware and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. A generalized view of the New Jersey Coastal Zone is shown in Figure 38. The federal Coastal Zone Management Act establishes the following general standards which states must meet in selecting a coastal zone boundary. 111coastal zone' means the coastal waters (including the lands therein and thereunder) and the adjacent shorelands (including the waters therein and thereunder), strongly influenced by each other and in proximity to the shore- lines of the several coastal states, and includes islands, transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, and beaches. The zone extends ... seaward to the outer limit of the United States territorial sea. The zone extends inland from the shorelines only to the extent necessary to control shorelands, the uses of which have a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters. Excluded from the coastal zone are lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of or which is held in trust by the Federal Government, its officers or agents.01 (Section 304 (1)) DEP first publicly analyzed the selection of the coastal zone boundary in December 1976 in a staff working paper entitled "Alternative Boundaries for New Jersey's Coastal Zone". This 55 page paper, which was widely circulated and. discussed, described possible boundaries and included a preliminary recommendation.. The coastal zone boundary is a detailed refinement of the preliminary recom- mendation. Comments by interested individuals and groups, particularly County Planning Boards, suggested specific modifications, some of which have been incor- porated into the boundary. The most significant change has been the restriction of the Coastal Zone to areas over which the Department has jurisdiction. Coastal Waters include tidal portions of the Atlantic Ocea .n, Hudson River, Passaic River, Hackensack River, R 'aritan River, Delaware River, Newark Bay, Upper New York Bay, Raritan Bay, Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, Delaware Bay and their tidal tributaries, and other tidal streams of the Coastal Plain. The upstream 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. DEP has chosen the landward penetration of tidal influence in a watercourse because this provides a readily measurable dividing line for coastal and non-coastal waters. (The tidal limit also coincides with the extent of State- owned tidelands under the tidelands management program). Salinity levels are 311 Flgure 38 NEW JERSEY COASTAL HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS SUSSEX DISTRICT ZONE ,:PASSAIC BERGE WARREN elrMORRIS ESSEX NORTHERN HACKENSACK WATERFRONT MEADOWLANDS -.,-,UNION AREA DISTRICT NSOMERSET HUNTERDON BAY AND OCEAN SHORE AREA MIDDLESEX 2 MONMOUTH MERCER DELAWARE RIVER OCEAN AREA BUR GTON BAY AND OCEAN SHOR-E AREA 1,pUCESTER SALEM TIC ATLAN N umeERLAND 312 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. 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 Fi sh Laws, published by DEP's Division of Fish, Game and Oildlife have been used whe@reavailable. 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. The 20 foot contour line criterion was suggested by DEP's Office of Environmental Analysis, since most of tidal influence is within the first 20 foot elevation. The office of Environmental Analysis is currently working to define precisely and legally New Jersey's tidal limits and also the State's claim to tide-flowed lands. This delineation is now complete for the Hackensack Meadowlands District. When this work is completed for other parts of the coastal zone, DEP will consider amendments to the coastal zone boundary. The New Jersey Supreme Court recently upheld DEP's method for delineation in the case of City of Newark v. Natural Resource Council (May 15, 1980). 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 Coastal Area Facility Review Act (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-OCZM does not require inclusion of the Delaware River within New Jersey's coastal zone as the quantity of seawater is less than five parts per thousand. However, the State of New Jersey does today manage the wetlands and riparian lands along this part of the coast and DEP chose to include these areas within the coastal zone because they can benefit from the application of the Coastal Resource and Development Policies to State decisions and from the increased attention and funding available to areas within the coastal zone. As part of their contracts with DEP, several coastal county planning boards suggested a coastal zone boundary for their county. These suggestions were sum- marized and analyzed by DEP in Options for New Jersey's Developed Coast. One other comment on the boundary is worthy of note. That is the boundary modification suggested by the Wave Hill Center for Environmental Studies, the Waterfront Coalition of Hudson and Bergen, and others, to include the Palisades area in the coastal zone. This area, extending from the New York-New Jersey boundary on the north, could be defined in several ways to include the magnificent cliffs which can be seen from the Hudson River and New York and which provide a fine waterfront view from New Jersey. DEP has not included this area in the coastal zone because it lacks authority to regulate or manage development affecting the view presented by the Palisades. This area is, however, discussed in the "Next Steps" chapter of Part II (Chapter Six). 313 Municipalities Within the New Jersey Coastal Zone The coastal zone includes at least a small part of a total of 245 munici- palities in seventeen of New Jersey's twenty-one counties. Only Hunterdon, Morris, Sussex, and Warren counties have no coastal waters and are entirely excluded from 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. The municipalities are listed below by region and by county beginning with the Northern Waterfront Area (which includes the Hackensack Meadowlands District) continuing into the Bay and Ocean Shore area and then into the Delaware River Area. 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 Oradell Borough Englewood Cliffs Borough Ridgefield Borough Fairview Borough Ridgefield Park Village Fort Lee Borough River Edge Borough Garfield City Rutherford Borough Hackensack City South Hackensack Township Little Ferry Borough Teaneck Township Lodi Borough Teterboro Borough Wallington 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 Amboy City New Brunswick City South River Borough old Bridge Township Woodbridge Township 314 Passaic County Clifton City Passaic City Somerset County Franklin Township Union County Elizabeth City Rahway City Linden City 315 BAY AND OCEAN SHORE AREA 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 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 Millville City Greenwich Township Stow Creek Township Middlesex County Old Bridge Township (Madison) (Also in Northern Waterfront Area) Monmouth County Aberdeen Township (Matawan) Loch Arbour Village Matawan Borough Long Branch City Allenhurst Borough 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 316 Monmouth County - Cont. Brielle Borough Oceanport Borough Deal Borough Red Bank Borough 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 Lo ng 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 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 Carneys Point Township (Upper Penns Neck) 317 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 Southampton Township Florence Township Westhampton Township Hainesport Township Willingboro Township Camden County Audubon Borough Hi-Nella Borough Barrington Borough Laurel Springs Borough Bellmawr Borough Lindenwold Borough Brooklawn Borough Magnolia Borough Camden City Mount Ephraim Borough Cherry Hill Township Pennsauken Township Gloucester City Runnemede Borough Gloucester Township Somerdale Borough Haddon Township Stratford Borough Gloucester County Deptford Township Swedesboro Borough East Greenwich Township Wenonah Borough Greenwich Township West Deptford Township Logan Township Westville Borough Mantua Township Woodbury City National Park Borough Woolwich Township Paulsboro Borough Mercer County Hamilton Township Trenton City Salem County Carneys Point Township* Pennsgrove Township Mannington Township* Pilesgrove Township Oldmans Township Pennsville Township* Also in Bay and Ocean Shore Area 318 Description and Visions of the Coastal Zone This Chapter describes the character of the geographic area addressed by this report and presents visions of the future which DEP considers both desirable and achievable through implementation of the Coastal Management Program. It should be noted at the outset that the visions represent subjective judgements based upon visits to the areas, discussions with local residents and officials, and review of previously prepared reports, studies and plans. The length and diversity of the coast suggests that it be described in seg- ments. In this section, the Northern Waterfront Area is discussed first, followed by the Bay and Ocean Shore Area, and then the Delaware River Area. The Northern Waterfront Area The Northern Waterfront is marked by diversity in its 60-mile stretch from Piscataway Township in Middlesex County to Alpine Borough in Bergen County. Present vistas of the waterfront range from high-rise apartments above the Pali- sades to broad tidal wetlands along the Raritan and South Rivers. The only common feature of the Northern Waterfront is that it has all been touched by human activity. The Coastal Management Program for the Northern Waterfront will seek to maintain the diverse character which sets apart the different sections of the waterfront, but it will also promote some changes in the use of the waterfront. Much of the waterfront is currently occupied by underutilized or abandoned industrial or transportation facilities. Some of these sites will be assembled for new labor-intensive industrial uses while others will be redeveloped as park land or for commercial use. Much more of the waterfront should be made accessible to the public, while water quality should be improved to allow recreational boating at many points. Residential area@s near the waterfront would then become more desirable places to live, both because of improved access to a cleaner waterfront and because of buffering from industrial and transportation facilities. The Northern Waterfront will be addressed in this section by first traveling down the outer waterfront from the Palisades to Raritan Bay and then moving up the tidal portions of the region's rivers. Although the character of the northern waterfront can change dramatically in a short distance, segments of different rivers often show similar characteristics. The Upper New York Bay and Arthur Kill-Newark Bay regions -- the core area of the Northern Waterfront -- are similar industrial port districts which have known better days, but they are physically separated by the residential waterfront of Bayonne. The Upper Hackensack, Passaic and Rahway River segments, likewise, have similar urban/suburban waterfronts, while the Elizabeth and Perth Amboy Waterfronts have a similar urban residential charac- ter. The Hudson River Region - The Hudson River shoreline from the New York State line to the George WasT;i3g`_ton Bridge, a distance of ten miles, is protected from development as part of the Palisades Interstate Park.- In the future, it will remain unspoiled and continue to provide a spectacular vista of the Palisades Cliffs as they rise from the river. Below the George Washington Bridge, the northern waterfront takes on- a two- tiered character, with uses on top of the Palisades entirely different from those below. For the twelve miles from the Bridge to Liberty State Park in Jersey City, the narrow waterfront between the cliffs and river is in large part the scene of 319 railroad yards and docks, many of them underutilized or abandoned. One town, the Borough of Edgewater, is also below the cliffs. At the top of the cliffs are suburban-type residential neighborhoods with an increasing number of high-rises. Because not all of the waterfront area is needed for rail and ship transportation facilities or for new industrial facilities, the creation of waterfront parks to meet the recreational needs of the densely populated neighborhoods atop the cliffs is both desirable and feasible. Because of severe traffic congestion on top of the cliffs and the lack of a mass transit system, an end to the indiscriminate con- struction of high rises in this area is desirable. in particular, some have suggested that no new high rises should be constructed between Route 505 (Boulevard East) and the River, as such construction would further limit public access to the waterfront. As noted above, the Coastal Management Program will not contain the authority to prevent such construction. Liberty State Park in Jersey City, already the most popular facility of the state park system, will continue to be a chief recreational facility for the inner core of the Northeast Mew Jersey Metropolitan Region. Planning is underway for future recreational development of the park and for the transformation of the abandoned Central Railroad of New Jersey terminal within the Park into an activity center, -as part of the revitalization of surrounding residential development in Jersey City. The City of Hoboken is pursuing similar plans for the Erie-Lackawanna terminal. Upper New York Bay Region - South of the Park is Caven Point. of a total of 440 acres, 230 acres upland Iand 210 are a tidal flat. This area is important because it is a wintering spot for waterfowl and a nursery for juvenile fish. This tidal flat, along with the 60 acre Natural Area at Liberty State Park, are the last remaining tidal flats of this type in the Hudson River Region. At low tide, a broad, flat area is exposed along much of the shoreline. Caven Point's special value to fish lies in its shallow depth and natural shoreline. The site is a natural cove, bounded by a sandy beach area. Adjacent to the cove is a pier used for fishing, which is about 3/4 mile in length. Inland of Caven Point, the waterfront is much the same as it is to the north except that the transportation-oriented waterfront area is wider and the residen- tial sections of Jersey City are separated from the waterfront by the New Jersey Turnpike. This area has been suggested for industrial redevelopment because it is separated from residential sections of the city. One such proposal was made by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, for an industrial park at Greenville Yards. At the same time, neighborhood groups in Jersey City have proposed that housing or mixed use development would be more appropriate. Further south, in Bayonne, industrial facilities and oil storage tanks occupy the Kill Van Kull waterfront, with residential neighborhoods in close proximity. In this area, buffering of residential from industrial uses will be the best way to improve the quality of the urban neighborhood. Along Bayonne's western waterfront of Nevark Bay and also along part of Kill Van Kull, residential neighborhoods are adjacent t6 the water's edge. Also, two parks line the bayfront. This area is likely to be little changed in the future, although the parks, which offer a place to watch the busy commercial activities of Newark Bay, may be improved and possibly expanded. At the northern end of Newark Bay in Jersey City, a regional shopping center and other business occupy the waterfront. As the water quality of the Bay is improved, the waterfront should change from a parking lot to an asset attracting people to these businesses. 320 Newark Bay-Arthur Kill Region - Newark Bay divides into the Hackensack and Passaic Rivers between Jersey City and Newark. Along the two-mile stretch before both rivers enter the Hackensack Meadowlands District, the shorelines are heavily industrialized with the exception of the half-mile waterfront of Lincoln Park in Jersey City. Because of the proximity of these rivers to the Newark and' Jersey City labor force, this area should continue to be a good location for industry. On the western shore of Newark Bay is the City of Newark. Most of its bay frontage consists of the rundown vestiges of an industrial waterfront. The water- front is separated from Newark's residential neighborhoods by several blocks but is near enough to the City's labor force to make it a prime location for industrial redevelopment. At the southern end of Newark's waterfront and the northern end of Elizabeth's is a modern container port. It is a major employer and an example of the potential of a modernized waterfront. South of the container port in Elizabeth is a large tract of vacant waterfront served by rail. This land is being con- sidered by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for promotion under its industrial park development program. Continuing south, Newark Bay gives way to Arthur Kill. The northernmost three-fourths of a mile of the Kill is bordered by an old, urban residential neighborhood within the City of Elizabeth. Creation and enhancement of public open space in the narrow sector between homes and the Kill will enhance this neighbor- hood and encourage its preservation. From Elizabeth south to the Middlesex County boundary (City of Linden), the shoreline of the Kill has considerable amounts of wetlands which have been developed. Petroleum tank farms are the most prevalent developed use. In the future, this portion of waterfront is likely to have con- tinued industrial use, but stronger measures to preserve those wetlands which are undeveloped (all the undeveloped coastal wetlands in Linden are owned by adjacent industries) are desirable. Middlesex County has docks and warehouses along the shoreline, but also about as much vacant land as in Union County. Wetlands are found primarily along Wood- bridge Creek, a small tidal tributary. Also, as in Union County, water dependent industry is the major use for the waterfront, but lands not needed by industry should be preserved in order to maintain the estuarine ecosystem. In the City of Perth Amboy is a site which is being evaluated for its potential as a support base for offshore oil and gas operat 'ions. Further south in Perth Amboy, residential neighborhoods and a park extend to the waterfront. Across the Raritan River, the entire Raritan bayfront, with the exception of a residential neighborhood in South Amboy, consists of vacant land separated from residential neighborhoods by the North Jersey Shore rail line. Because of its proximity to existing residential neighborhoods and public transportation, this land has potential for residential, commercial or industrial development (if properly buffered from residences), as well as for public open space. At the end of this secior of vacant land along Raritan Bay is the beginning of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. This analysis will, therefore, turn to the tidal portions of the rivers which flow into this "outer" northern waterfront. 321 Upper Hackensack River Region - Beginning in the north, the first river is the Hackensack, which is tidal to 073-dell, Bergen County. For the first 4 1/2 miles from Oradell to Hackensack, the river is surrounded by suburban residential neigh- borhoods with some commercial uses. Some people have suggested a cycling or hiking path in this area, and Bergen County is considering plans for impoundment of the river at Hackensack to create a lake-park complex. Where the Hackensack River enters the Meadowlands District it is joined by the Overpeck Creek, a tributary which is tidal for the four miles to Leonia. For the upper two miles, the shoreline is public open space -- Overpeck Park. From the park to the river's juncture with the Hackensack, land uses along the creek include industry, a small amount of commercial and residential property and a large Percentage of vacant land. This vacant land, like vacant land on the nearby portion of the Hackensack, will provide for recreation such as boat launching or fishing provided that water quality is brought up to state standards. It could also be a site for water-oriented commercial uses, or minimally polluting indus- tries. Passaic River Region - The Passaic River is tidal from the Dundee Dam at Clifton to Newark Bay. North of Newark the river is bordered by suburban and urban residential neighborhoods, but much of the immediate waterfront is given over to industries, especially textiles and related printing and dyeing. On the west bank, public access is also denied by State Highway 21. Wherever possible along this stretch of river, public access will be acquired, and where feasible a foot or cycling path system will be developed to enhance the recreational opportunities of the densely populated cities and towns along the banks, while water-dependent industries would continue to provide employment. The Saddle River which flows into the Passaic at the Garfield-Hasbrouck Heights border is tidal for about two miles. The shores of this river are largely undeveloped although residential and commer- cial uses do encroach certain sections. Because of its less developed shoreline, this river segment has more potential than the Passaic for ecologically sound, planned development, which will encompass a number of different but compatible uses. As the Passaic River reaches Newark, industrial uses become dominant although much of ihe immediate waterfront is vacant or is occupied by abandoned structures. Revitalization of industry and commerce where possible, and develop- ment of small parks or river access paths elsewhere is a desirable future for the Passaic as it passes between Newark on the west and Kearny, East Newark and Harrison on the east. Elizabeth River Region - In the City of Elizabeth, the Elizabeth River is tidal for two miles as 7 flows into Arthur Kill, although the length of tidal waters may be diminished by a current U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control project. There is some riverfront park land as well as vacant land along the shore, but for the most part homes and apartments line its banks, limiting the potential for public access. In the future, parks will be improved and public access provided where feasible, although greater improvement in the river's envi- ronment will be a result of improvement in water quality. Rahway River Region - The Rahway' River is tidal for five miles from Grand Avenue in Rahway to the Arthur Kill. Above Grand Avenue on the non-tidal portion of the river, Union County has acquired the river corridor for public open space, and the river provides opportunities for canoeing, hiking and other forms of recreation. In the tidal portion of the river, however, there is a wide assortment 322 of land uses, few of which take advantage of the river. In Rahway itself, single- family homes, commercial establishments, and a marina line the river, while closer to the Arthur Kill the shoreline becomes marshy and vacant with the excep- tion of some tank farms which do not appear to be water dependent. In the future, the wetlands near the Kill should be preserved, and improvements should be made along the riverfront in Rahway to make it more of an asset to adjacent neighbor- hoods and businesses. Raritan River Region - The Raritan River's tidal reach extends inland to Inter7state Route 287 in Piscataway Township. From Route 287 to New Brunswick, the Raritan is paralleled on the south by the Delaware and Raritan Canal. On the north, much of the land is park land, although in some areas the riverfront is residential. Under the direction of the Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission, DEP and the Middlesex County Park Department, the canal should be restored and the Park maintained. Access to the riverfront will, however, be limited in some areas by construction designed to make State Highway 18 a limited access highway. In New Brunswick, the riverfront has already been separated from urban neighborhoods by Route 18, but a pedestrian bridge provides access to public open space along the banks. Public and private emphasis should be placed on assuring continued public access despite highway construction. East of New Brunswick is an extensive river wetland area. The area extends along the Raritan and up its tributary, the South River. This wetland should be preserved as an open space resource for surrounding residential neighborhoods, as well as for a source of nourishment for the Raritan estuary system. Further east, the south bank of the Raritan is the scene of shipping and industrial facilities, many of them ' abandoned. On the north bank is a former arsenal which is being redeveloped as an industrial park. industry is likely to remain the dominant use of the area near the mouth of the Raritan in this vision of the future Northern Waterfront. Hackensack Meadowlands District - Within the Northern Waterfront Area is the Hackensack Meadowlands District, a thirty-one square mile area of tidal wetlands, fresh water wetlands and upland located along the Hackensack River six miles west of:midtown Manhattan. until 1968, the District was largely undeveloped except for huge landfills, warehouses, and some light industry and electrical generating facilities. In that year, the Legislature created the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (HMDC), a state agency intended to direct the orderly and comprehensive development of this area. In the ten years of the Commission's existence, the Meadowlands Sports Complex, consisting of a football/soccer stadium and a racetrack, and new commercial and light industrial buildings have been erected on the west bank of the Hackensack River. On the east bank, the Harmon Cove area, including a planned unit residential development, the Meadowlands Hilton Hotel and several office and industrial buildings, have been developed. Much of the Meadowlands, however, still remains undeveloped. A vision for the Meadowlands has already been created by the HMDC, which was given full planning and zoning authority for the District by its enabling legisla- tion. In 1972, the HMDC introduced a master plan which foresees the development of additional planned residential-commercial-of f ice complexes designed to both take 323 advantage of the wetlands environment and preserve it to the maximum extent possi- ble. The plan also calls for the preservation of several large wetlands preserves and the creation of one major and several smaller parks. The Commission's Open Space Plan calls for the preservation of 6,626 acres of open space, of which 3,576 acres are wetlands. The Master Plan was substantially amended in 1977, 1978 and 1979 and will no doubt be amended in the future. DEP has elected to adopt this evolvin . . .9 vision, as the vision of the State's Coastal Management Program. The Bay and Ocean Shore Area This Coastal Management Program envisions a future Bay and Ocean Shore Area which will reflect the historic development of the region as part intense recrea- tion area, part natural, undeveloped area, and part built-up area. 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 polluted waters, and a revised public attitude towards the value and need to protect the ocean and the coast. 324 Barrier Beach Region - The Barrier Beach Region includes the Sandy Hook Spit soutti to Monmouth Beach, Iheadlands 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. The 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 Shore Region - The Northern Shore 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 of 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 Development Region (see Part II, Chapter 4, Section 7:7E- 5.3), this region is likely to change little in the foreseeable future. New developments will include housing development, possibly senior citizen develop- ments, and light industry, and will occupy suitable sites which fill in largely developed areas. Initiatives at all levels of government 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 con- stituted the bulk of Ocean County's population growth over the past twenty years. Population is currently growing faster than employment. Retail trade for both summer visitors and year round residents is the largest single source of employment. 325 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 less developed Barnegat Corridor Region. Western Ocean Region - Located west of the Garden State Parkway and southwest of State Highway 37, this' small region has both large undeveloped, forested lands, large-scale senior citizen communities and areas devoted to ilmenite mining. New development in this region is expected to extend slowly beyond the current reach of development, avoiding the heavily forested Central Pine Barrens areas. The Barnegat Corridor - This Extension Region, located south of Cedar Creek (the boundary between Beikeley and Lacey townships), north of State Highway 72, west of the back bay systems and east of the Garden State Parkway has experienced pockets of new development in the past decade. A regional sewage treatment system with collector systems to serve existing settled areas is under construction. Designation of this area as an Extension Region recognizes that a gradual pace of infill and some extension development 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 in the Barnegat Corridor and Western Ocean reg .ions. Mullica-Southern Ocean County Region - This Low Growth Region is bounded to the north by Route 72, to the west by the coastal zone boundary, to the south by Route 561 in Atlantic County, and to the east by the back bay systems. It excludes the Tuckerton Region, centered on the Borough of Tuckerton. This is the largely undeveloped Mullica Watershed and Southern Ocean County. The environmental value of the watershed and the inclusion of parts of the Pine Barrens and rural southern Ocean County 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. Tuckerton Region - The Tuckerton Region is bounded on the west by the Burling ton-Ocean County border, on the north by U.S. Highway 9, Otis Bog Road, Nugentown Road and the Tuckerton Borough border, and on the south and east by the back bay system. The Tuckerton Region is a small region with the Borough of Tuckerton in the northeast area the Mystic Island Lagoon Development in the south- west. The region is designated for Extension of development. Commercial develop- ment is encouraged in the Tuckerton Central Business district while multi-family residential development is encouraged as infill in surrounding portions of the Borough. Planned residential development is encouraged as infill between Tuckerton and Mystic Island. The intent is to allow the develoment of a concentrated growth area within commuting range of Atlantic City. Absecon-Somers Point Region - The Absecon-Somers Point Region is bounded on the north by the Mullica River watershed, to the west by the Garden State Parkway, to the south by Great Egg Harbor and to the east by the back bay water systems. This Development Region is likely to experience the most change of any part of the Bay and Ocean Shore Region as a result of the casino gambling industry in Atlantic 326 City. 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 should be able to locate in already developed, downtown areas of Atlantic City. However, unless land prices in Atlantic City revers; the upward trend which began after the Casino Referendum passed, housing and support facili- ties for people who work in Atlantic City will have to be located in surrounding towns. Great Egg Harbor River Basin Region - This Limited Growth 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. 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 environmental benefits to the surrounding area and is likely to be devel- oped at low residential densities. Southern Region - The Southern Region is all of Cape May County within the coast=azone except that portion in the Great Egg Harbor River Basin Region and Barrier Island Region. Tourism accounts for approximately 90 percent of this Extension (of 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 pockets of vacant 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 Area in Cum erland and Salem Counties and, except for the Special Urban Areas of Bridgeton and Millville, which are designated Development areas, is designated a Limited Growth Region. This region is the least developed part of the coastal zone 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 wetlands, and sparsely populated with little existing infrastructure. The popula- tion and economic activity in these counties are concentrated in the small, manu- facturing-oriented cities of Millville, Bridgeton and Salem, which lie on 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. Ef forts 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. 327 The Delaware River Area The Delaware River Area resembles the Northern Waterfront Area in size and diversity in its 60 mile stretch from Trenton to Pennsville. Like the Northern Waterfront, it has an urban center with densely populated residential areas, industry and shipping; it has abandoned piers and factories; it has residential suburbs; and it has undeveloped land and undisturbed wetlands. The difference between this area and the Northern Waterfront lies in the proportion of land devoted to different uses. The urban/industrial area centered in Camden is relatively limited, while the amount of undeveloped land is relatively large. The Delaware River Area also tends to extend further inland than the Northern Waterfront Area, due to the greater penetration of tidal water up the numerous creeks which flow into the Delaware from the Coastal Plain. The Coastal Zone extends several miles up such major streams as Crosswicks Creek, Rancocas Creek, Cooper River, Big Timber Creek and Oldmans Creek. The same basic policies will be applied to the Delaware River Area as to the Northern Waterfront Area. These policies will be designed to maintain the present diversity of uses with each use in its optimal location. The following analysis examines what this means for the specific regions of the Delaware River Area, starting at Trenton and moving southward. The Burl ington-Mercer Region - The Burl ington-Mercer Region includes all of the coastal zone along the Dera-ware River north of the Camden-Philadelphia metro- polis. This region, traversed by Route 130, Interstate 295 and the N.J. Turnpike, has been extensively suburbanized. The waterfront is primarily residential, with the most intensive residential use in Trenton and from Burlington City southward. Much of the coastal zone here is a very narrow strip of shoreland rising from the river to the first road. Landward of that road are private homes. A few parks, public facilities and industrial facilities (some abandoned) also front the river. The coastal zone in this region also includes the shores of most tributaries. Some open space, as well as most of the Region's wetlands, remain near the mouths of these streams. The principal tributary in this region is Rancocas Creek. The proposed coastal zone along this stream is quite wide in some places. Much of it is un- developed upland or wetlands, although some suburban residential development is also present. The stream corridor could be preserved both for the sake of water quality and to meet the recreational needs of this growing suburban region. The creek has great potential for canoeing and hiking, as well as for development of small parks and picnic areas along its banks. North of Burlington is the Crosswicks Creek, a stream which flows through extensive marshland. Part of this wetland, known as the Trenton Marsh, is in the Mercer County Park system. Preservation of portions of the marsh which are not presently under public ownership will be an objective of the Coastal Management Program. In addition, plans of the New Jersey Department of Transportation call for completion of Interstate Highways 195 and 295 and State Highway 29 through this area. 328 For the most part, the future of the Burl ington-Mercer Region should mirror its present . New industry will locate in or near the areas used by existing industrial facilities. Additional residential development will be built as infill, as higher density replacement in existing residential areas, or as new planned clustered unit developments. The most important changes foreseen are preservation of open space along the Delaware and its tributaries, including those narrow shorelands where people can walk along and see the river; encouraging more widespread public access to the river and riverfront; and increasing recreational opportunities on the river and related lands for boating, fishing, picnicking and, when water quality permits, swimming. The Camden Region - This region consists of the three Camden County waterfront municipalities of Camden, Pennsauken and Gloucester City as well as several sub- urban communities located along tributaries of the Delaware. It includes a densely developed, urbanized riverfront which currently accommodates significant shipping and industrial activities. The region also includes the high density residential areas between the Ben Franklin and Betsy Ross Bridges and suburban housing along Pennsauken Creek, Big Timber Creek, and the Newton Creek further inland. The proposed Coastal Policies would encourage and reinforce city and county waterfront redevelopment programs in Camden. These programs are designed to help create new industrial, shipping and wholesale commercial activities; to rejuvenate existing, but underutilized or vacant industrial sites; and to improve the City's waterfront parkland. The policies of the Coastal Management Program will also encourage other uses on the waterfront in appropriate places, including new high-density housing, commercial and retail activities, and new parks and recreation opportunities. The suggested Coastal Policies would also encourage increased public access to the riverfront, provided the public is not endangered and access does not interfere with other legitimate activities. The preservation of the few remaining areas still relatively open and undisturbed in the Region will also be a goal of the Coastal Program. These include the lower reaches of Big Timber Creek, the marina area on the Cooper River, and Fisherman's Cove, which could be maintained as natural areas for carefully managed recreational activities. The Gloucester - Salem Region - This region extends south from the Big Timber Creek to the boundary ot the Bay, nd Ocean Shore Segment in Salem County. Most of the riverfront area in this region is industrially owned. The northern part of Gloucester's coastal zone includes two major refineries, extensive bulk storage facilities and large petro-chemical complexes. Further south, a few heavy indus- tries are located intermittently along the riverfront, including large DuPont and Monsanto facilities in Gloucester and another DuPont complex in Salem County. Yet this region is by far the least developed and most sparsely populated area outside the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. Between National Park in Gloucester County and Penns Grove in Salem County, the active energy and industrial complexes are typically separated by large tracts of vacant land including extensive wetlands and lowland forests. Although the Delaware River lies within one to three miles of Interstate 295, road access to the waterfront is almost non-existent. In the entire stretch from Paulsboro in Gloucester County to Penns Grove in Salem County, there are no public sewer systems in place immediately adjacent to the Delaware River, although the region's areawide waste treatment management plans call for sewering a two-mile stretch of riverfront in Greenwich Township. 329 The central portion of this region, for the most part, contains industrial activities' and vacant undeveloped tracts. The region's population, focused at the two ends, can be seen as extensions of two large metropolitan areas -- the Camden- Philadelphia Area to the north and the Wilmington area to the south. Parts of the southern area, which includes Penns Grove, Pennsville and Salem City, have recently lost industry -- creating high unemployment and leaving behind vacant or underutilized facilities. New waterfront industry and port development would be most appropriate in those areas where there are existing infrastructure, an avail- able labor force and underutilized industrial facilities. Vacant land along the waterfront and close to the population centers must also be evaluated in terms of its potential for meeting the recreational needs of the people living in these areas. The central part of the Gloucester-Salem region is quite wide due to the inland penetration of coastal streams. Demand for industrial, residential and commercial development is expected a few miles inland of the waterfront along Routes 130 and 295. The proposed Coastal Policies would have this development take place in concentrated form and as infill rather than sprawling the entire length of the Camden/Philadelphia - Salem/Wilmington corridor. In addition, the many stream corridors, wetlands and lowland forests in this region would be preserved. The stream corridors, the undeveloped portion of the Delaware River waterfront and other undeveloped lands are suitable for parks, campgrounds and perhaps new marinas, while wetlands, lowland forests and other sensitive areas should be preserved as natural areas. 330 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION. A T I I v PART IV - ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL APPROVAL Introduction Direct Effects Environmental Consequences Economic Consequences Institutional Consequences Possible Conflicts Between Coastal Program and the Plans or Policies of Local Governments, Regional and Interstate Agencies INTRODUCTION This part of the environmental impact statement examines the environmental, economic and institutional consequences of federal approval of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program. Such an analysis is valuable because it indicates any general changes that will take place in the coastal zone, as a result of federal approval of the program. It cannot predict, however, specific effects likely to be felt by particular individuals or at particular locations. Environmental Impact Statements are traditionally. prepared for individual projects and examine the impacts of one defined action on an immediate and defined area. A state coastal program covers a large and diverse area of land and water, and the impacts of the program vary greatly from one location to another depending on the type of particular activity taking place or proposed. The consequences of all these activities of the program can only be discussed, therefore, in general terms since the number of combinations of possible individual actions is far too great to consider. As suggested by the Federal regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, this part of the EIS does not repeat the Coastal Resource and Development Policies, but discusses the general effects on the coastal zone. It examines the effects of federal approval on the environment including both direct affects such as preservation, conservation, and development of particular areas, and indirect effects, such as increased pressure for development in areas outside the coastal zone, and the economic effects, including the indirect effects of redistributing jobs and growth in the coastal zone. Lastly, the institutional effects are examined. These include increased cooperation between federal, state and local agencies and co-ordinated decision- making at the state level. DIRECT EFFECTS Environmental Consequences. The proposed federal action will result in approval of a coastal management program for New Jersey. The criterion for assessing the environmental consequences of this action should be the CZMA's declaration of policy: "to achieve wise use of land and water resources of the coastal zon 'e giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic and aesthetic values as well as the need for eco- nomic development". 332 Protection of the coastal zone is to be achieved through the implementation of the Coastal Resource and Development Policies in the New -Jersey Coastal Management Program. These policies do not affect the operation of existing facilities, but guide future activities within the coastal zone. Specifically, coastal resources, such as fish and shellfish spawning grounds, sanctuaries, beaches, wetlands, high risk beach erosion areas, dunes, historic resources, specimen trees, endangered species habitats and farmland conservation areas are termed "Special Areas" in the Coastal Management Program. Approval and implementation of the program will protect these areas and discourage further inappropriate development in hazardous areas which could result in destruction of property and loss of life. The Coastal Resource and Development Policies will help preserve the coast's aesthetic qualities for public enjoyment and promote various types of recreational opportunities along the shore and waterfronts. The 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 bulkheading activities will be permitted in certain locations and under certain conditions. The potential impacts of these activities, which must be controlled before New Jersey will approve the activity, include a possible reduction in water quality, a possible reduction in fishery productivity. as a result of habitat destruction and increased water turbidity, deterioration of coastal aesthtetic amenities, and potential interference with recreational uses of the waterfront. Regional environmental consequences of the program will result from planned growth patterns for the coastal zone, with development largely concentrated in existing developed areas and with preservation of areas which are now primarily open space. The secondary impacts policy will help to control sprawl through prohibiting new infrastructure which would induce growth incompatible with coastal policies. Large scale development will conform to the Coastal Policies, thus preserving sensitive environmental areas from destruction. Prevention of con- struction on flood plains and the consequential reduction in flood potential will have beneficial environmental consequences for the surrounding region. Additional regional benefits are discussed.under economic consequences. The Location Policies include a methodology for determining the acceptability of a site for development. Implementing this method should have a positive long term environmental impact by preserving unique, exceptionally productive or irre- placeable 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 implementation of this Coastal Management Program will most likely involve a reduction in the development or destruction of relatively scarce coastal natural resources and an increase in the development of inland natural resources, which are less sensitive to such development and more abundant. Thus, the location of activities away from the coast will require the commitment of resources in other parts of New Jersey outside the coastal zone. 333 Tinder the Use Policies, most types of major development located in the coastal zone will be regulated by the State of New Jersey. However ) the policies leave land use decisions of predominantly local impact to the discretion of local govern- ments. For example, the regulation of housing developments of 24 units or less I outside the jurisdiction of the waterfront development law and not on coastal wetland locations, will remain the responsibility of local governments. Thus, residential or commercial developments 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 remedied by the Coastal Management Program, but is a subject of immediate study by the State. The Resource Policies address the prevention or mitigation of adverse environ- mental impacts on both natural and cultural resources. Implementating these policies should result in long-term beneficial environmental impacts related to protecting water quality and water supply, preventing the loss of prime agri- cultural land through erosion, protecting air quality, protecting historic sites and other recreational attractions, and increasing effective management of fish- eries and wildlife resources. The implementation of these policies may help to direct future development away from currently undeveloped portions of the coastal zone and into already developed portions of both the coastal zone and inland areas. Resultant concentra- tion of development should have a long-term positive impact by decreasing energy use for transportation and the energy supply of scattered housing, and consequently decreasing transportation related and energy generation related pollution. Pollu- tion sources may locate in already developed areas to a greater extent.than without the coastal management program, thus making it more difficult for these already stressed areas to attain or maintain ambient air and water quality standards. In some cases it may be necessary to strengthen emissions or effluent controls as a mitigating measure. Conversely, there should be a long-term beneficial effect in presently less developed areas, making it easier for these areas to maintain compliance with environmental standards. New development inevitably has environmental consequences which differ in urban and rural areas. in rural areas, environmental effects are focused on the land, and air water quality. in urban areas, impacts on the land are less because the area is already built-up, but reductions in air and water quality will occur. In areas where there is substantial development and the area is designated as high growth, these impacts may adversely affect day to day living. The policies in the Proposed Coastal Management Program are intended to mitigate these impacts; air and water quality standards will be enforced to prevent significant environ- mental damage, but some adverse impacts of development will be unavoidable. Federal approval of the Coastal Program will give New Jersey federal funds under the CZMA to ensure that effective monitoring and inspection of sites can occur where development may be subject to State regulation or where coastal permits have been granted. Economic Consequences The Coastal Resource and Development Policies of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program have been designed to conserve and protect key renewable natural resources and recreational areas while encouraging new development to locate in existing built up areas. The implementation of these policies will not 334 reduce development pressures or the statewide rate of growth in New Jersey. Policy implementation will, however, encourage development to locate in the more developed areas of New Jersey's coastal zone, and some developers may seek to avoid the actual or imagined restrictions of the Coastal Management Program by building more intensively in non-coastal parts of the State. Landowners will receive medium and long-term positive benefits from the consequences of owning land adjacent to well planned development. Development which has not been controlled by the Coastal Resource and Development Policies may, for example, cause flooding or run-off on adjacent land, thus leading to detri- mental effects. Conversely, land that has been developed in an environmentally sensitive fashion, or where open space has been preserved can raise the property values of surrounding sites. Development subject to regulation under the Coastal Management Program also benefits from that regulation. In many cases, conditions placed upon a coastal permit decrease the costs of owning and maintaining the development by, for example, requiring that the development be built near adequate infrastructure and that energy conservation techniques be considered. Project design policies related to buffers and compatibility of uses, scenic resources, design and others are likely to make developments more aesthetically pleasing places to live or work. In fact, at least one coastal developer, after receiving a multi-conditioned CAFRA permit used these conditions as a marketing product by promoting the project as an Ilenvironmentally sensitive" development. His promotional material boasted of the specific features added to the project as a result of the DEP CAFRA permit review process. The encouragement of growth in developed areas, and the conservation of more sensitive land areas will have an effect on land values both in and, to a lesser extent, outside the coastal zone. Areas that are particularly sensitive will be protected from most development and consequently the land values will in many instances decrease. Development is likely to be attracted to areas designated as medium and high growth areas, raising land values in these areas. In addition, development may be directed to areas outside the coastal zone as some developers seek to avoid regulation. Encouragement of growth in some areas while restricting it in others will have indirect economic consequences such as redirecting jobs and industry, but these effects are impossible to calculate in any meaningful way for such a large area. Shifting land values and economic activity are a constant factor in the development of every area. State programs concerning a large area will add to the changing pattern of development pressures. The unplanned and rapid development which has taken place in New Jersey over the last few decades has resulted in pollution of the air and water and destruction of valuable natural resources. The costs of cleaning up this pollution must be borne by residents of the state, and will directly effect some residents more than others. Individual people and towns will benefit while others may lose, but the net effect should be beneficial to the State. One price of the Coastal Management Program is that some land owners may not realize the economic return that they had expected from their land. But so long as some reasonable use of the land may be made, the consititutional rights of land owners are protected. There is a distinction between the reasonable use of land and the speculative gain that a buyer may have hoped to receive. 335 Institutional Consquences Approval of the the New Jersey Coastal Management Program will have impli- cations for federal, state and local decision making processes. Federal approval of the program requires that Federal projects and permits must conform to the state's coastal program. In New Jersey, federal consistency will apply throughout the entire coastal zone when the Coastal Management Program is approved. This will create greater communication and consistency between federal and state agencies and actions. At a state level, the approved coastal management program will serve as a focal point for all State agency actions in or affecting the coast. Rather than just responding on a case by case basis to crises or other events, all state agencies will be able to refer to adopted Coastal Resource and Development Poli- cies. These policies will be most important for the activities of the Department of Environmental Protection where they provide uniform, predictable, binding policies for CAFRA, Wetlands, and Waterfront Development permits. one major institutional change made possible by the formulation of these policies is the reorganization of the Division of Marine Services into the Division of Coastal Resources. The reorganized division has one permit review office, instead of three, which idill lead to more efficient and less confusing processing of development applications. A second major change is the addition of a narrow upland area to the juris- diction of the Waterfront Development Permit Law. This redefinition of juris- diction was done by a regulation (see Appendix D) whigh requires the first devel- opment upland from the water's edge to get a permit from DEP. This change would only affect development outside the area regulated by CAFRA. Much of this area is quite built-up already, so that the anticipated number of added development pro- posals requiring a Waterfront Development Permit is not great. Since such permit applications will also be reviewed on the basis of the Coastal Resource and Devel- opment Policies, DEP will be able to review efficiently these proposal as soon as the change takes effect. The Coastal Resource and Development Policies also give the State a basis for working cooperatively with local governments, and responding to local initiatives and proposals. Previously, a local agency seeking State advice or assistance on acceptable coastal development would not have known where to turn and might have been given conflicting advice depending on the people consulted. The Coastal Policies provide a written, consistent standard which can be used by a local government, with State assistance when requested, to design a site-specific envi- rortmentally acceptable waterfront plan. Adverse institutional impacts will be minimal. Some land owners in the Delaware River and Northern Waterfront areas will now need a Waterfront Development Permit for developments along the water's edge, but otherwise the Coastal Manage- ment Progam will not increase the number of permits needed by anyone. The appli- cation of the Coastal Policies as Administrative Rules to the entire coastal zone will have solely beneficial institutional impacts. 336 POSSIBLE CONFLICTS BETWEEN COASTAL PROGRAM AND PLANS OR POLICIES OF LOCAL GOVERN- MENTS, REGIONAL AND INTERSTATE AGENCIES Introduction The final sections of Part IV indicate New Jersey's compliance with Section 923.56(a) of the Federal Regulations for the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, requiring states to consider the consistency of their coastal programs with federal, regional, state and local land use plans, policies and controls. This Part of the EIS analyzes consistency with local, regional, and interstate agencies; consistency with federal programs is discussed in the National Interest Section of Chapter Four of Part II and consistency with other state programs is discussed in the Management System Section of Chapter Three of Part II. Local Governments The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has conducted a review of the zoning and land use ordinances of municipalities in the coastal zone to identify possible conflicts with the New Jersey Coastal Management Program, as well as to identify techniques used by local governments to implement g-o-ars-compatible with the program. This study represents, in large part, a re-evaluation of reports received from ten coastal counties under the State-County Coordination Program funded by NJ DEP with funds awarded New Jersey from Section 305 of the CZMA. In these reports the County Planning Boards and, in one case, County Environmental Agency, supplied a summary of municipal master plans and zoning ordinances. Additional information was obtained from county land use 'studies and plans, and through a review of municipal plans and ordinances on file with County Planning Boards. The results of this review appears in Figure 39. Explanation of Chart Categories The New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law, (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et seq.) authorizes a municipality to enact a zoning ordinance. A land use elen;"e_nt__`5T a municipal master plan must first have been adopted by the municipal planning board, and the zoning ordinance must be in "substantial compliance" with the land use element. The Municipal Land Use Law also authorizes the enactment of subdivision and/or site plan review ordinances. Among the required subdivision ordinance elements are provisions for adequate water, drainage, shade trees, sewage facilities and soil protection. Site plan review ordinances must include provisions for the preserva- tion of existing natural resources, screening and landscaping. Discretionary elements of these ordinances include the designation of open space areas, the regulations of flood areas, and design standards. These ordinances provide some assurance that environmental features will be conserved. Five specific policies embodied in the coastal program and considered most likely to conflict with municipal policies are identified: Floodplain Regula- tions, Dune Protection, Wetlands Protection, provision for public access to beaches and waterfront areas, and waterfront parks. It must be noted that, in certain cases, the determination as to whether a municipality has a particular ordinance is somewhat subjective. For example, almost all coastal zone municipalities have flood plain ordinances containing construction regulations designed to meet the 337 P-proposed No D-draft N.A.-not applicable MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT POLICIES +-yes Site Flood Other features of zoning law master Subdivision plan plain, Dune Wetland Public Waterfront compatible w/Codstal Management Municipality Plan Date ordinance review ordinance 'protection Protection Accuse Park Program County - Atlantic Absecon + 78 + High-rise restrictions Atlantic City + 78 + + + + 'Clustering Brigantine + 78 + Hlgh-rlsn rustrIctions Corbin City + 78 + iligh-rime restrictions Egg Harbor City + 75 + 111giv--r1se restrictions Egg Harbor Twp. + 75 + + PUD 00 Estell Manor + 77 + Galloway Twp. + 78 + + Natural Resource Inventory, Cluster- ing, PUD, High-rise restrictions Hamilton Twp, + 67 + + + Conservation district, High-rise restrictions Linwood + 78 + + - - - High-rise restrictions Longport + 76 + + - - - + High-rise restrictions Margate + 78 + + - - - - + Clustering, High-rise restrictions Mullica + 67 + + - - - - High-rise restrictions Northfield + 78 + + - - - - High-rise restrictions Pleasantville + 71 + + - - - - Preservation of natural features, High-rise restrictions Port Republic D 78 + Somers Point D 78 + + + + HiShtrisa restrictions P-proposed No D-draft N-A,-not applicable +-yes od Other features of toning law Master Subdivisic.1 Split: IFPIIOin Dune Wetland Public Waterfront compatible W/Coastal Management Municipality Plan Date ordinance review ordinance protection, Protection Access Park Program Ventnor + 63 + - + Clustering. PUD Weymouth Twp. + 76 + - High-rise restrictions County - B rxen Alpine Borough + 78 + + N.A. N.A. - + High-rise restrictions, RIS required Bogota Borough + 69 + N.A. N.A. - + High-rise restrictions Carlstadt Borough + 78 + N.A. N.A. - East Rutherford Born + 67 + + N.A. N.A. - High-rise restrictions Edgewater Borough D 66 + + N.A. N.A. - + Englewood Cliffs + 78 + + N.A. N.A. - + Borough Fairview Borough + 78 N.A. N.A. - Fort Lee TIwp. + 78 + + + N.A. N.A. - + Carfield City + 56 + + N.A. N.A. High-rise restrictiones Buffer Hackensack City + 76 N.A. N.A. requirements Little Perry Boro. + 64 + N.A. N.A. High-rise restrictions Lyndhurst Twp. + 79 + + + N,A. N.A. + High-rise restrictions Moonachie Borough + 78 + + N.A. N.A. Buffer requirements New Milford Born. P 78 + + .+ N.A. N.A. North Arlington Boro + 71 + + N.A. N.A. + High-rise restrictions P-propoaed so D-drart N.4.-not applicable +-Yas Site IFlood other features of zoning law M Ma W mter Subdivision plan lain Dune Watland Public Waterfront compatible wlCoastal Management Municipality P Date ordinance review ordinance protection Protection Access Park Program Oradell Borough + 78 + + N.A. N.A. - High-rise restrictions, Conservation/ Recreation zone Ridgefield Borough + + + N.A. N.A. - + High-rise restrictions, RIS River Edge Borough + 71 + N.A. N.A. - + Rutherford Borough + 71 + + + N.A. N.A. - High-rise restrictions, Buffer requirements Teaneck Twp. + 78 N.A. N.A. - + Teterboro Borough + 77 + + N.A. N.A. - Walington Borough + 60 + + N.A. N.A. - Uj .9h. 0 County - Burlington Bass River Twp. + 75 + + P N.A. P - Environmental Impact Statements, County Natural Resource Inventory Beverly City P 77 - N.A. - - + Bordentown City + 58 + - N.A. - - + Buffer requirements Bordentown Twp. + 78 + + - N.A. - - Buffer requirements,cluster provision Burlington City + 66 + + - N.A. - - + Burlington twp. + 75 + + - N.A. - - Chesterfield Twp. + 73 + + - N.A. - - Cinnaminson Twp. + 65 + + 4. N.A. - - + Buffer requirements Delaneo Twp. + 76 + + - N.A. - - Delran Tvp. + 79 + + N.A. - - P-proposed No D-draft N.A.-not Applicable +-yes Flood Other features of zoning law to S' Mastey Subdivision plan plain Dune Wetland Public Waterfront compatible w/Coastal Management Municipality plan Date ordinance review ordinance protection Protection Access Park Program Edgevater Park Twp. + 78 + + - N.A. - - Fieldbboro Borough + 78 4 N.A. - - Conservation District Florence Twp. + 76 + + - N.A. - - + Hainesport Twp. V + + N.A. - - + Lumberton Two. P 77 + + N.A. N.A. - Mansfield Twp. + 78 + P N.A. Maple Shade Twp. + 78 + + N.A. + Flood plaln zone Medford Twp. + 75 + + + N.A. Clustering; High-rise restrictions. Buffer requirements, Natural Features Protection Moorestown Twp. + 76 + + N.A. - - Mount Holly Twp. + 78 + N.A. - - + Mount Laurel Twp. + 79 + + + N.A. - - + PUD, Flood ?lain Protection (through conservation district) Palmyra Borough + 79 + + + N.A. - - Riverside Twp. + 78 + + + N.A. - - Riverton Borough - N.A. - - + Southhampton Twp. Washington Up. + 78 + P P N.A. p P Westhampton Twp. + 79 + + + N.A. + Ollingboro Twp. + + + N.A. + P-proposed No D-draft N.A.-not applicable +-yes Site Plolod Other features of zoning law a Master Subdivision plan plain Dun a etland Public Waterfront compatible w/Coastal. Management W Municipality Plan Date ordinance review ordinance protection rotection Access Park Program 0) 1W County - Camden Audubon Borough N.A. Bellmawr Borough + 77 + N.A. - - + High-rise restrictions Brooklawn Borough - N.A. - - 111g))-r1se restrictions Camden City + 78 + + N,A. - - + Clu"tering, Buffer requirements Cherry Hill Twp. + 66 + + N.A. - - Clustering, Buffer requirements Gloucester City + 65 + N.A. - High-rise restrictions Gloucester Twp. + 78 + N.A. + Clustering, Buffer requirements Haddon Twp. + 75 + + N.A. + Buffer requirements& High-rise restriction Hi-Nella Borough - N.A. High-rise restrictions Lindenwold Borough + 61 + N.A. Mount Emphraim Boro. + 69 + N.A. + High-rise restrictions, Clustering, Buffer requirements Pennsauken Twp. + 69 + N,A. - - + Clustering, Buffer requirements Oaklyn Borough - - + Runnemede Borough + 71 + N.A. - - Buffer requirements. High-rise restrictions Stratford Borough + 67 + + N.A. - - High-rise restrictions Woodlynne Borough - N.A. + - Buffer requirements, High-rise restrictipns P-proposed No D-draft N.A.-not applicable +-yes site Flood Other features of zoning law, Master Subdivision p Is. plain Dune Wetland Public Waterfront compatible w/Coastal Management Municipality Pan Date ordinance review ordinance protection Protection Access Park Program GoRn Avalon D 78 + + + + + + Clustering, High-rise restrictions Cape May City + 78 + + + + Preservation of natural features, Clustering, High-rise restrictions Cape May Point + 78 + + + + + High-rise restrictions Dennis Twp. + 78 + + + Clustering, Buffer requirements, 111gh-rise restrictions Lower Twp. D 78 + + + + + + Conservation district, Open space/ cluster development regulations Uj Middle Twp. + 69 + + Clustering, High-rise restrictions 0. Uj N. Wildwood D 78 + + - + + Clustering, High-rise restrictions Ocean City D 78 + + + + - + + High-rise restrictions Sea Isle City D 78 + + + - + + High-rise restrictions Stone Harbor + 78 + + P - + + High-rise restrictions Upper Twp. + 78 + + N. A. + + + High-rise restrictions, Clustering_ Buffer requirements W. Cape may D 78 + + N.A. High-rise restrictions W. Wildwood D 78 + N.A. + High-rise restrictions .Wildwood + 78 + + N.A. + + Clustering Wildwood Crest D 78 + + + + Buffer requirements Woodbine + 76 + N.A. N.A. Clustering, High-rise restrictions P-proposed No D-draft N.A.-not applicable +-yes Site Flood Other features of zoning law Master Subdivision plan plain Dune etland Public Waterfront compatible w/Coastal Management Municipality Plan Date ordinance review ordinance protection rotection Access Park Program County - Cumberland Bridgeton 78 + + + N.A. + Opew9pace Commercial TVp. + 78 + + + e@ N.A. Downe Twp. + 78 + + + N.A. Conservation district Fairfield Twp. + 78 + + P N.A. Greenwich Twp. + 78 + + + N.A. Alternattve energy use design reqtdrement Hopewell Tup. + 78 + + N.A. + Farmland preservation (proposed), woodlands protection. (clustering) Lawrence Tup. 78 + + N.A. + + Maurice River Twp. D 76 + + + N.A. Mulville + 78 + + + N.A. + Land conservation district @Stow Crook Tiop. + 78 + + + N.A.' County Espex Belleville Town + 79 +, + N.A. N.A. High-VU0 r*GtriCtIOTAS Newark City + 79 + P N.A. N.A. + Nutley Tom + 76 + + N.A. N.A. P-Propused No D-draft N.A.-not applicable +-yes Site Flood Other features of zoning law I Master Subdivision plan Plain c. IDune We t land Public Waterfront compatible v/Coaetal Management Municipality Plan Date ordinance review ordina protection Protection Access Park Program County - Gloucester Deptford Twp. + 77 + + - N.A. Flood plain provision, Buffer requirements, Clustering East Greenwich Twp. D - D - N.A. Greenwich Twp. + 77 + + - N.A. + Conservation district Logan Twp. + 79 + + - N. A. - PUD ordinance Mantua Tlwp. + 73 + + - N.A. - Clustering,Flood Plain Provision National Park Boroug - N.A. - + Paulsboro Borough D - - N.A. - + Swedesboro Borough + 73 + - N.A. - Wenobab Borough + 77 D D - N.A. - West Deptford Twp. + 77 + + - N.A. - Cluster Development Provision, Buffer requirements Westville Borough + 78 - N.A. - Parke & Conservation District Woodbury City + 78 + + - N.A. - + Woolwich Twp. + 78 + + + N.A. PUD ordinance County - iludson Bayonne City + 63 + + + N.A. N.A. + Buffer requirements Fast Newark Roro. N.A. N.A. P-proposed No D-draft N.A.-not applicable "I. +-yes Site Flood ther features of zoning law 0 - M Master Subdivision plan plain IDune Wetland Public Waterfront compatible w/Coastal Management W Municipality Plan Date ordinance review ordinance protection Protection Access Park Program GO Cuttenberg Town - + N.A. N.A. - Harrison Town - - + N.A. N.A. - Hoboken City + 78 - N.A. N.A. - Jersey City + 66 + - N.A. N.A. - + Buffer requirements Kearny Town + 74 + + N.A. N. A. + Buffer requirements b/w zones North Bergen Twp. D - 4 N.A. N.A. Weehawken + 73 + + + N.A. 14. A. PIJI) provision West New York Town + + N.A. N.A. Controlled Water Development Zone County - Mercer Hamilton Twp. + 78 + + + N.A. + Conservation District, Buffer requirements Trenton City N.A. County - Middlesex Carteret Borough + 73 + + N.A. N.A. + High-rise reatrictions East Brunswick Twp. + 76 + + + N.A. N.A. High-rise restrictions, Steep Slopes, PUD. Clustering, Buffer requirements, Historic Sites, Dike or Pedestrian Path$ Edison Tw) + 78 + + N.A. N.A. Buffer requirements, High-rise restrictions P-proposed No D-draft N.A.-not applicable +-yes Site Flood Other features of toning law Master Subdivision plan plain ce IDune Wetland Public Waterfront compatible w/Coastal Management Municipality Plan Date ordinance r ev i ew ordinan protection Protection Access Park Program Highland Park Boro. + 69 + + N.A. N.A. + New Brunswick City + 79 + + N.A. N.A. + Old Bridge Twp. + 78 + + + N.A. N.A. + Clus-tering, PUD, Buffers, High-rise restrictions, Steep Slopes, Natural features Protection Perth Amboy City P 79 + + N.A. + Buffer reqiiirements Piscataway Twp. + 78 + + N.A. N.A. + ClusterIng, PIJD, High-rise restrict- lons, Bike or Pedpatriam Paths, Buffers Sayreville Borough + 78 + N.A. PUD, High-rise restrictions South Amboy City + 77 + + N.A. High-rise restrictions South River Borough + 79 + + + N.A. N.A. PUD, Clustering, Buffers, High-rise restrictions Woodbridge Twp. + 78 + + N.A. N.A. + Pedestrian or Bike Paths, Buffers, High-rise restrictions County - Monmouth Aberdeen Twp. + + + + Clustering, Critical Environmental (formerly Matawan) areas Mat&W4n Borough + + Allenhurst + + + + Asbury Park D 78 + + + High-rise restrictions Atlantic Highlands + + High-wrise.restrictions P-proposed No D-draft N.A.-not applicable -4 +-yes Sit: Flood Other features of zoning law Subdivision pla plain Dune Wetland Public Uaterfrant compatible v/Coastal Management master Muntelpality Plan Date ard1nance ravlev ordinance protection Protectlan Access Park Program I I -- I Avon 'by the Sea D 78 + - - - + + Belmar + + - - - + + Bradley Beach + 75 + - - - + + Brielle + - - - Natural Resource Inventory Deal Twp. + - - - + + Eatontown + 77 Clustering Fairhaven + Hazlet Twp. D + PRD Highlands + + Holmdel + Interlaken + Keansburg + + Keyport + + PRD Little Silver + 69 + Loch Asbour + + Lung Branch + + + + High-rise restrictions Manasquan + + + + Clustering. PW, critical areas Middletown Twp. + + + + Natural Res"rce lavencary. Clustering. High-rise restrictions, Critical are" P-proposed No D-draft N.A.-not applicable +-yes ood Other features of zoning law $it: Flala Dune Wetland Master Subdivision P11 pi Public Waterfront compatible w/Coastal Management municipality Plan Date -ordinance review ordinance protection Protection Access Park Program Monmouth Beach, + 78 + + Natural Resource Inventory Neptune City V 78 rdgb-rlqe restrictions Neptune Twp. D + Ocean Twp. + Clustering. tree removal. Natural Resource Inventory Oceanport + 74 + Red Bank + 78 + + Rumson D 78 Sea Bright + + + + Preservation of natural areas Shrewsbury + + Spring Lake Born. + + + + Spring take Heights + + High-rise restrictions, PRn South Belmar V 78 Well TVP. + + Critical envircamwtal areas, Preservation of natural areas union Beach V 78 West Long Branch D 78 + + + Boll Protection, Preservation of natural features, Cr:Lt:Lc4 a areas Sea Girt + + P-proposed No D-draft N.A.-not applicable +-yes PS11!: load a 1 IF Other features of zoning law as er Subdivl ion p Plat lain Dune Wetland Public Waterfront c0mPQtib10 W/C00stal Management Municipality M a Date ardinance review ordinance, protection Protection Access Park Program County-- Ocean Barnegat Light + 63 + + + + Rural Preservation District Barnegat Tep. (Union) + 73 + + Cluster, Natural Resource Inventory Bay Read + 63 + + + + Beach Haven + 68 + + + + Berkeley + 74 + + + Soil erosion. Shade trees, Cluster Brick Twp. Environmental Impact Assessment for sub-dIvIslons. Tree cutting, Shade Ln tree 0 Engleswood Tup. + 74 + + Tree cutting Harvey Cedars D 78 + + + Island Heights + 70 Dover Twp. + 75 + + + - + + + Cluster, Natural Resource Inventory, Tree cutting, Open Space Jackson Twp. + 69 + - - Lacey Twp- V 78 + + + - - Lakehurat + 78 + + + - - Lakewood Twp. + 76 + + - Lavallette + 77 + + - - + Natural Resource Inventory Little Egg Harbor + is + + + - - Long beach Tvp .+ 71 + + 4 P-proposed No D-draft N.A.-not applicable +-yes Site !Flood other features of zonin6 3aw Master Subdivision plan plain IDune Wetland Public Waterfront compatible w/Coastal @Managcment Municipality Plan Date ordinance review ordinance protection Protection Access Park Program Manchester + 67 + + + Hantoloking + + Ocean Gate D 78 + + Ocean Twp. + 73 + + Pine Beach + - - - - Point Pleasant + 62 + + - + Point Pleasant Beach + 63 + + + - - + Seaside Heights - - - + Ln F@ Seaside Park - - - + Ship Botton D + + - - - + South Toms River + 72 + + - - - Stafford Twp. + 76 + + - - + Tree cutting Surf City + 70 + + - - + Tuckerton D 78 + + - + Beachwood + 78 + County - Passaic Clifton City + 78 + + N.A. N.A. - Buffer requirements, High-rise restrictions Passaic City + 78 + + N.A. N.A. - + PUD,High-rise restrictions P-proposed No D-draft N.A.-not applicable M +-yes Site Flood Other features of zoning law Master Subdivis on plan Iplain Dune Wetland Public Waterfront compatible w/Coastal Management Municipality Plan Date ordinanc! review ordinance protection Protection Access Park Program o) County.- Salem Lower Alloways Creek + 79 + + + Wildlife sanctuary Twp. Carney's Point Twp. + 79 + + Conservation district, Flood Plain Development Regulations Elsinboro + 79 + 4 + PrescxvaLlon of natural features Mannington Twp. + 79 + + Preservation of natural features, Conservation District Olmans Twp. + 79 + + - N.A. Wetland Construction Regulated Penns Grove Boro. + 77 + + - N.A. + LI) VI Pennsville Twp. + 77 + + - N.A. Wildlife Sanctuary Pilesgrove Twp. + 77 + + - N.A. Flood plain development restrictions Quinton Twp. + 77 + + Provisions restricting development on flood plains Salem City + 74 + + + + Historic preservation district, Clustering, Preservation of natural features County - Somerset Franklin Twp. + 78 + + + N.A. N.A. Cluster, PUD, Buffer requirezents Natural Features Protection P-proposed No D-draft N.A.-not applicable j +-yes S e IFlood Other features of zoning law it CD Master Subdivision plan plain Dune Wetlandl Public Waterfront compatible w/Coastal Management W Municipality Plan Dute ordinance review ordinance protection Protection Access Park Program co County - Union Elizabeth City + 78 + + N.A. N.A. - + Buffer requirements Linden City + 76 + + N.A. N.A. - Rahway City + 74 + + N.A. N.A. - + Open apace zone, Buffer requirements U.) Ln requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program. Only those ordinances which protect the floodplain area itself are indicated on the chart. Similarly, high rise restrictions were noted both if a municipality prohibits high rise housing in the proposed coastal zone or if it has a maximum building height under 60 feet. Conflicts The absence of a "+" in any of the four specific categories for a given municipality indicates a potential conflict with the New Jersey Coastal Management Program, in that a municipality is not prevented from approving projecEs 'Incon- sistent with the Coastal Resources and Development Policies. Since municipal zoning defines acceptable uses for specified land areas, while coastal policies specify development conditions based upon a matrix of generic location, proposed use and affected resource, the presence or absence of conflicts between the two policies cannot be determined by simple comparison, but is dependent upon a nature and location of proposed development. Conflict Resolution The major mechanism for conflict resolution is the direct State authority available through the state riparian laws, the Waterfront Development Law, the Wetlands Act of 1970, and the Coastal Area Facility Review Act. The Coastal Resource and Development Policies shall apply to these areas of DEP regulatory authority, as well as to other management actions of DEP affecting the coastal zone, to the extent statutorily permissible. Planning assistance and cooperation by the Division of Coastal Resources with local governments may also prove to be an effective method of conflict resolution. The present revision of most municipal master plans is occuring with the assistance of county planning officials, who have worked closely with DEP on coastal policies. Local officials received the DEP-OCZM Interim Land Use and Density Guidelines - 1976 and subsequent documents, including the State of New Jersey Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment (August 1978) whiZh, i turn, were based in large part on county planning 1-n-ro-rmation. Furthermore, the Municipal Land Use Law requires that the land use element of a master plan take into account natural conditions including but not limited to "topography, soil conditions, water supply, drainage, flood plain areas, marshes and woodlands", as well as the other master plan elements, including a "conservation element" providing for "the preservation, conservation and utilization of natural resources, including, to the extent appro- priate, open space, waters, forests, soil, marshes, wetlands, harbors, rivers and other waters, fisheries, wildlife and other natural resources ... 11 [N.J.S.A. 55D-19(a)(8)]. As municipalities include these considerations in their master plans, conflicts between local and state policies will be minimized. NJDEP will continue to work with counties and will increase its efforts to work with individual municipalities to maximize the conostency between state and local plans and decisions. Regional and Interstate Agencies Local governments designated pursuant to regulations established under Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 and regional and interstate agencies with plans affecting the coastal zone are listed on the next page. Coordination has been carried out with each of these agencies in development of Coastal Policies. 354 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 (See Figure 40). Coordination of county policies with Coastal Policies is discussed in Part Two, Chapter Three. The three regional planning agencies with A-95 review functions in the proposed Coastal Zone have no regulatory authority. Each was given an opportunity to comment on draft Coastal Policies presented in the proposed Coastal Management Program. The Dela- ware River Basin Commission holds significant regulatory authority for implementing its Comprehensive Plan. NJDEP has conducted a coordination project with DRBC which found no inconsistencies between the DRBC Comprehensive Plan and the Coastal Policies. 355 0 rt, (D (D H- Local Governments Which Function as A-95 Clearinghouses and Re- Conflicts with Plans 0 gional and Interstate Agencies Plan Regulatory Authority of a Regulatory Nature LQ H. 0 z 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 (D subdivisions affecting county roads or drain- age facilities N.J.S.A. rt 40:27-6.2 n 0 Delaware Valley Regional Land Use Plan None None Planning Commission Open Space Plan Housing Allocation Plan Water Supply Plan Transportation Plans yn Tri-State Regional Planning Regional Development None None 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 conflicts discovered the Delaware River Delaware River Basin through coordination Basin Waters project with DRBC. Review authority over proposed facilities with 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. ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL. CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL APPROVAL . A v PART V -.ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION All alternatives to the proposed action, approving the New Jersey Coastal Management Program, involve a decision to delay or deny approval. Delay or denial of approval would be based on failure of the Program to meet any one of the requirements of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). In approving a coastal management program, affirmative findings must be made by the Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management on over twenty such requirements. Normally, at the time a program is submitted for approval, most of the sub- stantive decisions regarding policies, how the program is to be implemented, etc., will have been made by State executive or legislative branches of government. In many instances in other states, charges have been made after state program approval. As a result of what is now termed the scoping process under CEQ's regulations implementing NEPA, OCZM has tried to identify the major issues dis- cussed during the public review process. OCZM's alternatives to approval are to delay or deny approval for a number of reasons. These reasons are limited to those identified in the review process and those that OCZM feels are potentially valid reasons. Additional valid alternatives are those which can be carried out by the state. They are to modify parts of the program or withdraw their application for federal approval. While these were not specifically elaborated on in the DEIS because the consequences coincide with those of the federal alternatives, they remain through- out the process as valid alternatives. With respect to the "no action" alternatives, OCZM has generally considered that federal denial or state withdrawal of the program, and "no action" are synonymous. State participation under the CZMA is voluntary and when a state participates in program development, it decides whether or not program approval and implementation is in its best interests. A few states have chosen the alternative of non-participation. This alternative may be chosen by a state at any time. Some states have decided not to participate during the legislative hearings on various coastal bills. The impacts of the "no action" alternative are described below under the "Loss of Federal Funds to Implement the Program" and "the Loss of Consistency of Federal Actions with the Program". OCZM believes that these descriptions are sufficient for an understanding of the impacts associated with this particular alternative. The proposed action is federal approval of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program. The federal alternatives are to delay or deny approval. Before federal approval can occur, the Assistant Administrator must determine that the New Jersey Coastal Management Program meets the requirements for appoval under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. This determination ultimately requires that discre- tion be used in interpreting the intent of Congress as expressed' in the Act. Based upon careful consideration of the Proposed New Jersey Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental Impact Statement and upon comments received on that DEIS, the Assistant Administrator has m-aTe-a preliminary determination that New Jersey has met the requirements for approval under the Federal Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act. 357 This discussion of alternatives will first consider the generalized impacts that would result from delay or denial of approval for any reason. It wil 1 next consider possible reasons for denial. Delay or denial, for whatever reason, would not prevent New Jersey from implementing the Coastal Program. It would not prevent the State from enforcing its Coastal Resource and Development Policies which meet a number of federal concerns such as preservation of natural and cultural resources and adequate consideration of the national interest in the siting of facilities of greater than local importance. It would, however, limit the State's ability to fully implement its Coastal Management Program by curtailing funds for program imple- mentation and removing the requirement that federal actions be consistent with State coastal policies. The general impacts of delay or denial of approval, regardless of the reason, are as follows: 1. Loss of Federal Funds to Administer the Program If approval of the program is delayed or denied, New Jersey will lose an estimated $1.8 million per year in program implementation funds, beginning in October, 1980. Loss of these funds would prevent adequate staffing of the permit programs which are the backbone of the Coastal Management Program. The State might be unable to implement the Waterfront Development Permit program over a reinter- preted jurisdiction. The State would also be forced to curtail its coastal planning activities, making it more difficult to revise coastal policies as new problems are identified. It might not be possible to implement whatever recom- mendations result from the federally funded Cumulative Impact study. Finally, delay or denial of program approval would mean an estimated annual loss of up to $6 million in CEIP funds for planning to deal with the impacts of offshore energy production. 2. Loss of Consistency of Federal Action With New Jersey's Coastal Resource and Development Policies Denial or delay of program approval would render ineffective Section 307(c) of the CZMA, which requires that Federal actions in or affecting New Jersey's Coastal Zone be consistent with State coastal policies. Although the Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that New Jersey has met the requirem&nts for approval under Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act, this section identifies possible deficiencies in the Coastal Program which might require delay or denial of program approval to insure that the Assistant Administrator's initial decision is correct. Alternative 1: The Assistant Administrator could delay or deny approval if the boundary is not adequate to meet the requirements of Section 364(l) - definiti-o-n-oT i:o-astal zone and 923.31(a) of the CZM regulations - inland boundaries. Section 304(l) of the Coastal Zone Management Act states that the coastal zone shall extend inland from the shoreline only to the extent necessary to control shoreland uses which have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters. The state has established a boundary in the area north of the Raritan Bay (except for the Hackensack Meadowlands District) and north of the Delaware Memorial Bridge on the Delaware River which would extend 100 to 500 feet inland of all tidal waters through the administration of the Waterfront Development Act (N.J.S.A. 12:5-3). 358 Specifically, the boundary in these areas is a minimum of 100 feet inland and a maximum of 500 feet, or an intervening property line, public road or railroad if one lies between 100 and 500 feet inland. Within the area from the Raritan Bay to the Delaware Memorial Bridge, which is subject to the Coastal Area Facility Review Act, the coastal zone boundary includes the area under the jurisdiction of CAFRA or the Wetlands Act, whichever extends farther landward. While the CAFRA boundary varies considerably, it extends inland no less than one half mile and averages about six miles in width. The boundary of the coastal zone in the Hackensack Meadowlands will be the same as that of the HMDC District. The issue can be raised of the adequacy of regulating in urban areas only up to 100 feet from the shoreline. Federal CZMA regulations 923.31(c) (general comments), however, clearly allow for a narrower boundary in urban areas by stating that "in many urban areas or where the shoreline has been modified extensively, natural system relationships between land and water may be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to define in terms of direct and significant impact". Because of the nature of the New Jersey coastline in the area north of the Raritan Bay, and along the Delaware River, its extensive bulkheading, high density, existence of infrastructure, and generally built-up character, the administrator has prelim- inarily determined that the State will be regulating in an area adequate to cover all uses that have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters. In addition to the Waterfront Development Permit Program, the State will regulate activities through the Wetland Act N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 et seq. and tidelands grants, leases and licenses. The procedures for review of activities within the boundary is outlined in further detail in Chapter 4 of this document. Reviewers of this FEIS are especially encouraged to comment on any land uses which could occur inland of this boundary, which may have direct and significant impact on coastal waters. Alternative 2: The Assistant Administrator could delay or deny approval if the inclusion of the Hackensack Meadowlands Commission's policies on wetlands violaF-e the provisions of 923.3(b)(7) - regarding wetlands and floodplains. CZMA regulations 923.3(b)(ii) state that a program must include policies that address uses of or impacts on wetlands and floodplains and that these policies shall minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands and preserve and enhance their natural values in accordance with the purposes of Presidential Executive Order 11990 - pertaining to wetlands. The Hackensack Meadowlands Devel- opment Commission's (HMDC) Master Plan allows for the possible filling of 25% (1,196 acres) of the remaining wetlands for water dependent activities and housing. About 75% (3,576 acres) of the wetlands are to be preserved under the plan. The acreage of wetlands proposed for possible filling, however, amounts to a small percentage of the overall coastal wetlands in the coastal zone. The State has an estimated 256,000 acres of coastal wetlands under the direct jurisdiction of the Coastal Management Program. The 1,196 acres identified by the HMDC for possible filling represent approximately 0.5% of the entire State's regulated wetlands. The Commission will allow selected filling of wetlands in accordance with the District Master Plan, adopted in 1972, and last amended in November, 1979, after a thorough review of alternative sites. 359 The issue has been raised as to whether the policies of the Hackensack Meadow- lands Development Commission violate the provisions of the CZMA, or the President's Executive Order on Wetlands. In regard to the CZMA, Section 303 and Regulation 923.3 do not prohibit all filling of wetlands, but call for programs to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands. It is the preliminary conclusion of the Assistant Administrator that the Hackensack Meadowlands plan minimizes the destruction of wetlands. The President's Executive Order on Wetlands applies to Federal activities in wetlands; it will come into effect when federal permits, such as permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are applied for. It is important to note that the Hackensack Meadowlands Commission Plan is not a special management. plan of the type allowed for in Section 230.10(a)(3)(ii) of the 404(b)(1) guidelines to the Clean Water Act. The Hackensack Meadowlands plan was prepared without necessarily meeting the comprehensive planning process called for in those guidelines. It is expected that decisions for 404 permits will continue to be made by federal agencies on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the wetland values and responsibilities under the Executive Order. CZM regulation 923.21 allows for the designation as an Area of Particular Concern of any area where there are regulatory or permit requirements which apply only to that area. The State has designated the HMDC as an Area of Particular Concern based on the particular policies adopted by the Commission, and upon the Commission's regulatory jurisdiction. The plan adopted by the Commission calls for the creation of unified marshland preservation districts and restored shoreline buffer areas, and requires improvements to existing water quality facilities. Chapter 5 of the FEIS/Program document details the regulations of the HMDC. Alternative 3: The Assistant Administrator could delay or deny approval if the Waterfront Development Permit Program does not meet the requirements of SecE-ion 306(c)(7) - adequTt_e authorities necessary to implement program. CZMA regulations 923.41(b)(1) allow for the Assistant Administrator to request a State Attorney General's opinion when there is a need for verification of an interpretation of any of the authorities proposed to be part of the management program. An Attorney General's opinion was requested on the interpretation of the Waterfront Development Permit Program's jurisdiction to regulate all uses in the coastal zone up to 500 feet inland of tidal waters, or to the first property line, road or railroad, whichever is less extensive, subject to a minimum jurisdiction of 100 feet. The Attorney General responded to this request and his opinion is in Appendix D of the FEIS/Program document. The Attorney General's opinion states that DEP does have the legal authority to define the jurisdiction of the Waterfront Development Permit Program to regulate all uses in the coastal zone up to a minimum of 100 and a maximum of 500 feet inland. Based on the Attorney General's opinion, DEP has adopted this interpre- tation of the Waterfront Development Permit Program as a rule. This rule may be found in Appendix D of theFEIS/Program document. 360 4 APPENDICES j I APPENDIX A - THE COASTAL PLANNING PROCESS: 1973-1979 The New Jersey Coastal Management Program is based on DEP staff research, contractual studies by private consuMn-ts, university research teams, and state and local 'government agencies, and considerable public debate, suggestions, questions, and comments over the past six years. The most tangible evidence of the coastal planning process are the federal ly-approved Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, Options for New Jersey's ffeveloped Coast, Proposed New Jersey Coastal management Program and other coas reports published by DEV. Mrn-y of the planning reports produced and widely distributed by DEP are available upon request from the Division of Coastal Resources, while others, intended as in-house working documents, are available for review by interested 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 parti- cipation efforts. The coastal management program has been prepared in two phases. The first, addressing the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, received approval from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in September 1978. The second, combining the Developed Coast with the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and proposed in this document, is based on studies prepared for the entire coast during the past six years. Major Planning Documents Since 1975, DEP has prepared several 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 Washingt n, 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 inTl-- 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), the Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segme7t-(August 1978) and Options for New Jersey's Developed Coast (March 1979). In October 1976, Alternatives for the Coast - 1976 was published to indicate the scope of policy alternatives DEP was evaluating -for the coastal zone, their implications and the principles that helped shape them. DEP 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, 362 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, Threatened and Rare Animals, Endangered and Rare Vegetation, and Upland Wildlife Habitats), 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 released Alternative Boundaries for New Jersey's Coastal Zone. This report presented ten possible coastal zone boundaries and served Ys-a basis for debate on the issue. 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 Strategy, conducted eight public meetings throughout the state to discuss a debate Ehe 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 Oce3n -Shore Segment document. The formal federal approval process for 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. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (August 1978) was the result of revisions made to the May T978 document, ba-s-e-d-on public comment gathered at the hearings, in informal meetings, and in written statements, and was approved by NOAA in September 1978. Options for New Jersey's Developed Coast (March 1979) provided a basis for further discussion of a coastal boundary, management system and policies as the coastal management program is expanded to encompass the coastal zone of the entire State. The discussion of Options led to several changes, including a Coastal zone boundary limited to the area of direct DEP jurisdiction, in the Proposed New Jersey Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (May 198577 Three thousand copies of Fh-atdraft program were distributed a d four public hearings were jointly covened by NOAA and DEP. This New Jersey Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement represents the culmination of t coastal planning process, incorporating written and oral comments received through- out the past five years. The coastal planning process, however, is not complete. The Coastal Management Program will be revised as need becomes apparent through public comment, research and implementation experience, and the Coastal Resource and Development Policies, which lie at the core of the program, will be reevaluated annually. 363 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 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 by Rutgers University - Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies. The Coastal Geomor- phology of New Jersey, in two volumes printed in December 1977, deals with the management techniq7e-s, 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 the Coastal Resource and Development Policies. 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 Jerseyts coastal zone management program. The results of this "Call for Information" were published by DEP in March 1977. The state's three major electric utilities responded in considerable depth to the "Call". DEP's concern with the development of coastal 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 Deci- 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 staff completed a report M ihg Issues entitled Energy Facility Sit in New Jersey's Coastal Zone, which was 7___ --December 1977. DEP staff also prepared a brief "Fact released for distrib7tion in Sheet on Offshore Drilling in New Jersey" in June 1978, and a report on OCS activi- ties in New Jersey (1974-1979) in November 1979. Legal Framework In June 1976, DEP 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 working document. In June 1977, DEP 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. 364 Economics and Land Use NJ DEP had contracts in 1975 and 1976 with the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and the Department of Labor and Industry OLD 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 Coastal 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 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. NJ DEP 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 "Intuit ive-Interac t ive 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 are being 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 Public Concern In December 1977, NJ DEP 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 Policies in the Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and this document. DEP also distributed its report describing the nomina- tions o other state, county and municipal agencies which can make decisions 365 affecting the sites. Finally, the information DEP 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, 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 published several coastal 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's pilot study in lower Cape May County, which resulted in the publication of A Method for Coastal Resources Management (July, 1978). 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 Bureau of Coastal Planning and Develop- ment. Flood hazard area maps, as delineated by DEP's Division of Water Resources, are available for public inspection. In addition, DEP 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, entitled Analysis and Delineation of the Sub merged Vegetation of Coastal New Jersey: A Case Study of Little Egg Harb3r- (January 1978), which describes,. the aerial underwater photographic method, identi- fies and maps distributions of species, and discusses the ecological functions and associated problems of each of the dominant species. In July 1978, DEP released a staff working paper entitled Definition of the Preliminary Coastal Zone Boundary for the Delaware River and Northern Wate-r-Yr-ont Regions of New Jersey's Coastal Zone. This paper identifies the process used by DEP to prepare an initial Fo-undary for the coastal zone outside of the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. In September 1978, DEP held an all day mapping workshop to begin planning a coordinated effort by state agencies and other interested groups to identify mapping and other data needs, and to devise a system for obtaining, storing, and using the information. 366 Public Participation DEP's Division of Coastal Resources is committed to wide public partici- pation by law, by practicality, and by principle. The Division'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. The Division works to involve people early in the planning process and con- tinues to encourage such involvement. Draft documents are made available. Pos- sible policies are discussed in public long before they are even formally proposed, much less adopted. The objective is for the DEP 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. The Division of Coastal Resources uses varied forums and publications to hear and explore varied information and viewpoints. To attract coastal residents, DEP convened several series of public meetings in coastal counties during 1975-1978. The first meetings, held in Toms River and Trenton in February and May 1975, were focused on introducing the program and DEPs 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 in 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 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 relatively briefly. In addition, DEP 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 work- shops were held in February 1977 in Trenton and Toms River on 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 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, 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 show at the start of each hearing to serve as an introduction to the coastal program. 367 Following publication and distribution of options for New Jersey Developed Coast, another series of public meetings were hefd in June, 1979. These puSTIF meetings explored the issues raised in options and discussed the implications of completing the coastal management program for the developed parts of the coast. In the Delaware River Area, DEP has held public meetings in Camden, in 1976, 1977, 1978, and 1979; in Gloucester in 1978 and 1979; and in Buflington in 1979. Speakers from DEPs Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) have attended addi- tional meetings in Gloucester County and Burlington County. DEP-OCZM has shared drafts of documents with the Delaware River Port Authority throughout the planning process and undertook a contract for joint coastal planning with the Delaware River Basin Commission. In the Northern Waterfront Area of the Developed Coast, DEP-OCZM held public meetings in Hoboken in 1976, New Brunswick in 1976, 1978 and 1979; Jersey City in 1977 and 1978; Hackensack, Edison and Elizabeth in 1978; and Newark in 1979. In 1977, DEP-OCZM met with municipal officials in Hudson and Bergen counties. DEP- OCZM staff have also spoken to environmental, civic and business groups in the area. Drafts of documents have been shared with the New York and New Jersey Port Authority, and DEP-OCZM has a working arrangement with the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission to exchange views on planning efforts. As an additional method of adding local input and perspectives to planning for the Developed Coast, DEP-OCZM passed through two small grants of federal funds available under the Coastal Zone Management Act to coastal counties to conduct studies on energy facility siting, and to provide county suggestions and comments on the direction and content of the State Coastal Management Program. The partici- pating counties in the Developed Coast were Salem, Gloucester, Camden, Burlington (for one year), Middlesex, Union and Hudson. DEP also meets regularly with representatives of builders and environmental groups. DEP 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 anj -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 distributed 150 copies of @@ pre-publication version of the document f3r -quick review and comment by other state agencies, coastal county planning boards, builders, and energy, industry and environmental group representatives who had 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 has held regular 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. 368 DEP also convened a series of workshops on energy invoiving 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. As the Newark Star Ledger noted on April 24, 1977, "It comes as somewhat of a surprise to find many of thg-combatants meeting across tables to discuss the issue informally, almost casually, in New Jersey." The hearings held by DEP on each CAFRA permit application provide another forum for public input in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. The hearings are held near the site proposed for development, and range, depending on the interest aroused by the applicant, 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 Division of Coastal Resources newsletter. This periodical is maile3 F7 all interested persons and organizations known to DEP. The mailing list currently includes more than 7,000 names. Meetings are also announced through press releases and the DEP Bulletin. The Division recognizes that reliance on a mailing list may neglect many potentially interested persons. To expand interest and knowledge of coastal management issues, the DEP 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 also participates in other events to raise public awareness of coastal issues and again to identify more people who are interested in participating 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 and 1979, have provided another vehicle for probing public views on selected coastal management issues. In addition, DEP has had exhibits at boat shows and county fairs. In May 1978, DEP developed a portable display de- scribing New Jersey's coastal management program. This display can be easily updated as DEP completes 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. 369 APPENDIX@B - EXCLUDED FEDERAL LANDS Under the federal Coastal Zone Management Actj 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. The major federal holdings located within New Jersey's Coastal Zon6 and, therefore, excluded under federal law, are listed below. "Major" is defined as greater than 100 acres. These areas are indicated in Figure 41. In addition to the areas noted, numerous Coast Guard stations and smaller federal land holdings are excluded from the coastal zone. The listing below notes the federal agency responsible for the land and the county in which it is located. Army Corps of Engineers National Park Disposal Area (Gloucester) Pedricktown Disposal Area (Salem) Penns Grove Disposal Area (Salem) Penns Neck Disposal Area (Salem) Killcohook Spoil Disposal Area (Salem) Artificial Island Disposal Area (Salem) Cape May Canal (Cape May) Army U.S. Military Reservation - Caven Point Marine Terminal (Hudson) Military Ocean Terminal (Hudson) Fort Monmouth (Monmouth) Highlands Army Air Defense Site (Monmouth) Philadelphia Air Defense Site USA Reservation (Salem) Navy Naval Weapons Station, Colts Neck Fish and Wildlife Service Barnegat National Wildlife Refuge (Ocean) Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge (Atlantic) Killcohook National Wildlife Refuge (Salem) Supawana Meadows 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 hew federal lands to be a direct federal action subject to *the consistency provisions of Section 307 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. Also, federal actions on excluded lands-that have spillover impacts that significantly affect coastal resources must be con- sistent with State coastal policies. 370 Figure 41 MAJOR FEDERAL LANDS EXCLUDED FROM THE NEW JERSEY COASTAL ZONE SUSSEX /,,PASSAIC BERGEN WARREN MORRIS @ESSEX U.S. MILITARY. RESERVATION CAVIN POINT MARINE TERMINAL UNION HUNTEROON NSOMERSET MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL /* NAVAL WEAPONG STATION COLT9 NECK GATEWAY NATIONAL MIDDLESEX RECREATION AREA HIGHLANDS ARMY AIR DEFENSE SITE MERCER MONMOUTH FORT MONMOUTH NATIONAL PARK DISPOSAL AREA /* ------ PEDRICKTOWN OCEAN DISPOSAL PHILADELPHIA AREA AIR DEFENBE SITE- USA BURLI TON RESERVATION Pelln$ $MOVE DISPOSAL AREA I(ILCONOOK SPOIL DISPOSAL AREA UCESTER_@'N S&RNEGAT NATIONAL KILCOHOOK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUSE WILDLIFE S LEM REFUGE ATLANTIC SUPAWANA NATIONAL WILDLIFE BRIGANTINE NATIONAL REFUSE BERLAND WILDLIFE' REFU66 ARTIFICIAL I LAND DISPOSAL ARE." PENN$ NECK PE MAY DISPOSAL ARCA SUTE OF NEW XRSEv DEPARTNIENT OF FNVI@OWAENTAL "OTECTION CAPE MAY CANA L COAST SUAND OTMONIC COAST GUARD CIr*T6R V, CA *Ceti BIG, AREA 371 APPENDIX C - DOE-DEP MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Memorandum of Understanding Between New Jersey T-epartment of Energy and New Jersey Departmei@t_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 e371-e-F-Me- 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 cont 'ent specified by the Department of Energy Act-N.J.S.A. 52:27F-13(c) or as further specified by Administrative regulation--o-f -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. 372 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:ID-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 Facility 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 ihterest 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)). 373 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 WE 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 T-New Jersey Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Jersey - CAFRA Area, nd Shore Segment. E. Joint DEP-DOE Coastal Permit Application Processing 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. 195, no decision will be made on energy facility permit 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 (06.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.). 374 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:IC-1.7(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.C. 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 Re-source Council (N.J.A.C. 7:1C-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 375 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. WE and DEP agree to accept the New Jersey Coastal Management Program 7 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 respe7-to the siting of energy facilities in the coastal zone. 2. DOE and DEP agree that the DOE Energy Report shall include an evaluation 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 CEIP 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 tFe-WE 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. 376 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 agrye to agree,.fn a revision of this P@ t Memorandum of Understanding to extend its sco e ol other DEP p/armits. J e- issioner partment f Energy AUG 221978 Date aniel 'Hern Commi i er Depart nt of Environmental otection AUG 2 2 IA78 Date J@pai a 1el HIE Colni er rt t of '@@D@epan 0 tec tiC 377 APPENDIX D - WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT RULES AND ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION Rules on Waterfront Development Permits N.J.A.C. 7:7-2.1 et seq. 7:[email protected] Authority: Unless otherwise expressly noted, all provisions of this subchapter .were adopted pursuant to authority of N.J.S.A. 12:5-1 et seq. 7:7-2.2 Purpose and Scope: These rules and regulations are intended to implement N.J.S,A. 12:5-3 by defining a boundary for "waterfront" areas and by defining "waterfront development". 7:7-2..3 Definitions: The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the content clearly indicates otherwise. "Navigable": Those waters of the State which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to the mean high water line. 7:7-2.4 Waterfront Area Described: The waterfront area to be regulated under these rules shall consrs-tof: a. A "Water Area", which shall include any navigable waterway or stream of this State and all lands lying thereunder up to the mean high water line and b. An "Upland Area", which shall include all lands extending landward from the mean high water line of such water area to the first surveyable property line existing on the effective date of these Rules, public road, railroad right-of-way, or other cultural feature generally parallel to the waterway; provided that the landward boundary of such area shall be at least 100 feet and no greater than 500 feet from the water- way except where lands formerly flowed by the tide (i.e. tidelands) extend more than 500 feet from the mean high water line. - In such cases the boundary of the upland fringe area shall be the upland boundary of such tidelands. 7:7-2.5 Applicability in Man-Made Waterways: These rules shall apply to all man-made waterways and lagoons connected to tidal waters. 7:7-2.6 Inapplicability in Coastal Area and Hackensack Meadowlands Development District. The Upland Area described by this rule shall not inF-ludeany part of the Coastal Area as defined by the Coastal Area Facility Review Act at N.J.S.A. 13:19-4, or any part of the Hackensack Meadowlands Development District as delineated at N.J.S.A. 13:17-4.1 7:7-2.7 Activities Requiring Permits: The following activities will require a permit in the Waterfront: a. the removal or deposition of Sub-aqueous materials (dredging); 378 JURISDICTION OF PROPOSED RULE FOR WATERFRONT Fiqure 42a DEVELOPMENT LAW SKETCH 100 -400' E F G H WATER LOT I BOUNDAF Adme ILL 7, low MEAN HIGH --'l JUSTICE IFR OA D WATER LINE 0 w 0 w LOT i cf) LOT K BOUNDARY aim, 0 .0 LOT L LOT M- cl WATERFRONT BOUNDARY WATER AREA UPLAND AREA 379 T JURISDICTION OF PROPOSED RULE FOR WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT LAW SAMPLE MAP k,14 x zy 4, ew Figure 42b c JURISDICTION. Vind 'ilia( ,03, 1, @Additi - WA-c h ate Hosl ita 1., 17 1 0, Wa ter a AK\, Ej@p yoe . . . . . . . . er@!an beh Water/ 0 @y UL A t rf)l an @eth .Z tand N 7 ..Its ng zaYiaste, j- IL .@D*Osal 30 L !;FF. s s, @R// Q ..... . .... 4-0@i I nit tanir A I , /I r ' 2 ... ....... s L rx E 4-3; T T @13 m -J, 2 -N A! 12 \@ i I'--- X 1@ ;, L., : j I k e X\ t 1111 LN fL) osal Sch; A ir-- 0,6> vc r A; -6 20AT YORIC iCe\n j -Z R-Ji re 1A DY A 7- 38b 'Town em ii-XI, t rl- b the construction or alteration of a dock, wharf, pier, bulkhead, bridge, piling, mooring dolphin, pipeline, cable, or other similar structure or; C. the construction, reconstruction, or enlargement, of any building or other structure, or of any excavation or landfill. 7:7E-2.8 Activities not Requiring Permits: The following activities will not require a permit in the watertront: a. the construction of an individual single family home or appurtanent structure, when constructed more than 100 feet inland from the mean high water line, b. the reconstruction or enlargement of any structure more than 100 feet inland from the mean high water line, or C. the conversion of any structure to a different use. 7:7-2.9 Exemptions for Development in Progress on Effective Date: These rules shall not aFP_1yto any development in the Upland Area for which on-site construction, including site preparation, was in progress on or prior to the effective date of these rules. Any person who believes that a proposed facility is exempt from the requirements of these rules due to on-site construction may request in writing a determination of exemption from the Division of Coastal Resources. Exemptions shall be applied for and considered upon submission of infor- mation sufficient for the Commissioner to determine that physical work was actually performed on the proposed facility, including site prepara- tion, prior to September 26, 1980, the effective date of these rules. Any interruption in the process of construction and completion of the facility may be cause for denial of an exemption request by the Commis- sioner unless caused by factors beyond the developer's control, provided good faith efforts were made by the developer to overcome such delay or interruption. Interruptions caused by financial, labor, or legal factors must be documented in the exemption request. 7:7-2.10 Permits: Any person proposing to undertake or cause to be undertaken any development in the Waterfront Area shall first obtain a permit from the Division of Coastal Resources. Permit application forms may be obtained upon request from the Division of Coastal Resources, Department of Environmental Protection, Box 1889, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. Permit applications shall be reviewed by the Division in accordance with the 90 Day Construction Permit Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:IC-1.1 et seq. 7:7-2.11 Exemptions Request for Finding on Geographic Applicability: Any person proposing to undertake or cause to be undertaken any development in or near the Waterfront Area may request in writing a determination that that proposal is exempt from the requirements of these Rules on the basis that the proposed facility's site is located outside the Waterfront Area. 381 The requesting party shall provide the Division with a map depicting the project site in a scale of not less than 1:2,400 (one inch equals 200 feet) and a project description. When the exemption request is based on a proposed facility's location landward of the first surveyable property line more than 100 feet from the waterway, the map shall depict that property line as it is depicted on the official local tax map as of the effective date. The Division shall, within 30 days of receipt, return the map to the requesting party, indicating on the map the waterfront area boundary and its relationship to the project site. 7:7-2.12 Procedure for Development Entirely Within Regulated Wetlands: No water- front development permit shall be required for a proposed development located entirely within a wetland area regulated under the Wetlands Act (N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 et seq.). 7:7-2.13 Criteria for Permit Decisions: Waterfront Development permit applica- tions shall be approv_e_J_,-m3U7iied or denied on the basis of the Rules on Coastal Resource and Development Policies, N.J.A.C. 7:7E-1.1 et seq. 7:7-2.14 Appeals: Appeals of permit decisions shall be taken to the Commissioner in accordance with the 90 Day Construction Permit Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:IC-1.9. Rationale The source of the Waterfront Development Law is Chapter 123 of the Laws of 1914, entitled "An Act to Create the New Jersey Harbor *Commission and to Define its Powers and Duties." The Commission was to be concerned with "the condition of waterfront and harbor facilities and any other matter incident to the movement of commerce upon all navigable rivers and waters within this state or bounding thereon". (N.J.S.A. 12:5-1). It authorizes the State to regulate land and water uses in the waterfront area, but defines neither the area nor the uses to be regulated with precision. It is left to the Executive branch to establish by rule the parameters of its authority, and to do so in a manner that is reasonably related to the goals established by law. A. The regulation of waterfront development is an appropriate exercise of the State's po7ce -power. "The legislative history of the Law reveals that it was passed in response to a need for the State to assume a direct role in the regulation of harbor develop- ment for competitive economic reasons. In its 1914 Fourth Preliminary Report to the Legislature prior to passage of the legislation, the temporary New Jersey Harbor Commission recommended direct State control over the 'waterfront, the waterways and the upland adjacent thereto'. Fourth Preliminary Report of the New Jersey Harbor Commission, p. 6 (1914). Clearly, then, the perceived nee-d-ro-r-Th-7i"s- remedial faw was to regulate uplands'as well as water areas."* The proposed Upland Area encompasses a narrow, largely developed area which is entirely within 500 feet of the water' edge. Because of the restricted size of the waterfront and its proximity to the water's edge, small-scale development can have a proportional impact as great as a major development in other 'areas of the State, 382 particularly in terms of reducing the range of sites available for other, perhaps competing uses. A small parking lot or commercial development built directly on the water can effectively preclude access to the water's edge and can, in more developed areas, consume the last vacant waterfront site in the immediate area. Experiences in other cities have shown that the economic vitality of water- front areas often depends on a well coordinated planning and management program which insures that industrial, maritime and other water-related uses may be accom- modated in an orderly fashion, with room left for recreational and other, multi- purpose uses. These factors make it clear that it is necessary to regulate development in the waterfront in order to enforce the intent of the Waterfront Development Law. This will not preclude the concentration of growth in developed areas of the coast and the use of the waterfront for a variety of uses, including well designed commercial activities. Both of these uses are acceptable under the Department's Rules on Coastal Resource and Development Policies for the Bay and Ocean Shore Region (N.J.A.C. 7:7E-1.1 et seq., effective September 28, 1978). The Rules on Coastal Resource and Development Policies favor the concentration of development away from relatively undeveloped areas. Consequently, many of the types of development described in this rule will seek to locate in the developed coast. The fact that these Rules on Coastal Resource and Development Policies will be in place throughout the coast when these rules take effect means that DEP will have an existing substantive basis for efficiently regulating the activities defined in this proposed rule. The Coastal Resource and Development Policies were originally developed by DEP as the substantive basis for decision-making under a number of statutes in the State's Bay and Ocean Shore region. They address a variety of considerations, both environmental and economic. Those rules are being amended concurrently with the proposed adoption of these rules, and if adopted will apply throughout the State (see Section 7:7-2.13 of these proposed rules). The amendments are designed to incorporate the purposes of the Waterfront Development Law, by insuring that water-dependent and maritime dependent uses will not be precluded by haphazard waterfront development. B. The boundary described by this rule is an appropriate deline- ation of the waterfr3nt area. A boundary delineation utilizing property lines, cultural features and/or distances determined by measurement is a traditional method of delineation. The CAFRA boundary is delineated in this manner. The proposed boundary accomplishes three things: 1. It encompasses a land area of sufficient width to control the first land use adjacent to the waterway; 2. It encompasses a land area that is sufficiently limited in width as to avoid over-reaching into areas that are not waterfront in character; 3. It describes a boundary which may be readily delineated and mapped. Attorney General's Formal Opinion No. 6 (February 29, 1980), page 2. 383 C. Thepse of different standards for the regulation of waterfront activities inside and outside the CAFRA area and Hackensack Meadowlands District is reasonable and appropriate. The Coastal Area Facility Review Act (N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 et seq.) recognizes the special character of New Jersey's Bay and Ocean Shore areas, and seeks to preserve and protect that character by regulating major facilities. The findings made under that Act constitute the State's land use priorities within the defined coastal area, and should, therefore, apply to the Waterfront Development Law as admini- stered in that area. The Act does not affect the State's authority under N.J.S.A. 12:5-3 outside the CAFRA area, and so the Department may, as part of its concern for "any matter incident to the movement of commerce upon all navigable rivers and waters within this state or bounding thereon" (N.J.S.A. 12:5-1), define appropriate uses for other waterfront areas. Such a dual system is particularly appropriate because the greater portion of the state's commercial or industrialized waterfront is in the Developed Coast, outside the CAFRA area. Similarly, the Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Development Act (N.J. S.A. 13:17-1.1 et seq.) constitutes the State's land use priorities in the Meadow- lands District. It adopts a regional approach to reducing and resolving the development pressures on a seriously strained estuarine system. It applies only in a limited area, and does not affect the State's authority under the Waterfront Development Law outside the District. 384 State of New Jersey DEPAMME0T OF LAW AND PUBUC SAFETY OWNHON OP LAW $MEN SOLLM ANNINGWA ENVOINAMMAL PrXnwCrVN MUCTON ASMIM a low. tram AMINVINVOURM SMICM ALTA as wwr 111MM avow lowMme $12M OL 0 NWMmtws.om.amgm MAmMUL VM up ucassamp Vebruary 29, 1980 Jerry T. Nnglish, Commissioner Department of Bnvironmental Protection P. 0. box 1390 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 FOMAL OPINUM NO. 6 - 1980 Dear Commissioner Englisho Our advice has been Twpested an certain uestions pertaining to the expanded taiantatiou of the permit re8W8dre- mente of the Waterfront Deve Law. N.J.S.A. 1220-1, at sag. The threshold uosti is whether the Waterfront Development Law authorizes the 2rtment of &wiromental Protection to regulate develo8peent on uplands adjacent to navigable waters or stresko. It is our opinion that the statute Rrovides jurisdiction to regulate any development an the I'vater-frout portion of uplands adjacent to navigable waters or -trs--m N.J.S.A. 1200-3, the key operative provision of the low, provides as followso ALI plane for the development of any water-front upon an .y navigable water or stream of this Staki or biunding thereon, which is contemplated rson or mmicipality, La the u8l;e6vori4mlviduai Improvement or devel V, t or as a part of a which Isivolves the coustruc- ,igeneral Ian on or al4Cration of a dock, wharf, pier, bulkhead, bridge, lips lineo cable or any other similar or d saimilar water-trout 385 2 development shall be first submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection. No such development or Improvement shall be commenced or executed without the-approval of the Department of Environmental Protection first bad and received, or ea hereinafter in this chapter provided." Thus the statute reuires State approval for any "water-front development" that is either similar or dissimilar to the specifically mentioned types of development. The inuiries therefore are, what area to physically encompassed by the tam IratarEr -onstItutes development. The Waterfront Develo t Low was passed in 1914. The lative history revealsp0rhat it-was passed in response to a ne;gIosr the State to assume a direct role in the regulation of harbor development for competitive economic reasons. in its 1914 Fourth Preliminary Report to the Legislature prior to passage of the legislation, the temporary New Jersey Harbor Commission recommended direct Statecontrol over the "waterfront, the water- ways and the upland adjacent thereto". fourth Preliminarv Reoort of the New Jersev Harbor Gownission, p- 2T-2M6M E;I:arly, then, the perceived ne for thXi 4R0alal Low was to iegul te uplands as wal I as water are". This conclusion is reinforced by the unambiguous dictionary meaning accorded to the term waterfront. According to Webster's Now Collegiate Dictionary (1977 ad.) It means "land land with buildings. or e9ction of a town fronting or abutting on a body of water". Black's taw Dictionary (4th ed. 1968), defines waterfront as "Lead or land-with buildings fronting on a body of water". See, C Beach v. Lisenhy, 175 Cal. 575, 166 P. 333, 335, cited 8W929C8AO-147 :rfwl6rout 2Te-isonable doubt the term waterfront as used in the Wat ro t )evelopment Law, was intended to Include the uplands adjacent to navigable waters or streams. On the ancilliary uestion of what constitutes "d velop- went" re IrLnl a rait, the liatin specific structure: In u f.T or N.J.S.A. L215- owed by the tategmonft any other similar or dissimilar water-front development", can reasonably be viewed an inclusive of all structures of whatever type under the permit reuirement. Under this view, thespecific. examples are seen as merely illustrative of typical waterfront structures, but by no means intended by the Laktolature as exhaustive or limiti In any way. In its Fourth Preliminary Report the Harbor 2=622slon 386 3 also touched upon this Issue and called for State Pproval of any Improvement or construction whatever. E6mSk Prellm_narv ReDort of the New Jersev No r a , r Coming P 9 2VL 14). Thus, cofifent, With expre glaLative ast to remedy the perceived evil of unr lateds02t0rer1of rout dove o to It my be concluded that the te slature intended to re a po4t for all structures arect:3 In the wate servive and give the term development a limited meaning would obviously tend to frustrate the essential underlying purpose of the Waterfront Development Law. Your second inuiry in to what extent does the waterfront extend mid inn irticulai, soy the Department extend it by rule or otb8se to log feet from the water. While it is certain that the concept of regulating a waterfront includes regulating development on uplands, the concept or term waterfront is elusive In it: precise spatial definition. However, in light of the purpo a of the law in proorting and safeguarding water oriented activities and in ti ght of the direct waterfront nature of the specific examples of development mentioned in N.J.S.A. 12203 It must be concluded that the waterfront to be regulited under iko law is no larger than the area of the first substantial land use that directly adjoins the water and not an area extending 1000 feet Inland. Sine regulation of the first substantial land use (or area where the potentlatuse will take place) is enough to otect water oriented activities by Insuring access, 6F0 I atb.Ji pr f do0Otage, etc., and since It is also large enough 13 ty 0 to a P development as called for by 6% any .J2 451LO0 lar on not contemplate regulatio SA. 1260.3 the n extending automatically 1606 foot Inland. It is also necessary to address the nature of the a4 stantive standards to be adopted by the Department in Its adrAn istration of the permit reuirmsents of the Waterfront Development Law. The permissible scope of such regulations lies in an under standing of the legislative purpose In enacting the Waterfront 4Nore precise definition of the waterfront should be undertaken by administrative rule. For exampl6aossrule regulating at least the first 100 feet would be appr6rcri ince it can reasonably,be assumed that the first signif cant Land use will occupy at east thatlarge an area (a typical building lot in in excess of 100 feet deep). Moreover, the rule could indicate that where the potential area for the first significant land use extends more than 100 feet inland, a permit will be reuired for that entire use of the waterfront. subject to a reasonable maxion distance limitation. 387 4 Development Law. That purpose was to promote th development and revitalization as wall as to saferm rt ;acilities and the rar waterfront resources for the pubt ove Ieconomic advantage. rourth Preliminary Report, g1pra. The Waterfront Development Law therefore justifies the sido tion- of standards to insure access to the State'; waterways for arl water-dependent uses and, conversely, standards discouraging nonwater-dependent uses from usurping the waterfront. FurthermDr a variety of other consideration MY come into play in the Ztermination of an @ppropriate use gin a particular case so long an they are in furtherance of the essential see underlying the Waterfront Development Law. For example, fuherpdoevelopment of extensive high rise housing on the waterfront would not be consistent with the le islative purpose to insure access to waterways for water dep=ent uses and at the same time denial of a permit m" erve the purpose of protecting the scenic or aesthetic appearance: of the waterfront. In summary, therefore, so long as regulations adopted under the Waterfront Development Law are designed to carry out and are in furtherance of this primary Intent of the Waterfront Development Law, they may be permissibly used to control the exercise of administrative discretion in the Issuance of waterfront development permits. In summation, it is our advice that the Department may regulate the portion of uplands adjacent to the State's navigable waterways that constitutes the waterfront, but that the waterfront is a relatively narrow strip of land whose precise geographical limit should be defined by rule in accordance with the criteria set forth in this opinion. In addition the substantive standards that are to be used to Suide Department permit decisions under the Waterfront Development Law must be to accord with the Legislature's intent to promote the development, revitalization and sateguarding of the waterfront for the public's overall economic wellbeing. Very truly yours, JOHN J. DEGMAN Attorney General BY 19veo 1 /0-- D M. Van Dalen JMVD/be 4ty Attorney General 388 APPENDIX E - LEGAL AUTHORITIES Introduction The New Jersey Coastal Management Program relies upon certain New Jersey State laws and adopted rules for its legal auth3rity 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 four laws in their entirety: the Coastal Area Facility Review Act, the Wetlands Act, the Waterfront Development Law, 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 Code and are available upon request from DEP. Coastal Area Fac-ility Review Act Law N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 et seq. enacted June 20, 1973; effective September 19, 1973 (reprinted iiT-t =is Appendix). Rules N.J.A.C. 7:7D-1.0 et seq. - Coastal Area Review Board; effective November 18, 1975. These Mul@s_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, 197T7_TFese rules establish the permit application and exemp- tion request procedures of DEP under the Coastal Area Facility Review Act. Administrative Orders 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 (now Coastal Resources). 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. Superceded in part (see the following). No. 17, June 22, 1979; effective July 3, 1979. Re-organizes the Division of Marine Services into five bureaus and continues its operation as the Division of Coastal Resources. 390 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-1.1 et seq.; effective April 13, 1972. The New Jersey Wetlands Order Basis in-d 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. Waterfront Development Permit Law 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. 12:5-3, reprinted in this Appendix). Tidelands 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 tidelands. N.J.S.A. 13:1B-10, 11, 12; enacted at various dates beginning 1948. These laws define the powers, functions, and duties of the Tidelands Resource Council, which decides tidelands management real estate matters. N.J.S.A. 13:1B-13; enacted 1948. This law defines the procedure for approval of tidelands leases and grants. 391 N.J.S.A. 13:IB-13.1 through 13:lB-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 tidelands in the Meadowlands. 90 Day Construction Permit 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 repe-3119-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-1.0 et seq.; effective December 22, 1975; revised October 10, 1977. These-ruf-es implement the 90 Day Construction Permits Law, and govern the waterfront development permit process. Shore Protection Law N.J.S.A. 12:6A-1 et seq.; enacted at various dates beginning 1940. The law authorizes DEFF Fo-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 n7e-w 773-bini@t-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". Rules N.J.A.C. 14A:8-1.1, effective December 3, 1979. Procedural Rules of the Energy Facility Review Board. 392 Hackens4ck Meadowlands Development Commission Law Law N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et seq. Creates the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission, d-eTiiie-sthe district, and authorizes development and manage- ment activities. Rules N.J.A.C. 19:4. District Zoning Regulations and procedural rules. Reprinted Laws The Coastal Area Facility Review Act, the Wetlands Act, the Waterfront Devel- opment Law, and the Department of Energy Act are reprinted in full on the following pages. 393 a CHAPTER 185, LA OF 1973 It is further declared that the coastal area and the State will stiffer continuing and over-accelerating serious adverse economic, social and aesthetic effects unless the State assists, in accordance with the provisioni; of this act, in the assessment of impacts, stenuning from the future location and kinds of facilities within CHAPTER 185 A the coastal area, on the delicately balanced environment of that area. AN AcT 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 Bs rr zNAow by the Seade mW General Assembly of the State improve the overall economic position of the inhabitants of that of New Jersey: area within the framework of a comprehensive environmental C. 13119.1 sh-1 dd& design strategy which preserves the most ecologically sensitive and 1. This act shall be known and insty-be cited as the Coastal fragile area from inappropriate development and provides ade. Area Facility Review Act uate environmental safeguards for the construction of any facil. C. 13,19.2 Ikel.md -f polky. ities in the coastal area. 2: The Legislature finds and declares that New Jeftey's boys, 13,19.3 Nd.id harbors, sounds, wetlands, inlets, the tidal portions of fieRb, saline 3. For the purposes of this act, unless the context clearly reuires or partially saline streams and tributaries and theirWjoining a different meaning, the following words shall have the following upland fastlwid drainage area nets, channels, estuaries, barrier meanings: beaches, near shore waters and intertidal areas together constitute a. Commissioner nice= the State Commissioner of Envirou- an exceptional, uniue, irreplaceable attd delicately balanced phys- mental Protection. ical, chemical and biologically acting and interacting natural an- b. I 'Department' I means the State Department of Environmental viroumental resource called the coastal area, that certain portions Protection. of the coastal n rea are now suffering serious adverse environmental c. Facility includes any of the facilities designed or utilized effects resulting from existing facility activity impaets that would for the following purposes: preclude or tend to preclude those multiple noes which support (1) Electric power generation- diversity and are in the beat long-term, social, economic, aesthetic Oil, gas, or coal fired or any combination thereof. and recreational, interests of all people of the State; and that Nuclear facilities. therefore, it is in the interest of the people of the State that all of (2) Food and food byproducts-- the coastal area should he dedicated to those kinds of land uses 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. Trimming, culling, juicing, and blanching of fruits and vege- tables. Animal matter rendering plants. Operations directly related to the production of leather or farm such as, but not limited to, unhairing, soaking, delinting, baiting, and tanning. Curing and pickling of fruits and vegetables. 0 CHAPTER 185, LAWS OF 1973 CHAPTER 185, LAWS OF 1973 pasteurization, homogenization, condensation, and evaporation Calcium carbide production. of milk and cream to produce cheeses, sour milk, and related Stone, rock, gravel, and sand uarrying and processing. products. Frit and glass production. Coffee bean and o0c0a bean roasting. Fiberglass production. (3) Incineralion waste&-- Stag, rock and glass wool production (mineral wool) Municipal wastes (larger than or eual to 50 tons per day). Lima production, including uarrying. Automobile bodY (20 automobiles per hour or Larger). Gypsum production, including uarrying. (4) Paper production- Perlite manufacturing, including uarrying. Asbestos fiber production. Pulp Mina. (9) Chemical processes- Paper -ill Ammonia manufactum Paperboard mills. Building paper raills. Chlorine inanufacture. Building board mills. Caustic soda production. (5) Public facilities and houaing Carbon black and charcoal production, including channel, furnace, SanitarTimmus, and thermal processes. Waste treatment plants (sanitary a-age). Varnish, paint, lacuer, enamel, organic solvent, and inorganic or Road, airport, or highway construction. organic pigment manufacturing or formulating. dwelling units or Synthetic resins or plastics manufacture including, but not Now housing d-elOP-ents Of 25 Or mrO limited to, alkyd resins, polyethylene, fluorocarbons, polypropylene, euivalent. Expensiont, of existing developments by the addition of 25 or and polyvinylehloride. more dwelling units or euivalent. Sodimn carbonate manufacture. (6) Agri-chentical. productio- Synthetic fibers production including, but not Limited to, semi- Pesticides manufacture and formulation OPerstiOUG or either synthetics such its viscose, rayon, and wetate, and true synthetics such as, but not limited to, nylon, Orion, and dacron, and the dyeini thereof. of these semi and true synthetics. 0Superphoephate animal feed supplement manufacture- Synthetic rubber manufacture, including but not limited to, Production of normal superph8-phate. butadiene and styrene copolymers, and the reclamation of synthetic Production of triple superphosphate- production of diamynonium phosphate. or natural rubberit. (7) inorganic acids and salts 4manufaoturv- The production of high and low explosives such as, bat not liro8lted Hydrofluoria, acid and common selts. to, TNT and nitrocellulose. Hydrochloric acid and common ss1tL Soap and detergent manufacturing, including but not limited to, Nitric said and common salts. those synthetic detergents prepared from fatty alcohols or linear Sulfuric acid and common sgt& alkylate. Phosphoric add and coninion wilts. Elemental sulfur recovery plants not on the premises where chromic add, including chroniate and didirentate Salts- petroleum refining occurs, (8) Mineral product&-- Used motor or other oil or related petroleum product reclamation Asphalt hatching and r4-fing operations including the, P8Plirs- operatiouL tion of bituminous concrete and concrete. Petrole4m refining, including but not limited to, distillation, crack- Cement production, including Portland, natural, mssoru:y, and ing, reforming, treating, blending, polymerization, isonterization, pozzolan oem ut& alkylation, and elemental sulfur recovery operations. Coal cleaning. Organic dye and dye intermediate manufacturing- Clay, Clay m04Wmg, and fly-ash sinterivg- Hydrogen cyanide or cyanide salts manufacture or use. 394 CHAPTER 185, LAWS OF 197.3 E CHAPTER 185, LAWS OF 1973 F Glue manufacturing operations. Manufacture, use, or distillation of phenols, cresols, or coal tar Manufacturing, fabricating, or processing medicinal and Phar, materiala. macentical products including the grRdillgo grinding, or milling of Manufacture of' lead acid storage batteries and/or storage botanic*k batteries produced from other heavy metals, such as nickel or (10) Storage.- cadmium. Bulk storage, handling, and transfer facilities for crude oil, gas Installation of above or underground pipelines designed to and finished petroleum products not on the promises where petr- transport petroleum, natural gas, and sanitary sewage. leum refining occurs. Operations involving the dyeing, bleaching, coating, impregnat- Bulk storage, handling, transfer and manufacturing facilities of ing, or glazing of paper. gas manufactured from inorganic and organic materials including Dyeing, bleaching, and printing of textiles other than wool. coal gas, coke oven M water M producer, and oil gaoe& Chemical finishing for water repelling, fire resistance, and mildew (11) Metallurgical Pr0c65$e- proofing, including preshrinking, coating and impregnating. Production of sInTninom oxide and aluminum metal and all oom- Sawmill and planing mill operationL mon alloys, such as those with copper, magnesium, and silicon. Marine terminal and cargo handling facilities. Production of titanium motal,, salts, and oxides. d. "Person" means and shall include corporations, companies, Metallurgical coke, petroleum ookov and byproduct coke matim- associations, societies, firms, partnerships and joint stock companies faeturing. as well as individuals and governmental agencies. Copper, lead, zinpI and magnesium smelting and processing. e. 11 Governmental agencies" means the Government Of the United Ferroalloys manufacture such as, but not limited to, those COW States, the State of New Jersey, or any other states, their political bined with silicon, calcium, manganese and chrome. subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities thereof, and interstate Integrated steel and iron mill OpOrations including, but not agencies. limited to, open hearth, basic oxygen, electric furnace, ainter planto C. 13,194 rA.M.1 _"V dfi.@L and rolling, drawing, and extruding operations. Melting, smelting, refining, and alloying of scrap or other sub- 4. The "coastal area" shall consist of all that certain area lying between the line as hereinafter described and the line formed by the stances to produce brass and bronze ingots. StaUls seaward (Raritan Bay and Atlantic ocean) territorial Gray iron foundry operations. jurisdiction on the east thereof, the State's bayward (Delaware Steel foundry operations. thweat thereof, Beryllium metal or alloy production, including rolling, drawing Bay) territorial jurisdiction on the south and sou and extruding operations. and the State Is riverward (Delaware River) territorial jurisdiction Operations involving silver, arsenic, cadmium, copper, on the west thereto. Beginning at the confluence of Choesequake mercury, Creek with the Raritan Bay; thence southwesterly along the center lead, nickel, chromium, and zinc including, but not limited to, pro- duction, recovery from scrap or salvage, alloy production, sat line of Choesequake Creek to its intersection with the Garden formation, electroplating, anodizing, and metallo-organiou com- State Parkway; thence southeasterly along the Garden State pound products preparation. Parkway to Exit 117 at State Highway 36; thence northeasterly along State Highway 36 to the intersection 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. ly on Main Street (12) Miscellaneous- Palmer Avenue (County 7); thence northeaster 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. erly on Navesink Avenue to the intersection of Monmouth Avenue Wood preserving processes which use coal or petroleum based at Navesink; thence westerly on Monmouth Avenue to its interaec. products ouch as, but not limited to, coal tan and/or creosotes. tion with Browne Dock Bond; thence southerly on Browns Dock a N CHAPTER 185, LAWS OF 1973 CHAPTER 1%, LAWS OF 1973 Road to its intersection with Cooper Road; thence southwesterly on northwesterly along County Road 559 to its intersection with Cooper Road to the intersection of State Highway 35; therAs U. S. 40 and S. R.'50 at Mays Landing; thence westerly along southerly on ftte Highway 35 to its intersection with State High- combined U. S. 40 and S. R. 50 to its intersection with S. R. 50; way 71; thence southeasterly on State Highway 71 to its 6rosaing thence southerly on S. R. 50 to its intersection with Back Hill Bond of the Central Railroad of New Jersey tracks; thence southerly near Buck Hill; thence westerly along Back 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 (Cminty 2); thence westerly on 6th 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 ilighway 18 to its intersection of Marconi Road; its intersection with S. R. 47 at Dennieville; thence northwesterly thence southeasterlv on Marconi Road to Adrienne Road, eontinu- along S. R. 47 to its intersection with State Road 49 at Millville., ing south on Adriey ine Road to Belmar Boulevard; thenee easterly on Belmar Boulevard and 16th Avenue to the intersection of State the- through Milivill's along State Road 49 to its intersection with County Road 555; thence southerly along County Road 555 Highway 71; thence southerly on State Highway 71 to the interseo- to its intersection with County Road 27; thence solitherly 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 Hauricetown; westerly along State Highway 34 to the Garden State Parkway at thence through Mauricetown westerly on County Road U8 to Exit 96; thence southwesterly along the Garden State Parkway to its intersection with the tracks of the Central Railroad of Now the intersection of the Monmouth, Ocean County boundary; thence Jersey; thence northwesterly on the tracks of the Central Rail- westerly along said boundary to the intersection of the Central road of New-.Jersey to its intersection with County Road 9S; Railroad of New Jersey tracks; thence southwesterly @long thence easterly along County Road 98 to the intersection with the tracks of the Central Railroad of New Jersey to its juno- County Read 38; thence northerly along County Road 38 to its tion with the tracks of the Pennsylvania Railroad near Whiting; intersection with S. K 49 east of Bridgeton; thence westerly along thence easterly 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 South Toms (Roadstown Road); thence westerly along County Road 5 (Roads- River; thence southerly along the Garden State Parkway to its town Road) to Roadatown; thence northwesterly along the intersection with County Road 539 at Garden State'Parkway exit Roadetown 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-Staftrd Forge Road; thence westerly along Martha- along County Road 19 northweeterI7 to Gum Tree Corner; thence Stafford Forge Road to its intersection with Spur N3; thence northwesterly along County Road 19 from Gum Tree Cordisr northerly along Spur 563 to its intersection with County Road 568,. across Stowe Creek to its intersection with Salem County Road thence southerly along County Read 563 to its intersection with 5q (Hancocks Bridge Road); thence northwesterly along Coanty Road1542 at Green Bank; thence northwesterly along County County Road 59 to its intersection with County Road 51 at Road 542 to its intersection with Weekstown-Pleasant Ming Road; Coopers Branch; thence northeasterly along County Road 51 thence southeasteriv along Weekstown-Pleasant Mills Road to its to its -intersection with S. IL 49 at Quinton; thence northwesterly intersection with County Road 563 at Weekstown; thence south- along S. R. 49 to its intersection with County Road 50; thence easterly along County Road 563 to its intersection with Clarks southwesterly along County Road 60 to its intersection with Landing Road leading to Port Republic; thence easterly along County Road 58; thence southerly on County Road 68 to its inter- Clarks Landing Road to its intersection with the Garden State section with County Road 24; then" westerly along County Road Parkway; thence southerly along the Garden State Parkway to its 24 to its intersection with County Road 65; thence northerly alonq 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; thene- Road 4; thence westerly along County Road 4 and northerly along 395 CHAPTER 185, LAWS OF 1973 CHAPTER 185, 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 northerly 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 uality, water uality, water supply, hydrology, geology, soils, 45; thence northerly along State Road 45 to its intersection with topography, vegetation, wildlife, auatic organisms, ecology, County Road 540 at Pointers; thence northerly and northwesterly demography, land use, aesthetics, history, and archeology; for along County Road 540 (Deepwater-Slapes Corner Road) to its housing, the inventory sball describe water uality, water supply, intersection with the New Jersey Turnpike; thence westerly along hydroiagy, 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 Read 33 to its intersection with and how it is to be done. during construction and operation; State Road 49; thence southeasterly along S. R. 49 to its inter- a. A listing of all licenses, permits or other approvals as reuired section with County Road 26; thence northwesterly along County by law and the status of each; Road 26 to the Killcohook National Wildlife Ref up; 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 Pelaware 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 throughthe 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 nonaceeptability; easterly and northerly along County 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 the project, the project site, and the surrounding region. intersection with State Road 47; thence westerly along State Road 47 to its intersection with County Road 54. C. 13.194 Dedaradeft of empletannis of a9pneemon. C. MIM Permit is constroet fedUtT. S. a. Within 30 days following receipt of an application, the 5. No person "I construct or cause to be constructed a commissioner shall notify the applicant in writing regarding its facility in the coastal area until he has applied for and received completeness. The commissioner may declare the application to be a permit issued by the commissioner; however, the provisions of complete for filing or may notify the applicant of specific defi- this act shall not apply to facilities for which on-site constinctiouP ciencies. The commissioner, within 15 days following the receipt of including site preparation, was in process an or prior to the effec- additional information to correct deficiencies, shall notify the tive date Of this UL applicant of the completeness of the amended application. The C. M19.6 Appikedos for pennit. application shall not be considered to be filed until it has been 6. Any person proposing to oonstruct or cause to be constructed declared complete by the commissioner. a facility in the coastal area shall file an application for a permit b. The conarnissioijor, 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 filing. 13,19.7 Content. or I-P-2 audoneem. C'. 13.1" Hh,. 7. The environmental impact statement shall provide the in. 9. a. The comniissinner, or a member of the department desig- formation needed to evaluate the effects of a proposed project upon nated by him shall hold a hearing to afford interested parties stand- the environment of the coastal ares. ing and the opportunif y to present, orally or in writing, both their L CHAPTER 185, LAWS OF 1073 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 exhan tion, 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 reasonably necessary to promote the public health, uire 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 C.13.19-10 Bede- of.pplicedowl reuired finding& the natural 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 unless he shall find that the proposed environmental impact statement and all inform6Kion 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 such facility will be safe, conforms to standardfi proposed facilit. - establishi-A by the A tomic. Energy Commission and will effwtively 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 uality criteria and materiaL air uality standards. b. Prevents air emissions and water effluents in excess of the IN19-12 Modfication to appliona. existing dilution, assimilative, and recovery capacities of the air 12. The commissioner shall notify the applicant within 6D 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 sail disposal of Utter, trash, and the event the commissioner reuires additional information as pro- refuse in such a --mer as to minimize a26irse environmental vided for in section 9, he shall notify the applicant of his effects and the threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. decision within 90 days following the receipt of the information. d. Would result in --irna.] feasible impairment of the regencra- C-13t19-13 CantalAwaRovivu,13 I meadow ownbonhip, ads& paea2m tive capacity of water auifers or other ground or surface water 13. There is hereby created the Coastal Area Review Board, in supplies. but not of the Department of Environmental Protection, which shall e. Would cause minimal feasible interference with the natural consist of three voting members who shall be the Commissioner functioning of plant animal 0f0isb, and human life processes at the of Environmental Protection or his designated representative, the site and within the surrounding region. Commissioner of Labor and Industry or his designated representa- f. Is loaded or constructed so an to neither endanger human life tive and the Commi.Rioner of Community Affairs or his designated or property nor otherwise impair the pablio health, selety, and r0ipresentative. No vote on a permit reuest shall be taken unless welfare. all voting members are present. g. Would result in minimal practicable degradation of uniue or irreplaceable land types, historical or archeological areas, and exist- The Coastal Area Review Board shall have the power to bear ing scenic and aesthetic attributes at the site and within the appeals from decisions of the commissioner pursuant to section 12. surrounding region. The board may affirm or reverse the decision of the commissioner with respect to applienbility of any provision of this act to a pro- C. 13sL9.11 G-an& for denial of=t orvileadons coad1flonal Parades posed use; it may modify any permit granted by the commissioner, ovVrovel of audear day son-sting soluty. grant a permit denif-d by him, deny a permit granted by him or 011. 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, incinding the environmental impact statement and all in- proposed facility would violate or tend to violate the purpos formation presented at public hearings and any other information and intent of We act as specified in section 2, or if the commis- the commissioner innkes, available to the board prior to the affirma- 8iioner finds that the proposed facility would materially contribute tion or reversal of a deision of the cominiBsioner. 396 CHAPTER 185 LAWS OF 1973 CHAPTER 185, LAWS OF 1973 . *-1 l_ In I=" of um the Superior Court for injunctive relief to prohibit and prevent such 14. In the event of rental, loam, sale or other convey- violation or violations and said court niay proceed in & summary anew by an applicant to wbom a permit is issued, each 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, leasee, owner, or assignee so long an there is no clump in shall be liable to a penalty of not more than $3,000.00 to be collected the nature of the facility tot forth in the original application. in a summary proceeding or in any case before a court of competent C. M19-15 Kffwt of deaW of arpheadew jurisdiction wherein -injunctive relief has been reuested. If the 15. The denial of an application shall in no way adversely violation is of a continuing nature, each day during which it con- affect the future submittal of a new application. tinues shall constitute an additional, separate and distinct offense. The department is hereby authorized and empowered to compromise 131116 FAWbONUMMAd W-to's A-Nate OWWWO-e" nNissaftd and settle any claim for a penalty under this section in such amount strat"Ous =4td fer COOMI in the discretion of the department as may appear appropriate and 16. The evaimissioner shall, within 2 years of the taking effect euitable under the circumstances. of this act, prepare an environmental inventory of the environ- mentail resources of the coastal area and of the existing facilities 13,19-19 ApplimWity of me. 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 powirs 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 environmented inventory alternite 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 at se, section 16 however shall apply to the entire area within economic and residential growth within the coastal area. The oom- the boundaries described herein. 21MIsioner shall, within 4 years of the taking effect of this act, select 13,19-20 CAnstruedon of am from the alternate environmental management strategies an an- nw design and intent thereof. vironmental design for the coastal area. The environme 20. This act shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose shall be the approved environmental management strategy for the coastal area and shall include a delineation of various areas appro- C. 13,19-21 PnW lnaUdity. 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 an- act and the application of such provision to persons or eircum- 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 C-13319-11 Rk*&"Tesulwd $100,000.00. 17. The department is hereby authorized to adopt amend and 23. This act shall take effect 90 days from the date of enactment, repeal rules and regulations to effectuate the purposes of this act. except that section 22 shall take effect immediately. C. M19-18 InJuetI,* mlef; penshf- Approved June 20,1973. 18. If any person violates any of the provisions of this act, rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to the provisions of this act, the department may institute a civil action in 397 A CHAPTER 272 LAWS OF 17 CILT 272, LAWS OF 1970 lie and private property, wildlife and marine ris, adopt, CHAPTER 27 amend, odif or repeal orders rulati, restricting or prohibit ing dredgint, tilling, rvitioving or otherwise altering, or polluting, A4 ACT concerning the protectiOll. ff Witlit;1I I'V0til"VS ill coa;.J, coastal wetlan&. For tile purposes of this act the term "coastal. wtdunds. providim, for dit de,izlialiml 11 ill(. imp, iticadow, fint or wetlands" shall mean any bank, marsh, sw, EavironitientA 'W!'ihit k;!ftV! 11111i other low lard subject to tidal action in the State of Now Jersey hearing, and reuilillz p"rillit, f1mit the :ltl2pppm r pri.'r I; along the Delaware bay and Delaware river, Raritan hay, Barnegat tile dredging, rentoniv., filling or otlierwi.4e altcliu, or bay, Sandy Ilook bay, Shewsbury river including Navesink river, coastal wetlands. Shark river, and tile coastal inland waterways extending southerly from Manasuan Inlet to Cape May Harbor, or at any ittlet, estuary BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and Gt iteral Assembly of The Stute or tributary waterway or tiny tberof, intluding those areas now or of New Jersey: formerly connected I tidut aters whoso surfac is i(tnr b Io%v nit 80 w elevatim of 1 foot above local extreme high water, all upon which C. 13,9A1 [Ag!tature. findings and dcriarstium I policy; ity ; map. may graw or is capable of growing some, but not necessarily all, of ping .1 ildid al6; fill.$ .1 soup.. the following: Salt meadow grass (Spartine patens), spip grass 1. it. The Legislature hereby find., and declare.4 tlat ol't, of the (Distichlis spicata), black grass (Junens gernrili), snItmarsh grass taust vital and productive ariks or otir nutiocal wi,rid i; tile 0 (Spartina alterniflora), saltworts (Salicornin. Europaea, and Sali called "estuarine zone." that arear between tilt! sel. and tile InlaI*1 cornia bigelovii), Sea Lavendar (Limonium carolinianum), salt that this area protect.; the land front the force (if the ea, itiriderntes marsh bulrushes (Scirpus robustus and Scirpus paludosus var. our weather, provides a home for water fowl and for =3 (if lilt out atlanticus), sand spurrey (Spergularia marine), switch grass fish and shellfib, still assims in al"orloing sewae diiwharue by (Panieurn vit'aturn), tall eordgrass (Spartina pectinata), hightide the rivers of the land; ;tail that in order to prontofi, tile public bush (Iva frnteseens var. oraria), cattails (Tvpba angustifolia, and safety, health and welfare, and to protect public find private prop Typha latifulia), 6pike rush (Eleocharis rostellata), chairmaker's erty, wildlife, marine fisheries and the natural environment, it rush (Scirpus americans), bent grass (Agrostis palustris), and is necessary to preserve the ecological balance of this area avid sweet grass (Ilierochloe odorata). The terni "coastal wetlands" prevent its further deterioration and des. truction by regulating the shall not include any land orreal propertysubject to the jurisdiction dredging, filling, removimr or otherwise altering or pollatiliz of the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission pur thereof, all to tile extent and in tile inanner provided her,ili. suant to the provisions of P. L. 1968, chapter 404, sections I through 1). The Commissioner of Environmental Protection hall, w:tIlin 84 (C. 13:171 through C. 13:1786). L1 vears of the effective (late of this !let, Make lilt inveritory and iilall IMA43 Ad er; hestring, salient recording, oiall. tidalwellands within the State. Tile boundaries Of tich xvk.t chaos. me repeal of ord .Asug and filing of order; crutillog. lands shall generally define the areas that tire at (it, below Ili 'h water 3. Tile commissioner shall, before adopting, amending, modi land shall be shown on suitable maps. which ittay lie reprodlivitirills or fying or repeating aily such order, bold a public hearing thereon aerial photographs. Each ,tich mapshalt be filed in the office of tbe in the county in which the coastal wetlands to be affected are county recording officer of the county or counties in whieli tile wet located, givinz notice thereof to each owner having, a recorded lands indicated thercon tire located. Each wetland map 4iall betul interest in such wetizinds by mail at least 21 days prior thereto u certificate of the commissioner to thp effeet Ihat;t is made Xit! filed addressed to his address as shown in the municipal tax office pursuant to this act. To be entitled to filing no wetIfinds nrip ?ed :ecords and bv publication thereof at least twice in each of the 3 meet the reuirements of R. S. 47:16. weeks next preceding the (late of such hearinlr in u newspaper or C. M9.42 Authority to regulate sherstion of coastal %ellan&I delliniflo:.. general circulation in the municipality or municipalities in which '2. The Coutinisioner Ina 'v front little to time, for ill( pri pne of such c astal wetlands are located. promoting ill(, public affmlv g . , health alld welfare. and protectin''. 111111 CHAPTEli 272, LAWS OF 1970 0 CHAPTER LAWS OF 1970 0 Upon the adoption of any such order or any order amending, C. 13,9A.11i Rearatint of lolfless. modifying or repealing the saine, tile commissioner shrill cause a .5. The Superior ('(,art shall have jurisdiction to restrain viola copy thereof, together with a plan of tile lands affected, inelliding tions of orders issued pursitatit to this act. reference to the filed wetlands map or maps oil which the same are C. 13,9AA Filing of nouplaima .1,1sairsilion, of isses, lesi shown and a list of the owners of record of such lands, to be re 6. Any person havinz at recorded interest in land affected by any corded in the offiet, of the county clerk or re6ister of deeds, where such order or permit, tuay, within 1K) day. after receiving notice it shall lit, indixid and filed as a judgment. ;tail shall Illail a copy thereof, file a complalut ill tile Superior Court to determine of such order and plan to each owner of record of such lands af whether such order or perinit so restricts or otherwise affects fected thereby. the lose of hizi prolwrt 'va4 to deprive bini of the practical use thereof C. 13:9A4 "Regulated aedAty defined; persniss applicatisnot contents; too and is therefore an 1 11 oll;l tile exercise of the police power be ll "*a dam; effeet of work to be mnidered. cause the order or peritait constitutes the euivalent of a taking 4. a. For purposes of this section "regulated activity" includes without compensation. It the court finds the order or permit to but is not limited to draining, dredging, excavation or removal of be an unreasonable oxercim of the police power, tile court shall soil, mud, sand, gravel, aggregatee of any kind or depositing or enter a finding that such order or permit shall not apply to tile dumping therein any rubbish or similar material or discharging land of tile plailltity; provided, however, that Stich fluding shall therein liuid wastes, either directly or otherwise, and the erec not affect any otlwr laial thaii that of the plaintiff. Any party to tion of structurem, drivings of pilings, or placing of obstructions, the suit inay cauv it colly of such finding to I),! recordeft forthwith whether or not changing the tidal ebb and flow. " Regulated activ in the office of tilt county clerk or register of deeds, where it shall ity" shall not include continuance of commercial production of be indexed and filed as a judgment. salt hay or other agricultural crops or activities conducted under The method provided in this section for the determination of the section 7 of this act. issue shall be exclusive. and such issue shall not be determined in b. No regulated activity !4iall be conducted upon any wetland any other proceeding. without a permit. 13,9A.7 Clarlsho Ism4 ad full am to be .Mrieted. c. Any person proposing to conduct or cause to be conducted a 7. No action by the commissioner under this act shall prohibit, regulated activity upon any wetland shall file an application for a restrict or impair the exercise or performance of the powers and permit with the commissioner, in such forip. and with such duties conferred or imposed by law on the State Department of information as the commissioner may presrcibe. Stich appli Environmental Protection, the Natural Resource Counclil and (he cation shall include it detailed description of tile proposed work State 'Mosuito Control ('timmission in 'said Department, the Staki and a map showing the area of wetland directly affected, with the location of the proposed work thereon. together with the names Department of Health, or any mosuito control or other project f or activity operatins,, under or authorized by the provisions of chap (if the owners of record of adjacent land and known claimants 0 ter 9 of Title'16 (if tile Revised Statutes. rights in or adjacent to the wetland of whom tile applicant has notice. All applications, with any maps and documents relating 13s9A.8 Riparian rights ne oblicallosse NOR affected thereto, shall be open for inspection at the office of the Department S. Nothing in this net or tiny permit issited hereunder shall affect of Environmental Protection. the rights of the Stalte in, or the obligations of a riparian owner with d. In granting, denying or limitins r any permit the coni respect to. riparian hin&. missioner shall consider the effect of the proposed work with C. 13,9A.9 U&MIlly I ... no 1 isilatimi0l Penalty reference to the public health and welfare, marine fisheries, sbell fisheries, wildlife, t1w protectiou of life and property from flood, 9. Any person who violates any order by tile commissioner, hurricane and other natural disamers, and the Pah6iie policy set or violates any of the provisiow; of this act, fill]] be liabli, forth in section 1. a. of this net. to tile State for tilt eo4 of re,toration of the affected wetlaiid if) 398 CHAPTER 272, LAWS OF 1970 E its Condition Prior to such -iolation insofar as that is possible, and shall lie punished by a fine of not more I lain $1,0(kux), to lip. collected in accordance with the provisions of (lie Penally EnforcemerK Law (N. .1. S. 2A:513-1 et seq.). C. 13:9A.10 Sh.n ad.. 10. This act ran.% be cited as "The Wetlands Act of 1970." 11. This net shall take effect immediately. Approved November 6, 1970. WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT LAW 12:5-3. Submission to board of plans for water-front de- velopment All plans for the development of any water-front upon any navigable water or stream of this State or bounding thereon, which is contemplated by any person or municipality, in the na- ture of individual improvement or development or as a part of a general plan which involves the construction or alteration of a dock, wharf, pier, bulkhea&,. bridge, pipe line, cable, or any other similar or dissimilar wateitfrfint development shall be first sub- mitted to the Department,9f Environmental Protection. No such development or improvement shall be commenced or execut- ed without the approval of the Department of Environmental Protection first had and received, or as hereinafter in this chap-* ter provided. Amended by L.1975, c. 232, � 8. 399 a 20 legitimate needs or from practices of production, distribution, and 21 onsniption detrimental to the uality of life or Lite environment; 22 contribute to the proper siting of energy facilities necessary to P. L. 1977, CHAPTER 146, approved July 1, 1977 A 23 serve the public interest; coordinate New Jerseys energy policies 24 and actions with Federal energy policies; and secure for New Jer- 1977 Senate No. 3179 (official Copy Reprint) 23 sey the inaxiniuni aniount of Federal funding available for energy 25-t related research, dvelopment, and demonstration projects. Ax AcT concerning the production, distribution, conservation, and 26 The Legislature further finds and determines that shortages of 97 energy linve the potential at certain times and in certain places to consumption of energy, establishing a Department of Energy as 28 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 einergency powers sufficient to prevent Government and repealing parts of the statutory law. 30 or minimize health disasters and grave economic disruptions which 31 could occur during said times. 1Bx rr xMAcTEn by the Senate and General .4ssembly of the State :14 The Legislature, therefore, declares it to be in the beat interest 2of New Jersey: 33 of the citizens of this State to establish a principal department 11. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Department 34 in the Executive Branch of State Government to coordinate Ru- 2of Energy Act." 35 tbority, regulation and planning by the State in energy related 12. The Legislature hereby finds and determines that a secure, 36 matters. 2stable, and adeuate supply of energy at reasonable prices is vital 1 3. As used in this act: 3to the States economy and to the publichealth, safety,and welfire; 2 Ft. "Commissioner" means the Commissioner of the Department 4that this State is threatened by the prospect of oth near- and 3 of Energy; 5long-term energy shortages; that the existing dispersion of re- 4 b. "Department" means the Department of Energy established 6sponsibilities with respect to energy and energy-related matters 5 by this act; 7among various State departments, divisions, agencies, and com- 6 c. "Distributor" means and includes each pen;ou, wherever 8raissions inhibits comprehensive and effective planning for our 7 resident or located, who imports into this State fuels for use. 9future energy needs; and that the State government does not ilow 8 distribution, storage, or sale in this State after the same shall 10 possess either sufficient information or adeuate authority to 9 reach this Stnte; and also each person who produces, refines, 11 provide for and insure the wise and efficient production, distribu- 10 manufRotnres, blends, or compounds fuels and sells, uses, stores, 12 tion, use, and conservation of energy. 11 or distributes the same within this State. In no case, however, 13 The Legislature further finds and determines that only an agency 12 shall a retail dealer be construed to be a distributor; 14 with comprobensive powers can collect, collate, and analyze the 13 d. "Energy" means all power derived from, or generated by, 15 information necessary to determine the amount of energy that is 14 any natural or man-made agent, including, but not limited to, and 15 petroleum products, gases, solar radiation, atomic fission or fusion, 16 or may be available; develop mechanisms to insure a fair 16 mineral formations, thermal gradien6, wind, or water. 17 euitable distribution of existing supplieg; conduct the long.term. IS planning and management n e 17 e. "Energy facility" means any plant or operation which ceded to eliminate or alleviate th 18 produces, converts, distributes or stores energy or converts one 19 potential adverse effects of a supply of energy insufficient to meet 19 form of energy to another; in no case, however. shnll an operation IIxmArrATtoF4--5laiter enclosed In hold-fneed bruelgets [thus] in the above hill 20 conducted by a person acting only as a retail dealer be construed 1. nat -.rd -d 1. intended t. be -itted in the 1.- 21 as an energy facility; 22 f. "Energy information" means any statistic, datum, fact, or 17 item of knowledge and all combinations thereof relating to energy; 24 g. "Energy information system" means the composite of energy 2-7) information collected by the office; D 26 IL 611E norgyy3 "Energy industry" means any penonp com- 67 . "Supplier of fuel" tneans; any refiner, importer, marketer, 21 pany, corporation, business, institution, establishment or other 6S jobber, distributor, terminal operator, firm, corporation, whole- 25 organization of any nature eligaged in the exploration, extraction, 69 saler, broker, cooperative or other person who supplies, sells, 29 transportation, transmission, refining, processing, generation, dis- 70 consigns, transfers, or otherwise furnishes fuel. In no case, how- 30 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, petrolcuni products, gases and unclear 72 r. "Trade secret" meaus the whole or any portion or phase 02 fuel, including enriched uranium, U235 and U238, and plutonium, 73 of any scientific, technical or otherwise proprietary information, .9 3t2.39: 74 design, process, procedure, formula or improvenient which is used 34 i. "Gases" means natural gas, methcue, linefied natural gas, 75 in ones business and is secret and of value; and a trade secret 85 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, partnerships, firms, asso- 77 prevent it from becoming available to persons other than those co 78 selected by the owner to have access thereto for limited purposes; i,7 ciations, joint stock companies, syndicates and rporations, and 38 any receiver, trustee, conservator or other officer appointed pur- 79 a. "Wholesale dealer" means any person who engages in the 3 suant to law or by any court, State or Federal; "person" also 80 business of selling fuels to other persons who resell the said fuel. 40 means the State of Now Jersey, counties, municipalities, autbori- 81 In no case shall a retail dealer be considered as a [whoesalcl 41 ties, other political subdivhions, and all departments and agencies 82 wholesale dealer. 42 within the aforementioned governmental entities: 1 4. There is hereby established in the Executive Bratich of the 43 1. "Petroleum products" means and includes motor gasoline, 2 State 0overnment a principal department whiell shall be know,) 44 middle distillate oils, residual fuel oils, aviation. fuel, propane, 3 as the Department of Energy. 45 butane, natural gasoline, naphtlia, gas oils, lubricating oils and any 1 5. The administrator and chief executive officer of the depart- 46 other similar or dissimilar liuid hydrocarbons; 2 ment shall be a commissioner who shall be a person ualified by 41 m. "Public building" means any building. stracture, facility 3 training and experience to perform the duties of his office. The 48 or complex used by the general public, incluaing, but not limited 4 commissioner shall be appointed by the Governor with the advice 49 to, theaters, concert halls, auditoriums, museums, schools, libraries, 5 and consent of the Senate, and shall serve at the pleasure of the 50 recreation facilities, public transportation terminals and stations, 6 Governor and until the appointment and ualifleation of the connuis- 51 factories, office buildings, business establishments, passenger 7 sioners successor. Ile shall devote his entire time to the ditties of 52 vehicle service stations, shopping centers, hotels or motels and 8 his office and shall receive such salary as shall be provided by law. 53 public eating plnces, owned by any State, county or municipal 9 Any vacaney occurring in the office of the commissioner shall be 54 government agency or instrumentality or any private individual, 10 filled in the some manner as the original appointment. 53 partnership, association or corporation; 11 5.1.a. There is hereby established its the depart-metif the Board 56 n. "Purchase" means and includes, in addition to its ordin2jarv 12 of Public Utilities; provided, however, that sueh board shall be 57 meaning, any, acuisition of ownership or possession, including, 13 independent of auy supervision or control by the department or 58 but not limited to, condemnation by eminent domain proceedings-. 14 by any o0f0f0lcer or employee thereof, e3rcept as otherwise expressly 59 a. "Retail dealer" means any person who ongages in the busi- 15 provided in this act. 60 ness of selling fuels from a fixed location such as a service station, 16 b. The Department of Public Utilities is abolished anti its futpe- 61 filling station, store, or garage directly to the ultimate users ox 17 lions. powers and ditties are hereby transferred to the Board of 62 snid fuel: is Public Utilitie, except as provided in section 25 of this act. 63 P. "Sale" means and includes, in addition to its ordinary menu- 19 a. The Board of Ptiblic Utility 0Continissioners and the positions 64 ing, any exchange, gift, tbeft. or other disposition. Tn such case 120 of president and commissioners theren2t shall be continued as the 6,73 where fuels tire exchanged, given, stolen, or otherwise disposed Of, 21 Board of Public Utilities and the president avid rammissioiters 66 they shall be deemed to have b#en sold; 22 thereof in the Board of Pnblic Utilities. This act shall Hot affect 23 lite fertile of o8f8f8lee of, itor tho salaries received by, floe present inow- 400 24 br of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners, or of ay 7private consultats on a contract basis or otherwise for rendering 2.5 #rs or employees thereof. he part of Civil Service 8professional or technical assistance. 26 shall itv reuluszify aity title or position transferred from the Do- 1 S, *a.* The commissioner shall xuake an annual report to the 27 parhuctit of Public Ulilities pursuant to this act tvithoill the ap- 2Legislature and the Governor of the departitient's operations and 28 provalof the board. The President and Commissioners of tile 3render such other reports as they shall from time to time reuest 29 Board of Public Utilities shall be appointed iii the mairver provided 4or as may be reuired by law. These reports shall include, but not 30 by existing fair for the appointment of the President and Colitinis- 5be limited to, an analysis of existing problems and guidelines re- 31 sioners of the Roard of Public Utility Commissioners, and shall 6lating to future energy use and availability. 32 receive such salaries as shall be'provided by iatv. 7 *b. Within 6 inonths of the effective date of this act, the com- 33 d. All functions, poiv!rs and ditties notv vested in the Board of Sinissioner, offer consultation wit1k the Director of the Division of 34 Public Utility Coinutissioverx alid in the positions of president and 9Energy Planning and Conservation, the Board of Public Utilities, 35 commissiosters thereof arr hereby transferred to and assitmed by 10 the Attorney Geueral, and the commissioners of appropriate cxecu- 36 the Board of Public Utilities aud the president and commissioners 11 five departments, including but not necessarily limited to the Dc- 37 thereof. 12 pni-tments of Euvironmental Protection and Trousportation, shall 3S e. Whenever in any lair, rule, regulation, order, contract, docu- 13 prepare and submit a report to the Legislature and the Govervor 39 ment,jittlicial or admivistrative proceeding or otherivitte, reference 14 identifying (1) those functions and ditties currently exercised by 40 is made to the Department of Public Utilities or the Board of Public 15 other departments, divisions, agencies, commissoins, councils, 41 Utilitli Commissioners, the same shall ineau and refer to the Board 16 boards, or bureaus of State Government relating to energy that 42 of Public Utilities. 17 might be appropriately transferred to the department; a-rid (2) 43 5.2.0. There is herebyestablished in the deparhnevt the Division 18 those functions and ditties transferred to the department pursitaut 44 of Eitergy Planning and Conservation. 19 to the provisions of this act that iniht be appropriatclil transferred 4.5 b. The Division of Energy Planning and Conservation shall be 20 to other departments. Such. transfers nialf be effectualed by execu- 46 under the iminediale supervision of a director icho shall be ap- 21 five order or lato, as the case "toy be,* 47 pointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate, 1 9. The commissioner shall, *Eby and]l on belialf of the dePart- 48 and who shall serve at the pleasure of the Governor during the 1A ment. *through the Division of Energy Planning and Conservatioul: 49 Governor's terin of office and until the appointment and unliflca- 2 a. Manage the department RS the central repository within the 50 tion of his micressor. The director shall receive such salary as 3State Government for the collection of energy information; 51 sholl be provided by Into.* 4 b. Collect and analyze data relating to present and future 1 6. The commissioner shall orzanize the work of the department 5demands and resources for all forms of energy; 2 and cRtnblish therein such admimistrative subdivisions cis lie may 6 c. Have authority to reuire all persons, firms, corporations or 3 deeni nccesarv, proper rind expedient. He inny formulate Ind 7other entities engaged in the production, processing, distribution, 4 ndopt rules nr remillitions and prescribe dnties for the efficient 8transmission or storage of energy in any form to submit reports 5 conduct of the business, work and general admi nist ration of the 9setting forth such information as shall be reuired to carry out the 6 department. He may delegate to subordinate officers or employees 10 provisions of this aet; 7 in the department such of his powers its he maY deem desirable 11 d. Have authority to reuire any person to submit information 8 to be exer(tised under his supervision and control. 12 necessary for determining the impact of any construction or 1 7. n1iject to the provisions of Title 11 of the Revised Statutes, 13 development project on the energy and fuel resources of this State; 2 mid Avitlihi the limits of funds appropriated or otherwise made 11 e. Charge other State Government departments and agencies 3 available. the commissioner maY appoint such officers and e-n- 15 involved in energy-related activities', including the Board of 4 ployces (if the department its he MRv deem necessary for the 16 Public Utilities,* with specific information gathering goals and 5 performance of its duties, fix mid determine their ualifientions, 16A reuire that said goals be fulfilled; 6 diltics, mid compensation and retain or employ efighicers and 17 f. Establish an energy information system which will provide 57 M. Have authority to apply for, accept, and expend grants-in-flid IS all data necessary to insure a fair and euitable distribution of 5S alill n,sistullcc front private and public sources for energy pro- 19 available energy, to permit a more efficient and effective use of 5 9 grants; notivithstandhig any other law to the contrary, the coni- 20 available energy, mid to provide the basis for long-term planning 60 inissioner is designated as the State official to apply for, receive, 21 related to energy needs; (;I and expend Federal and other fianding made available to the State 22 g. Design, implement, and enforce a program for the conservation 62 for the purposes of this act; 23 of energy in commercial, industrial, and residential facilities, which 63 it. Reuiro the annual submission of energy utilization reports 24 program shall provide for the evaluation of energy systems as they 64 and conservittion plans by State Government departments and 25 relate to lighting, heating, refrigeration, air-conditioning, building 65 11gencies, 'including the Board of Public Utilities,' evaluate said 26 design and operation, and appliance manufacturing and operation; 66 plans and the progress of the deprirtinents and agencies in meeting 27 and inny include, but shall not be limited to, the reuiring of an 67 these plails, ind order changes in the plans or improvement in 28 annual impection and adjustment, if necessary, of oil-fired heating CU.% inecting the goals of the plans; 29 svstenis in residential, commercial and industrinl buildings so as to MR 0. Carry out all duties given him under other sections of this act 30 1;-ing such systems into conformity with efficiency standards 69 or any, other Icts 31 therefor prescribed by the department; the setting of lighting 70 P. Have mithority to conduct hearings and investigntions in 32 efficiency standards for public buildings; the establisliment of 71 order to ctirry out the purposes of this net aind to issue subpentis in 33 mandatory thermostat settings and the use of seven-day, day-night 72 furtilerittlec 'of such power. Snid power to conduct investigations 34 thermostats in public buildings; the development of standards for 73 shall include, but not be limited to, the authority to enter without 35 efficient boiler operation; and, the preparation of a plan to insure 74 delav and at reasonable times tho premises of ni;y energy industry 36 the phased retrofitting of existing gas furnaces with electric igni- 75 in o;der to obtain or verify any information necessary for carring 37 tion systems and to reuire that new gas "[furnace4,3* rainges"I6T 76 out the purposes of this act; 38 and dryers be euipped with electric ignition systems', and neut 77 . Hnve authority to adopt, amend or repenl, pursuant to the 38A gas furnaces ivith electric ignition systems and automatic vent- 78 "Administrative Procedure Act" (C. 52:14B-1 et se.) such rules 38a danipers*; 79 and regulations necessitry and proper to carry out the purposes of 39 h. Conduct and supervise a State-wide program of education 80 this act; 40 including the, preparation and distribution of information relating 81 r. Administer such Federal energy regulations as are applicable 41 to energy conservation; 82 to the states, including, but not limited to, the mandatory . petrolemn 42 i. 'Monitor prices charged for energy Within the State, evaluate 8.1 allocation regulations and State energy conservation plans. 43 policies governing the establishment of rates and prices for energy, F4 R. Huvc mithority to sue and be sued; 44 and make recommendations for necessary changes in such policies S5 t. Have alithority to acnire by purchase, grant, cont0met or 45 to otberconcerned Federal and State agencies', including t0he Board 86 eminent dontain titie to rent property for the purpose of denion- 46 of Public Utilities," and to the Legislature; 87 strating facilities which improve the efficiency of energy use, 47 j. Have authority to conduct and supervise research projects S vonserve enertry or generate energy in new and efficient ways; 48 and programs for the purpose of-increasing the efficiency of energy 9 u. Have authoritv to constrt6;ct nnd operate, on an experimental 49 use, developing new sources of energy, evaluating energy conserva- FYO er demonstration 8asis, facilities which improve the efficiency of 50 tion measures, and meeting other goals consistent with the intent 91 energy use, conserve energy or generate power in now and efficieut 51 of this act; 92 wavs, 52 k. Have authority to distribute and expend funds made available !1:3 4- Hnvc flilthitritY to conti-net with any other public zkzency or 53 for the purpose of research projects and programs; 9 t C01-1101-atiOn ill,OrpOrRt(?d mider the laws 'of this or any other state 54 1. Have authority to efiter into interstate compacts in order to .115 for the performance of any function under this act; 55 carry out energy research and planning with other states or the 9(; w. Determine the effect of energy and fuel shortages upon con- 56 Federal Government where appropriate; 07 stiniers, and formulate proposals designed to encourage. the lowest 401 9 possible cost of energy and fuels consumed in te State consistent 4 b. Consider any matter relating to the production, distribution, 99 with the conservation d efficient use of energy; 5consumption or conservation of energy; 100 x. Keep complete ad accurate minutes of a hearings held 6 . From time to time submit to the commissioner tiny recent. 01 before t commissioner or any member of the [departt3 7medations which it deems necessary for the long-term planning 102 *Division at Energy Planning and Conservation' pursitunt to the and management of energy; 103 provisions of this act. All such minutes shall be retained in u 9 d. Study energy programs and make its recommendations 104 permanent record and shall be available for public inspection at 10 thereon to the commissioner; 105 all times during the office hours of the department. 11 e. Review, prior to their promulgation, proposed rules and regu- 1 10. There is created in the 'Eckpartmen0T *Division of Energy 12 latiousl of the department, and make its recommendations there. 2Planning and Conservation' an Advisory Council on Energy 'Plau- 13 upon, except such rules and regulations determined by the commis- 3ving and Conservation' which shall consist of 1[1030 0150 mein- 14 sioner to be emergency measures essential to preserve the public 4hers representing the following: the natural gas industry, the 15 health, safety, or welfare. 5bottle gas industry, the home beating oil and coal industry, terminal 16 f. Hold public hearings in regard to existing statutes and regu- 6operators, oil refiners, gasoline retailers, electrical utilities, nuclear 17 lations governing the production, distribution, consumption or con- 7fuel suppliers, '[the Department of Public Utilities and the con- 18 servation of energy. ssuluing public6T 'envirottinental organizations, the solar energy 1 12. a. The department, *through the Division of Energy Plan. SA industry, liumufactitfing industrial coiasigmers, contwercial con- IA ning and Conservation,* within I year of the effective date of this 9sainers, residential consulners, the tratisportation industry aitd the 2act, shall prepare or cause to be prepared, and, after public beat-- 9. acadeinic conanunity'. Members shall be appointed by the Gov- 3ings as hereinafter provided, adopt a master plan for a period of 9B ernor, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and as practicably 410 years on the production, distribution, consumption and conserva. 9o as possible represent the several geographical areas of the State. 5tion of energy in this State. Such plan shall be revised and updated 10 The council shall elect a chairman, vice ebairman and secretar 6at least once every 3 years. The plan shall include long-term 11 from its membership. Of the members first appointed, **[three3 1i 7objectives but shall provide for the interim implementation of 12 -five- shall serve for terms of 2 years, **[three]'* -five" for 8measures consistent with said objectives. The department may 13 terms of 3 years and "Efou6l- -five" for terms of 4 years. 9from time to time and after public hearings amend the master plan. 14 Thereafter all appointments shall be made for terms of 4 years. 10 In preparing the master plan or any portion thereof or amendment 15 Members 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 ualify, and any 12 needs and supplies in the several geographic areas of the State, and 17 vactincy occurring in the membership of the council by expiration 13 shall consult and cooperate with any Federal or State agency he,. 18 of term or otherwise, shall be- filled in the same manner as the 14 ing an interest in the production, distribution, consumption or con- 18A orkinal appointment for the unexpired term only. 15 servation of energy. 19 8Nmbcrs of the council shall serve without 'compensation but 16 b. Upon preparation of such master plan, and each revision 20 shall be reimbursed for expenses actunlly 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 IS shall transmit sufficient copies thereof to the Governor and the 22 members thereof. The council shall ineet at least four times each 19 Legislature, for the use of the members thereof, and shall advertise, 23 year, at the call of it chairman, and at such other times, at the call 20 in such newspapers as the commissioner determines appropriate to 24 of the commissioner, as lie deems necessary. 21 reach the greatest possible number of citizens of New Jersey, the 1 11. The Advisory Colincil on Energy *Planning atid Conserva. 22 existence and availability of such draft plan from the offices of the L tion* is empowerea to: 23 department for the use of such citizens as may reuest same. In 2 a, Reuest from the commissioner *and from the Director a 'f the 24 addition, the department shall: 3Division of Ftiergy Planning attd Conservation* such energy in- 25 (1) Fix dates for the commencement of a series of public hear- 3A formation as it may deem necessary; 26 iug, at least one of which shall be held in each geogrnphical area L 27 delineated in the master plan. Each such public beating shall eon. 8production, processing, distribution, transu16sion or storage of 28 corn the overall content of the plan and those aspects thereof that 9energy in any forni, 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 bearing is being held; 11 by such State instrumentalities of the State energy toaster plan, 31 (2) At least 60 days prior to each public hearing held pursuant 12 or any part or aspect thereof, adopted by the department 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 department pursuant to the 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, distribu- 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 energy and 37 and place for the hearing and shall publish inch notice in a news- 18 shall give the settle notice to the department as is given to every 38 paper of general circulation in the region where the hearing is to 19 other party of interest in such proceedings of any meeting, public 39 be held, and in such newspapers of general circulation in the State 20 bearing or other procecding of such instramentility in itupleineut- 40 as the commissioner determines appropriate to reach the greatest 21 ing its regulatory 41 possible number of citizens of New Jersey. . I supervisory or control powers, responsibilities 21A and duties with respect to such businesses, industries or utilities. 42 c. Upon the completion. of the reuirements of subsection b. of 22 b. It being the intention of the Legislature that the actions, 43 this section, the department shall consider the testimony presented 23 decisions, determinations'and rulings of the State Government with 44 at all such public hearings and adopt the energy master plan, 24 respect to energy shall to the maximum 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 partment pursuant to section 12 of this act, the department 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 with the regulation, supervisi,)n 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 an), form, such 51 ench State department, commission, authority, Council, agency, or 31 guidelines as the depar tment 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 i6ts regulatory, supervisory or control powers, 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 subsection b. of this section the existence and availability of the 36 *c. With reSI)ect to the ailing of alm etjc?y facility in any part 57 energy master plan from the offices of the department for the use 37 of New Jersey, file department shall, the Provisions of any laiv 58 of such citizens of New Jersey as my reuest same; provided, 38 to the contrary itotivithstanding, have jurisdiction coextensive trith 59 however, that the department may charge a fee for such copies of 39 that of any other Stale ifi8truinentality, and to that end, no State 60 the energy master plan sufficienCto corer the costs of printing and 40 insirnmen0iality'evith the V011-cr to grant or deny any perinit for the 61 distributing same. 41 construction or location of any entrgy facility shall exercise its 1 13. & The *[department]* 'Division of Energy Planning and 42 powers without referring to the Division of Evergy Plativiiig aved 2Conservation* is *8Efurther23* empowered and directed to intervene 43 Coirserrotion, for its rerietv and coinnients, n copy of Mrch appli- 3in any proceedings before., and appeals from, any State depart- 44 ration affd all papers, doritinerts and materials opMfrtenant thereto 4ment, *division.* commission, authority, council, agency or board 45 8f8lled by the applicant 1vith, such, State instritinentalily. Prior to 5(hereinafter referred to as ,State instrnmentalities") *inrluding 46 making a 8f8lmal decision tvith, respect to any such application, the 6the Board of Public Utilities' charged with t1le T09ullkti0a, super- 47 State instruinenfality with power of approval over ouch application 7vision or control of any business, industry or utility engaged in the 4s shall solicit the vietva of the department thereupon. Such riews 402 49 shall be communicated to the State trenay with the power 4 to th public health, safety, or welfare. The commissioner shall 50 of approval over such application it; the for of a report describing 5 direct all State Government departments and agencies*, including 1 te findings of the department respect to such application, 6 the Board of Public Utilities, to develop, subject to his approval, 52 Stich report shall be prepared by the Director of the Division of 7 contingency plans for dealing with said emergencies. 53 E)tejgy Planning and Couservation and shall be signed by said 1 15. a. Upon a finding by the commissioner that. there exists or 54 director and by ilia commissioner. lit the event that such report 2 impends an energy supply shortage of a dimension which endan- 55 is not prepared and transmitted to the State instrumentality with 3 gers the public health, safety, or welfare in all or any part of the 56 power of approval over such application within 90 days after the 4 State, the Governor is authorized to proclaim by executive order 57 department's receipt of such application, such State iiastrunien- 5 a state of energy emergency. for a period of up to 6 months. The 58 tality shall act upon such application pursuant to ilia law providing 6 Governor may limit the applicability of any such state of emergency 59 its power of approval thereof. lit 1he event that ilia views of the 7 to speci6c kinds of ener,7 forms or to specific areas of the State 60 department, as contained iii its report, with respect to any such, 8 inwhich such a shortage exists or impends. 61 applicaiion di8f8tr front the views of the State instrumentality with 9 b. During the duration of a state of energy emergency the com- 62 the power of approval over such application, there shall be estab- 10 missioner to the extent not in conflict with applicable Federal 63 lished an Energy Facility Revicio Board which shall consist of the I I law or regulation but notwithstanding any State or local law or 64 Director of the Division of Energy Plawaing and Conservation, the 12 contractual agreement, shall be empowered to: 65 director or chief executive officer of the State instrumentality with 13 (1) Order any person to reduce by a specified amount the use 66 the power of approval oversuch application, and a designee of the 14 of any energy form; to make use of an alternate energy form, 6 17 Governor. The decision of the Energy Facility Review Board ere- 15 where possible; or to cease the use of any exterg-, form; 66 ated with respect to a speciflc energy facility application shall be 16 (2) Order any person engaged in the distributionof any energy 69 binding with respect to such facility and shall be impletneided forth- 17 fox-in to reduce or increase by a speefied amount or to cease the 70 with by the Stale instruinetitalil.il with the power of approval over IS distribution of such energy form; to distribute a specified amount 71 such application. 19 and typo of energy form to certain users as specified by the 72 In implementing its responsibilities pursifout to this subsection, 20 *[administrator3* *commissioner*; or to share supplies of any 73 the department shall have the poicer to adopt, by regulation, a fee 21 energy form with other distributors thereof; 74 schcelide for rerie2ring applicetions for the construction or location 22 (3) Establish priorities for the distribution of any energy form; 75 of energy facilities; provided, hoturver, that fees shall be char0ed 23 (4) Regulate and control the distribution and sal of any energy 76 to applicants for permits to construct or locate enerpy facilities 24 form by: 77 oulli, in those instances wherc ilia nature and extent of the proposed 25 (a) Establishing such limitations, priorities, or rationing 7S Pitergy facility are such as to vecessitate the employment of can- 26 procedures an shall be necessary to insure a fair and euitable 74 xOttints or other expert personnel from without the'department 2', distribution of available supplies; SO T, e,fore the department can make its determination with respect to 28 (b) Establishing minimum and maximunt. uantities to be 81 any such application, and that sneh fees shall in any event be the 29 sold to any purchaser; 82 minimum amount necessary to. tierneit the department to fulfill its so (c) Fixing the days and bourn of access to retail dealers; 3 responsibilities under this section. 31 (d) Compelling sales to members of the general public dur- 84 The provisions of this section shall not be regarded as to he its 32 ing times when a retail dealer is open for the sale of an energy 85 derogation of any powers tion, existing an,7 shall be regarded as 33 form; S6 sup1demental oud in addition to pniurrs conferred by other latus, 34 (a) Establishing methods for notifying the public by flags, 87 ivehilling municipal zoning 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 ullocation plnn specifying actions to be taken in the event of an 37 (5) Direct the heads of those departments and agencies within I impending serious shortage of energy which poses grave threats 38 State Government that were ordered to develop contingency plans 39 pursuant to section 14 of this act to implement said plans-, 0 P 40 (6) Adopt and promulgate such rules and regulations as are 11 price and coit factors it, refillilig, Production, anti sale; long-terril 41 necessary and proper to carry out the purposes of this section. I-' plUILS for alterations or additiom to refilling capacity; locution, 42 c. During the existence of a state of energy emergency, the Gov- 13 amount, and tvPe Of fuel storage -I 433 ernor may order the suspension of any laws, rules, regulations, or 14 (3) Stora.., cnl)ticit%- to,. asos; amount and end rses of uses 44 orders of any department or agency in State Government or within 13 sold; price and cost fa"tors in the sale and use ot ases; and 4.5 uny political subdivision which deal with or affect energy and 16 (4) Such other inforcmatiOlL as the commissioner tuny determine 46 which impede his ability to alleviate or terminate a state of energy I-r necessax-V for carx-ring out the purposes of this act. 47 emergency. I ", b. Th commis loner shell fit lenst arinnally publish a report 48 d. Any aggrieved person, upon application to the commissioner 19 Rualyzikg all eners6'n, inforriantion collected. 49 shall be granted a review of whether the continuance of arty order 2U c. The comxxxissiner shall have the discretion to obtain extergy 50 issued by the commissioner pursuant to this section is anreason- '-'I information from an affiliate of any energy industry or from an 51 able in light of then prevailing conditions of emergency. 22 association or organization of industries of which any such extergy 32 e. During a state of enorgy emergency the commissioner mav 22 industry is a member. Micnever energy information supplicd by 53 reuire any other department or other agency within State Gov- 24 an energy industry is so obtained by 54 ernment to provide such information, assistance, resources, . the commissioner, the energy and 25 industry to which such information pertains shall be promptly 5.5 personnel an shall be necessary to discharge his functions and 26 notified of the energy information so obtained and shall be given 56 responsibilities under this act, rules and regulations adopted here- 27 an Opportunity to correct or amplify such inforniatioll. 57 under, or applicable Federal law and regulations. 28 d. Trade siercts collected under this section sliall be exempt 58 f. The powers granted to the Governor and the commissioner 29 from the reuirements of P. L. 1963, e. 73 (C. 47:IA-1 et aL.). 60 any emergency powers now or hereafter vested in the Governor, the Of a at %. 11 59 under this section shall be in addition to and not in limitation of 30 The commitissioner shall promulgate rules and regulations for t a 31 conduct. admini tr i a hearings on the issue of whether certain 61 commissioner, or any other State Government department or 32 energy information should not be disclosed to the public. 62 ageney pursuant to any other laws, including but not limited to 1 17. No person who is an official or employee of the department 63 any power *[now3* vested in the Board of Public *Eutilitv Coul- 2 shall participate in any manner in any decision or action of the 64 missioners3l *Utilities' to reuire utility companies to all te 3 department wherein fic has a direct or indirect .'nancial interest. 65 available supplies of energy; provided, however, that upon deocclaar. 1 18. Tli commissioner way issue subpenus reuiring the at. 66 ing a state of energy emergency, tile Governor may supersede any 2 teudance and testimony of witilesses and the production of boolos, 67 other such emergency powers. 3 documents, papers, statistics, data, information, all(] records for 68 g. The state of energy emergency declared by the Governor pur. 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 bonor his subpona, tile 70 declares by a subseuent executive order that the state of energy 6 commissioner may petition a court of competent jurisdiction for 71 emergency has terminated. 7 an order reuiring the attendance and testimony Of a witness or 1 16. a. The -commissioner shall adopt rules and regulations .4 the production of the reuested books, documents, papers, stntistici, 2 reuiring the 0Wiodic re6borting by enerrv industries of enerL,07 1) elata, information, and records. Any fnilure to obey such tit, order. 3 information which shall include but not be6Emited to ilia following ' 10 issued hr & court shall be punished. by the court its a contempt 4 (1) Electrical generating capacity in the State; long-range plans 11 thereof. * 5 for additions to said capacity; efficiency of electrical generation; 1 19. Upon a violation of this act or of any Mies, 'regulations, or 6 0pAce and cost factors in electrical 8",iieration; types an4ZI uantities 2 orders promulgated hereunder, the commissioner, the county prose. 7 of fuels used; projections of futnre demand, consumption of elec- 3 cutor of the county in which the violation occurs if be -has the 8 tricity by sectors; times, duration, and levels of peak demand; 4 approval of the commissioner, or any aggrieved person shall be 9 (2) Petroleum ro0f0ining'eapac0ity; amount anti type of fuel pro- 5 entitled to institute a. civil action irk a court of competent jurig. .10 duced; amount and type of fuel sold; intorstnte transfers of1fue); 6 diction for injunctire relief to restrain such violation and for such 403 R 7other relief as the court shall deeni proper. The court may proceed 24 a. All penalties imposed pursuant to this section shall be collected 8in a summary wannor. I Neither the institution of such action I nor -95 in a civil action by a summary proceeding under the Penalty 9any of the proceedings therein shall relieve any party to such 26 Enforcement Law (-N. J. S. 2A:58-1 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 violation by this act or by any rule, regulation or order adopted 28 -constitute an additional and separate offense. 12 hereunder. 29 022.1 The department shall transmit copies of all rules and 1 20. Any person ivbo fails to provide energy information in his 30 regulations proposed pursuant to this act -by or on behalf of the 2official custody when so required by the conunissioner shall be liable 31 Division of Energy Planning and Co"servatios" to the Senate and 3for a penalty of not more than $3,000.00 for each offense. If the 32 General Assembly on a day on which both Houses shall be inecting 4violation is of a continuing nature, each day during which it can- 33 in the course of a regular or special session. The provisions of the 5' tiunes shall constitute an additional and separate offense. Penalties 33A "Administrative Procedure Act" or any other lato to the contrary 6shall be collected in a civil action by a summary proceeding under 34 notwithstanding, no such rale or regulation, except a rule of regu- 7the Penalty Enforcement Law (N. J. S. 2A:5&-l et seq.). 35 lation adopted pursuant to an energy emergency declared by the 1 21. Any officer or employee of the State who, having obtained by 36 Governor, shall take effect if, within 60 days of the date. of its 2reason of his employment and for official use, any confidential 37 transmittal to the Senate and General Assembly, the Legislature 3energy information, publishes or communicates such information 38 shall pass a concurrent resolution stating its substance that the 4for rensons not autborized by this or any other act shall be fined 39 Legislature does not favor such proposed rule or regulation.' 5not more than $2,000.00 or imprisoned not more than 2 years or 1 23. a. All appropriations, grants, and other moneys available to 6both. 2the State Energy Offiee are hereby transferred to the department 1 22. a. Any person purchasing or attempting to purchase energy 3created hereunder and shall remain available for the objects and 2in violation of section 15 of this act or any rules, regulations, or 4purposes for which appropriated, subject to any terms, restrictions, 3orders promulgated tbereunder, shall be subject to a penalty of 5limitations or other requirements imposed by Federal or State lavr. 4not 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- 5for the second offense, and not more than $200.00 for the third 7forred to the department created hereunder. Nothing in this act 6offense or subsequent offenses. 8shall 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 9tions provided them by the civil service, pension, or retirement 8rules, regulations, or orders promulgated thereunder, shall be 10 laws of this State. 9subject to a penalty of not more than $25.00 for the first offense, 11 c. All files, books, paper, records, equipment, and other property 10 not more than $200.00 for the second offense, and not more than 12 of the State Energy Office are hereby transferred to the depart- 11 $400.00 for the third offense or anbsequent offenses. 13 ment created hereunder. 12 c. Any distributor or any other supplier of energy who violates 14 d. The rules, regulations, and orders of the State Energy Me 13 any of the provisions of section 15 of this act or of any rules, 15 shall continue with full force nnd effect as the rules, regulations, 14 regulations, or orders promulgated thereunder, sliall be subject to 16 and orders of the department created hereunder until further 15 a penalty of not more than $1,0.00.00 for the first offense, not more 17 amended or repealed. 16 than $5,000.00 for the second offense, and not more thin $10,000.00 18 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 18 d. In addition to any other penalties provided under this or any 20 ndministrator are hereby continued in the department and the 19 other act, the commi@sioner may recommend to the appropriate 21 *Eeonimissioner thereof3' *Director of the Divisiun. of Energy 20 agency the suspension or revocation of the license of any retail 21A Planning and Conservation' created hereunder. 21 dealer, gasoline jobber, wholesale dealer. distributor, or supplier 22 f. This act shall not affect actions or proceedings, civil or crim- 22 of fuel, who has violated this act or any rnles, 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 o 25 may be further prosecuted or defended in the same manner and 26 to the same effect by the department created hereunder. V g. Whenever in any law, rule, regulation, order, contrack docu. 28 ment, judicial or administrative proceedings, or otherwise, refer- 29 ence is made to the State Energy Office or the administrator T 30 thereof, the same shall be considered to mean and refer to the 31 State Department of Energy and. the *[commissioner thereof3l 32 *Director of the Division of Energy Planning_and. CanservaLion, 7of the remainder of this act or the application thereof to other 33 created hereunder. - i F. persons. 1 24. All the functions, powers aid duties, heretofore exercised 1 29. The object and design of this act being the protection of the 2 by the Department of Cc munity Affairs and the Commissioner 2public health, snfety and %velfnre by means of the coordination of 3 thereof relating to the adoption,'- 'amendment and repeal of the 3State planning', regulalion* and authority in energy related mat- 4 energy subcode of the State Uniform Construction Code pursuant 4ters, this act shall be liberally construed. 5 to P. L. 1975, c. 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 8 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. I@ 1975, 11 c. 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 8ubcode adopted by the Department of Community Affairs 14 tvithis said 90 days shall coulinue 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 Publie Utilities, together with all of its functions, powers and 3 I-Auties, is hereby transferred to the *Division of Energy Planning 4 and Conservation in the* Department of Energy establishei; pur- 5 snant to this act. 1 26. The transfer of responsibilities directed by thi@,niit, except 2 as otherwise provided herein, shall be made in accordance with the 3 "State Agency Transfer Act," P. L. 19n, r- 375 (C. 52:14D-1 4 ot seq.) 1 27. Ail 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 and 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 such judgment shall 6 have been rendered and it shall not affect or impair the validity 404 APPENDIX.F - LEGAL COMMENTARY Introduction This Appendix provides a legal commentary to the principal recent judicial decisions involving the laws concerning coastal management in New Jersey. Judicial decisions in New Jersey courts have upheld the constitutionality of 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-1 et seq.). New Jersey courts have 71-so expanded a common law doctrine protecting puTTi-crights in riparian lands (the "Public Trust Doctrine") to include the rights of beach access and recreational use in addition to the traditionally recognized rights of navigation, commerce and fishing on the water and 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. Coastal Area Facility Review Act The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court upheld the consti- tutionality of CAFRA 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 7A_pp_.7D_ir_v7, cert. den. 71 N.J. 345 (1976). The case involved the denial by DEP of a CAFRA permit for a ten story, high-rise luxury apartment complex on a 9.5 acre tract of land in Toms River, Ocean County. The plaintiff, a developer, contended that the Act: (1) did not provide adequate standards for the administration of the Act in violation of Article III, Paragraph I of the New Jersey Constitution; (2) granted zoning powers to the DEP in contravention of the constitutional delegation of such powers to a municipality; (3) created an invalid classification by designating a delineated coastal area and omitting other coastal areas; (4) denied equal protection of the laws; and (5) constituted the taking of property in violation of Article I, Paragraph 20 of the Constitution of New Jersey. The Court rejected all five arguments, finding that: (1) Sections 10 and 11 of the Act set forth specific criteria by which the Environmental Impact Statement required for-a CAFRA permit could be evaluated; (2) the police power of the State was not exhausted by the delegation of zoning power to the municipality (the State retained 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); (3) the limitation of the Act to the portion delineated by the statutory boundaries constituted a valid exercise of discretionary power vested in the Legislature (The Court noted that the Act should be read in light of the intention of the Legisla- ture which recognized that the coastal area was a unique and irreplaceable region of the state); (4) 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 does not establish a Fourteenth Amendment deprivation of equal protection; and (5) The taking issue in this case was 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). 406 . 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-Co-urt upheld the decision of the Department and 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 decision to grant a conditional permit was reasonable. The Court concurred with the Department's finding 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. 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 American Dredging Co. v. State of New Jersey, 161 N.J. Super. 405 (1978), the Chancery Division, Superior Court held that Wetlands Act and 1973 Wetlands Order was a valid exercise of the State's police power as applied to a wetlands site on the Delaware River. The plaintiff owns a 2,500 acre site in Dover Town- ship, Gloucester County, of which approximately 159 acres are regulated wetlands. The site is used primarily for dredge spoil disposal, and DEP' had issued prior permits allowing fill on all but 80 acres. The plaintiff argued that the denial of a permit for the last 80 acres so diminished their value as to constitute a con- structive taking. The Court responded by saying that a diminution in value was only one factor to be considered and weighed against the need for regulation by the State. The Court looked at the site as a whole (i.e. the entire 2,500 acres) and found that the "restricted use of 3% of the land (80 acres) was not unreasonable when weighed against the destruction of an 'entire wetland area. The decision was affirmed by the Superior Court's Appellate Division in June 1979 (167 N.J. Super. 18). The Wetlands Act was also upheld in the case of Sands Point Harbor, Inc. v. Sullivan, 136 N.J. Super. 436 (1979). In that case a private developer alleged that bo he statute and regulations both deprived him of equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States and New Jersey, and further that the statutes and regulations constituted a taking of property without just compensation in violation the New Jersey Constitution. 407 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. The Court noted that classification in legisf-ati-on 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 Court stated further that classifying coastal wetlands as a separate object of protection was reasonable, considering 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 classi- fication 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-Troy 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 Court found 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, 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 an unreported decision, Carton et al vs. State of New Jersey (Docket No. A-638-763, 1978), the Superior Court, Appellate Division rejected the contention of a wetlands owner that the Wetlands Act constituted a taking of private property without just compensation. The plaintiffs 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 May 16, 1978. In a recent Administrative Action, the Commissioner upheld a decision denying a wetlands permit for a lagoon development on Long Beach Island (Loveladies Harbor, Inc. - Unit D, Wetlands Permit No. 77-0050-2). The site, which is adjacent to an existing barrier island lagoon development, contains both regulated wetlands and an upland area. DEP rejected the developer's proposal for single family homes on the entire site, but indicated that clustering in the upland area would be accept- able. The local zoning code prohibits clustering, however, and despite the DEP denial, no variance has been granted. The applicant appealed the decision to the Superior Court's Appellate Division in May, 1979 (in the matter of Loveladies Harbor, Inc., Docket No. A-3020-78). 408 In June, 1980 another decision denying a wetlands permit was appealed to the Superior Court's Appellate decision. In this case the appellant had sought to develop a shopping center by filling 11 acres of regulated wetlands in Lower Township, Cape May County. The permit was denied in December, 1977 in a decision (77-0045-2) which noted the availability of alternative non-wetlands sites. The denial was affirmed on appeal to a hearing officer in Auguster, 1979. Tidelands Cases Numerous issues concerning 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 tidelands statutory authority. The case law decisions described in this section have established key principles in tidelands law. The case of O'Neill v. State Highway Department 50 N.J. 307 (1967) involved an ownership dispute of lands along Me 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 the 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 r parian owner loses title to the State. The owner suffers no such lossf 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 reviewed in a series of decisions beginning with the City of Newark v. Natural Resources Council (133 N.J. Super 245, Law Div. 1974, afffrmed 151 N.J. Super - 458 (Appellate Divis'lon, 1977)). Two tidelands statutes relevant to the State's tideland delineation procedure provided that "the (Natural Resource) Council is hereby directed to 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:lB-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:lB-13.4). In 1970 the State issued a map which designated those portions of the State in which it claimed an interest. In 1971, the Superior Court held that these maps did not comply with the intent of the legislation, and prohibited their use. 409 The State then began a new delineation process based on aerial photography. This mapping procedure resulted in maps for thirty-seven panels of land, each of appr.oximhtely 964 acres, drawn at a scale of 1:2,400. In 30 of the 37 panels the maps produced resulted in substantial State claims to land. However, in seven of the panels it was very difficult for the State to determine ownership, and so these areas were characterized 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 were therefore likely to be state owned. The court held that the "hatching" procedure did not conform with the statutory requirem ent that the State define its interests in unequivocal terms. (N.J.S.A. 13:1B-1 et seq.), and once again ordered the preparation of new maps clearly indicating-st =te interests in tidelands. The Office of Environmental Analysis in DEP began the mapping based on new overlay techniques, and filed these maps with the Appellate Division of the Superior Court in January 1978. The Appellate Division upheld the method used by the State in May, 1979. That decision was appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court by appellants who sought to suppress the maps. One May 15, 1980, the Court, in a 6-0 decision (City of Newark v. Natural Resource Council in DEP) affirmed the Appellate court's decision s_ta_t_1n_g that "the evidence adduced indicates only a difference of opinion between the appellants' and NRC's experts", and citing the presumptive valid of an agency's actions. The Court also noted that the- case did not seek to quiet any titles and wrote that "We do not broach the question of what evidentiary effect these maps should be given in subsequent quiet title suits involving private owners." Waterfront Development An appeal by an owner of a tideland grant whose application for a waterfront development permit was denied by the Natural Resource Council (now the Tidelands 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 lp-r-1-19, 1976). The application 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 indicated that granting of a permit in this case would not result in detrimental impacts on the immediate environment, as claimed by DEP. Public Access to Shorefront Areas Increasing and maintaining public access to the shorefront in the coastal zone of New Jersey is a public policy derived from the Public Trust Doctrine. That doctrine, as defined by New Jersey case law, holds that the public retains certain limited rights in tidelands, even where those lands have been conveyed to indivi- duals or to municipalities. (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 by the Sea 61 N.J. 299-TI772).) The cases concerning shorefront access have so far dealt only with public access to publicly owned, rather than privately owned land. However, the New Jersey Superior Court is expected to discuss this issue in Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Association, (Docket No. L-23410-73). 410 The decision in Avon v. Borough of Neptune is significant in that it ex pAnded the Public Trust Doctrine beyond the traditional public rights of navigation, commerce, and fishing to include recreational uses of the shoreline. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that municipally owned tidal lands below mean high water are subject to these public rights, and for a municipality to charge a discrimina- tory fee to users of the beach was analogous to erecting a physical barrier. Two more recent decisons by the New Jersey Supreme Court have expanded public access rights in beachfront areas considerably. In Van Ness et al. v. Borough of Deal, 78 N.J. 174 (1978) the Supreme Court held that municipally owned upland or__J_ry sand areas are subject to the Public Trust Doctrine, and that a municipality cannot exclude a non resident from using those areas upon payment of a reasonable fee. The Court struck down the Borough's practice of roping off the beach area above the high tide line for. the use of residents, saying that "whether natural or man-made, the beach is an adjunct to ocean swimming and bathing and is subject to the public trust doctrine". In a companion case, Hyland v. Borough of Allenhurst, 78 N.J. 190 (1978), the Court ruled that the exclusion of the general public from the restrooms of a municipally owned beach club was an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of muni- cipal authority. This decision was not based on the public trust doctrine. The practice of offering rates to early purchasers of beach badges was recently upheld by the Superior Court, Appellate Division in Hyland v. Township of Long Beach et al. (160 N.J. Super 201, 1978), cert. denied 78 N.J. 395 (1978). The Court found no evidence to support the State's contention that the practice of offering beach badges early in the season favored the township residents over non-residents, and therefore violated the public trust doctrine. Finally, a recent Superior decision overturned a zoning ban which prohibited the recreational use of beachfront land unless the adjacent upland was developed for single family dwellings. The decision in Lusardi v. Curtis Point Property Owners Association and Township of Brick (Docket No . C-3515-63(C-11-0-17 -,letter opin on August 13, 1979, Kaplan, CSJ), concerned the use of a dry beach area for bathing and recreation where the area's primary zoning purpose was reserved for single family dwellings. The Court relied on the Rules on Coastal Resource and Development Policies (Public Access to the Shoreline), on language in the Beaches and Harbors Bond Act of 1977, and on the Neptune, Deal, and Allenhurst decisions as evidence of an affirmative public poli'cyon sho=relne access, and found that: Olin the light of judicial, legislative and executive pronouncements since.1972 '. . I conclude that a zoning ban of the recreational use of undeveloped beachfront property unless a primary use exists contravenes state policy and is therefore an unreasonable exercise of the police power." 411 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 Manii-ement Program, the Board'7-authority insures that key "uses of regional benefit" will not be unreasonably excluded by actions of local governments. 412 APPENDIX G - 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 '67 NOAA-OCZM (15 CFR Part 923, Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 61, March 28, 1979, pp. 18590-18624) define twenty-six required findings that must be made before the Secretary 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 presents the information required for the secretarial f7n`=1ngs. 413 ASSOCIATED SECTION(S) PROGRAM 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 D 305(b)(2) uses subject to management 923.11, 923.12 Chapters Three, Four 305(b)(3) areas of particular concern 923.21, 923.23 Chapter Five 305(b)(4) means of control, 923.41 Chapter Three 305(b)(5) guidelines on priorities of uses 923.22 Chapter Four 305(b)(6) organizational structure 923.45 Chapter Three 305(b)(7) shorefront planning process 923.25 Chapter Five 305(b)(8) energy facility planning process 923.14 Chapter Five 305(b)(9) erosion planning process 923.26 Chapter Five 306(c)(1) notice; full participation; consistent with section 303 923.58, 923.51, 923.55, 923.3 Appendix A 306(c)(2)(A) plan coordination 923.56 Chapter Three 306(c)(2)(B) continuing consultation mechanisms 923.57 Chapter Three 306(c)(3) public hearings 923.58 Appendix A 306(c)(4) gubernatorial review and approval 923.47 Part II 306(c)(5) designation of recepient agency 923.46, 923.47 Chapter Three 306(c)(6) organization 923.45, 923.47 Chapter Three 306(c)(7) authorities 923.41, 923.47 Chapter Three 306(c)(8) adequate consideration of national interests 923.52 Chapter Five 306(c)(9) areas for preservation/restoration 923.24 Chapter Five 306(d)(1) administer regulations, control development; resolve conflicts 923.41 Chapter Three 306(d)(2) powers of acquisition, if necessary 923.41 Chapter Three 306(e)(1) technique of control 923.41, 923.42 Chapter Three 306(e)(2) uses of regional benefit 923.13, 923.41, 923.43 Chapter Five 307(f) incorporation of air and water quality requirements 923.44 Chapter Four 306(h) segments 923.61 Chapters Two, Three 307(b) adequate consideration of federal agency 923.51 Chapter Five views NOTE: Chapter numbers refer to Part II. 414 APPENDIX H --COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE PROPOSED NEW JERSEY COASTAL MANAGEMENT POGM AND DRAFT ENVIRONM.ENTKL IMPACT STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. LIST OF COMMENTORS III. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Economic Impacts 2. Waterfront Development Law - Need for Proposed Rule 3. Waterfront Development Law - Legality of Proposed Rule 4. Extension of Bay and Ocean Shore Program to Developed Coast 5. Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan 6. Hackensack Meadowlands District - Master Plan as Coastal Policy for District 7. Hackensack Meadowlands District - Consistency with Federal Rules 8. Public Comment Period IV. COMMENTS BY TOPIC FROM NEW JERSEY AGENCIES, GROUPS, INDUSTRY, AND INDIVIDUALS 1. COASTAL POLICIES - by Policy Number Policy Comment Number Number (In DEIS) Topic I Policies - General 22 Basic Coastal Policies 30 1.3 Jurisdiction 31 1.6 Coastal Decision-Making Process 46 2.2 Classification of Land and Water Types 48 2.3 Mapping and Acceptability Determination 51 Subchapter 3 SPECIAL AREAS 56 3.2 Shellfish Beds 61 3.3 Surf Clam Areas 62 3.4 Prime Fishing Areas 63 3.5 Finfish Migratory Pathways 64 3.6 Submerged Vegetation 65 3.7 Navigation Channels 68 3.8 Canals 69 3.9 Inlets 71 3.11 Ports 76 3.13 Shipwrecks and Artificial Reefs 78 3.14 Estuarine or Marine Sanctuary 79 3.15 Wet Borrow Pits 86 3.17 Filled Water's Edge 90 3.18 Existing Lagoon Edge 93 3.19 Beach and Dune Systems 102 3.20 Wetlands 108 3.21 Floodplains 415 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Policy Comment Number Number (In DEIS) Topic ill 3.22 Central Barrier Island Corridor 114 3.24 Wet Borrow Pit Margins 117 3.25 Alluvial Flood Margins 118 3.26 Coastal Bluffs 119 3.27 Intermittent Stream Corridors 121 3.28 Farmland Conservation Areas 124 3.29 Steep Slopes 126 3.30 Dry Borrow Pits 130 3.31 Historic and Archeological Resources 131 3.33 Endangered or Threatened Wildlife or Vegetation Species Habitat 133 3.34 Critical Wildlife Habitats 135 3.38 Special Urban Areas 149 4.2 Policy Summary Table 150 4.9 Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs 151 4.10 Acceptability Conditions for Uses 170 5.1 General Land Areas - Definition 171 5.3 Coastal Growth Rating 182 5.4 Environmental Sensitivity Rating 184 5.5 Development Potential 190 5.6 Definition of Acceptable Intensity of Development 194 5.7 Land Acceptability Tables 197 6.3 Secondary Impacts 200 6.4 Transferred Impacts 201 Subchapter 7 Use Policies 203 7.2 Housing Use Policies 224 7.3 Resort/Recreational Use Policies 229 7.4 Energy Use Policies 266 7.5 Transportation Use Policies 270 7.8 Mining Use Policies 271 7.9 Port Use Policies 277 7.10 Commercial Use Policies 282 7.11 Coastal Engineering 286 7.12 Dredge Spoil Disposal 289 Subchapter 8 Resource Policies 291 8.4 Shellfisheries 293 8.6 Groundwater Use 295 8.7 Runoff 305 8.11 Air Quality 307 8.12 Public Services 308 8.13 Public Access to the Shorefront 313 8.16 Solid Waste 314 8.17 Energy Conservation 315 8.20 High Permeability Moist Soils 317 8.21 Wet Soils 318 8.22 Fertile Soil 319 8.23 Flood Hazard Areas 320 8.24 Decommissioning of Projects 322 8.25 Noise Abatement 323 8.27 Aquifer Recharge Areas 416 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued 2. MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND DEIS Pag e Comment Number Number (In DEIS) Topic 325 General 348 pg 17 Boundary 362 pg 29 Principal Implementation Programs 386 pg. 44 Supplementary Programs in DEP 389 pg. 55 Other Agencies 402 pg. 248 Federal Consistency 408 pg. 257 National Interests 410 pg. 257 Regional Benefit Decisions 411 pg .269 Geographic Areas of Particular Concern 412 pg. 291 Energy Facility Planning Process 413 pg. 313 Next Steps 416 DEIS - General 425 pg. 317 DEIS - Description of the Coastal Zone 431 pg .337 DEIS - Consequences of Program Approval 434 pg. 363 DEIS - Alternatives V. COMMENTS FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES BY ORGANIZATION Page Number 437 Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service 444 Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers 456 Department of Commerce - NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Servic\e 462 Department of Energy 465 Department of the Interior 501 Department of the Navy 506 Environmental Protection Agency 514 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 417 I. INTRODUCTION This appendix identifies the commentors and presents responses to the issues raised during the public review period for the Proposed New Jersey Coastal Manage- ment Program and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (May 1990). This appendix includes comments on the Proposed New Jersey Coastal Management Program, or Program, prepared by NJDEP, comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement T-D-E-I-S-7prepared by NOAA-OCZM, and comments on the Proposed Watertront Development Rules to be promulgated by NJDEP. For a list of the recipients of the combined Program-DEIS, see Appendix H of the DEIS (May 1980). The responses to these comments have been coordinated by NOAA-OCZM and DEP. A list of commentors is presented in Section Il. Eight general comments were raised by a number of commentors; these comments are given detailed responses in Section III. Names of commentors contributing to the general comments are listed, followed by those comments related to the general comments. Those related comments that are not adequately addressed by the general response are answered by an individual response. All comments not related to the eight general comments are answered individually in Section IV, often with refer- ence to specific changes from the Proposed Program or revisions reflected in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Comments by federal agencies are answered separately in Section V. 418 II. LIST OF COMMENTORS NOAA-OCZM and DEP received comments from public agencies, interest groups, companies, and individuals both in writing and at the four public hearings con- ducted jointly by NOAA-OCZM and DEP officials at Trenton and Jersey City on June 11 and at Camden and Toms River on June 12. Verbatim transcripts of the hearings, prepared by certified shorthand reporters, may be consulted at the NOAA-OCZM and DEP-DCR 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 counted as only one source. Comments were received from the following sources: Federal Agencies 9 State Agencies 5 Regional Agencies 2 County and Municipal Agencies 14 organizations 31 Individuals 12 TOTAL 73 Commentor Date Hearing Written FEDERAL AGENCY Department of Agriculture July 3 X Soil Conservation Service P.O. Box 2890 Washington, D.C. 20013 Norman A. Berg, Chief Department of Agriculture July 7 X Soil Conservation Service 1370 Hamilton street P.O. Box 219 Somerset, New Jersey 08873 Plater T. Campbell State Conservationist Department of the Army July 7 X Office of the Chief of Engineers Washington, D.C. 20314 George F. Boone, Asst. Director of Civil Works Department of Commerce Undated X National Marine Fisheries Service Washington, D.C. 20235 Department of Energy July 25 X Deputy Assistant Secretary Resource Development and operations Washington, D.C. 20461 R. D. Langenkamp 419 Commentor Date Hearing Written FEDERAL AGENCIES Continued Department of the Navy June 27 X Fourth Naval District Philadelphia, Pa. 19112 W. B. Britt, Deputy Director Civil Engineer Department of the Interior July 7 X Washington, D.C. 20240 Larry E. Meierotto Asst. Secretary - Policy, Budget and Administration Environmental Protection Agency Undated X Region II 26 Federal Plaza New York, N.Y. 10007 Anne Norton Miller, Director Office of Federal Activities Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Jul y 7 X Washington, D.C. 20426 Carl N. Shuster, Jr. - Ph.D. Coordinator, Coastal Zone Affairs STATE AGENCIES Department of Community Affairs July 9 X 363 West State Street Trenton, N.J. 08625 Joseph A. LeFante, Commissioner Department of Energy Office of Planning and Policy Analysis 101 Commerce Street Newark, N.J. 07102 Edward J. Linky, Administrator July 7 X David Atkin, Ph.D. July 10 X CEIP Coordinator Nancy Fiordalisi June 11 X CEIP Coordinator Department of Health July 9 X P.O. Box 1540 Trenton, N.J. 08625 Joanne E. Finley, Commissioner 420 Commentor Date Hearing Written STATE AGENCIES - Continued Department of Labor and Industry July 2 X Labor and Industry Building Trenton, N.J. 08625 John J. Horn, Commissioner Department of the Public Advocate July 7 Division of Public Interest Advocacy P.O. Box 141 Trenton, N.J. 08625 Michael Bryce, Assistant Deputy Public Advocate REGIONAL AGENCIES Delaware River Port Authority June 12, X World Trade Division Bridge Plaza Camden, N.J. 08101 William Bennington The Port Authority of New York July 14 X and New Jersey One World Trade Center New York, N.Y. 10048 Stuart F. Millendorf Environmental Coordinator COUNTY AND 14UNICIPAL AGENCIES Camden Department of Community July 9 X Development City Hall - 10th Floor Camden, N.J. 08101 William P. Hankowsky, Director Cape May County Planning Board July 8 X Cape May County Court House, N.J. 08210 Elwood Jarmer, Director Borough of Edgewater June 11 X 916 River Road Edgewater, N.J. 07020 Charles Susskind, Borough Clerk Elizabeth Department of Community July 2 X Development 50 Winfield Scott Plaza Elizabeth, N.J. 07201 Dennis W. Hudacsko, City Planner 421 Commentor Date Hearing Written COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL AGENCIES Continued Gloucester County Planning Board July 12 X Woodbury, N.J. 08096 Robert V. Scolpino, Director Borough of Lavallette June 12 X P.O. Box 67 Lavallette, N.J. 08735 Mayor Ralph J. Gorga Township of Logan July 2 X 73 Main Street Logan, N.J. 08014 John C. Wright, Mayor Borough of Mantoloking July 9 X Ocean Court, N.J. 08738 Donald D. Tubbs, Mayor Middlesex County Planning Board July 11 X 40 Livingston Avenue New Brunswick, N.J. 08901 John Bernat, Jr. Monmouth County Environmental July 14 X Council Monmouth County Planning Board One Lafayette Place Freehold, N.J. 07728 Kathleen H. Rippere Chairman City of Perth Amboy June 18 X City Hall Perth Amboy, N.J. 08861 George J. Otlowski, Mayor City of Rahway May 19 X 1470 Campbell Street Rahway, N.J. 07065 Daniel L. Martin, Mayor Salem County Planning Board July 8 X Old Courthouse Salem, N.J. 08079 Christopher J. Warren, Director ORGANIZATIONS American Littoral Society Sandy Hook Highlands, N.J. 07732 Paul Dritsas June 12 X X D. W. Bennett July 16 X 422 Commentor Date Hearing Written ORGANIZATIONS - Continued American Society of Civil Engineers July 7 X New Jersey Section Fred J. Hofmann, President Elect Box 169B - Lyons Road Basking Ridge, N.J. 07920 Association of New Jersey July 8 X Environmental Commissions 300 Mendham Road, Route 24 Box 157 Mendham, New Jersey 07945 Candace Ashmun, Executive Director Atlantic City Development Corp. June 12 X 205 Dover Plaza West Atlantic City, N.J. 08232 July 2 X Matthew C. Hudson Atlantic City Electric Co. July 9 X 1600 Pacific Avenue Atlantic City, N.J. 08404 Morgan T. Morris, III Manager of Environmental Affairs Bayonne Against Tanks June 12 X Nancy Richardson, President Box 119 Bayone, N.J. 07002 Cape May County Emergency Beach June 11 X Restoration Association John G. Federico 337 47th Place Sea Isle City, N.J. Federation of Beach Associations July 2 X P.O. Box 431 Brielle, N.J. 08730 Alba Kupper, President GATX Terminals Corporation July 8 X Suit 201 - 195 Main Street Metuchen, N.J. 08840 D. L. Moyer Eastern & Midwest Operations Manager Historic Paulus Hook Association Joseph Duffy, President June 11 X 108 Grand Street Jersey City, N.J. 07302 423, Commentor Date Hearing Written ORGANIZATIONS - Continued Hartz Mountain Industries, Inc. July 10 X I Harmon Plaza P.O. Box 1411 Secaucus, N.J. 07094 Morton Goldfein Vice President/General Counsel League of Conservation Legislation July 7 X Box 605 Teaneck, N.J. 07666 Richard Willinger, Esq., President League of Women Voters of New Jersey July 8 X 460 Bloomfield Avenue Montclair, N.J. 07042 Joan Crawley, President Mining Industry Representatives: July 3 X George F. Pettinos,- Inc. Mays Landing Sand and Gravel Jesse S. Morie & Sons, Inc. Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corp Ricci Brothers Sand and Gravel Unimin Corp Whitehead Brothers Co. Natural Resources Defense Council June 11 X 122 East 42nd Street New York, N.Y. 10017 Gary Grant Written testimony also submitted Undated X on behalf of: The American Littoral Society The New Jersey Conservation Foundation New Jersey Alliance for Action Suite 201-20 Highland Avenue Metuchen, N.J. 08840 Lewis Caccese June 12 X Ellis S. Vieser June 20 X New Jersey Business and Industry June 11 X Association 50 Park Place Newark, N.J. 07102 Gene Deutsch New Jersey Builders Association June 11 X 1000 Route 9 Woodbridge, N.J. 07095 July 14 X David Fisher 424 Commentor Date Hearing Written ORGANIZATIONS - Continued New Jersey Conservation Foundation July 8 X 300 Mendham Road Morristown, N.J. 07960 New Jersey Independent Liquid June 11 X Terminal Association 60 Park Place Newark, N.J. 07102 Albert F. Mogerly, Chairman New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium June 30 X Sandy Hook Field Station Building 22 Fort Hancock, N.J. 07732 Robert B. Abel, Vice President New Jersey Petroleum Council June 25 X 170 West State Street Trenton, N.J. 08608 G. Oliver Papps Associate Director New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce July 3 5 Commerce Street Newark, N.J. 07102 Edward Lenihan, Chairman Economic Development Committee Private Citizens Action Team (PACT) June 11 X Pat Castagno 384 Princeton Avenue Jersey City, N.J. 07305 Public Service Electric and Gas June 11 X X Company 80 Park Place Newark, N.J. 07101 James A. Shissias, General Manager Environmental Affairs Pureland Industrial Complex June 12 X X 603 Heron Drive Bridgeport, N.J. 08014 A. Carl Helwig, Manager Save the Hudson - Our Riverland June 11 X Environment (SHORE) Helen Thompson 6050 Blvd. East West New York, N.J. 425 Commentor Date Hearing Written ORGANIZATIONS - Continued Sierra Club New Jersey Chapter July 7 X 360 Nassau Street Princeton, N.J. 08540 Vivian Li, Vice-Chair. North Jersey Group June 11 X 241 River Road Bogota, N.J. 07603 Clare C. Dudley West Jersey Group June 12 X 1305 Walnut Avenue W. Collingswood, N.J. 08107 July 9 X Carol Barrett, Chairman South Jersey Shellfish Association April 16 X P.O. Box 134 Oceanville, N.J. 08231 July 7 X Richard Crema, Secretary The Penjerdel Council June 12 X Suite 1960 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, Pa. 19103 INDIVIDUALS Helen Bicher June 12 X Normandy Beach, N.J. 08739 Isabelle Dietz June 11 X Whiting, N.J. Catherine Grimm June 11 X 250 Woodlawn Avenue Jersey City, N.J. 07305 William J. McDevitt June 12 X 305 N. 2nd Street Surf City, N.J. 08008 Michael D. Miller June 12 X Representative of State Senator Raymond Zane 44 Cooper Street Woodbury, N.J. Daniel W. Myers July 7 X The Provincial Executive Suite 800 2201 State Highway 38 Cherry Hill, N.J. 08034 426 Commentor Date Hearing Written INDIVIDUALS - Continued Bill Neyenhouse June 12 X Toms River, N.J. Myron Portenar June 12 X 227 Carey Street Lakewood, N.J. 08701 Pearl Schwartz June 12 X 25 Green Twig Drive Toms River, N.J. W. Elmer Seaman, Jr. June 12 X P.O. Box 12 Barnegat, N.J. 08005 July 8 X Chris Theodos June 12 X 141 E. Main Street Tuckerton, N.J. 08087 Roger Wells June 12 X Roger Wells Inc. 18 Kings Highway West July 7 X Haddonfield, N.J. 08033 R. C. Westmoreland, Esq. June 27 X 535 Tilton Road P.O. Box 175 Northfield, N.J. 08225 427 III. GENERAL COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Many of the statements made by the many individuals and groups who commented on the Proposed New Jersey Coastal Management Program and Draft EIS raised a number of common concerns. This section of th@ Comments and Respo;T'ses Appendix includes eight general comments which were each raised by several commentors and. provides a detailed response to each. Each response is followed by a list of persons or organizations making the comment, and by related comments and responses. General Comment No. I 1. The Proposed Coastal Management Program will have a negative impact on eco- nomic Uevelopment of the State's Coastal Zone, and the Environmental Impact Statement does not adequately address economic impacts. This comment was made by: 1. New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce 2. Daniel W. Myers 3. L. Caccese, New Jersey Alliance for Action 4. A. Helwig, Pureland Industrial Complex 5. J. Deitz, The Penjerdel Council 6. A. Mogerly, N.J. Independent Liquid Terminals Assoc. Response: The Coastal Management Program has been in operation for two years in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment of the State. While an economic analysis has not been performed, we cannot detect any decline in development activity separate from that attributable to high interest rates and other national factors. Rather than causing a decrease in the quantity of development activity, we believe that the Coastal Management Program has resulted in a changed spatial distribution of development in the coastal zone, with environmentally sensitive areas being pre- served and those areas with the greatest development potential being developed. The development which has taken place is also more environmentally sensitive and energy efficient than that which would have occurred in the absence of a Coastal Management Program. In the Developed Coast, the proposed policies are not as preservation-oriented as in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. They have been drafted to ensure the wise development of coastal resources, while preserving wetlands and other critical areas. The water's edge in the developed coast is a finite resource, much of which has already been consumed by uses which could have located on inland sites. The result is that there are fewer sites left for port or water-related industrial development, for mixed-use development, or for recreation. one of the objectives of the Coastal Management Program in the developed coast is to reserve most remaining sites for water dependent uses, so that the northern waterfront and Delaware River areas can attract new jobs, and so mixed-use development (com- mercial/residential/recreational) and waterfront parks can make the region's cities more attractive places to live and work. The existing reliance on municipal zoning has failed to bring new water related jobs to the water's edge because many munici- palities, by permitting any ratable that came their way, have precluded a later opportunity to attract a form of development which could make a better use of the water's edge. The extent of economic redevelopment and waterfront revitalization efforts of most of the cities of the developed coast contrasts poorly with that of the Hackensack Meadowlands District where regional planning has led to 28,000 new permanent jobs. 428 Yet what the Coastal Management Program is proposing for the developed coast is less ambitious than what is being undertaken in the Meadowlands. DEP is pro- posing to require a permit only for a narrow strip of land along the water's edge for the purpose of reserving this resource for uses which would benefit from a waterfront location, and to preserve any environmentally sensitive areas located in this narrow strip. To complement this regulatory program, DEP, in conjunction with NJDOE, will be making planning and implementation grants from the federal grants the State will receive as a result of program approval to waterfront municipalities for the purposes of waterfront redevelopment and the creation of recreational facilities. Under the State's Program Development Grant from NOAA, six such planning grants have already been "passed through" to local governments in the Developed Coast. Based on the experience of other urbanized states with approved Coastal Management Programs, notably Michigan and Massachusetts, the mix of limited state regulation together with redevelopment aid to local governments leads to economic redevelopment as well as environmental protection. The discussion of the environmental, economic and institutional consequences of federal approval must, because of the nature of the program, be general and descriptive rather than precise and quantitative. The Coastal Management Program is not a discrete action with a limited number of direct consequences. It is the application of a specified set of policies to a set of permit decisions and manage- ment actions, which w 'ould have to be made even in the absence of a coastal program. It is also the channeling of grants to an as yet undetermined group of municipali- ties for still to be selected projects. it is impossible to predict what permit and management decisions would be made in the absence of a program, and we also cannot foresee what decisions will result from the application of specific and predictable policies to permit decisions involving still unknown proposals for development. Unlike zoning, the Coastal Management Program does not define a class of acceptable uses for specified land areas. Under the program, the pattern of coastal development will be a result of the interaction of private market decisions with a set of location, use and resource policies, and of the development actions taken by local governments and private entrepreneurs in response to Local Coastal Grants aimed at waterfront redevelopment. Precise economic impacts cannot be predicted without knowing what the private and local decisions will be. We can only make the general statement that the Coastal Management Program is not expected to change the overall quantity of housing starts or commercial and industrial investment in the State, but that it will have some effect on the distribution of that development by (1) encouraging the concentration of development in existing built-up areas, (2) reserving the water's edge water. dependent uses, (3) pre- serving environmentally sensitive areas, and (4) by focusing public attention on the waterfront. The following comments are related to General Comment 1: Comments Commentor Response An objectionable aspect The Penjerdel Council See General Response. of the proposed CMP is its expansion to include great areas outside the Bay and Ocean Shore, enlarging DEP's jurisdiction and giving it authority to regulate con- struction in the navigable 429 Comments Commentor Response waters and the adjacent waterfront. This will adversely affect all of those areas utilized for a hundred or mote years to support commerce and industry. The Attorney General's Al Mogerly N.J. See General Response. opinion concerning the Independent Liquid Waterfront Development Law Terminals Assoc. allows DEP to regulate the waterfront for "the public's overall economic well- being" and states the act was promulgated to provide a state role in "harbor development for economic reasons". The proposed rules actually place New Jersey at a competi- tive disadvantage. Not only are the present Al Mogerly - N.J. The "CAFRA rules" are not CAFRA rules extended to the Independent Liquid extended to developed areas; developed areas, they also Terminals Assoc. rather the Waterfront are made more economically Development Permit rules restrictive in this pro- are extended to limited posal. (See amendments upland areas in the devel- to Policies 7:7E-3.7/ oped waterfront as provided Maintenance Dredging, for in the Waterfront 7:7E-3.20/Wetlands, Development Act. Dredging 7:7E-8.6/Groundwater Use). policies have'become more permissive since borrow pits may now be acceptable disposal sites. Wetlands rules have not changed, neither have groundwater use policies since the old policies also stated that other DEP rules, now more explictly stated, should also be observed. The combined impact of the New Jersey State The CMP represents a consol- State's land use control Chamber of Commerce idation of regulations to programs upon the economy make permit decisions more is harmful because they consistent and predictable undermine investor con- to the investor. DEP does fidence. This plethora not regard the private of regulations evidences sector as an adversary, and an undesirable adversary does not wish to be viewed atmosphere in public/ as an adversary by the private sector relation- private sector. ships in New Jersey. 430 General Comment No. 2 The proposed rules under the Waterfront Development Law will add another layer of regulation in conflict with the State'; home-rule traditions, This comment was made by: 1. New Jersey Section, American Society of Civil Engineers 2. Township of Logan 3. Charles Susskind, Clerk, Borough of Edgewater 4. J. Deitz, The Penjerdel Council 5. A. lielwig, Pureland Industrial Complex 6. Mayor Ralph Gorga, Lavallette Borough 7. A. Mogerly, N.J. Independent Liquid Terminals Association Response: It is true that the proposed rule under the Waterfront Development Law wiTr-e-xpand the ar'ea which requires a waterfront development permit along a narrow water's edge in the northern waterfront and the Delaware River areas. However, we believe that on balance, implementation of the Coastal Management Program will result in less permit-related frustration for prospective developers. There are two reasons why the permit process will be simplified under the proposed program: 1) The Waterfront Development permit program is already in operation for tide flowed lands. Permit applications are made to the Bureau of Coastal Project Review, the same Bureau that administers CAFRA and Wetlands permits. Prior to July 1, 1979 developers had to apply to three separate offices for each of the three coastal permits. 2) The Waterfront Development permit criteria are the rules on Coastal Resource and Development Policies, the same as for CAFRA and Wetlands Permits. Therefore, if a project meets the criteria for one permit, it meets the criteria for all three. The result is that predictable, consistent permit decisions will be made under the Waterfront Development Permit program, as well as under CAFRA and the Wetlands Act. With regard to the issue of expanded State jurisdiction versus home rule, municipalities are chartered by the State and given their authority under State law. Early in this century the Legislature chose to delegate extensive land use regulatory authority to the municipalities. In recent years the Legislature has determined that municipal land 'use decisions often have regional impacts. There- fore, legislation has been enacted to transfer the regulation of many resources of regional or State importance to regional bodies or to the State. In the case of the waterfront, the importance to the State's economy of this narrow interface of land and water was recognized by the Legislature in 1914 when it granted regulatory authority to a predecessor of DEP. More recently, the Legislature recognized the need for regional planning in the Hackensack Meadowlands and in 1969 created a regional agency to assume zoning authority. In 1970, the Legislature recognized a State interest in coastal wetlands and delegated DEP regulatory authority over them. In 1973, CAFRA was enacted because of a recognition of a statewide interest in the wise use of coastal resources. Finally, in 1979, the State delegated planning and regulatory authority to the Pinelands Commission because of a State and national interest in the preservation of part of the Pinelands, and the careful development of the remainder., 431 To the extent that development does not impact resources of regional, State or national concern, the Legislature has allowed land use regulation to remain at the municipal level. In the case of CAFRA, the Wetlands Act and the Waterfront Devel- opment Act, State authority supplements but does not supplant home-rule. The State may deny a permit to an activity which would destroy a resource of statewide importance,.but it may not require development which local zoning prohibits with the rare exception of 'uses of regional benefit. The State and municipality, therefore, have mutual vetoes over activities affecting resources of statewide significance. The ability to manage activities significantly affecting coastal waters of a state is required by NOAA before it will approve a state's coastal management program. In practice, NOAA requires that a state be able to manage all development within at least 100 feet of coastal waters in developed areas and a wider juris- diction in undeveloped areas. New Jersey does not have to seek federal approval for its coastal management program. The state has elected to do so both to' make itself eligible for federal coastal management funds, and more importantly because it recognizes a state interest in managing the coastal zone to ensure optimal use of its resources. To obtain federal approval and to complete its coastal manage- ment program, the State has elected to define its jurisdiction under the Waterfront Development Law. The following comments are related to General Comment 2: Comments Commentor Response The City of Perth Amboy Mayor George Otlowski, See General Response. objects to the expansion Perth Amboy of regulatory jurisdiction. Our present system of per- mitting plant locations is long and complicated enough, without making it more complex and time consuming. Delays involve amounts of money which can swing the decision balance in favor of other locations. We favor home rule and Joseph R. Duffy - See General Response. oppose the proposed CMP. Historic Paulus Hook It is unnecessary and Association autonomous. Extension of State's regu- New Jersey Section, See General Response. latory powers as proposed American Society of in the N.J. CMP is not in Civil Engineers the best interests of the State of New Jersey and thus should be reconsidered. 432 Comments CoLn entor Response The Proposed Management M. Hudson, Atlantic CAFRA and Wetlands are Program introduces yet City Development Corp. not separate agencies another regulatory agency but component laws of with powers that in many the Coastal Management areas overlap existing Program. No new agency agencies such as the is being created -- all Delaware River Basin three coastal permit Commission, CAFRA, and programs are consoli- Wetlands. dated in DEPs Division of Coastal Resources. Remove those properties M. Hudson, Atlantic The fact that a munici- already zoned for commercial City Development Corp. pality has zoned a site for and industrial use from the commercial or industrial use scope of the proposed regu- does not ensure that such lations. development would be a wise use of a resource of state- wide importance. Perform coordination with A. Helwig, Pureland Extensive discussion and local municipal zoning Industrial Complex coordination have already laws now rather than been incorporated. For later. example, under the State- unty Coastal Coordination 'Project, eleven county planning boards served as links between DEP and local planning officials in developing the CMP. The proposed definition of A. Helwig, Pureland The boundary is intended to the inland boundary is 100 Industrial Complex include the first use feet from the wetlands limit adjacent to the water. A or mean high tide. In standard residential lot is Gibbstown on June 5, 1979 100' in depth, but some uses this was explained to us extend further inland, thus as "the depth of a resi- the 500' maximum. The dential lot". What about upland jurisdiction is other uses? The distance proposed along tidal water seems arbitrary. bodies only, not along wetlands. General Comment No. 3 The proposed rules under the Waterfront Development Law amount to an illegal extension of DEP's authority. The Department should seek new legislation t3 operate a permit program in the developed coast. Ibis comment was made by: 1. A. Helwig, Pureland Industrial Complex 2. New Jersey Petroleum Council 3. L. Caccese, New Jersey Alliance for Action 4. GATX Terminals Corporation 433 5. Atlantic City Electric Company 6. The Port Authority of N.Y. and N.J. 7. Township of Logan 8. Gloucester County Planning Board 9. D. Fisher, N.J. Builders Association 10. Michael D. Miller, Representative of State Senator Zane Response: The Department did not wish to seek new legislation until it had inven- toried ex'isting legislation to determine its authority. The Waterfront Development Law (N.J.S.A. 12:5-3), with its delegation of authority to DEP to regulate "any waterfront upon any navigable water or stream of this state or bounding thereon", appeared to give the Department adequate authority to regulate a narrow water's edge in the northern waterfront and Delaware River area. However., before basing a program upon this statute, the Department sought an opinion from the Attorney General. Formal Opinion No. 6 of 1980 (See Appendix D) affirmRd the Department's jurisdiction under this law. Having received an opinion from the State's chief legal authority "that the Department may regulate the portion of uplands adjacent to the State's navigable waterways that constitutes the waterfront, but that the waterfront is a relatively narrow strip of land whose precise geographical limit should be defined by rule in accordance with the criteria set forth in this opinion" the Department felt on sound legal ground in defining its regulatory authority by rule. As discussed in Chapter 6, DEP may, at some future date, seek new legislation to consolidate existing permit programs, delegate regulatory responsibilities to local governments, and close loopholes in its existing author- ity. In June, 1980, legislation was introduced (A-1825) to give DEP authority to regulate development which would destroy the natural protection offered by dunes. Other gaps in DEP authority are its inability to control the cumulative impacts of developments of less than 24 units and its inability to protect the Palisades from poorly planned development. NOAA-OCZM, however, believes the State's existing authority is adequate to meet the requirements of the FCZMA. The following comments are related to General Comment 3: Comments Commentor Response We recognize the 506foot Michael Bryce, Depart- Agreed. boundary (inland of high ment of the Public water) as being necessary Advocate to ensure proper regulation. Is interpreting the term Gloucester County Yes. This is consistent 11navigable water" within Planning Board with definition of navi- the Waterfront Development gable water adopted by Law to include all tidally federal agencies and influenced streams within upheld in State courts. the legislative intent of the Law? We approve extension of League of Women Thank you for support. CAFRA boundaries to limits Voters of N.J. CAFRA is not being extended, of tidewater along the but the authority cited in Delaware and northern the comment is pursuant section of coast. to the Waterfront Develop- ment Law. 434 Comments Commentor Response The Penjerdel Council J. Deitz, The See General Response. objects strongly to an Penjerdel Council agency of New Jersey Gov- ernment and a department of the Federal Government proposing regulations with- out the oversight and need for approval of the General Assembly. Adoption of the Proposed New Jersey CMP should be prevented. The 1914 Waterfront Develop- A. Mogerly, N.J. See General Response. ment Law cannot justify the Independent Liquid regulations and amendments Terminals Assoc. in the DEIS. DEP should withhold action A. Mogerly, N.J. Hearings on Waterfront on the proposed waterfront Independent Liquid Development Rule concluded development regulations Terminals Assoc. before promulgation. No and CAFRA amendments while legislative inquiries were the present legislative held regarding amendment of inquiries are pending. coastal policies. Is the Waterfront Develop- Joseph R. Duffy, If a court test is to occur ment Law valid? The law Historic Paulus it can only occur after a must be tested before basing Hook Assoc. law or rule is implemented. a management plan on it. The Attorney General's A. Helwig, Pureland Note that opinion was also opinion, based on a 1914 Industrial Complex based on a 1914 report of the law using 1977 and 1968 New Jersey Harbor Commission. editions of certain dic- tionaries to interpret the law, does not seem correct nor prudent. We contend the meaning of words in a language such as English change con- stantly on a yearly basis and certainly more so in half a century. We object to the Attorney G. Deutsch, N.J. NOAA-OCZM sees no conflict General's interpretation of Business and Industry between the purp6se, the the Waterfront Development Assoc. Coastal Resource and Devel- Law. The "essential under- opment Policies, and the lying purpose" of the law proposed geographic juris- was not one of land use but diction under the Water- rather was (in 1914) and front Development Act. still remains the promotion of commerce on the water- front and the protection 435 Comments Commentor Response of the State's navigable waters from structures and development which might hinder that commerce. The Coastal Resource and J. Shissias, Public By reserving the waterfront Development Policies pro- Service Electric for water dependent uses, posed for the northern and Gas Co. the CMP will safeguard, waterfront are in direct preserve and improve ports, conflict to the intent of navigation and commerce. the Waterfront Develop- ment Law, to safeguard, preserve, and improve ports, navigation, and commerc e. The intent of the WDL cannot be stretched to include the land use reviews of the coastal program. I disagree with the De 'puty David Fisher, N.J. If only construction related Attorney General's inter- Builders Association to the water were regulated, pretation of the Waterfront the waterfront could be Development Law. Only fully developed with non- construction related to water related uses, contrary water should be regulated. to the clear intent of the Waterfront Development Act. On what basis did DEP choose Gloucester County The opinion also recommended the distance of 500 feet, Planning Board "a reasonable maximum particularly considering distance limitation" (foot- that even the Attorney note on p. 3 of opinion). General's opinion did not The maximum of 500 foot was specifically recommend thought necessary to regulate such a distance, but the first land use inland rather discussed estab- from the water. For more lishing an administrative developed areas, the boundary rule "regulating at least would be narrower due to the the first 100 feet"? presence of a road or property line. Nowhere in Chapter 5 of N.J. Petroleum Council For that reason, the rules Title 12 (12:5-1 et seq.) on Coastal Resource and are there any st;n'-d;r-ds Development Policies are which could be applied by proposed as standards. the DEP in its determina- tion as to whether a permit should be issued for the construction or alteration of any building or struc- ture on the uplands of the coast. 436 Comments Commentor Response DEP has inappropriately GATX Terminals The FEIS will be presented chosen this proposal as the Corporation to EPA in August, 1980. forum in which it introduces The Waterfront Development proposed Rules on Water- Rules will be promulgated on front Development Permits September 26, 1980. prior to promulgation. Since this action is the subject of an EIS, any final action prior to release of the HIS would appear to violate the pro- visions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). DEP should strongly consider A. Helwig, Pureland Two legislative hearings legislative review and Industrial Complex have been held on the approval of the document. Waterfront Development Rules Why undertake such a task, and a formal Attorney which could be subject to General's opinion was extensive litigation, when received before promulgation. approval of the legislature would eliminate such a problem? The index on page iii, 4.B.3 Pureland Industrial That is not the case and the includes the words " ... to Complex language has been changed. reinterpret the Waterfront Development Law ..." which connotes a change in the meaning of the law insti- tuted by DEP. It appears the DEP arrived at a con- clusion then looked for a law to support that conclusion. In reality, NJDEP is pro- J. Shissias, Disagree. The program in posing the defacto expan- Public Service the Developed Coast is sion of the CAFRA program Electric & Gas Co. based on the Waterfront outside of its statutory Development Act, not on boundary. CAFRA. The Waterfront Development Act already relies on coastal policies in its application below mean high water. ' * The expansion of authority Commissioner John J. See General Response and under the Waterfront Devel- Horn, New Jersey above response to J. Shissias. opment Act seems to exceed Department of the intent of the Legisla- Labor and Industry ture which establishes very specific CAFRA boundaries along New Jersey's coast. 437 Gen eral Comment No. 4 The Coastal Management., Program in operation in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment @;f the State is not suited.for extension into the Developed Coast. This comment was made by: 1. New Jersey Section, American Society of Civil Engineers 2. New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce 3. James A. Shissias, Public Service Electric and Gas Co. 4. New Jersey Petroleum Council 5. A. Mogerly, N.J. Independent Liquid Terminals Assoc. Response: The proposed Rules on Coastal Resource and Development Policies will be the bag-is for permit decisions under all three coastal permit programs anywhere in the coastal zone. This will result in simplified, consistent and predictable permit administration, but it will not result in permit decisions which disregard regional differences. The Coastal Resource and Development Policies are a matrix of Location, Use and Resource Policies which will yield different permit decisions in different parts of the state. This will especially be the case following adoption of the changes proposed to the policies which are currently in effect in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment of the State. In the Limited Growth Regions of the Coast, which are almost entirely within the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment, there tend to be a large number of Special Areas and General Water Area types where development is prohibited or discouraged. In General Land Areas of Low Growth Regions, development tends to be discouraged unless it can be considered infill. In the Extension Regions, there tend to be less Special Areas, and development in General Land Areas may be acceptable if it is an extension of existing develop- ment or infill. In the Development Regions, which include almost all of the developed coast, there are few Special Areas or General Water areas where development is prohibited or discouraged. In General Land areas of Development Regions, development is normally acceptable provided Use and Resource Policies are met. In the developed coast, oil refineries and tank farms are conditionally acceptable, for example, while in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment they are dis- couraged or prohibited. In the Hackensack Meadowlands District, the proposed policies adopt the HMDC Master Plan, which promotes a balance between orderly development and preservation of the region's delicate ecological balance, in accordance with the Legislature's 1968 mandate to HMDC. Finally, in Special Urban Areas, the proposed policies are more concerned with development than with preservation, allowing mixed use developments on Filled Water's Edges and residential development on pilings, when the development promotes the revitalization of the area. 438 A single set of policies, administered under a uniform Coastal Management Program will, therefore, result in a particular balance between preservation and develo;@ent which is appropriate for each of the diverse regions of the 'State ranging from the Mullica River estuary or the pristine wetlands along Delaware Bay on the one extreme to the Jersey City, Newark and Camden waterfronts on the other. The policies describe every type of location or potential activity in the coastal zone. A potential developer will only need to be concerned with those policies that describe a particular intended site or project. General Comment No. 5 The Coastal Management Program must be coordinated with the Pinelands Plan. This comment was made by: 1. David Fisher, New Jersey Builders Association 2. Chris Theodos 3. Mining Industry Representatives Response: Within the Coastal Zone, there is one area, roughly described as that por lon of the Mullica River watershed west of the Garden State Parkway and east of Pleasant Mills, which is under the jurisdiction of the State Pinelands Protection Act as well as under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Management Program. The remainder of the Pinelands in the Coastal Zone are part of the Pinelands National Reserve, but are not under the regulatory jurisdiction of the State Pinelands Commission. In the Mullica River watershed, major developments will require both the approval of the Pinelands Commission and a CAFRA permit. Smaller developments will require only Pinelands approval. Because few, if any, major developments are likely to be proposed in this area, and because the Coastal Management Program defines it as a Limited Growth Area and the draft Pineland Comprehensive Management Plan defines it as a Preservation Area, no conflicts between the Pinelands Plan and the Coastal Management Program are anticipated. The draft Comprehensive Management Plan for the Pinelands also includes the portion of the National Reserve not under the jurisdiction of the Pinelands Com- mission. In this area, the Coastal Management Program will of necessity be the principal instrument for implementing the Plan, and the rules on Coastal Resource and Development Policies will remain the criteria for permit decisions. Meetings with the Pinelands Commission will be held to discuss potential amendments to the coastal policies and to the draft Pinelands Plan to bring about a greater degree of consistency. Under the FCZMA (Section 307) the Pinelands Plan must be certified as consistent with the State's Coastal Management Program before the federal action of plan approval may be taken. Similarly, the State Pinelands Act (Section 22) requires DEP to "review the environmental design for the coastal area" and make revisions necessary "to effectuate the purposes of this act and the Fedleral Act". DEP believes that the Coastal Management Program is consistent with the objectives of State and Federal Pinelands legislation, but that some specific elements of the draft Pinelands Plan are not yet fully consistent with the State's adopted Coastal Resource and Development Policies. These issues will be resolved before the Pinelands Plan takes effect, and any resulting changes to the Coastal Management Program will be formally proposed and publicly debated before being adopted. 439 The following comments are related to General Comment 5: Comments Commentor Response We are anxious that imple- Carol Barrett, See General Response. mentation of both the CMP Sierra Club, West and the Pinelands Management Jersey Group Plan be accomplished with great care and cooperation between the two agencies. It is imperative that the defined coastal area agency be as determined as the Pineland Commission in preserving the integrity of the natural resources in their boundaries. The Comprehensive Manage- Carol Barrett, See General Response. ment Plan of the Pinelands Sierra Club, West Commission, once approved, Jersey Group should be the guiding rule for any coastal permit deci- sions in the Pine Barrens. DEP has announced land use M. Hudson, Atlantic Alternate Route 559 gener- proposals designating only City Development ally defines the northern 4.5% out of one million Corporation limit of the Great Egg acres appropriate for High Harbor watershed and is Growth, most of which is an appropriate boundary adjacent to the Great Egg between a regional growth Harbor River Region, along district and a Limited alternate 559. It is Growth area. Such a inappropriate for one branch Pinelands/CMP regional of DEP to designate one side growth strategy is also of Alternate 559 as High consistent with the Growth while another DEP Atlantic County Master branch designated the other Plan. side so as to effectively prohibit any development. It is hoped that CAFRA will R. C. Westmoreland, Disagree. Coastal and Pine- eventually change the desig- Esquire lands policies taken together nation for parts of Egg channel development on the Harbor Township to be in upland north of the Great conformity, at least as to Egg Harbor watershed, density, with Pinelands' while protecting the more designation of its adja- sensitive, and less access- cent jurisdictional land. ible area within the water- shed. 440 General Comment No. 6 DEP should implement the Coastal Management Program in the Hackensack Meadow- lands District as in the remaind-e-r-o7 the coastal zone. This comment was made by: 1. Catherine P. Grimm 2. Carol Barrett, Sierra Club, West Jersey Group 3. Natural Resources Defense Council 4. The League for Conservation Legislation 5. Vivian Li, Sierra Club, New Jersey Chapter Response: Outside of the Hackensack Meadowlands District, coastal policies are not uniform from region to region. The acceptability of development in General Land Areas is dependent upon the regional Growth Rating as well as upon site specific factors. In accordance with the State's Urban Policy and the Coastal Program's policy of concentration of development, new residential, commercial and industrial development is generally encouraged to seek sites in the Northern Waterfront Area, the Delaware River Area, the North Shore and Central Shore and the Absecon-Somers Point area rather than in less developed parts of the coast. Development is also encouraged to locate in the Hackensack Meadowlands District because of its location near the core of the northeastern New Jersey metropolitan area. The Hackensack Meadowlands District Master Plan has represented State policy for the District since its adoption in 1972. The Plan was developed in response to the three-fold mandate of the Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Development Act of 1968 (N.J.S.A 13:17-1 et seq.), which directed the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (HMDC) Fo`@ 1) provide jobs, homes and open space with need calculated at regional scale, 2) protect the delicate balance of nature and to protect air and water pollution, and 3) to provide for solid waste management in perpetuity for all New Jersey municipalities then dumping in the Meadowlands. DEP finds the plan to be a sensitive solution to the need to balance orderly growth and resource protection. As changing conditions dictate, amendments can be made to the plan by a majority vote of the HMDC. In accordance with the wishes of the Legislature, DEP believes that the HMDC, a regional agency appointed by the Governor, should make land use decisions for the region, but DEP will, from time to time, make recommendations concerning amendments to the Master Plan. DEP also believes that the HKDC, with its interdisciplinary staff of planners, admini- strators and scientists, is best qualified to serve as lead management agency in implementing the Master Plan. It is true that the HKDC Master Plan is not as protective of wetlands as coastal policies applied in the remainder of the state. Should the Master Plan be fully implemented, 3576 acres of wetlands out of 4772 presently existing acres will be preserved (these figures are based upon a new survey by HMDC since publi- cation of the Proposed Coastal Management Program). The HKDC has sought to pre- serve the maximum wetland area possible, concentrating on the most productive 441 wetlands, with the goal of creating a viable estuarine-wetlands system, while also designating sufficient area for development to meet the Legislature's 1968 mandate. Under the State's 1981 Coastal Implementation Grant, DEP has proposed passing through $100,000 to the HMDC for a number of projects and studies to improve the environment of the Meadowlands District. One of the studies would develop tech- niques to expand the wetland acreage to be protected, while still providing suffi- cient area for development. Other studies will develop plans for a series of waterfront parks, recommend flora suitable for the revegetation of closed land- fil ls, and make recommendations for protection of viewsheds. DEP believes that by incorporating the HMDC Master Plan into the Coastal Management Program and working with HMDC to improve the management of coastal resources in the District, it can lead to more efficient State government by having one state regional voice for the Meadowlands rather than two and moreover that that voice, the HMDC's plans and policies, produce an environmentally sound program. Should the HMDC change their program, NOAA and DEP would consider that a change in the Coastal Mansgement Program requiring full public review and comment. Comments Commentor Response We see the possible positive Hartz Mountain See General Response. effects of your inclusion of Industries, Inc. HMDC's Master Plan in the Coastal Management Program as: (1) renewing State support of a tested mechanism in regional land use controls that has become a model of reason- able environmental manage- ment; (2) providing a mechanism for federal agency concurrence in State permit decisions; and (3) avoiding the imposition of yet another layer of regulatory authority on develop- ment activity. Your expressed intention to Hartz Mountain See General Response. incorporate the HMDC Master Industries, Inc. Plan and regulatory scheme into the CMP is well-founded in the results that the Commission has produced. As the U.S. EPA has pointed out, extensive development has taken place while the environment has improved; people have come to live and work where it was long thought only garbage should go. 442 Comments Commentor Response Adoption of the HKDC Plan Natural Resources See General Response. conflicts with State coastal Defense Council policies on Filling and the Filled Water's Edge. If the HMDC retains the Clare C. Dudley, See General Response. management responsibility Sierra Club, North under the CRP, it should Jersey Group have wetlands regulations identical to DEP's. We understand the reason for League of Women DEP will be working with excluding the Hackensack Voters of N.J. HKDC in 1981 to improve the Meadowlands from other state Master Plan's ability to laws affecting the coast, protect wetlands and other but hope that preservation estuarine resources. In of additional wetlands over addition I all activity and beyond that of the related to wetlands is Master Plan can be achieved. subject to the provisions and permits of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the guidelines related to Section 404(b)l on dredging and filling. See also general Comment Number 7. HMDC Wetlands Order of 1972 American Littoral Placing the HMDC under the does not afford the Dis- Society Wetlands Act would requite trict's wetlands the same new State legislation. protection as the state's Strengthening HMDC regula- Wetlands Act of 1970. tions would require a rule There should be a Memoran- change by HMDC. DEP and dum of Agreement between BMDC will continue to HMDC, NJDEP, and federal examine possible chang@e-s_, agencies which would either to HMDC Wetlands policy, place the Hackensack Meadow- although NOAA considers lands District under the the present policy adequate Wetlands Act or provide for approval as part of conditions that strengthen New Jersey's CMP. the regulations protecting wetlands from non-water dependent fills. General Comment No. 7 Several commentors questioned the inclusion of the Hackensack Meadowlands Master Plan in the N.J. Coastal Management Program as being 1) inconsistent with Executive Order 11990 (Protection of wetlands); 2) inconsistent with 923.3(b)(ii) of the CZMA regulations; and 3) inconsistent with Section 307(f) of the CZHA by not reflecting the environment guidelines developed under Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Wa@er Act. 443 Comments made by: 1. U.S. Department of the Interior 2. Natural Resources Defense Council 3. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Response: The President's Executive Order on Wetlands (Executive Order 11990, May 24, 1977 requires in Section I(a) that: "Each agency shall provide leadership and shall, take action to.minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands Section 923.3(b)(ii) of the CZMA regulations call for: "The management program must include policies that address uses of or impacts on wetlands ... The particular policies shall minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands The Hackensack Meadowlands Master Plan was adopted in 1972 after extensive public review and comment. The Master Plan preserves over 3,576 acres of wetlands as open space (representing 75% of the remaining wetlands in the Meadowlands District), while the Commission has designated 1,196 acres (25%) of the remaining wetlands as areas that could be filled. The 1,196 acres of wetlands where filling now take place represent only 0.5Z of the 256,000 estimated acres of regulated wetlands in the Statewide Coastal Zone.* OCZM feels that in light of the location of the Meadowlands District (five miles from New York City) and the Commission's threefold mandate from the New Jersey Legislature to: 1) provide jobs, homes, and open spaces, 2) protect the delicate balance of nature and protect against air and water pollution and 3) provide for solid waste management in perpetuity, that the overall State Coastal Program, including the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission Master Plan, has met the spirit and intent of the President's Executive Order and the CZM regulations on wetlands by "minimizing the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands". Section 307(f) of the CZMA states that nothing in CZMA programs shall in any way affect any requirements of the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. In parti- cular, the commentors noted that the Hackensack Meadowlands Plan could be incon- sistent with Section 404(b)(1) guidelines issued for the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. It is OCZM's position that approval of the New Jersey Coastal Management Plan, including the Hackensack Meadowlands Plan, does not affect the application of the Water Pollution Control Act or the 404 (b)(1) guidelines, which apply to federal permits issued for dredging and fill act-ivities. Each Federal agency will need to evaluate proposed projects in the Hackensack Meadowlands District on a case by case basis. There may be cases where Federal agencies disagree with a wetlands permit decision by the Hackensack Meadowlands Commission. in this instance wetland modification will require proper analysis and documentation under Section 404(b(l) of the Clean Water Act regardless of prior Commission actions. Each applicant for wetlands modification in the District will be required to meet and properly document through a public process the tests for Based on data from Wetland Biozones of the Hackensack Meadowlands, HMDC, July, 1980. This report updates wetlands data presented in the DEIS. 444 alternatives, need, water dependency, cumulative impact and public interest required by Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. As a result, in each case the stronger standards, State or federal, will prevail. See the discussion on page 272. It should be noted that the Hackensack Meadowlands designations for wetlands development do not preclude federal agency recommendations and decisions contrary to such development. The Hackensack Meadowlands Commission Master Plan does not meet the definition of a "Comprehensive Planning Process" or Special Area Manage- ment Plan under Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. The following comment is related to General Comment 7: Comments Commentor Response Federal approval of a Natural Resource See General Response. coastal management program Defense Council containing the current policies of the HMDC plan in regard to wetlands would be contrary to Section 307(f) of the Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act and Section 923.3 (b)(2)(ii) of the CZMA final Rules, which require state CZM programs to provide environmental protection consistent with those required by Section 404 of the Clean.Water Act and Executive Order 11990 on Wetlands, respectively. General Comment No. 8 The time frame for public comment on the proposed Coastal Management Program is too short. This comment was made by: 1. New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce 2. Daniel W. Myers 3. Donald D. Tubbs, Mayor of Mantoloking 4. A. Helwig, Pureland Industrial Complex 5. James A. Shissias, Public Service Electric and Gas Co. Response: NOAA-OCZM and DEP met and exceeded the legal requirements for allowing comment. The July 7, 1980 deadline for comments allowed a 45-day comment period plus a 15-day extension (in fact, NOAA-OCZM granted a two-week grace period, responding to comments received through July 18). Publication of the Proposed Program in May was not the beginning of the public review process. Rather, it was the culmination of a six year public participation program which includes distribution of many draft publications including NJCMP-BOSS FEIS in August 1978, Options for New Jersey's Developed Coast (March, 1979) and =terally hundred of public meetings all across the State. 445 We are gratified by the quantity and detail of the comments we received. It appears thoughtful review of the Proposed Coastal Management Program occurred. This review has led to significant improvements to a number of aspects of the final program. The following comments are related to General Comment 8: Comments Commentor Response in the public's interest, M. Hudson, The coincidence of the DEP should extend the Atlantic City review periods of the two stated review period Development Corp. programs is beneficial as it because of its coincidence allows their consistency to with the release of the be examined. However, Draft Comprehensive extension of the review Management Plan of the period for the CMP would Pinelands Commission. result in delay of federal approval for a period of several months. Scheduling all these N.J. W. Elmer Seaman See General Response. DEP Management programs Furthermore, scheduling together (Pinelands, CZM, the comment period during Shore Protection, etc.) the summer increased the all covering the same opportunity for summer basic area automatically residents to comment. deprives people most concerned any chance of objecting and being heard. The proposals should be heard after the tourist and farming season when people most concerned can participate. 446 Comments Clommentor Response POLICIES - GENERAL - Continued IV. COMMENTS BY TOPIC 4. If New Jersey's program will atural Resources Disagree. Some urban areas fense C This section of the Comments and Responses Appendix first addresses comments regulate only the first use F ouncil have more than enough on the Coastal Resource and Development Policies, and then addresses comments on directly adjacent to the waterfront for water the CMP/DEIS in the order in which that document was presented. water in urban areas accord- dependent uses, and provided ing to its coastal policies, public access is included, Comments Commentor Response those policies must be other uses can be accept- capable of achieving coastal able. The use of more 1. COASTAL POLICIES objectives in a comprehen- permissive policies in POLICIES - GENERAL sive fashion. Objectives Special Urban Areas to such as the reservation of promote revitalization is sites for water-dependent important; elsewhere the activities, parks, and open policies are careful to set I endorse an update and Pearl Schwartz Thank you. space must not be sacrificed aside the waterfront for strengthening of the for the achievement of non- conservation, recreation or Coastal Management Program. coastal objectives related water dependent development. to the urban area as a whole. 2, We bel ieve that coastal I am concerned with the Daniel Myers The rules are not rigid but objectives are not adequately establishment of rigid rules change as development met by the policies. which do not take into patterns change. There are account reality, new tech- numerous examples where best 5. nology and techniques and available technology is CAPRA assumes that growth Roger Wells, CAFRA, one of the three the widely varying charac- called for. The rules vary (change) and environmental Roger Wells, Inc. permit jurisdictions admini- teristics of the different by region to re-cognize protection are mutually stered using NJCMP policies areas along the Jersey differences in existing exclusive. It does not assumes no such thing. coast from Sandy Hook to settlement. The rules will recognize, through specific Throughout, development and Cape May. be reviewed every year to assessment standards, the protection needs are bal- assess the need for changes. nature of different environ- anced and much development This EIS represents the ments to successfully with appropriate mitigation first review of the Bay and absorb change. is acceptable. Ocean Shore Segment. 6. 3. The State's many policies Myron Portenar The Program favors public The preference for water Mayor George Otlowski, Agreed. See the revised both encourage and discour- recreation along with related industries or Perth Amboy policies on Filled Water's age the development of public access as uses of development in the 500 foot Edges 7:7E-3.17 and Special barrier islands and the barrier islands, but it does area may make sense on a Urban Areas 7:7E-3.38 shore areas. allow infill development to large scale, however, New (Perth Amboy is included). occur in the Central Barrier Jersey cities which are These policies give great Island Corridor. fighting for their eco- flexibility for mixed nomic life require a waterfront uses which 7. rational mix of economic promote economic revitaliza- Water-related uses should Helen Thompson, Agreed. Water-dependent uses activities to minimize the tion. be the primary use of the Save the Hudson, Our are so designated in the impact of business cycles waterfront. Riverland Environment policies. on the local economy. Cities must be free to 8. pursue this objective. Guidelines for the develop- New Jersey State The concerns of this docu- ment and redevelopment of Chamber of Commerce ment are quite broad: New Jersey's ports, harbors resource protection, water- and rivers, if deemed neces- front revitalization, sary, should be based upon maintenance of navigation. broader concerns than those creation of jobs, and many in the CMP. more. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response POLICIES - GENERAL - Continued POLICIES - GENERAL - Continued 9. 14. The regulations in the pro- L. Caccese, N.J. Disagree. Economic needs are The document's failing is a Carol Barrett, one of the objectives of the posed CMP are too restric- Alliance for Action balanced with environmental pro- tendency to use ambiguous Sierra Club, present, and future. policy tive and discourage economic tection in the Coastal Policies. words and policies plus West Jersey Group revisions is to tighten the growth. insufficient provision for language and reduce ambi- public involvement when guity. Public hearings are 10. the permit process pro- held on all CAFRA permit 7he proposed program is Sally Aaronson Disagree. The program gresses. decisions and are optional deficient in covering urban policies are specific and on Wetlands and Waterfront riverfronts. The proposed can be used to critically Development permits. policies are too broad and review proposals. contain few specific stand- 15. ards. The proposed program The inability or unwilling- Salem County Limited resources mean that need details for waterfront ness of the Department to Planning Board time is needed for comple- parks and open space. reduce the definitions and tion. Cape May County and Location Policies to graphic parts of Ocean County have 11. form for each area of the been mapped. Geographic The proposed program stereo- Pat Castagno, Disagree. The program State severely limits the information is now being types the northern water- Positive Action explicitly states that understanding of the impli- digitized that will lead to front as developed. The Citizens Team the northern waterfront cations of this management coast-wide policy mapping by uses encouraged by the pro- is not all developed (see document by local elected computer, a muchmore gram for this area could dis- Part 111). The northern officials. accurate and flexible courage people from living waterfront area is much more technique. The timetable in the northern waterfront developed at the present for this work depends an cities. time than other areas of New funding availability. Jersey, but the prospect of public access to the water- 16. front and waterfront parks Has any consideration been N.J. Marine DEP's Bureau of Coastal could encourage people to given to a new type of Sciences Consortium Project Review has received live in the northern water- entrepreneurial activity various application for front region. that is beginning to take conversion of boats to place in other states and restaurants and has looked 12. which may be extended to on this type of use-location Beneficial development New Jersey Section, NOAA-OCZM believes the coastal New Jersey, wherein old combination favorably should be encouraged and American Society of policies do this through boats of rather large size depending on the extent of implemented in a compre- Civil Engineers specifying conditions under are permanently moored site improvements necessary hensively planned and which development is en- and converted to seafood to make the venture fully orderly fashion. couraged, conditionally restaurants, boutiques, operational. acceptable, discouraged or aquatic-related shops, prohibited. marinas, etc.? 13. 17. Sierra Club supports the Carol Barrett, No response necessary. Page 3, first paragraph A. Helwig, Pureland No. Use policies do not proposed CHP because of the Sierra Club, Don't "Use Policies" Industrial Complex specify one use only for a long-range benefits, for West Jersey Group preempt local zoning? particular location. both industry and people, Proposed uses must still which will result from meet local zoning require- regulated development. ments, unless they are designated uses of regional benefit as described in Chapter Five. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response POLICIES --GENERAL - Continued BASIC COASTAL POLICIES 18. 22. Atlantic Electric agrees Atlantic City No response necessary. We would hope that a flex- The Port Authority Special Area policies will that, wherever feasible, Electric Co. ible posture will be main- of N.Y. and N.J. be applied as written to all the pattern of industrial tained in applying, for areas. The permissive development should be con- example, nothing more language that encourages port centrated rather than restrictive than a "con- development will also be dispersed, and that the ditionally acceptable" applied as written. The active industrial facili- location, use or resource importance of port activity ties should be maintained policy where appropriate is clearly recognized. by providing for necessary in the encouragement of expansion in adjacent areas. port activity. 19 23 David Fisher, Although the urban water- The word "enhance" has been The Township of Logan The Township of Logan liDeation Policies will added to page 10 as one of New Jersey Builders front may be most in need of strenuously opposes the result in different accept- the first coastal policies. Association "enhancement", the policy is present form of the pro- ability conditions based We can find no legislative applicable wherever coastal posed CHP because it upon local conditions. in authority for including the resources have become ignores unique physical Logan Township, where word "enhance" in the coastal degraded. The statutes features of Logan Township the coastal zone generally policies. It is stated that authorizing the three and will cause Logan Town- consists of a Filled Water's the word "enhance" is meant coastal permit program were ship and its residents Edge along a large river, to apply only to the urban enacted to preserve the economic harm. a variety of water dependent waterfront, but this is resources of the coastal uses will be permitted. not clearly stated in the zone while allowing develop- 20. policy and a hould be so ment requiring a coastal stated. location. If the enforce- The CMP needs to more spe- Helen Thompson, Riparian rights are defined ment of these three laws cifically define Riparian Save the Hudson, in the Management System results in enhancement of rights. Will the filling our Riverland chapter and in a separate coastal resources, this of water-covered land be Environment DEP publication called Riparian would certainly not be allowed? High Handbook. The r-ure-s inconsistent with the r th or or u water areas are Legislature's intent. specified in Figure 21. Filling is either prohibited 24. or discouraged in all water We support Basic Coastal Nancy Richardson, No response necessary. bodies. Policies 1, 3, 5. Bayonne Against Tanks 21. 25. The South Jersey environment Roger Wells, Many Special Areas have such The proposed policies need Helen Thompson, The population density is must be protected. Critical Rogers Wells, Inc. a policy, but the intention more emphasis on the Save the Hudson, indirectly addressed through areas should be identified of New Jersey's coastal laws population density of an Our Riverland Location and Resource and a No Growth policy is to conttol and direct area in order to deter- Environment policies which determine should stated for those growth, rather than to stop mine what is possible, carrying capacity of natural areas. it. practical, and safe and hutnan systems. Direct development. zoning of density would pre-empt the zoning power of municipalities. Comments Commentor Response BASIC COASTAL POLICIES - Continued Comments Co-mmentor Response 7:7E-1.3 JURISDICTION 26. We suggest that DEP recon- Nancy Richardson, The degrading effects of 30. sider Basic Coastal Poli- Bayonne Against Tanks sprawl development on human We oppose the inclusion of The Port Authority ibis is the legal definition cies 2, 4, and 6. The and environmental health, filled land within the of N.Y. and N.J. of riparian land in New concentration of develop- safety and welfare are well meaning of "formerly Jersey. ment as suggested in documented. Clustering flowed by the tide". Policy 2 is inconsistent significantly lessens with protecting the health environmental and overall and safety of people as human impacts. Over-build- 7:7E-1.6 COASTAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESS stated in Policy 4. We ing in Development Areas is are against overbuilding prevented through the 31. which Policy 6 could resource policies, espe- We recommend the strict Camden Department of Agreed. The definition of encourage. cially the air and water interpretation of any Community Development "prohibited" does not allow policies. policy, rule, or regula- for administrative discre- tion that prohibits a tion. 27. particular use in a par- The statement that "DEP James A. Shissias, Such risk is a given, but ticular area; there should insures that the facilities Public Se"ice the statement serves as be no exemptions made. .:. are located on sites Electric and Gas Co. a goal. without threatening the 32. health or welfare of area (c) Definitions - The policy Audrey Zapp, Definition of "discouraged" residents or natural on 'rdisc @our aged' uses should Hudson County has been changed to make it resources" is quite unrea- be stricter in terms of Citizens for clearer, but the term must Ln listic. Every activity has urban areas. In cases Clean Air remain uniform throughout a degree of risk and for DEP where a proposed use is in the coastal zone. We do to think it can preclude the public interest despite not feel an EAS is required such risk is without support. its discouraged status, an when a proposed use is in An in-depth risk/cost bene- Environmental Assessment an urban area. fit analysis to support Statement (EAS) should be these statements should be completed and circulated. conducted. 33. 28. It is suggested that the David Fisher, N.J. Disagree. mapping is The proposed policies favor Roger Wells, Not entirely true. Farming information requirements Builders Association essential to understand the farming over housing and Roger Wells, Inc. is favored over housing only found on page 80 be re- implications of proposals. recreational uses. in Farmland Conservation vised because mapping of Source maps are available Areas; recreational uses a site is usually not from the Division of Coastal. which preserve the soil productive and since all Resources. The required resource are also acceptable sites are subject to a mapping is not complex or in these areas. site inspection prior to highly time consuming and is a hearing it is submitted a normal part of a good 29. that this mapping require- design process. it is evident from the pro- D. Fisher, Disagree. The revised ment produces more paper posed changes made in these N.J. Builders policies limit the quite work than is warranted. rules and from the rules as Association wide discretion granted to previously adopted, that the DEP by the coastal permit 34. Division of Coastal Resources laws. We insist that this program Carrol Barrett, This program has been widely is putting itself in a posi- contain direct, understan- Sierra Club, praised for the specificity tion where it can deny almost able policies and regula- West Jersey Group and clarity of its policies. any proposed development tions so that ambiguity will "Water dependent" is a term application based upon the not allow construction which which has been well tested myriad of sometimes con- is not in the best interest in practice. The "water flicting policies it has established. Comments Commentor Response Coinments Commentor Response 7:7E-1.6 COASTAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Continued 7:7E-1.6 COASTAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESS - Continued 38. 34. - Continued (c) Definitions - Does Pureland Industrial No. See revised definition. of the resource. "Water related" language has been "nav'igable apply to streams Complex dependent" and "water re- deleted. We believe that which are not navigable at lated" need to be spelled the definitions for the low tide? out specifically as to remaining words, as found whether the primary need in Section 7:7E-.16, and in 39. of the development fits the glossary, provide a (c) Definitions Authori- Natural Resource ille public interest is these terms. Also, "en- reasonable balance between zati-on-Tor -DEF to permit Defense Council defined by the Basic Coastal couraged" and "discouraged" precision and the need for otherwise "discouraged" Policies. This qualifica- can be misleading or lead some flexibility in response activity on the basis of tion has proved necessary to to undesirable develop- to unexpected conditions. its being considered "in allow review of certain ments. the public interest" is unanticipated projects, but too broad. Concerns of it is sufficiently limited 35. public interest in need of to prevent destruction of (c) Definitions - The defi- Vivian Li, Agreed. "Water Related" has special attention should coastal resources. Note nition for ater.related Sierra Club, been deleted. be specifically listed that the revised definition development" is too broad, New Jersey Chapter, and provided for in the also requires mitigating or and should be deleted. It League for Conser- program, not distinguished compensating measures such would be difficult to think vation Legislation, on a case-by-case basis by that there is a net gain of any development which Natural Resource DEP. 1he last sentence of in the quality of the would not conform to such Defense Council (c)(4) must be deleted, or affected ecosystem. a definition. The existing a detailed definition of Bay and Ocean Shore Segment "public interest" must be policy which uses a criteria provided including criteria of water-dependent uses is for the determination that appropriate. a particular public interest 36. outweighs the intent in enforcing existing pro- The general phraseology N.J. Marine The language does not imply gram policies. of subsection (a) implies Science Consortium frivolous application of that policy applications policy, only that all sites 40. could be frivolous or will not contain all loca- (c) Definitions - Is it N.J. Marine The meaning of these words implies a lack of con- tion types nor all applica- really leFT-Elmate to use Sciences Consortium in the context of this sistency. See page 73, tions propose all uses. the words "action", "pro- document is clear although paragraph 7:7E-1.1, stat- Therefore, not all policies ject", and "proposal" they may mean different ing the intent of the will apply to a particular interchangeably? In things in common practice. document to increase the proposal. common practice, they See glossary. predictability of limit- mean quite different ing administrative dis- things. A definition for cretion. the word "approval" might be inserted between para- 37. graphs 7-.7E-1.6(c)(6) (c) Definitions - There is David Fisher, The term "water-related" and (7). a statement EF-at housing New Jersey is not used in the amended is not water dependent or Builders Association policies. Housing remains 41. related. There should be defined as a non-water (c) Definitions - The The Port Authority Agreed. Distinction has :ome recognition of the dependent use, but is repo-rt-Fa-s- =1iculty in of N.Y. and N.J. been eliminated. However, ttractiveness of housing now permitted near the establishing a clear dis- an automobile assembly plant in terms of market eco- waterfront in many cases. tinction between "water would not be considered nomies on the waterfront. dependent" and "water water dependent, although related". For instance, its shipping facilities it appears that, in the could be. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-1.6 COASTAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Continued 7:7E-2.2 CLASSIFICATION OF LAND AND WATER TYPES 41. - Continued '46. automobile assembly plant The new language is cer- N.J. Marine Thank you. Special areas example, the classifica- tainly a great improvement Sciences Consortium are designated by NJDEP with tion should be water over its predecessor, which the mandate of the N.J. dependent, not water was quite ambiguous. Who State Legislature in CAFRA, related. The distinction designates a "special the Wetlands Act and the should be strengthened area"? Waterfront Development Law, or eliminated. and with the approval of the National Oceanic and Atmos- 42. pheric Administration and (c) Definitions - The pro- Natural Resources Agreed. The "water related" the advice of the public. poseT -defLnition of water- Defense Council category has been deleted. related development weakens Littoral Society 47. the former policies which We encourage the mapping Audrey Zapp, These are tasks that will be allowed only water- and inventory of Special Hudson County Citizens considered for inclusion in dependent development. Areas. The developed for Clean Air future N.J. coastal grant coast wetlands should be applications. 43. delineated by DEP. (c) Definitions - it should David Fisher, Ibis is made clear by be made clear that the New Jersey Section 7:7E-1.3 of the definitions apply only Builders Association Rules. 7:7E-2.3 MAPPING AND ACCEPTABILITY DETERMINATION to areas that are within the direct jurisdiction of 48. the Division by specific Has New Jersey already been N.J. Marine "Zone" is an inappropriate statute. so mapped, e.g. according Science Consortium word for CLAM analysis which to "zones"? does not "zone" in the sense 44. of allocating one use for a M Information Require- N.J. Marine A Coastal Developers' location. Cape May County ments - The requirements Sciences Consortium Hin-dbook is to be developed and parts of Ocean County for informiation, while under New Jersey's 1981 CMP have been mapped. logical and necessary, grant. In the interim, are rather complicated. DEP's Bureau of Coastal 49. Is there such a thing as Project Review and Bureau of "CLAM Location Policy N.J. Marine This mapping is done by an oTbudsman in this Coastal Enforcement and Analysis:" What is the Science Consortium applicants so the timetable State to assist the small Field Services (based in time table for accom- is whenever application is practitioner who wants' Toms River) will assist the plishment of all these made. DEP has made regional to extend his pier or, applicant by explaining steps? maps of Cape May and parts even more to the point, information requirements. of Ocean County for planning an individual resident and proposes to map the who happens to have a whole coastal area by small dock in his back computer when funding is yard? available. 50. 7:7E-2.1 INTRODUCTION The CLAM analysis procedure Natural Resources Incorrect. Steps 1-6 of does not clearly incorporate Defense Council CLAM address the location 45. Subchapter 6 - General Loca- policies. What is a "built environ- N.J. Marine The structures and paving tion Policies. Explicit ment"? Sciences Consortium built by people, as opposed provision should be made to areas undeveloped by for utilizing these policies man. during the CLAM analysis. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-3.1 INTRODUCTION SUBCHAPTER 3 SPECIAL AREAS 55. 51. Don't these regulations, N.J. Marine No. Water dependent uses, Caven Point should be Catherine Grimm, The Caven Point area is for practical purposes, Science Consortium such as marinas, may override treated as a special Helen Thompson, discussed on page 320 of just about terminate all many prohibitions and area and should be Audrey Zapp this FEIS. Because only marina development in New discouragements of develop- protected. a portion of the site is Jersey? ment in the water's edge. within the coastal zone, DEP has proposed a study on Caven Point cannot be cited marina siting for the coming as a Geographic Area of year. Particular Concern in the Coastal Program. However, the DEP will continue to 7:7E-3.2 SHELLFISH BEDS explore possible methods for preservation of at least a 56. portion of this site. The (b)(4) - Why delete the N.J. Marine All point source discharges Green Acres Administration phrase, "Coastal development Science Consortium are regulated by EPA and is now considering pur- which would directly dis- DEP - Division of Water chasing part of Caven charge untreated domestic Resources through the National Point . sewage, or industrial Permit Discharge Elimination wastes, toxic or carcin- System program. These 52. ogenic agents discharges would be pro- Bluffs directly landward Audrey Zapp, Agreed. They are included hibited through regulations of the beach should be Hudson County as either bluffs (7:7E-3.26) under the Clean Water Act, included as a special Citizens for or as dunes (7:7E-3.21 for- and therefore would be area. Clean Air merly 7:7E-3.19). redundant if stated here. 53. 57. It is proposed that the Cape May County Thank you. This change is The definition of shellfish Natural Resources This is incorporated water's edge be divided Planning Board in part, the result of pre- beds should be revised to Defense Council into the definition of into eleven special Water's vious comments by the Cape include both beds that are policy 7:7E-3.2. "A produc- Edge Areas. This proposed May Planning Board and staff. presently productive or tive bed is one which can be change appears to be that have a prior his-tory shown to have a history of advantageous. of natural recruitment. natural recruitment 54. 58. There are proposed changes N.J. Petroleum The policies as modified to The basic shellfish policies Commissioner Finley, The New Jersey Administra- in the Location Policies Council address the special condi- are sound although the Department of Health tive Code would become which recognize that a good tions of the Northern and Proposal does not specifi- unwieldly if references were portion of the Northern Delaware Waterfronts and pro- cally address the permits made to all related rules. Waterfront Ares is largely vide adequate guidance for or controls necessary to Removal of shellfish from industrialized and economi- program administration. remove shellfish from contaminated areas is cally depressed. These condemned areas when covered by N.J.A.C. 7:12-1 changes are limited in dredging is conducted et seq. and 7:25-15.1. scope, however, and do not (7:7E-3.2). The Pro- provide guidance as to how posal should identify the the program should be permits required by the administered. Division of Water Resources, Bureau of Shellfish Control, and the Division of Fish, Came and Shellfisheries. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-3.2 SHELLFISH BEDS - Continued 7:7E-3.5 FINFISH MIGRATORY PATHWAYS 59. 63. We wonder about the wisdom League of Women Potentially productive Doesn't the change of "dis- N.J. Marine The exact wording is "pro- of the "presently produc- Voters of N.J. Shellfish Beds, such as those courage" to "prohibited" Science Consortium hibited unless acceptable tive "definition. You are in Raritan Bay, are pro- constitute an over-usage of mitigating measures are not excluding the possi- tected by the Shellfish Bed the word "prohibited" and t. enn. 'the chance ot bility of eventually Resource Policy. will it not stall useful striking, and only being restoring water quality development? Suppose, able to pump oil in the in the Meadowlands. This someone struck oil on finfish migrating pathway goal should be applied to the property encompassed itself is rather low. If Raritan Bay. in this paragraph? this occurred oil revenues should be sufficient to 60. build a fish ladder or other We note it is required that League of Women Silt curtains in low water mitigation. there be no resuspeasion Voters of N.J. velocity waters have been of toxic materials. Is shown to reduce turbidity as there a technique to much as 80 to 90% in sub- 7:7E-3.6 SUBMERGED VEGETATION control that? if so, aqueous disposal of spoils. refer to specific methods This type of information 64. or sources of information. will be included in a (b) - Who determines what N.J. Marine NJDEP and NJDOE after Developers' Handbook to be is a "feasible alternative Science Consortium analysis of corridor prepared in 1981. site"? alternatives. SURF CLAM AREAS 7:7E-3.3 7:7E-3.7 NAVIGATION CHANNELS 61. 65. Could not this policy N.J. Marine No. Beach nourishment to "Definition" - on the The Port Authority Agreed. See revised policy result in termination of Science Consortium create new bathing beaches second line add "by the N.Y. and N.J. 7:7E-3.7. Navigation new bathing beaches and would not conflict with Army Corps of Engineers" channels maintained by oceanographic research this policy. Would ocean- after "maintained". On DEP have also been included, which would need docks? ographic research really the eleventh line change choose docking facilities on "dock" to "moor", and an unprotected beach? add "awaiting high tide, Surely a sheltered harbor in better weather, fuel and the backbay adjacent to the terminal availability" intracoastal waterway would after "transferring be more appropriate and, cargo". generally, acceptable to coastal policies. 66. The policy on maintenance Cape May County "Conditionally acceptable" dredging of existing Planning Board is more appropriate due 7:7E-3-.4- PRIME FISHING AREAS navigation channels to conditions under the should remain encouraged. maintenance dredging policy 62. (see Section 7:7E-4.10). The Consortium is par- N.J. Marine Thank you. It is a very ticularly grateful for Science Consortium professional data source for 67. your reference to Lionel this determination. The (b) Policy - Add "and new The Port Authority Agreed. See revised policy Walford's Angler's Guide. co-author Bruce L. Freeman dredging" after "mainten- of N.Y. and N.J. which incorporates this is now Administrator for the ance dredging" on first comment. N.J. Bureau of Marine line. Fisheries. Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-3.11 PORTS Comments Commentor Response 73. State that "Port facilities The Port Authority Disagree. There are not 7:7E-3.8 CANALS are to be found in munici- of N.Y. and N.J. "concentrations of shoreside palities along the Hudson, marine termials" along all 68. Passaic, Hackensack and these waterbodies. Scattered (b)(1) - Do you expect this N.J. Marine Shellfish harvesting could Raritan Rivers, and Arthur port facilities are not paragraph to cause any Science Consortium satisfy these policies. Kill van Kull, Newark considered ports. collisions with the The limited area of working Bay shellfishing industry? canals is not suitable for aquaculture. 74. Add the following at the The Port Authority Disagree. This unnecessarily end of the ports definition: of N.Y. and N.J. complicates the definition. 7: 7-E-3.9 INLETS "Underutilized areas where the potential for modern 69. port operations has been (b) Policy - Does the N.J. Marine "Infrastructure" is now deemed unfeasible are not doct;m--ent anywhere define Science Consortium defined in the Glossary of included in this defini- "infrastructure"? this document. tion". 70. 75. This policy should allow Cape May County Agreed. The policy does Rationale - On the seventh The Port Authority (a) Agreed. (b) Disagree. for submerged infrastructure Planning Board allow for this possibility T-in-e-,77T change "pre- of N.Y. and N.J. "Sprawl" connotes hap- in inlets if no feasible by discouraging rather than venting" to discouraging" hazard growth. Controlled alternative is available. prohibiting infrastructure and (b) insert "unjustified" extension of development in inlets. before "sprawl". is not sprawl. X@ Un 7:7E-3.11 PORTS 7:7E-3.13 SHIPWRECKS AND ARTIFICIAL REEFS 71 * 76. Boat ramps should be The Port Authority Agree in part. Ports are What is "weighted" non- N.J. Marine An example of weighted "discouraged", not of N.Y. and N.J. usually not appropriate toxic material? Science Consortium ("weighed" was a typo) "prohibited", and then locations for the launching non-toxic material would be only in port facilities, of small recreational craft, used automobile tires not in ports themselves. but the policy has been fastened together and changed to "discouraged" to blasted with concrete such allow for the possibility as those previously exmployed that there might be suitable by NVS - Sandy Hook Labora- launching sites in some tory in construction of ports. Boat ramps are artificial reefs off Mon- discouraged throughout mouth Beach and Sea Girt. Port Areas because they could interfere with com- 77, mercial shipping. Do you really expect cum- N.J. Marine Yes, removal of hard sub- mercial salvage of wrecks Science Consortium strates will proportionately 72. to destroy ecological or reduce suitable attachment (b) Policy - Why should N.J. Marine Same answer as above. physical stability? habitat and shelter habitat boaC -ramps he included? Science Consortium which is naturally rare in isn't this overly pro- New Jersey's coastal sea and hibited? offshore. Shipwrecks are prime sport fishing areas. Loss of wreck material would reduce that site habitat value for a host of organisms. Comments CCommentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-3.14 ESTUARINE OR MARINE SANCTUARY 7:7E-3-15 WET BORROW PITS - Continued 78. Definition - Delete "Hudson The Port Authority The Hudson Canyon was among 83. Ca-Ty-0-n-'r -from the NOAA The term borrow pit has an Mining Industry This change has not been of N.Y. and N.J. DEP's six nominations in made due to the wider use of recommendat ions. This is 1977, but note the additional accepted meaning both within Representatives the industry and beyond the term "borrow pit". based on a February 25, 1980 language stating that New which doesn't include letter from Mr. John Weingart Jersey is not currently industrial mining type to Mr. Alfred Hammon of the pursuing the nomination of operations, therefore all Port Authority that states a marine sanctuary. references to the term that "the State of New "borrow pit" should be Jersey has not nominated replaced with "mining pit" the Hudson (fa-nyon or any a,o as to maintain con- area for designation as sistency with accepted a marine sanctuary". definition. 84. 7:7E-3.15 WET BORROW PITS What is meant by the Mining Industry See Revised Policy which "original lake area" in Representatives clarifies that this is the 79. policy 3(ii)? area before approved mining it is suggested that the Mining Industry Agreed. See revised language. words "sand and gravel Representatives activity began. extraction" be removed 85. and the words "surface We wonder if permitting League of Women Limited clean fill seems a mining" be inserted so fill in wet borrow pits Voters of N.J. reasonable compromise in as to remain consistent is wise even if it is these artificial water with other language placed in "fingers" that bodies. Wildlife, scenic and referring to extraction would create additional recreational benefits are of minerals. shoreline. Cutting down preserved or enhanced and on the size of lakes and some urgently needed provi- 80. adding shoreline vege- sion is made for dredge dis- This Rationale is par- N.J. Marine Thank you. tation might speed the posal. The required water ticularly splendid and Science Consortium eutrophicaLion process. buffer, (see 7:7E-3.25) is deserving of special mention in this regard. that recommended by Jack McCormick and Associates for 81. preventing eutrophication in Is the policy saying that Mining Industry No. The policy states that wet borrow pits. all areas where mining may Representatives mining is conditionally take place are dry borrow acceptable in Wet Borrow 7:7E-3.17 FILLED WATERS EDGE pits? Pits. It is acceptable in other areas if consistent 86. with the Use Policy on Policy fails to distinguish Natural Resources Disagree. There is no Mining. priorities among, or Defense Council reason to require an arbi- standards applicable to, trary 100 foot setback on a 82. water dependent and non- Filled Water's Edge, which Language should be added to Mining Industry In the selection of new water dependent activities. by definition is already clarify the fact that while Representatives mining areas, even if This policy functionally disturbed. However, a mining is in progress in adjacent to existing mining, exempts all activities sufficient setback for one of these areas, the Special Area policies would other than housing devel- public access must be other special policies do apply. In areas where opment from the 1001 set allowed. not apply. approved mining is taking place Resource Policies would apply. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-3.17 FILLED WATER$ EDGE Continued 7:7E-3.18 EXISTING LAGOON EDGE 86. - Continued 90. back. This is unaccept- Glad to see the new polices League of Women Thank you for support. able. Coastal policies for managing the lagoon Voters of N.J. must give clear priority edge. Reclamation is the to water dependent facili- desirable choice, but stabi- ties, parks and open lization of slopes with space. A setback require- vegetation is a step toward ment of at least 100' reclamation of as much should be applied to all filled land as feasible. non-water dependent acti- vities without exception, 91. especially in the bay and It is assumed that The Port Authority This assumption is correct. ocean shore area. .ports" are not intended of N.Y. and N.J. for inclusion in the term 87. "commercial" on the fourth Proposed policy changes American Littoral Disagree. The filled line of the definition. for Filled Water's Edge Society water's edge is by defini- will weaken the criteria tion less environmentally 92. for regulating develop- sensitive and therefore This definition is ambig- Cape May County The definition is unambig- ment in this zone. The coastal policies should be uous as to what the limit Planning Board uous provided the fill policy regulating devel- more permissive toward of fill is. The policy on distribution is known. opment in the Filled development. reclamation of existing Economic feasibility is Water's Edge within lagoon edges is also implicit, leaving room to 100 feet of a navigable unclear. Reclamation of judge on a case by case water body should be the site to its natural basis. extended to the entire state should be based on defined boundary. We economic feasibility. recommend that the criteria for Filled Water's Edge remain as 7:7E-3.19 BEACH AND DUKE SYSTEMS (Now Policy 7:7E-3.21) written in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment 93. document of August 1978 We strongly support restric- League of Women Comment accepted. and not contain the tions on new building in Voters of N.J. changes proposed Lin high risk erosion areas the May 1980 document. and on the repair of structures heavily 88. damaged by storms. We would like to see a David Fisher, Agree. See revised policy. 50 foot buffer instead N.J. Builders 94. of 100 feet, which appears Association This section needs to be League for The rules and regulations to have no basis or a 50 upgraded to meet the intent Conservation for the Proposed Dune and to 100 foot requirement of the proposed dune and Legislation Shorefront Protection will depending upon the cir- shorefront protection bill. be written if the Act is cumstances of each case. Under the proposed plan, passed and they then will be activities adversely incorporated into this 89. affecting the dune system document. There also seems to be David Fisher, See revised policies. Hous- would merely be discouraged, an inconsistency between N.J. Builders ing is acceptable in the rather than prohibited as the Water's Edge Policy, Association Filled Water's Edge, pro- under the Bay and Ocean the Water's Edge Rationale, vided it meets the three Shore Segment. and the House Use Policy. conditions of Housing Use Policy 7:7E-7.2(b)(I)ii. Comments Commen-tor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-3.19 BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEMS (Now Policy 7:7E-3.21) - Continued 7:7E-3.19 BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEMS (Now Policy 7:7E-3.21) - Continued 95. 98. The use of "discouraged" Natural Resources Disagree. The policy, which Based on findings of The Port Authority The turbidity clause has for beach and dune system Defense Council applies to the whole system, the Army Corps of of N.Y. and N.J. been deleted in response to represents a substantial provides the flexibility to Engineers Dredged this comment because tur- downgrading from the BOSS allow a facility such as a Material Research Program bidiLy is not a concern when program which prohibited pipeline crossing. The that turbidity is short it is sand that is being activities adversely intention, made clear by the lived, add "when especially dredged. affecting the beach and rationale is clearly not to sensitive environmental dune system. Considering allow adverse development. resources are impacted" the limited jurisdiction The suggested term "pro- after "turbidity is con- of CAFRA, any permit hibit" would not allow the trolled". issued which allows devel- state to approve even a opment in beach and dune pipeline crossing. More- 99. systems will have sub- over, developments built The phrase "and inlet areas" Cape May County Agreed. See new wording. stantial adverse impacts after CAFRA permit approval should be added to the Planning Board on the functioning of often incorporate condi- definition of high risk such systems and will tions increasing the beach erosion areas fol- conflict with the manage- environmental sensitivity lowingthe words "ocean ment objectives as stated of the design. shorelines". in the program. Me con- trolling term must remain 100. "prohibited" rather than The Beach and Dune Systems Monmouth County No response needed. "discouraged". policy is generally con- Environmental Council sistent with previous 96. positions of the Planning Any activity which adversely Vivian Li, See above responses to League Board and Environmental affects the natural func- Sierra Club, for Conservation Legislation Council. The Planning Lioning of the dune system New Jersey Chapter and Natural Resources Board recommended the should be prohibited. Defense Council. designation of a coastal Shore protection structures hazard buffer area to be and retaining structures determined through the should not be conditionally use of historical flood approved. Development in data and the substitution high risk beach erosion of disaster relocation areas should be prohibited. assistance for Federal flood insurance. 97 We strongly favor protec- League of Women The groin construction you 101. tion of our few remaining Voters of N.J. mention are reasonable This proposed change com- Cape May County Thank you. natural beach and dune efforts to protect the bines into a single Special Planning Board areas, including unde- shoreline on a case by case Area the policies on veloped sections of barrier basis. The Shore Protection "Beaches", "High Risk Beach islands and spits. However, Master Plan currently being Erosion Areas", "Accretion in view of past failures, prepared will deal with the Areas", "Overwash Areas", we wonder about the new benefit and harm of all and "Dunes". This combina- construction of groins techniques and will recom- tion results in the formu- mentioned in page 311. mend coordinated State lation of one coherent Protection. policy on "Beach and Dune Systems". Comments Commentor R@sponse 7:7E-3.20 WETLANDS (Now Policy 7:7E-3.23) Comments Commentor Response 102. 7:7E-3.20 WETLANDS (Now Policy 7:7E-3.23) Glad to see bogs and white League of Women Thank you. 106. cedar forests included Voters of N.J. The policies on "Bogs and Cape May County No response necessary. under Policies that apply to coastal wetlands. Freshwater Wetlands", "White Planning Board Cedar Stands", and "Coastal 103. wetlands" are proposed to Would it not be possible League of Women DEP intends to pursue a be combined into a single to make a written agreement Voters of N.J. Memorandum of Understanding special area policy for with the State Mosquito with the State Mosquito "Wetlands". This change Control Commission similar Control Commission regarding is an improvement since to the one between DEP and the mitigation of impacts in these special areas are DOE, and, if so, would wetlands. interrelated. developed policies be able to influence county commis- 107. sioners? For NJDEP to efficiently American Littoral Federal regulations CFR 923.31 regulate coastal wetlands, Society (a)8 do not require parcel 104. all official wetland maps by parcel mapping of wetlands While the proposal to regu- Middlesex County Disagree. Before publishing must be issued. The prior to federal approval, but late up to 500 feet from Planning Board the DEIS, DEP specifically complete set of wetland only require a determination tidal waters under the asked the Planning Board maps must include the that they are subject to Waterfront Development Law staff to identify wetland areas now regulated under the CMP. WeLland mapping may include portions of the areas which would not be the jurisdiction of the will be conducted during 3,500 acres of tidal wet- subject to the Waterfront proposed N.J. Coastal 1981 for the area Subject Ul Management Plan. to the Wetlands Act. 0 lands in Middlesex County, Development Law, and they This does not include the this new proposal is not a identified no such areas, northern waterfront areas or viable substitute for com- nor were any such areas Hackensack Meadowlands which prehensive wetlands pro- identified in the comments. are not subject to the tection nor does it meet Wetlands Act. the obligation of the State to provide wettand protection. 7:7E-3.21 FLOODPLAINS (Now Policy 7:7E-3.19, titled 105. Natural Water's Edge-Floodplains) Wetlands have been grouped Roger Wells, The various Wetlands types, together into one defini- Roger Wells, Inc. which were listed separately 108. tion, and all wetlands have in CMP-BOSS, were recom- Policies concerning flood- Monmouth County No response necessary. been designated unusable mended for aggregation into plain areas have been Environmental Council for anything. This is too one special area by Wapora strengthened considerably. general; the facts do not Inc. (1979) The Estuarine The Planning Board has long support such a sweeping Study. M o s t-1-m-p Tor-t-a- -n-t T -y,- discouraged development in @onfiscatory position. Th-epolicy has been revised flood hazard areas and was to a more restrictive pleased that the new Flood "generally ... prohibited" Hazard Areas Control Act for all wetlands in the provides the statutory coastal zone. Such a foundation for better flood- restrictive policy is plain management. justified by the fragility and significance to the ecosystem of both tidal and inland wetlands. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-3.21 FLOODPLAINS (Now Policy 7:7E-3.19, titled 7:7E-3.22 CENTRAL BARRIER ISLAND CORRIDORS Continued Natural Water's Edge-Floodplains) - Continued 109. Ill. - Continued Is the prohibition of non- Pureland Industrial Linear development may and destruction of beaches protected under the water dependent development complex override this prohibition in and dunes. This cycle must Beaches and Dune System not be permitted to con- Policy (7:7F-3.19 within 100' of the water's some cases (see 7:7E-6.1). edge in floodplains too tinue under a program formerly 7:7E-3-21). strong? Certain develop- which purports to preserve ment, such as roads, beaches and dunes. driveways or recreational areas, might be acceptable 112. if properly undertaken. The policies invoke the Natural Resources See response above. As same standards for devel- Defense Council discussed in the rationale, 110. opment on barrier islands infill development is not The policy on Floodplains D. Fisher, The Divisions of Coastal as are applied to develop- expected to add appre- appears to be more restric- N.J. Builders Resources and Water Re- ment in urban areas on the ciably to public service tive than the floodplain Association sources are in agreement mainland. Policies for costs or emergency evacu- regulations issued by the that the floodplains of central barrier island ation problems. Division of Water Resources. tidal rivers and streams corridors should prohibit Since the Division of Water merit more careful manage- new construction in any Resources has primary juris- ment than inland floodplains area which is not adequately diction of this area, it because of the special protected from reasonably is inconceivable that CAFRA relationship that these foreseeable future coastal could enact regulations areas have with estuarine hazards during its useful more restrictive than Water habitats and breeding areas. lifetime. The term "ade- Resource's regulations. UWR regulations have public quately protected" should safety rather than environ- mean that the construction mental protection as their is protected by previously primary objective, thus the existing and effective difference. shore protection structures or is located such that it will not be threatened by 7:7E-3.22 CENTRAL BARRIER ISLAND CORRIDORS natural processes. Ill. 113. When the policy on barrier Natural Resources ibis cycle is the result of It does not appear that David Fisher, The brackets, as explained island corridors is read Defense Council the need to protect exist- figure 6 referred to on N.J. Builders on page 67 last paragraph in conjunction with poli- ing developments, many of page 113 shows the central Association indicated that the enclosed cies 7:7E-3.19(b) on beach which are inappropriately barrier island corridors. text has been deleted. The barrier islands corri- and dune systems and 7:7E- located. The proposed Dune dors are shown in Figure 14 7.Ll(e) on shore protection and Shorefront Protection of the DEIS and FEIS. structures, a peculiar Act is one attempt by DEP circular logic emerges: to break this cycle. In shore protection structures the interim, the Central are conditonally acceptable Barrier Island Corridor 7:7E-3.24 WET BORROW PITS MARGIN (Now Policy 7:7E-3.25) on beaches and dunes when Policy prevents the hap- they are built for the hazard extension of develop- 114. protection of existing ment on barrier islands by What is meant by the Water Mining Industry The Water Quality Buffer is buildings, while new struc- limiting development to Quality Buffer? This area, Representatives an area around Wet Borrow tures can be built in the areas that meet the high referred to with capital Pits where development is barrier island corridor development potential cri- letters, does not appear restricted to maintain without attention to poten- teria, which include roads, elsewhere in the document. surface water quality. tial hazards which may well sewage and infill require- Around natural water bodies result in further construc- ments. Beaches and dunes various water's edge special tion of protection devices are more rigorously areas, notably floodplains, perform the same function. Comments. Commentor Response 7:7E-3.24 WET BORROW PITS -MARGIN (Now Policy 7:7E-3.25) - Continued Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-3.27 INTERMITTENT STREAM CORRIDORS 1L5. The 100' and 50' buffer Mining Industry These distances are not 119. zones are arbitrary and Re present at ives arbitrary, they are the Is it correct to assume that Mining industry No. Mining would not be unsupported by good land results of studies done by mining is acceptable in Representatives acceptable if it would use policies and should Jack McCormick and Assoc- intermittent stream corri- "directly degrade the therefore be removed. iates for the Warner Company dors since it is not function of" the corridors. to establish minimum set- mentioned? backs to prevent eutrophi- cation in borrow pits. 120. The need for the prohibi- Middlesex County Intermittent or ephermerat 116. tion on use of intermittent Planning Board stream corridors, swales or This language is particu- Mining Industry Disagree. The language stream corridors for "run- any other topographic larly restrictive in the Representatives restricts only a narrow off recharge" is not clearly depressions which sometimes area of future land use in strip around the water body. demonstrated. Where prac- are channels for flowing a mined out area after Water quality, scenic tical, it is often desir- surface water, are unsuit- reclamation has been amenity and wildlife habitat able to encourage use of able sites for runoff completed. A paragraph quality cannot be assured swales and similar areas detention because ground- should be added which without this water quality for recharge and stormwater water infiltration cannot would permit variances buffer. runoff detention purposes. take place in saturated in order that labd substrates. planned for future utilization may be used for its intended 7:7E-7.28 FARMLAND CONSERVATION AREAS purpose. 121. We question the jurisdicton David Fisher, Section 11 of CAPRA allows 7: 7E-3 .25 ALLUVIAL FLOOD MARGINS of CAPRA to regulate Farm- N.J. Builders DEP to deny a permit if land Conservation Areas. Association "resource exhaustion" is 117. threatened. The resource is Development should be David Fisher, It is not arbitrary since no the soil. Soil formation allowed in alluvial flood N.J. Builders mitigation is available takes thousands of years. margins if proper miti- Association which preserves the primary The world food situation and gating techniques are uti- productivity, water filtra- farming economy will change lizpd. it is arbitrary to tion and wildlife habitat dramatically in the next merely discourage develop- functions of these areas if quarter century and the ment without allowing they are developed. value to society of this proper mitigating tech- irreplaceable resource, lost niques. entirely if developed, will rise steadily. 7:7E-3.26 COASTAL BLUFFS 122. Glad to see agricultural League of W&men Farmland Conservation 118. soils along water courses Voter of N.J. Special Area Policy'and It would help if in the League of Women The crest and toe of the included in areas for Fertile Soils Resource definition of the "crest" Voters of N.J. slope are the limited areas restricted activities. Policy restrict activities of a bluff, the "crest" where there is a rapid This is consistent with on agricultural soils and "buffer" were each change of slope. A single approach encouraged by whether or not they are spelled out in terms of figure would not be applic- Department of Agriculture along water courses. Thank feet as in the diagram able since the width of this and considered by Congress. you for support. on page 118. There seems area varies. to be no distinction between the "crest" and the "tableland". Comments, Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-3.30 DRY BORROW PITS 7:7E-E.28 FARMLAND CONSERVATION AREAS - Continued 126. 123. We question the use of League of Women See revised policy 7:7E- We recommend rewording Middlesex County Disagree. The coastal runoff to recharge aquifers Voters of N.J. 3.30(b)2. Policy Statement number Planning Board policies are State policy because of heavy metals and "T' to read, "Conversion and cannot be subject to hydrocarbons. Would the of Farmland Conservation municipal policies. runoff be treated or simply Areas to development is allowed to infiltrate? acceptable only when the There is a problem of the predominant surrounding pits becoming clogged with pattern of development is decaying vegetation, and urban or suburban and such in handling the dredge development is consistent material from these pits. with adopted zoning and A clearer statement would land use plans." The help. criteria of "unaccept- able urban - agricultural 127. conflict" is impossible Is it correct to assume that Mining Industry Mining is conditionally to define. mining is acceptable in dry Representatives acceptable provided the borrow pits since it is not use policies for mining mentioned? are complied with. See 7:7E-3.29 STEEP SLOPES revision to 7:7E-3.30(b)l. 124. 128. The policy is unreasonable David Fisher, Mitigation becomes increas- Add language to indicate Mining Industry Agreed. See new policy insofar as it it prohibits N.J. Builders ingly ineffective as the that "surface mining is Representatives 7:7E-3.30(b)l. development on steep slopes Association slope rises. See revised conditionally acceptable greater than 15Z. If in language. provided the Use Policies fact the problems relating for Mining are complied to %oil erosion, protection with". By adding this of up-slope lands, pollu- language, it would merely tion of surface waters, make dry borrow pit and and flooding are mitigated wet borrow pit sections or eliminated by develop- consistent. ment on slopes of greater than 15%, such development 129. should be conditionally Policy State 5(ii) regard- Mining Industry Agreed. See revised policy, acceptable. ing disposal of solid waste Repersentatives which incorporates this should be qualified to read: suggestion. 125. "Leachate is collected, It is very difficult to David Fisher, See revised policy, which treated and discharged to define the words "very small N.J. Builders incorporates your comment. the ground through an part of a site" and there- Association injection well or other fore the definition is technique that does not vague and arbitrary. in any way-re-s-u-Ft -in I-e-achateentering an aquifer system used now or potentially useable in the future for potable water supply. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-3.34 CRITICAL WILDLIFE HABITAT 133. 7:7E-3. -31 HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Caven Point should be Audrey Zapp, The Proposed NJCMP does not 130. considered a Critical Hudson County Citizens spec-71-c-aTT-y-li-d-entify all Caven Point should be Audrey Zapp, ibis suggestion has been Wildlife Habitat. for Clean Air sites which may be con- included on the New Jersey Hudson County Citizens directed to the Office of sidered as a Critical State Register of Historic for Clean Air Historic Preservation, Wildlife Habitat, rather examples of some types are Places . but it does not appear ided. identification is to be eligible. prove cons quently done on a site by site review during permit 7:7E-3.33 ENDANGERED OR THREATENED WILDLIFE OR VEGETATION SPECIES HABITAT application and through consultation With the N.J. Division of Fish, Game and 131. Wildlife. How are species eligible Mining Industry Species appearing on the to be on list to be Representatives State list are arrived at determined? 134. (and periodically revised) This prohibition against David Fisher, The designation of habitat by a group of experts building in certain habi- N.J. Builders areas is based on recommenda- representing a variety of tats is unreasonable unless Association tions by DEP's Division of public and private agencies there are sightinga of the Fish, Game and Wildlife, and organizations. The full actual type of wildlife that which in turn are based on list of advisors is listed is supposed to be associated sighLings. on pages 2 and 3 of State of New Jersey "Endangered, with such habitats X= Threatened, Peripheral, M Declining, Undetermined and Extirpated Wildlife Species 7:7E-3.38 SPECIAL URBAN AREAS in New Jersey Official List" (March 29, 1979) available 135. from DEP, Division of Fish, Mixed use development in Vivian Li, Disagree. The water's edge Game and Wildlife. special urban areas should Sierra Club, in the State 21 Special Urban not necessarily be encour- New Jersey Chapter Areas is already developed. 132. aged. Such development Mixed use redevelopment is Delete "or eligible to Mining Industry See revised definition in in urban areas would acceptable unless it is be on the list". This Representatives 7:7E-3.33, which responds encompass nearly every inconsistent with other phrase is very broad and to your suggestion. usage, and it does not coastal policies. lacks specific definition. necessarily have to be Also there are separate along urban coasts. procedures outlined in the Endangered and Non-Game 136. Species list. By including We are pleased to note the Camden Department of No response necessary. it in with these regulations, wide range of development Community Development we are creating a duplica- that is encouraged to tion of authority. locate in the Special Urban Areas. The flexi- bility that results from the mixed development policies of these areas is important to the City of Camden in terms of the future development of our City Centre Urban Renewal Area. Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-3.38 SPECIAL URBAN AREAS - Continued 136. Comments Commentor Response This section should estab- Vivian Li, Redevelopment and public lish a priority of recrea- Sierra Club, open space are both encour- 7:7E-3.38 SPECIAL URBAN AREAS - Continued tion, rather than develop- New Jersey Group aged in Special Urban Areas. ment, along the coast. See Policy 7:7F-7.3(b)(I). 141. We support the call for The definition of Special A. Mogerly, N.J. The relaxation of water a park and open space for Urban Areas may work a independent Liquid dependency requirements each community along the hardship upon industrial- Terminals Assoc. is appropriate only for coast, and hope this ized urban municipalities develcpcd waterfronts in emphasis is reflected which do not meet the need of revitalization, in this section as well. state's statutory aid test. i.e. for urban aid cities. A more flexible standard 137. for de 8ignating special Sierra Club supports the Carol Barrett, No response necessary. growth zoned which con- rejuvenation of urban Sierra Club siders a number of factors, areas. West Jersey Group such as the existing character and usage of the 138, waterfront, should be The imposition of a new per- G. Deutsch, The program represents State formulated. mit and approval process is N.J. Business & policy and cannot rely upon counter-productive to the Industry Assoc. municipal zoning. It does 142. encouragement of develop- not add a new approval The Council supports this Monmouth County Thank you for support. ment. Those properties process but rather adds policy which encourages Environmental Council already zoned for commer- clarity and specificity to development to promote the cial and industrial use an existing process. economic well-being of should be removed from these communities and the scope of the proposed discourages project (such regulations. as suburban shopping centers) which would 139. affect the local economy The emphasis on siting Natural Resources Open space is one of the adversely. water-dependent uses and Defense Council uses required in mixed use public open space areas development. Public access 143. along the water's edge to the waterfront is a The proposed plan includes Department of No response necessary, should not be reduced in criterion for the accepta- changes recommended by Community Affairs Special Urban Areas. bility of all waterfront DCA's Division of State- Water-dependent uses and development. The special wide Planning, such as open space should be conditions in decayed port the designation of Urban given priority over areas and the potential of Aid municipalities within mixed use development the waterfront resource to the region as High Growth even in Special Urban revive depressed economies Areas. Areas. demands special use con- siderations in these areas. 144. The Special Urban Areas Salem County The Special Urban Area 140. definition should be Planning Board Policy is designed f6r a Special Urban Areas should Monmouth County See above response to Natural expanded to include other small group of cities that not be exempt entirely from Environmental Council Resources Defense Council. smaller cities. have developed waterfronts the 100 foot setback re- The waterfronts of Special which are in need of re- quirement for water-related Urban Areas are almost vitalization. (as opposed to water-depen- entirely developed. dent) projects on the Filled Water's Edge. The exemption should be limited to water- front areas which are already built up. Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-3.38 SPECIAL URBAN AREAS - Continued 145. Comments Commentor Response Salem City and Penns Grove Salem County Salem and Penns Grove 7:7E-3.38 SPECIAL URBAN AREAS - Continued should be listed as part of Planning Board do not meet the criteria the urban areas region to for urban aid cities. attract needed new invest- 148. Salem's classification The definition of Special Monmouth County The Special Urban Area ment. A] though Penns Grove as a Limited Growth Region is within the high growth means that only infill Urban Areas is overly re- Environmental Council policy is designed to give area of the Delaware River, residential development is strictive, and should be priority to the revitaliza- Salem City is not listed likely to be acceptable, but extended to additional tion of the most econom- as high growth under the since the small coastal zone urban areas such as ically depressed developed Delaware Bayshore Region area within the city is Belmar, Keyport, and waterfronts. It is based even though it was listed already largely developed Red Bank. Such a policy on state law establising as a high growth area in with industry and housing, would help to ensure the areas eligible for urban previous documents and as this infill criteria is likely continued vitality of aid. Areas such as those a growth area on the State to be met. the more prosperous com- mentioned are conditionally Development Guide Plan. mprcial centers as well acceptable because of as promote the revitali- their generally developed 146. zation of areas which character. An urban impact analysis Camden Department of Secondary impact analysis have declined. should be required for all Community Development will be required for all development proposed out- development with potential side of the high growth to induce growth inconsistent 7:7E-4.2 POLICY SUMMARY TABLE areas, and for major with coastal policies. An development outside the impact analysis may be 149. Special Urban Areas. required of any project that Many policies shown in the Natural Resource Experience in implementing would adversely affect the Water Area Policy Summary Defense Council this policy has brought SR economic welfare of a Table have been downgraded unexpected situations where Special Urban Area. from their predecessor in a prohibited activity was Such an analysis was re- the BOSS program. Of 16 found to be in the public quired by the HMDC before uses previously "prohibited", interest. Use of "Con- conditional concept approval 10 are now "discouraged" and ditionally acceptable" of a new residential/com- 6 are "conditionally accept- allows DEP to prohibit an merc ial/ industrial center in able". The program includes activity in an undeveloped the Meadowlands District. no explanation why this is environment and permit it necessary or desirable, or in an urban area. 147, why the bay and ocean shore We strongly disagree with David Fisher, A more permissive develop- area should not receive the policy relating to N.J. Builders ment policy in Urban Areas better than the reduced level of protection.deemed development outside of Association is appropriate to promote for urban areas. those (urban) areas. it revitalization for the is also almost impossible public benefit. Beyond to ascertain whether this, however, it is appro- development outside of an priate to review development 7:7E-4.9 LAKES, PONDS, RESERVOIRS urban area would be more outside urban areas for beneficial within an their potential effects 150. urban area. Obviously on cities. The definition of lake Mining Industry Agreed. See revised section a developer has made a should be elaborated Representatives 7:7E-4.9. market determination upon so as to exclude that it would be more wet borrow pits. applicable outside of the urban area and this market determination should not be disturbed. Comments Co=entor Response 7:7E-4.10 ACCEPTABILITY CONDITIONS FOR USES Comments Commentor Response 151. All of the uses covered by Natural Resources Disagree. This is the 7:7E-4.10 ACCEPTABILITY CONDITIONS FOR USES - Continued t is section (7:7E-4.10) Defense Council entire range of water uses should be first required and this would be too to meet a general accepta- 155. stringent a condition for f) New Dredging - No The Port Authority See above response to Ellis bility condition: "There any water use, most of which is a demonstrated need for reason is given for limit- of N.Y. and N.J. Vieser. clearly must locate in water ing dredging to the period the proposed facility or bodies. Adequate conditions between November and mid- use that cannot be met to protect coastal resources by existing March. We believe seasonal facilities are included in the separate dredging prohibitions should and there is no alternative policies. method by which, or loca- be site specific and appro- tion where, the facility priately tailored to meet or use could accomplish environmental resource its intended function while requirements. The term creating a lesser adverse "conditionally acceptable" impact on coastal resources.,, would be preferable. 152. 156. (e) Dredging-Maintenance - Cape May County Agreed. See revised policy (f) New Dredging - Add "when Disagree. "Especially Planning Board Policy should be re=sed 7:7E-4.10(e), which incor- especia y sensitive envi- sensitive environmental to permit scouring of ronmental resources are resources" is a vague term. channels, anchorages, porates your suggestion. impacted" after "turbidity Note revision to policy and moorings on a case is controlled". 7-7E-4.10(f)ix requiring by case basis since the best available technology cost of dredging is for turbidity control. prohibitive for many small-scale water- 157 dependent facilities. (f) New Dredging - A general John J. Horn, Agreed. Policy has been seasonal re-striction on Commissioner, revised. 153. dredging activities is Department of (e) Maintenance Dredging New Jersey Alliance The intent of this policy is unwarranted and would Labor and Industry The proposed regulati-ons for Action that maintenance dredging impose a significant new state that dredging of shall preserve the dimen- economic burden to channels to their sions of channels now industry. Seasonal "authorized depth and authorized by State and restrictions should be width" will be condi- Federal agencies. There are imposed only where Lionalty acceptable This no hidden conditions. The scientific evidence connotes to us tkiat the policy has, however, been indicates they are intent of DEP is to only revised. absolutely necessary. tolerate dredging when conditions they impose 158. are met, if they can be (f) New Dredging - Add "or The Port Authority Expansion of the width of a met. These conditions width'-a-rterwater depth". of N.Y. and N.J. water area means trans- remain undefined. forming a Land Area into a Water Area, or realignment. 154. See Policy 7:7E-4.10(r). (f) New Dredging - Dredging E. Vieser, N.J. See revised policy. Seasonal conditions, in particular, Alliance for Action dredging limitations will the seasonal limitations to only be applied when neces- dredge spoil disposal, have sary to protect a specified been arbitrarily established resource in a specified on assumptions that are not area. supported by data and studies. Comments Commentor Response Romments Commentor Response 7:7E-4.10 ACCEPTABILITY CONDITIONS FOR USES - Continued 7:7E-4.10 ACCEPTABILITY CONDITIONS FOR USES - Continued 159. 164. (g) Dredge Spoil Disposal - American Littoral Such a change would be in Under these policies new The Port Authority Maintenance dredging of We recommend a revision in Society conflict with the condi- dredging would be dis- of N.Y. and N.J. existing channels anchorages policy be made to prohibit tionally acceptable policy couraged in bays, which and ports is preferred over Dredge Spoil Disposal in on the use of clean dredge would affect channels, the creation of new ones. Open Bays and Semi-Enclosed spoil to create new wet- anchorages, and terminals Therefore, new dredging is and Back Bays as well as in lands, marsh islands in any in Raritan and Newark discouraged in bays, outside Tidal Guts, Medium Rivers, general water area. Also Bays. Filling would be of existing port areas. Creeks and Streams, Lakes, there is often no alternative discouraged or prohibited Similarly, filling is Ponds, and Reservoirs. to sidecasting in dredging in such water bodies, conditionally acceptable in The remainder of the para- channels through shallow piling would be dis- existing ports (7:7E-3.11) graph addressing disposal waterways. See Policy couraged generally in but discouraged or pro- by side casting should be 7:7E-4.10(g) which has been deep open bays, and hibited elsewhere. Piers or deleted. vessel mooring would pilings are always preferred slightly revised. be prohibited in ocean to filling. Proposed policy L60. waters and discouraged on mooring has been changed in open bays. to make it conditionally (i) Filling - Non-Water Natural Resources Agreed. See revision to acceptable in all water dependent uses should not Defense Council policy 7:7E-4.10(i)2(ii)a, bodies. be offered special treatment which incorporates this in respect to filling exten- suggestion. sions to filled water's 165. _rr edges. (1) Sand and Gravel Extrac- Mining Industry Lakes, Ponds and Reservoirs tion - Does the pr7h-i- Representatives include man-made bodies, 161. Ti-tion in lakes, ponds, but do not include Wet (i) Filling - Insert The Port Authority Disagree. ocean filling is reservoirs, and tidal guts Borrow Pits. "cor@d_-i.tLonally acceptable" of N.Y. and N.J. not a desirable practice, apply to man-made bodies before "in oceans". particularly since filling of waters or only natural is now defined to be for bodies? Would not a more creating new upland. rational distinction be between water bodies created L62. by mining activities and (i) Filling - 2.(ii) - on The Port Authority Disagree. Filling has major those not created by firs-t-T-Lne, substitute of N.Y. and N.J. environmental impacts. mining activities. "conditionally acceptable" Limited filling is condi- for "discouraged". tionally acceptable as 166. described in the policy. (o) Overhead Transmission Public Service Surplus infrastructure lines - Item (0)(271-1737-- Electric and Gas Co. capacity is a prime invita- 163. Should be deleted. Electric tion to further development. (j) Piling - Delete current The Port Authority Disagree. Piling in deep lines do not induce develop- Analysis of induced impacts four7th -ILne and substitute ofN.Y. and N.J. bay waters is undesirable, ment. The acceptability is an essential part of any "ocean waters and accept- piling in moderate and shallow of development must be infrastructure proposal. able for bay waters. Else- bay waters is now condi- concluded on its own Transmission lines cannot merits. be judged solely on their where tionally acceptable. merits since they are not a use in themselves but are always associated with other uses. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-4.10 ACCEPTABILITY CONDITIONS FOR USES Continued 7:7E-5.3 COASTAL GROWTH RATINGS 167. 171. (0) Overhead Transmission Salem County See revised policy 7:7E- The proposed GMP lacks Natural Resources This change is being approved Lines - The overhead trans- Planning Board 4.10(o)(2)(vi), which criteria for changing Defense Council through this document. The mission line statement should incorporates your sug- growth region designations. growth region policies, like be restated since it is gestion. If designation changes all coastal policies, are poorly worded and confusing. such as those being con- rules adopted as part of the It was only apparent from sidered for Galloway and New Jersey Administrative the summary table (Table 21) Egg Harbor Townships in Code. They may only be changed what was intended. It is Atlantic County take place, following notice of proposed suggested that the accepta- they will be changes in amendment in the New Jersey bility conditions also the CMP, and as such are Register and public review. specify that the design subject to federal Substantive changes to the of the towers should mini- and public review. the rules are considered mize aesthetic and construc- amendments to the Coastal tion impacts on water areas. Management Program. As such they are subject to 168. federal review and are (0) Overhead Transmission James A. Shissias, Agreed. Item deleted. possible grounds for with- Lines - (2)(iv) - sWo-uld be Public Service drawl of federal approval. d=eeted. The requirement Electric and Gas Co. for a broken cable is 172. tantamount to requiring by existing in Monmouth N.J. Marine No, because it is a Special _1= that a bridge which County, would Sandy Hook Sciences Consortium Area as an Excluded Federal 500 breaks not hit the water. be designated a high growth Area. Growth Regions only There is no record of any region? If so, why? apply to General Land safety problem from the Areas. hundreds of existing crossings of water bodies 173. by electric lines, none Figure 23 on page 159, does N.J. Marine Agreed. Graphics are poor. of which meet the above not differentiate in its Sciences Consortium Generally Barrier Islands requirement. marking between high growth can be distinguished because and barrier island. How they are islands but bound- 169. could one tell them apart aries on spits and headlands (P) Dams and Impoundments - Cape May County They are specified in on the map? are unclear on the reduced The water body typer in-the Planning Board Figure 21. maps. Larger scale maps "Dams and Impoundments" available on request policy are too general; from DCR. they need to be specified. 174. I request that the growth Roger Wells, The growth regions and the 7i7E-5.1 GENERAL LAND AREAS regions policy be reevalu- Roger Wells, Inc.. other policies are based on ated. DEP must supply as DEP's experience adpini- 170. part of its EIS the specific stering CAFRA and the other "Definition" - it is unclear The Port Authority Most areas within the basis for its growth coastal laws. Further lZw -this definition relates of N.Y. and N.J. 100-500 foot boundary are policies. improving rationales and to the proposed 100-500 Special Water's Edge Areas. Stabilizing growth region foot boundary. Those that are not are boundaries will be a high General Land Areas. priority after program approval. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-5.3 COASTAL GROWTH RATINGS Continued 7:7E-5.3 COASTAL GROWTH RATINGS - Continued 178. Continued the coastal ecosystem and 175. concentrating development. The proposed system of N.J. Conservation Coastal Growth Ratings are Note, however, that the Growth Rating is inadequate. Foundation based on a balancing of proposed policy for Large- In the absence of specific considerations of existing Scale and Multi-Use Devel- criteria, it is totally developmerit patterns, opmen ta (7:7E-7.21) has been subjective. The growth development needs, and changed to make it possible rating system must be regional resource patterns. to develop large-scale better substantiated. The results of such a planned residential devel- balancing necessarily opments in the less envi- involve best professional ronmentally sensitive judgements. portions of Limited Growth 176. Regions. Growth designations for the Richard Willinger, Criteria are the existing 179. coast should be clearly de- The League for pattern of coastal develop- We oppose redesignation of South Jersey Shell- Agree in part. Only the lineated and criteria for Conservation L@gisla- ment and natural and cul- portions of the Mullica- fishermen's Assoc.; Tuckerton Region has been changes in such should be tion tural resources. Public Southern Ocean and Great Assoc. of N.J. redesignated to a higher included in the plan. There review of any changes is Egg Harbor Low Growth Environmental Com- growth rating. The intent should be adequate public required by the Administra- Regions to a higher missions; New Jersey was to accommodate housing notice for comment about tive Procedures Act, and growth rating because Conservation Founda- demand in a compact Exten- such change. federal review is required these regions are envi- tion; and Sierra sion Region centered on by the federal CZKA. ronmentally sensitive Club, West Jersey the Borough of Tuckerton and crucial to coastal Group and extending southwest 177. fisheries. on upland toward Mystic The regional growth types Department of No response necessary. island. shown in the proposed plan Community Affairs (figure 23, page 159) have 180. been found essentially The low growth rating of a Roger Wells, Note revision to Policy compatible with the State region essentially makes it Roger Wells, Inc. 7:7E-7.2i permitting large- Department Guide Plan. a no growth region. A mod- scale residential develop- erate growth rating in ment in Limited (low) Growth 178. effect is a low growth regions provided certain con- We support redesignation of Atlantic City Disagree. These regions designation and promotes ditions are met. Extension portions of the Mullica- Development Corp. will continue to be desig- development sprawl. By (moderate) Regions are Southern Ocean and Great Egg and nated Limited Growth designating an area as a Development (High Growth) Harbor Low Growth Regions to Roger Wells, Regions (the former term high growth region, existing Regions allow development a higher growth rating. Roger Wells, Inc. was Low Growth Region), neighborhoods may be at 4+ dwelling units per These areas can be protected except for a portion of destroyed by the encouraged acre, thus discouraging by other coastal policies Tuckerton and Little Egg new development. (low density sprawl. and are essential to accom- Harbor Township which are Existing neighborhoods are modate housing need. now designated as the protected by Resource Policy Tuckerton Region, and 7:7E-8.18 (Neighborhoods and Extension Region (the former Special Communities). term was Moderate Growth Region). After study it was 181. determined that to change Identification of "growth Middlesex County Water supply availability is any more of the Limited regions" should consider Planning Board considered by the Surface Growth Region to a higher water supply availability Water Use Resource Policy growth rating would be as a major consideration (7:7E-8.5). inconsistent with the basic in the criteria for "high coastal policy of protecting potential" classification for land use types. comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY RATING 7:7E-5.5 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL - Continued 182. 185. The definition of environ- David Fisher, See revised policy 7:7E- lel . nergy F c'lity Devel- The Port Authority Agreed. See revised language 5.4(e)l, which defines opmen'E mental sensitivity factors N.J. Builders t Potential' - The of N.Y. and N.J. in 7:7E-5.5(e), which states should be changed. It does Association forest vegetation as con- statement tha't'in the that Development Potential not appear reasonable to sisting primarily of interim, the development Rankings shall be jointly have as one aspect 0 f high trees over ten years old. potential of energy facili- determined by NJDEP and NJDOE environmental sensitivity ties is assumed to be on a case by case basis. the fact that forest vege- moderate" is too vague and tation is a community of insufficient for this trees and shrubs with a Draft EIS. tree species of the late successional stage for the 186. region. We would suggest The change in the infill David Fisher, See revised definition in that the definition be definition appears to again N.J. Builders Section 7:7E-5.5(b). changed to reflect that restrict growth. There may Association "Comparable scale or it only refers to mature be a good reason why there Density" terminology has trees and shrubs. is no development at a com- been deleted. parable scale or density 183. and this consideration We strenously object to David Fisher, Prime agricultural soils are should be included in placing certain special N.J. Builders always high environmental the definition of infill. areas automatically into Association sensitivity because of the the high environmental scarcity and value of this 187. sensitivity areas. There resource. We question why septic David Fisher, Policy is intended to be is no correlation between systems are not mentioned N.J. Builders more restrictive in Limited a farmland conservation under the sewage criteria Association Growth and Extension areas area and high environ- for low potential sites in than in Development Regions. mental sensitivity. high growth region. 188. 7:7E-5.5 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Major Commerlial : Crit a, The Port Authority Disagree. This would nf_ page 166, 2( of N.Y. and N.J. weaken the infill require- 184. Substitute "Within '@;n_e ment. These General Land (c) "Major Commercial - The Port Authority Ports are not included quarter mile of an" for Area Policies do not apply Criteria", page 165 ::_Ff of N.Y. and N.J. within this-category. Ports "either immediately adja- in Special Hazard Areas it is Me intention of the are a special case, usually cent to, or immediately or in any other Special plan to include ports requiring Special Area across a road from". In Areas. within the Major Commer- sites. Port policies are addition, we believe this cial and Industrial adequately detailed in water requirement should be Development category, and water's edge area waived, where appropriate, we believe that the policies and use policies. to provide flexibility in criteria for high poten- the potential location of tial sites in (2) should specific industries near also include consideration or within "Special Hazard of site size, shape, water Areas", as covered on access, soils, etc. pages 128, 7:7E-3.36. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-5.6 DEFINITION OF ACCEPTABLE INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMEN-T - Continued 7:7E-5.5 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL - Continued 193. 189. The example on the top of David Fisher, It was rewritten, and, we The regional criterion for Cape May County Disagree. Under this policy page 168 is not clear and N.J. Builders hope, made clear. low potential sites for Planning Board at least five campgrounds should be revised. Association "Campground Development have been approved for CAFRA Potential" is too restric- permits in Cape May County, tive. In Cape May County with only one denial. 7:7E-5.7 LAND ACCEPTABILITY TABLES this criterion would eliminate many potential 194. campground development The use of the title League of Women Agreed. "Line" has been sites. Since campground "line" in the Land Voters of N.J. changed to "Area" in revised sites are essential to our Acceptability Tables was and policy 7:7E-5.7. resort/tourist economy, confusing. Aren't you N.J. Marine this criterion should be really documenting dif- Sciences Consortium relaxpd. ferent types of areas so wouldn't "Areas" or some similar word be clearer 7:7E-5.6 DEFINITION OF ACCEPTABLE INTENSITY OF DEVELOP14ENT and more appropriate? 190. 195. (b) "High Intensity Devel- The Port Authority Disagree. Limited vegeta- (b)(1) - Lines 7, 8, 9 - N.J. Marine Very high permeability soils opment" - Port facilities of N.Y. and N.J. tion offers all the bene- Why would the sandy soils Sciences Consortium are a problem for septic Z_ shoul-d be exempted from the fits in Ports as in of high growth regions be systems because they provide 80% maximum structures and other highly developed unsuitable for septic very little filtration, pervious paving coverage areas. However, this policy systems? Aren't these contaminants travel long and 5% minimum herb, shrub would apply to port facili- areas of particular distances and may enter and forest coverage. ties only if they extend good permeability? wells and surface water. inland to a General Land The Soil Conservation Area. Service has now included these soils as setting 191. severe restrictions to (c) - Shouldn't the require- N.J. Marine No, because sandy beaches septic systems. ment for.a minimum of 20% Sciences Consortium are a Special Area not gov- of forest ... be exclusive erned by this General Area 196. of sandy beaches in which it Policy, as are herbaceous Rationale - High Growth The Port Authority Agreed. Word deleted. is impractical to try to wetlands. The climax Regions, paFe -175,- On of N.Y. and N.J. plant forests? vegetation of all General the second line, the word Areas is forest. "lightly" appears unneces- sary and should be deleted. 192. "Land Acceptability Table: Port Authority Disagree. Even in develop- Ton @,page of N.Y. and N.J. ment regions this would 7:7E-6.3 SECONDARY IMPACTS 172 - Change 11-np 7 from unreasonably promote sprawl. "Low Intensity" to "Moderate Moderate intensity develop- 197. intensity". ment is diffuse and deliber- (b) - The reference to N.J. Marine Thank you for support. ately limited in such "secondary impacts of the Sciences Consortium regions, development ..." was par- ticularly gratifying to me in that secondary and tertiary impacts of devel- opment are all too often Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response SUBCHAPTiR 7 USE POLICIES Continued 7:7E-6.3 SECONDARY IMPACTS - Continued 202. 197. - Continued The Use Policies introduce N.J. Petroleum The location policies ignored by planners and conditions which must be Council serve the purpose sug- developers; yet, these can satisfied in addition to gested of allowing a be crucially important in the Location Policies. We project to be considered in later stages of residen- do not consider it appro- terms of its surrounding tial and professional life. priate to limit specific development. uses over such a wide area. Whether a parti- 198. cular use should be Transferred impact in addi- David Fisher, Agreed. Proposed policy has established or enlarged tion to secondary impacts N.J. Builders been deleted. in an already developed merely confuses the issue Association industrialized area of affect of development. should be judged in relationship to the 199. immediate surrounding There is no State Develop- David Fisher, Agreed. Reference has been area. ment Guide Plan which has N.J. Builders changed. been adopted by the Depart- Association ment of Community Affairs. 7:7E-7.2 HOUSING USE POLICIES it is inconceivable that Division decisions could 203. be based upon a guide plan DCA supports the proposed Department of Thank you for support. that is not yet adopted. revisions to the housing Community Affairs policies. Especially the statement calling 7:7E-6.4 TRANSFERRED IMPACTS for the provision of least- cost housing in high growth 200. regions and in municipali- The transferred impacts Roger Wells, The policy has been deleted. ties not presently providing policy is naive and allows Roger Wells, Inc. their fair share of low and DEP to stop any project it moderate income housing. wishes since there will always be transferred 204. impacts with any project. Housing does have some David Fisher, Water-related definition has water related elements N.J. Builders been deleted. Housing is and it should not be Association acceptable near or, in SUBCHAPTER 7 USE POLICIES dismissed as not being Special Urban Areas, on the water related or water water. 201. dependent. There seems to be a shift David Fisher, The suggested statement would in emphasis in the Use N.J. Builders not accurately describe the 205. Policies to give the Association Coastal Policies. An appli- The CMP should include Helen Thompson, The CMP does set such Division another rationale cant must meet all relevant limitations on the height Save the Hudson, limitations. See Policy for rejecting a permit location, use and resource of waterfront buildings. Our Riverland 7:7E-7.2h. application. it should policies. This has always Environment be clearly stated that been the case; there was no the use policies can shift proposed in the DEIS. 206. only enhance the chances DCA approves the special Department of No response needed. of obtaining a permit anknowledgement of the Community Affairs and not detract from housing needs of the those chances. Atlantic City Region. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-7.2 HOUSING USE POLICIES - Continued 7:7E-7.2 HOUSING USE POLICIES - Continued 207. (b)(1) - is the implica- N.J. Marine This is not the implica- 211. tion here that wind, water Sciences Consortium tion here. This issue is (e) Fair Share Housing - David Fisher, Unless reliance is placed on and wave damaged homes now at the heart of the There really is no longer N.J. Builders public housing, the private- cannot be reconstructed? controversy over the Dune any viable low income single Association sector developer must take What will be the effect and Shorefront Protection family or condominium type the role in providing low on people who have already Act and is not specifically housing available in New and moderate income housing. purchased waterfront lots addressed by this Coastal jeraey if not in the United Recognizing the economics of for the purpose of building Management Program. Under States. The Mt. Laurel the problem the policy only homes? Are they out of the program there is no decision does not in fact requires the provision of luck forever? prohibition on reconstruc- mandate low and moderate some "least cost" housing, tion of buildings except in income housing but only however expensive "least water areas. a fair share of present cost" may be, wherever and prospective regional feasible. 208. need, whether that need be In the past, the Division David Fisher, DEP proposes to regulate low, moderate, or high has insisted that housing N.J. Builders housing because it is income housing. Also, the is not water dependent or Association not water dependent - burden should not be placed water related. On the to ensure that it does on the developer, but should other hand, the Division not preempt use of the remain with the municipality is attempting to control water's edge from uses to provide its fair share of housing as a part of requiring a waterfront regional housing. "waterfront development". location. The Program does, 212. It is submitted Chat however, recognize that people although housing may be want to live near the water (e) Fair Share Housing - N.J. Marine This is economically diffi- water dependent the water- and permit housing near the is this realistic in-con- Sciences Consortium cult, or at least unprofit front is one of the most water on filled waCe-rTs sidering the high cost of -able, and so little desirable places to live edges, and extending out the lot in such areas, i.e., addressed by the private in New Jersey and therefore into the water on piers in requiring a sizeable pro- sector. The need for public there should be some Special Urban Areas, pro- portion of the leas-cost support to ensure adequate recognition of this eco- vided public access is not housing. housing for low and moderate income people is, however, no.ic and social fact of prevented (See revision to a State objective. life which would allow Policy 7:7E-7.2(b)). further development of housing along the water- 213. front. (e) Fair Share Housing - Department of It is one factor that will Emph_a_si_s_sHnufU__n_o_t__Te_ put Community Affairs be considered. 209. on the Housing Allocation (e) Cluster Development - N.J. Marine No. The policies apply Report as the arbiter of Does this mean that devel- Sciences Consortium equally to all development a particular municipality's opers who may build houses regulated under the coastal compliance with the intent where individuals cannot? program. Larger develop- of the Mt. Laurel decision. ments may be better able to meet the Policies in some 214. areas, however. Throughout the progr am, it David Fisher, The program does mention is stated that housing is N.J. Builders waterfront housing in the 210. not a water-related use. Association policy on wet borrow pits, (d) Residential Mi. - Doe. N.J. Marine The two policies are inde- I feel the program should (7:7E-3.15) and the housing this -conflict with 7:7E- Sciences Consortium pendent, neither reinforc- mention the attractiveness policy for special urban 7.2(b)(1)(i) and (ii)? ing, nor conflicting with of water adjacent to areas (7:7E-3.38). each other. housing. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-7.2 HOUSING USE POLICIES - Continued 7:7E-7.2 HOUSING USE POLICIES - Continued 218. (h) High Rise Housing - No John J. Horn, There has been widespread 215. interpretive latltuU-e is Commissioner, public concern about the Policy fails to recognize The Port Authority Agreed. See revised permitted. A high rise Department of visual impact of waterfront that housing can enhance of N.Y. and N.J. language in Housing Use would not be permitted where Labor and Industry high rise buildings. The the economic vitality and Policy 7:7E-7.2(b). it might "block the view policy does provide flexi- quality of life within a of a skyline or river" bility, allowing high rises, waterfront community. even though it met all in areas where they are Enhancement could occur other acceptability con- compatible with existing by recycling unused facil- diLions. Inasmuch as a buildings. ities back into productive high rise is a contributing functions. As the policy portion of a skyline, a is now written this would properly constructed one not be allowed. We strongly may enhance the view. urge a change in the language to make possible the reali- 219. ZaLion of substantial public (i) Large Scale and Multi- American Littoral While your understanding is benefits in appropriate Use Development - We unTe-r- Society correct that this is the cases. stand that the present legal forum for proposing document is serving as a amendments to the coastal 216. request for public comment policies, many reviewers (h) High Rise Housing - We The port Authority This is the effect of the on whether or not the did comment upon this pro- suggest adding the TO-Ilowing of N.Y. and N.J. definition of "discouraged" State should redesignate proposal in the DEIS. it to policy (vi): "However, (see 7:7E-1.6(c)(4)). all or parts of Galloway has been thoroughly discussed consideration will be given and Egg Harbor Townships in public meetings prior to mitigating and compen- from low growth to high to preparing the DEIS. sating measures within an growth areas. That sub- overall development program ject should be covered which would offset any in a separate document, adverse impact related to rather than buried among a specific structure within hundreds of pages that few that development". Also, will read and even fewer add the word "overall" before will realize is so important. "adverse" on the first line. 220. 217. M Large Scale and Multi- David Fisher, The policy on Large Scale (h) High Rise Housing - The Port Authority These policies do not Use Development - It is N.J. Builders Multi-Use Develoments has Policl-es (i) througFF(v) of N.Y and N.J. prohibit high rise housing unclear on what basis a been changed to encourage appear overly restrictive. and serve to protect public conclusion is reached that such developments since their We suggest that they be use and view of the water. a large scale multi-use size makes it possible to made flexible enough to development should be dis- take full advantage of siting permit individual communi- couraged in low and moderate the possibility of a large ties to consider appropriate growth regions unless that tract . They are now per- alternative conditions. housing is adjacent to an mitted in Limited (low) existing developed area in Growth Regions except where a moderate growth region. environmental sensitivity In many cases large scale is high. multi-use development is extremely efficient and Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-7.2 HOUSING USE POLICIES Continued 7:7E-7.2 HOUSING USE POLICIES - Continued 223. - Continued and economic) of discour- to concentrate primarily 220. - Continued aging innovative large in areas nearest employ- should probably be allowed scale projects in low- ment centers (Development in low and moderate growth moderate growth regions Regions) and secondarily regions so long as appro- while encouraging a in areas slightly further priate environmental proliferation of uncon- away (Extension Regions). safeguards are included. trolled, 24 lot tradi- Goals include energy saving tional subdivisions. through reduced concentra- 221. tion and least cost housing W Large Scale and Multi- Atlantic City Agree. See revised policy through clustering. use Development - M-rge- Development Corporation 7:7E-7.2(i). scale multi-use develop- ments should be conditionally 7:7E-7.3 RESORT/ELECREATIONAL USE POLICIES acceptable in any region so long as the other Resource 224. and Development policies Public access to the water- Al Mogerly, The CMP does not insist are met. Such developments front can be achieved N.J. Independent that commercial/industrial can be designed to foster through regional facilities; Liquid Terminals properties be condemned for energy conserving life a park in every town is Assoc. parks. it requires that when styles, protect open spaces, not necessary. In towns lands are available the minimize clearing, use with totally developed first choice, if there is no community sewerage systems, commercial waterfronts recreation, be parkland. and are extremely cost how would DEP decide whose Ibis implies a gradual 4= effective. land to condemn? What process, so that waterfront funds are available for parks would not be created 222. property compensation? with the passage of the M Large Scale and Multi- M. Hudson, The policy that applies program, but as land became Use Development - If the Atlantic City is that in place at the time available. policy on large scale Development Corp. an application found com- development is changed, plete for review. The 225. the change should not policy has been changed, (b) Recreation Priority - I Department of the Agreed. Policy 7:7E-7.3(b) but has been made more encourage the provis - apply to projects con- ion that Public Advocate calls for a waterfront park sisting of large scale explicit, not more restric- parkland should be developed in each municipality regard- assemblies made under tive. in each community on the less of where the munici- the existing policy. northern waterfront. Addi- pality is located. Such developments should tional development of park- be exempted from the lands should take place policy change provided throughout the rest of the a formal pre-application coastal zone in a feasible meeting was held prior manner. to implementation of the new rules. 226. (d) Marinas - I would hope N.J. Marine Agreed. The encouragement 223. that -maximum encouragement Sciences Consortium of new technology would ( i) Large-Scale and Multi- Roger Wells, Note revised Large-Scale can be provided to entre- require further study and Use Development - I request Roger Wells, Inc. Planned Residential Develop- preneurs who are willing cannot be included in the that CAFRA specifically and ment Policy which does not to undertake new marinas policies proposed at this thoroughly address the discourage such projecCs- if they can demonstrate time. However, during 1981 probable and statistical., The purpose of the policy use of modern technology. DEP will be undertaking a primary and secondary on regional Growth Ratings marina siting study which impacts (natural, social is to encourage development will lead to revisions of the Marine Use Policy. Comments Commentor. Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-7.2 HOUSING USE POLICIES - Continued 7:7E-7.4 ENERGY USE POLICIES - Continued 227._ 229. (e) Amusement piers - We David Fisher, This policy does not deny The new policy on the Al Mogerly, This is recognized by the disagree with the policy on N.J. Builders that amusement piers are storage of crude oil, N.J. independent policy which states "may be amusement piers, parks, and Association vital to the tourist eco- gas, and potentially Liquid Terminals acceptable on filled water's boardwalks found in N.J.S.A. nomy. It places conditions hazardous liquid sub- Assoc. edge"; any docking facility 7:7E-7.3(e). There is no on their expansion, and stances would deem such satisfies this test. appreciation of the fact that discourages new piers since facilities "not accept- Landing LNG is water de- amusement piers are an essen- there is adequate capacity able along most of the pendent, while storage is tial part of the economic for amusement activity on water's edge as they are not. base of the tourist existing piers and board- not water dependent". industry in New Jersey, walks. This conclusion as applied one industry ostensibly to our business is wrong. protected by the Division. We are water dependent. This should be recognized We handle water-bourne and new amusement parks commodities and must should be conditonally locate along the water's acceptable. edge. 228. 230 (e) Amusement Piers - The Cape May County Disagree. This policy does :c ies related to onshore Natural Resources Disagree. The policy should Poll. phrase 'andthe on-site Planning Board not prohibit the maintenance support bases, platform Defense Council remain as it was in the CMP- improvement or repair of of the use, but only sets fabrication yards, pipe BOSS because while the bay Xr existing amusement piers, out criteria for this coating yards and tanker and ocean shore area represents 4 01 parks and boardwalk areas" maintenance, repair or terminals should explictly significant, and perhaps should be deleted from the expansion. prohibit such uses in the unique, opportunities for the policy on "Amusement Piers, BOSS area. Policies leave enjoyment of natural resources, Parks and Boardwalks". Con- openings by which OCS it likewise represents dis- trary to the proposed policy, development might enter tinct opportunities for OCS- the upkeep and maintenance the Bay and Atlantic Coast related activities which are of the above mentioned areas area. Use of "case-by-case" water and/or port dependent. enhance their value to the review and the undefined However the CMP recognizes area and maintain an adequate terms "built up" and "less the general incompatibility safety level. developed" areas creates of the OCS-related activities a potential for misinter- cited and natural resource 7:7E-7.4 ENERGY USE POLICIES pretation of coastal based activities. In this policies. The distinction regard, the distinction NOTE: The New Jersey Department of Energy provided detailed comments which were between the BOSS area and between the BOSS area and used to revise the Energy Use Policies. These revisions made the policies more the urban coast should be the urban coast is not always specific and clarified, rather than changed the intent and direction of the used consistently. appropriate since portions policies. Specifically, Policy 7:7E-7.4(e) was revised to include language that of the bay and ocean shore OCS oil and gas exploration is encouraged only if no long-term adverse impacts will are clearly urban. result; Policies 7:7E-7.4(i) Gas Separation and Dehydration Facilities, 7:7E-7.4(k) Gas Pigging Facility, and 7:7E-7.4(l) Gas Processing Plants were drafted in 231. response to NJDOE comments; Policies 7:7E-7.4(i) Gas Separation and Dehydration We are pleased that the League of Women No response necessary. Facilities and 7:7E-7.4(m) Other Gas-Related Facilities were drafted by NJDOE and Division's agreement with Voters of N.J. adopted without substantive change; and Policy 7:7E-7.4(r) LNG Facilities cites the DOE lets it retain con- standards of the Pipeline Safety Act in response to NJDOE comment. siderable control over the siting of pipelines so that destruction of wetlands and shellfish habitats can be prevented. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-7.4 ENERGY USE POLICIES - Continued 7:7E-7.4 ENERGY USE POLICIES - Continued 232. In order to deal with air Michael Bryce, Coal-fired electric gener- 235. pollution problems, I suggest Department of the ating plants are subject to Should any mention be N.J. Marine The CEIP is described non-development of coal- Public Advocate State and federal air made of relations to the Sciences Consortium under item 6, "Regulation fired generating plants quality standards which are Coastal Energy Impact Pro- and Planning of Energy in urban areas of the designed to either maintain gram or Coastal Energy Facilities", within the coastal region. or improve air quality. Air Impact Fund anywhere in section entitled "Principal emissions from coal-fired this sub-chapter? Program Authorities" in the plants generally exceed Management System chapter. allowable limits in urban Although the CEIP provides areas, and therefore, plant funding essential for the development would be pre- implementation of the energy cluded. policies, it does not of itself create energy policy, 233. which is made by DOE and No input from environmental Audrey Zapp, The county energy facility DEP. groups was included in Hudson County Citizens planning studies conducted County Coastal Energy for Clean Air in 1978 to which you refer 236. Studies, used in forming were intended to secure the (b) General Energy Facility James A. Shissias, There are no energy facili- the proposed Energy policies. Siting Procedure - l(LI) - Public Service ties from which State review perspective of the indivi- A federal/state conflict in Electric and Gas Co. is completely pre-empted. The energy studies do not dual counties and their reflect local opinions. constituents which include preemption could occur with Policies on siting of "local" and environmental those energy facilities that electrical generating sta- interests. Although the are federally controlled. tLons and LNG facilities extent to which these views At some time, it would appear cite relevant federal per- that the courts will have mitting requirements, and were incorporated into the to resolve this issue if the relationship between studies varies, the State they have not yet done so. Federal and State per- uses several other mecha- Recognition of this should mitting is discussed in nisms for securing these be included in the DEIS. the section on Federal views on a continuing basis. These include both Gonsistency (part II, formal and informal means Chapter 5). such as public hearings, 237. citizen advisory committees, (b) General Energy Facility Natural Resources See revised language, workshops and individual Siting Procedure - AT-p-oTi-cy Defense Council which incorporates your correspondence. See for the DEP to conduct an suggestion. Appendix A. analysis of practicable 234. alternatives should be The entire chapter on energy Nancy Richardson, Disagree. While additional added to (iii). siting should be deleted Bayonne Against views of the residents and 238. until the Hudson River Tanks public officials of the (d) Onshore Support Bases Michael Bryce, The policy allows oil spill Waterfront Commission and Northern Waterfront are the Mayors of Hudson muni- welcome, the issue of what A cc@nditional approval was Department of the containment equipment spe- cipalities can make an energy facilities should be suggested in the draft for Public Advocate cifically because the sensi- acceptable energy facility emergency oil spill tanks tivity of the Atlantic Ocean placed where is clearly a in the Bay-Ocean Shore and Delaware Bay coast requires plan with DEP. statewide concern. Thus, the Region. in view of the an immediate response to oil views of Northern Waterfront sensitive nature of this spills. residents and officials must area we would recommend be considered in conjunction that this conditional with those of residents approval be reconsidered. elsewhere in the State, and in the nation. Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-7.4 ENERGY USE POLICIES - Continued Comments Commentor Response 239. (e) Platform Fabrication The Port Authority The term "built-up" refers 7:7E-7.4 ENERGY USE POLICIES - Continued Yards and Module Coii-struc- of N.Y. and N.J. to areas where development, tion - (1) It is unclear specifically industrial 243. vW'a-t is meant by "built up development, has already (h) Pipelines and Associated The Port Authority As stated in the MOD, DOE coastal areas of the coastal occurred. Growth potential Fac lities - I(v) - Eval- of N.Y. and N.J. is responsible for deter- is not implied. zone". If the intention is uation of OCS pipelines in mining the necessity of to limit this activity to terms of the potential New energy facilities, taking areas of certain growth Jersey pipeline corridor is into consideration the potential this should be unclear. The implications national interest. DEP specified. are that the evaluation will is then responsible for be solely based on impacts evaluating the alignments 240. of the whole pipeline. for pipelines and other (d) onshore Support Bases - The Port Authority Agreed. See revised Policy Policy should recognize facilities found to be "Crewboats and helicopters" of N.Y. and N.J. 7:7E-7.4(d)(1). the national implications needed by DOE. The are important components of the pipeline as stipu- policy on pipelines con- of the onshore support of lated in the Memorandum sists of siting criteria OCS related facilities of Understanding -Bet.-n intended to accommodate and should be included New Jersey DOE and DEP national interest facilities. in the list of facilities. (August 22, T9-78). 241. 244. (h) Pipelines and Associated The Port Authority This is the intent of the (h) Pipelines and Associated Michael Bryce, Agreed. Pipelines are the Facflities - The por-Leies on of N.Y. and N.J. policies to minimize the Facilities - If a p-1p_eT`inP Department of the most reliable method of c I -and gas pipelines in the 71 number of pipeline corridors is built from off-shore Public Advocate transporting oil from Central Pine Barrens Area and to locate them near drilling the tightest of offshore production areas. Concerns about both tourism 30 are inconsistent with the existing rights of way. controls should be utilized. apparent intention of the The impact oil slicks could and the fisheries industry Plan to guide new growth have on the tourism industry were the basis for favoring to already developed loca- would be devastating. The piping to tankering or tions. We recommend that declining fish industry could barging of offshore oil. those policies be amended also be further impacted to provide that, once a by varied oil spills. pipeline corridor is desig- nated for any use, it ought 245. to be concurrently evaluated (h) Pipelines and Associated The Port Authority NJDEP is currently con- for all possible uses. Facilities - I( i) - -IFFTe- of N.Y. and N.J. ducting a pipeling siting @_uantity of recoverable study, but a truely com- 242. reserves and the offshore prehensive, regional (h) Pipelines and Associated The Fort Authority The cited rules are not a location of geologic planning approach to Facilities - 7(iii)-:-Yh-e of N.Y. and N.J. basis for the Pipelines and structures should play a transporting OCS energy 7Fr-ohibiton of pipeline Associated Facilities policy, role in the number and resources would not be corridors for landing oil, but are water quality designation of pipelines, possible until the loca- and discouragement of standards with which the in addition to considera- tion, amount and nature of natural gas pipelines cor- coastal policy is consistent. tions of safety and conser- these resources are thoroughly ridors, in the Central These standards are described vation of resources. explored and understood. Pine Barrens of New Jersey, in the Management System Policy should also acknowl- In the interim the present are based on N.J.A.C. 7:9- Chapter. edge the probability of policy ensures a balancing 4.6(i), (j). and N.J.A.C. natural gas pipelines from between the national inter- 7: 9-10. l(b) . These the OCS, and estimate how est in exploring the OCS and references are not included many may be necessary. the interest in protecting in the Plan's Appendix E New Jersey's coastal resources. @f legal authorities and icy should be added. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-7.4 ENERGY USE POLICIES Continued 7:7E-7.4 ENERGY USE POLICIES - Continued 249. We object to the encourage- Nancy Richardson, See above response to Joseph 246. ment of oil refineries, Bayonne Against R. Duffy. (i) Oil Refineries and G. Deutsch, it would be immaterial to petrochemical facilities, Tanks Petrochemical Facil s N.J. Business and approve an energy facility, and gas processing plants Why must the State Depart- Industry Assoc. conditionally or otherwise, in the industrial areas ment of Energy "determine" if there is no need for the of the coast. that there is a need before facility. Note that "need" a new petrochemical facility is defined very broadly in 250. can become "conditionally this context. See Section (i) - The policies encour- Catherine P. Grimm Neither the State nor the acceptable" in areas out- 7.4(b)l.(ii). age oil refineries, etc. federal government has the side of the Bay and ocean to locate in developed, authority to override local Shore? industrial areas of the zoning ordinances with coast. Jersey City's respect to the facilities 247. zoning ordinance, however, cited except in the case (i) Oil Refineries and The Port Authority Me Program does address this prohibits oil refineries, of natural gas pipelines Petrochemical Facil a of N.Y. and N.J. issue by requiring that petrochemical facilities where federal authority Ve agree that locat-Ing water's edge development and gas processing plants. can preempt local and refineries and petro- not preclude a potential state authority. chemical facilities in water dependent activity. the Delaware River or 251. Northern Waterfront Areas (j) Gas Processing Plants The Port Authority The suggested language would help protect less Policy should be adFu-sted of N.Y. and N.J. differs slightly from the developed portions of the to reflect the following intent. Gas processing Xr coastal zone. The Plan, intent: "Gas processing plants are prohibited from __J however, does not address plants, including partial both the Central Pine 10 the problems of finding processing plants, between Barrens critical area and sufficient vacant space the offshore pipeline the bay and ocean shore in these areas to accom- landfall and commercial segment. New or expanded modate new facilities or natural gas transmission facilities are encouraged in even expansion of exist- lines shall be excluded existing industrial areas ing facilities. from the Central Pine where conflict with recrea- Barrens critical area tional and resort activities 248. and shall be discouraged will be minimal. (i) Oil Refineries and Joseph R. Duffy, DEP and DOE will have to in the Bay and Ocean Shore Petrochemical FacilLt - ies Historic Paulus Hook respond to specific pro- Segment". No oil refiner i_e_s__a_nT_ Assoc. posals. Some onshore onshore facilities should facilities have minimal 252. be located in Jersey City. environmental impacts and (j) Gas Processing Plants The Port Authority Disagree. Policy (j) excludes could benefit Jersey To e7xciude gas processing of N.Y. and N.J. such facilities only to City. If such facilities plans from the Bay and maximum extent practicable. are needed, they should be Ocean Shore Segment to the This is consistent with the located in accordance with maximum extent practicable exception for such facili- the second Basic Coastal seems inconsistent with ties from prohibition in Policy which requires a Policy (h)(vi) on page policy (h). concentrated rather than 199, which specifically dispersed pattern of devel- excepts "major gas pro- opment. However, they would cessing plants and required also have to be consistent compressor stations" from with policy 7:7E-8.15, the prohibition of ancil- Buffers and Compatibility of lary facilities associated Uses. with offshore oil and gas pipelines in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-7.4 ENERGY USE POLICIES - Continued 7:7E-7.4 ENERGY USE POLICIES - Continued 256. - Continued Segment (outside the 253. Central Pine Barrens area), W Storage of Crude Oil, Al Mogerly, Although many companies that it would appear to be within Gases and Other Potgo-tially N.J. Independent offer storage facilities fur the realm of acceptance Hazardous Liquid Substances- Liquid Terminals such substances handle according to Policy (h)(ii) The new policy on the stor- Association water-bourne commodities, and (iii) on pipelines. age of crude oil, gas and this is often only one potentially hazardous component of their business. 257. liquid substances would Further, while economies of Several refinements to The Port Authority 1. Even if a deepwater port deem such facilities scale may be realized by 7:7E-7.4(l) are suggested: of N.Y. and N.J. were not constructed within "not acceptable along firms that consolidate 1. A distinction should the State's 3 mile limit, it most of the water's edge land-based and water-bourne be made between deepwater would undoubtedly impact the as they are not water commodities, this consolida- ports and tanker terminals, coastal zone. Required dependent". This con- tion (which does require a since a deepwater port is federal permits and appro- clusion as applied to coastal location) represents not likely to be proposed vals would, therefore, be our business is wrong. added public costs in the in New Jersey State Waters, subject to consistency with We are water dependent. form of environmental and and a tanker terminal New Jersey's Coastal Manage- We handle water-bourne recreational losses. See could be. ment Program. Only the commodities and must revised language. 2. A policy on deepwater last sentence of the policy locate along the water's ports should specify the addresses deepwater ports. edge. kinds and magnitudes of 2. A deepwater port pro- impacts on the New Jersey posal would be a major and 254. coastal zone that would unique proposal. It would (k) This policy indicates GATX Terminals See above response to Al elicit discouragement require an environmental no comprehension of the Corporation Mogerly. from the New Jersey assessment to determine nature of terminal business Coastal Management Program. whether any of its primary which is clearly water 3. The deepwater port or secondary impacts would dependent. Without access policy should distinguish be inconsistent with specific to ship and barge trans- between transportation to coastal policies. portation, most bulk shore either by tankers 3. Tankering would have liquid storage terminals or by a marine pipeline, to meet any relevant policies would not be economically because the transportation such as this policy on tanker viable. modes have distinctly dif- terminals, and policies on ferent implications for dredging if required. A 255. the coastal zone. piepline would have to meet (1) Tanker Terminals - It The Port Authority one of the primary objec- 4. Because a deepwater the policy on Pipelines and is not clear how thZT con- of N.Y. and N.J. tives of N.J. DOE's deepwater port located beyond state Associated Facilities. struction and placement port study is to identify territorial water with a 4. The study referred to of a deepwater port could and evaluate the impacts of pipeline to shore may have above will assess both the "cause severe adverse the- facility. A more detailed minimal impacts during advantages and disadvantages primary and secondary discussion of the impacts of construction and may of deepwater ports. Reduc- impacts on the built, deepwater ports on the actually reduce the fre- tions in marine oil spillage natural and social built, natural and social quency of oil spills is clearly an important environment". environment must await the during operation, the advantage of deepwarer ports study's completion. New Jersey Coastal Program which is being considered 256. should seriously consider in the study. Deepwater conditionally accepting ports must remain discouraged (1) Tanker Terminals - If The Port Authority True. Such a project could this kind of facility. until completion of the a deepwater port were pro- of N.Y. and N.J. be approved if it met all NJDOE study because of their posed in federal waters, other applicable Coastal numerous potential impacts. with a pipeline proposed Policies. if the study confirms their along a right-of-way in safety the policy will be the Bay and Ocean Shore revised. Comments Commentor Response Comments Co=entor Response 7:7E-7.4 ENERGY USE POLICIES - Continued 7:7E-7.4 ENERGY USE POLICIES - Continued 258. 261. The Policy rationale A] Mogerly, The definition of poterl- (n) LNG Facilities (i) - Public Service The actual language of the on page 203 for N.J. Independent tially hazardous substances The phrase "unduly endanger Electric and Gas Co. CAFRA statute is even "storage facilities for Liquid Terminals is referenced in the policy human life and property" broader requiring facilities hazardous substances" is Association 7:7E-7.4(o) (formerly (k)) is extremely broad and be constructed "so as to now amended to include and is from the Spill Com- does not give applicant neither endanger human 11 Potentially hazardous pensation and Control Act a specific goal for risk life ..." N.J.S.A. 13:19-10(f). substances". What is (N-J.S.A. 58:10-23.11). level. The DEIS should The word "unduly" is in recog- Potentially hazardous The policy will be applied give adequate support for nition of federal standards and how will that term to all new or expanded the risk level or danger under the Pipeline Safety Act be applied? facilities as detailed in that it expects to achieve. of 1979 and other federal this section. See revised regulations regulating language. aspects of LNG operation. 259. 262. (m) Electric Generating Salem County While NOAA and DEP share this n) LNG Facilities - The League of Women Agreed. Consideration of Stat@ions- Theproposed Planning Board concern, CAFRA does not give idea_o_f_Fa_n_dT_in_g__t7he loca- Voters of N.J. national interest and siting T._1-iT`yf.r nuclear gener- DEP authority to review tion of LNG facilities on in accordance with the Pipe- ating stations omits any storage of spent fuel, unless a regional inter-state line Safety Act of 1979 concern for the proposed the storage would occur in basis ith due onsidera ensures interstate consider- storage method for spent the coastal zone. This is tion hewing given to their ations will be given to fuel. There is increas- primarily the responsibility confinement to non-sensi- sit ing . See also discus- ing local concern near of the NRC licensing process, tive areas and those that sion of LNG facilities in the plants that a di.- though DEP may chose to are not heavily populated the discussion of National posal method will not comment through the federal seems like the only feasi- Interests in Part 11, be available in the near consistency process. ble way of managing the Chapter 5. future. I trust that DEP real and potential prob- accepts that the proper lems they create. storage of spent fuel is a relevant concern in approving nuclear 263. plants if there is no (n) LNG Facilities - We Michael Bryce, Disagree. The policies permanent disposal are in agreement with the Department of the allow LNG in the coastal -nethod in the foresee- draft's recommendation that Public Advocate zone if need and federal able future. LNG facilities should not safety criteria are met. be located in the coastal Population density is one 260. zone. Specifically, such of the factors considered (m) Electric Generating facilities should not be in siting. League of Women The effectiveness of both located near any form of Stations - we approve of a Voters of N.J. federal regulations and dense population. buffer zone around nuclear enforcement capabilities is facilities and restric- a key issue in the debate on 264. tions on the handling of the safety of nuclear power (n) LNG Facilities (i) - Public Service Disagree. Given the ex- spent fuel, but are not plants. Any concerns about ..gen-e-r-arly -remote ... areas Electric and Gas Co. tremply limited number of satisfied that federal this issue would be best where ... buffer zones are LNG facilities likely to be regulations are suffi- directed to the Nuclear likely to be maintained" proposed in New Jersey, such ciently strict. Regulatory Commission. is meaningless. Without sites can be determined on a definition, an owner cannot case by case basis. know what is acceptable. Support for the definition should be included. Comments Commentor Response Comments Co=entor Response 7:7E-7.5 TRANSPORTATION USE POLICIES - Continued 7:7E-7.4 ENERGY USE-POLICIES - Continued 267. 265. We question the statement David Fisher, To provide services adequate (n) Liquefied Natural Gas James A. Shissias, 1) Agree. This policy is in the rationale that the N.J. Builders for very high, short-lived (LNG) Facilities - Ka-tionale Public Service state policy for siting in coastal zone is adequately Association peak loads that are not 1) We are not aware of any Electric and Gas Co. the coastal zone. Refer- served by the existing needed for the rest of official N.J. policy on ence to "New Jersey's road network. Anyone who the year but that induce LNG facility siting. policy" has been deleted. travels the Carden State growth further overloading 2) Federal LNG siting 2) DOT standards are Parkway in the summertime peak flow, is questionable standards have been acknowledged in the knows that that road is policy. issued by the Department rationale, paragraph 2. not adequate and therefore of Transportation. 3) Reference to RM76-13 the assumption in the 3) Petition RM76-13 has has been deleted. rationale.is faulty. been dimnissed by the 4) Reference to West Federal Energy Regula- Deptford and Logan pro- 268. tory Commission. posals have been deleted. We question the insistence David Fisher, While not uniquely coastal, 4) The LNG facility on 5) See answer to 4) above. on construction of bicycle N.J. Builders bicycle and foot paths are Staten Island exists in DEP will rely on federal and foot paths under certain Association consistent with the goal fact and is not a pro@ guidelines where appro- circumstances as found in of promoting public access posal as were those at priate, in meeting its N.J.A.C. 7:7E-7.5, because to, and use of the coastal West Deptford and Logan, mandate to protect public bicycle and foot paths zone. which were dismissed and health and safety. are certainly not unique should not be referred to the coastal area and to as U. bough they were therefore not within the active proposals. jurisdiction of the 5) The DEIS prepared Division. for West Deptford can't be used to condemn all LNG facilities; it is 7:7E-7.8 MINING USE POLICIES very site and project specific. The authors 269. appear to have a complete The last sentence of the Mining industry The sentence has been lack of understanding of rationale is "insulting Representatives removed. risk analysis. to the mining industry" and can be removed, especially since the 7:7E-7.5 TRANSPORTATION USE POLICIES previous sentence makes the intended point. 266. Develop a new mass transit Department of the Such uses are encouraged in in the coastal zone, includ- Public Advocate the policy document but 7:7E-7.9 PORT USE POLICIES ing complete mini-subway would not be initated by through the Hudson River DEP. 270. region (Ft. Lee to Bayonne) (a) 1, (iv) - On the second The Port Authority Disagree. Port facilities and reinstate the Ferry line insert "existing and of N.Y. and N.J. should not be located along Service in the Hudson potential" before "depth". waters with inadequate River region to help deal depths, even if those depths with air pollution. could potentially be changed. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-7.9 PORT USE POLICIES Continued 7:7E-7.9 PORT USE POLICIES Continued 276. 271. Policies - (v) - This policy The Port Authority See revised policy, which Rationale - It does not The Port Authority Agreed. However, the indus- -s-ho-urd-be expanded to rate of N.Y. and N.J. rates the activities as appear to us that New of N.Y. and N.J. trial capacities of the the listed activities as acceptable in small commer- Jersey's waterfront waterfront may increase. also acceptable in the cial harbors throughout industrial Structure, Northern Waterfront Area. the coastal zone. with the prime exception In particular, commercial of petrochemicals, is fishing is an important conducive to the barge economic. development oppor- transfer of ocean dry tunity which should be cargoes. permitted and encouraged, where feasible, in the 272. Northern Waterfront Area. As the ability to dredge New Jersey Alliance The policy permits new port becomes hampered through for Action activities outside of objections, regulations, existing ports where expan- 7:7E-7.10 COMMERCIAL FACILITY USE POLICIES and the consumption of sion of the existing port is acceptable disposal areas, not feasible. 277. it will be necessary for (e) Parking Facilities - To Department of the Parking lot development can some port activities to deal with air pollu Public Advocate contribute to beach access relocat'@ to areas with problems, parking lot and public transportation as naturally deep water or development or enlargement in the case of park and ride -r= where dredging require- opment or enlargement in lots. Parking lots of 30 ments are minimized. In in the coastal zone should reasonable size are needed contrast to this, the be formally discouraged in conjunction with develop- proposed regulations rather than conditionally ment not adequately served enunciate a policy approved. by public transportation. which looks to freeze Note that parking lot policy present port activities is now part of Transporta- to present locations. tion Use Policy, Section 7: 7E-7. 5 . 273. Definition - Delete The Port Authority Agreed. See revised defini- 278. W5ublicly utilized". of N.Y. and N.J. tion. It is difficult to under- Monmouth County Agreed. See revised policy stand why barrier islands, Environmental Council which states that conven- 274. as a generic category, are tion centers and arenas are Policies - Gii) The ques- The Port Authority The inclusion of some public lumped together with the discouraged on barrier CLon of responsibility for of N.Y. and N.J. waterfront access in port high growth regions in the islands. cost needs resolution. and other development commercial facility use proposals should not add policy which states that significantly to development convention centers and costs and should be paid for arenas are conditionally by the developer. acceptable in these areas. Major facilities on 275. barrier is lands should be Policies - GO - on the The Port Authority Agreed. See revised language. discouraged. If it is third line substitute of N.Y. and N.J. found desirable to make "suitable" for "sufficient". except ions in spec ial cases such as Atlantic City, these areas should be identified by name. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-7.10 COMMERCIAL FACILITY USE POLICIES - Continued 7:7E-7.11 COASTAL ENGINEERING - Continued 279. The policy for "Convention Cape May County Disagree. New convention 283. Centers and Arenas" is too Planning Board centers or arenas in barrier We note that the Department Monmouth County This is not a weakening of restrictive. The reason island cities such as Ocean has eliminated the require- Environmental Council public access policy but a for this is two-fold. City or Wildwood would ment that structures "pro- recognition that a shore First, Cape May County is induce further growth tect and enhance" public protection structure can be a moderate growth region an already crowded barrier access and hope that the in the public interest with- therefore these facilities islands. New convention Department will consider out "enhancing" public access. would be discouraged. centers outside of a this need in reviewing All public monies that will Second, the requirement highly developed commer- future applications. be spent at the land-water's of the facility being cial/recreational area edge that deal with poten- capatible in scale, site would lead to recreational tial restriction of access design, and architecture sprawl. Note that improve- will require chat the with surrounding develop- ments to existing con- structures provide this mpnt is, for the most vention centers are not access. Where no public part, infeasible for discouraged. monies are involved, the Cape May County. development Must Still meet the requirements of the 280. Public Access Resource In the policy for "Parking Cape May County Agreed. See Policy 7.-7E- Policy . Facilities" the phrase Planning Board 7.5(e). "landscaping With indi- 284. genous or preferred species We question from where the David Fisher, It was derived from the Army is aximized", should be eighteen inch criteria was N.J. Builders Corps of Engineers gen@!ral added following the words derived for the reconstruc- Association regulations on maintenance "surfaces is minimized". tion of existing remaining and expansion of existing Structures. bulkheads. 281 There may be instances where The Port Authority See revision to policy 285. a hotel or motel may not be of N.Y. and N.J. dealing with hotels or Riprap may be impractical David Fisher, Riprap is preferred but the consistent with all of the motels in Special Urban when it is between two N.J. Builders policy does not insist on listed conditions but may Areas. existing bulkheads. Association its use between two existing still be beneficial to the bulkheads. local community and contri- bute to the significant physical and economic 7:7E-7.12 DREDGE SPOIL DISPOSAL improvement of the Coastal Zone. 286. Policy - Since the environ- The Port Authority The present policies on men'ta implications of of N.Y. and N.J. disposal on land or ocean 7:7E-7.11 COASTAL ENGINEERING ocean vs. land disposal are conditionally ' accept- are still under study, able. New requirements 282. this policy should be which may result frorh new (e) Structural Shore Pro- Cape May County Thank you. held in abeyance until the studies will be incorporated tection - The clari =ion Planning Board major issue is resolved. into revision of policies. 7 -the Use Policy which deals with the maintenance or reconstruction of existing retaining struc- tures is beneficial. Comments Commentor Response 7:7E7.12 DREDGE SPOIL DISPOSAL Continued Comments Commentor 297. in Policy M, clean dredged The Port Authority To insure that adopted SUBCHAPTER 8 RESOURCE POLICIES Continued material should be exempted of N.Y. and N.J. vegetation of surrounded from the capping reuirement. area can succeed on the axe& 290 that has been filled, the 7:7E8.1, 8.2, 9.3 Is N.J. Marine top soil should have a not thLs treatment redun Sciences Conso similar texture with the dant upon paragraphs surrounding sails. This 7:7E3.2, 3.3, 3.4, will result in more rapid and 3.5? restoration of the site. 298. The dredge spail disposal. Salem County NOAA regulations reuire policy seems appropriate Planning Board Federal Consistency and reasonable, as amended. Certification for However, there are sub activities on federal stantial impacts of Federal lands which have spillover dredge spoil areas which impacts. Federal agencies are not being regulated. are reuired to notify As stated on page 249, states of proposed acti 7:7E8.4 SHELLFISHERIES "activities on federal lands vities in or affecting a having spillover impacts ... states coastal zone, 291. will require review inde and New Jersey DEP will y page 224 Delete The Port Autho review and comment upon Po I potential ly" of N.Y. and N. pendent of any existing lge,ord 11 program." it is unclear such proposats in terms from the three places how, or if, the Division of of their consistency with it appears (once each Coastal Resources intends to the Coastal Resource and in (i), (ii) and (iii). enforce regulations with Development Policies. respect to these dredge spoils disposal areas. SUK"APTER 8 RESOURCE POLICIES 292. 289. We recommend that arty American Litto The appLicaciork of the N.J. Petroleum If an area does not contain development which would Society Resource Policies on a Council particular resources, the result in the destruction generalized basis to the policies on those resources of a potentially produc industrialized areas is are not used. If a pacti tive shellfish area be inappropriate. This area cular area is not the loca prohibited rather than is not a source or habitat tion of particular special 3iscouraged. With the for fish and wildlife areas, then those policies present contamination and is not a source for could not apply to project and condemnation of many drinking water. There reviews in this area. productive shellfish are Sufficient ZOAtTUIS areas, the protection an industry under present of potential new areas air and water pollution is vital. statutes. Furth6r regu lation along this line is going to discourage location or expansion in these areas by com mercial or industrial interests. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-8.6 GROUNDWATER USE 7:7E-8.7 RUNOFF - Continued 293. 296. It is understood that N.J. Harine it is. Policy 7:7E-8.6 is (b)(vi) should be modified David Fisher, See Revised Wet Soils Policy availability of fresh Sciences Consortium to be applied to all pro- to provide that detention N.J. Builders 7:7E-8.21, which incorporates water has been a serious posals and the Division of basins or swales should Association this concern. consideration in shore- Water Resources reviews avoid soils with a seasonal side development in applications to.establish high water table less than New Jersey for a long that groundwater policies three feet to the maximum time. Should not the are satisfied. extent practicable since quantity and quality of the run-off policy can be existing water tables met by placing detention be a serious considera- facilities in the areas tion in granting permits with seasonal high ground- for new development of water tables of less than all kinds? three feet. This may adversely affect infil- 294. tration but the extent The basis of the policy GATX Terminal There is no such premise of this adverse affect seems to be that all ground- Corporation explicit or implicit. must be based on a case water should be-potable. The goal is to prevent by case analysis. We object to that premise more potable groundwater and refer you to DEP. from becoming.non-potable 297. Docket No. 010-80-02 for from pollution or saline. We question the statement David Fisher, Porous paving is not re- comments by GATX and that porous paving is the N.J. Builders quired, but is cited as OD other on this case. best available technology, Association an example of a best a, since this technology has available technology and not been proven in the with suitable substrate .7:7E-8.7 RUNOFF field except in one iso- conditions,.tests bear lated instance at a parking this out. Experience 295. lot at the University of shows that runoff curve We find it inacceptable N.J. Conservation The best available techno Delaware. We also question 39 is practical with that there is no rationale Foundation logy requirement is needed whether the standard in responsible runoff design. given for the easing of to allow project review offi- curve 39 is a practical runoff standards. As it cers the flexibility to one. stands this policy lacks require the best feasible the substance to guarantee technique to deal with a 298. that runoff standards will specific situation. We question the change in David Fisher, There is sufficient evidence be adhered to. Under this the Rationale from the word N.J. Builders that improperly managed policy a developer could "May" to the word "will" Association runoff causes degrading use some aspect of best because in certain circum- -impacts to merit 'will'. available technology stances storm runoff may not The flexibility permitted by claiming that he/she is have an adverse affect on the the performance requirements meeting the spirit of the items mentioned depending on has not diminished, @epsite program, while the actual the degree, etc. We also the deletion of a sentence. project runoff might be think that the sentence which totally out of control. is stricken indicating a degree of flexibility in storm water management should remain within the Rationale. Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-8.7 RUNOFF - Continued Comments Commentor Response 299. 7:7E-8.7 RUNOFF - Continued We question the change in David Fisher, The original indication of the slope percentage in N.J. Builders 10% was an error. Slope 304. 7:7E-8.8(b) from a minimum Association maps have an 8% cutoff. We applaud the Department's G. Deutsch, The runoff standards are to 10 to 8 percent. goal of preventing excessive N.J. Business and stated as goals not as runoff. However, whereas Industry Association inflexible requirements. 300. flexibility is included in The chief requirement is that There should be a statement David Fisher, This is not necessary other sections of the pro- best available technology be that CAPRA will defer to N.J. Builders because the Coastal Policies posed program, the flexi- used. decisions of the Soil Con- Association (7:7E-8.8) adopt the stand- bility in the provision is servation Service. As a ards set by the State Soil %oobe removed. The phrase practical matter this is Conservaton Committee t the maximum extent CAFRA's practice and there and local Soil Conservation practicable" provides flexi- is no necessity to attempt Districts. bility and a necessary to usurp the jurisdiction element of realism. We of the Soil Conservation suggest that it be retained Service in this area. in Section 8.7ii. 301. We question the definition David Fisher, See revised definition 7:7E-8.11 AIR QUALITY of run-off because we N.J. Builders which incoporates this believe that all precipi- Association concern. 305. tation except that which Suggest a total reevaluation Department of the DEP will not undertake such is evaporated eventually of the transportation plans Public Advocate reviews since it is not its reaches surface water. for the coastal zone, because responsibilty. This is not under present conditions and a requirement for federal 302. procedures it may be impossi- approval since any new trans- The existing flexibility as John J. Horn, The existing flexibility is ble for the ambient air portation facility would have now applied in CAFRA area Commissioner, not deleted. The language juality standards to be met to receive a coastal permit is proposed to be deleted. Department of of the FEIS calls for Best in numerous parts of the which would require con- No such deletion should Labor and Industry Available Technology to coastal zone. sistency with ambient air take place since some minimize offsite runoff and quality standards. interpretive latitude sets out goals for maximum should properly be main- offsite impacts. This 306. tained. reflects current DEP practice. We question the revision of David Fisher, Disagree. Since the whole the air quality policy. An N.J. Builders of New Jersey is already an 303. analysis of air quality Association air-quality non-attainment N.J.A.C. 7:7E-8.7(b)(vii) David Fisher, The 24 hour storm is a more should be excluded except area for at least one @r`ovides for a design for N.J. Builders rigorous requirement because in the areas that are pollutant and standards are twenty-four hour storm of Association the duration of heavy urban in nature or "hot still becoming more strin- twpnty-five and one hundred precipitation is longer. spots" as defined by gent on the annual improve- years. When is the one Ibis was strongly advocated Federal EPA. ment schedule required by hundred year design appro- by the Soil Conservation the federal governme7nt, the priate? We question the Service to ensure that suggested revision has not twenty-four hour portion prolonged,rainfall does not been made. of the standard, since overflow the system. this injects a factor that merely complicates calcu- lation and does not have any real beneficial effect. Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-8.12 PUBLIC SERVICES Comments Commentor Response 307. 7:7E-8.13 PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE SHOREFRONT - Continued We believe that CAPRA is David Fisher, Health, safety and welfare overstepping its juris- N.J. Builders obligations are to be con- 312. diction insofar as health Association sidered by DEP in reviewing We generally commend the The Port Authority Disagree. The suggested services and educational CAPRA permit applications plan's sensitivity to public of N.Y. and N.J. language would actually services are within the (Section 11 of CAPRA). needs along the developed weaken the proposed policy province of the Department waterfront by providing because it would not of Health and the Depart- access wherever possible. enable the State to stop ment of Education respec- Specifically it is sug- projects which block public tively. gested that the last access, The policy also sentence on page 233 might promotes public access. 7:7E-8.13 PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE SROREFRONT be better stated as "Shorefront develoment 308. that promotes public access I encourage the provision Department of the No response necessary. and Che -diversity of shore- that public access and Public Advocate front experiences is enjoyment of the coastal encouraged." region shore must be ensured. 7:7E-8.16 SOLID WASTE 309. Improve present roadways in Department of the Improvement of pedestrian 313. =7 heavily populated areas to Public Advocate and bike access is needed to The solid waste policy is David Fisher, CAFRA explicitly states that 88 allow better access to the improve waterfront access unrealistic because this N.J. Builders permits shall be issued only waterfront. However, great and is included in the is not within the control Association if the proposed facility caution should be exercised coastal policies and of the developer and "provides for the handling in promoting another express- secondary impact analysis therefore the developer and disposal of litter, way through the northern would be required for any should not have to suffer trash and refuse in such a waterfront area. new road. for the lack of solid manner as to minimize waste facilities. adverse environmental 310. effects and the threat to I don't find anything in Helen Bieber See policy 7:7E-8.13 Public the public health, safety the proposed CMP addressing Access to the Shorefront and welfare (emphasis access to riverfronts. which addresses all coastal added). DEP cannot, there- waterfronts including fore, approve coastal rivers. development until this condition is met. More- 311. over, wise use of the DEP is proposing linear Catherine Grimm Colgate-Palmolive has coastal zone demands con- waterfront strips for already contributed funds to sideration of the availa- public access. What the development of a DEP- bility of such facilities in happens in the case of sponsored park at the foot the review of other projects. existing development like of York Street. More gener- Colgate-Palmolive in ally, in other cases of Jersey City? existing industry where waterfront access is not possible, the path will detour inland, until water- front space is again avail- able. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-8.17 ENERGY CONSERVATION 7:7E-8.21 WET SOILS 314. 317. 8.17 implies that the State G. Deutsch, The policy has been revised Detention basins, swales David Fisher, Disagree. One goal of the will have final say as to N.J. Business and to clarify that applicants and other runoff recharge N.J. Builders runoff policy is to ensure which energy conservation Industry Associates will prepare energy plan. areas may in fact be Association that runoff passes through techniques will be imple- viable in wet soils the ground and is filtered mented in coastal develop- depending upon the nature before reaching surface ment areas and will deter- of those facilities. water. This cannot occur in mine the "anticipated These should not be pro- wet soils. energy utilization" for hibited but should be industrial processes. conditionally acceptable This will unreasonably based upon a case by case interfere with industry's analysis. efforts to achieve energy conservation goals. 7:7E-8.22 FERTILE SOIL 7:7E-8.20 HIGH PERME .ABILITY MOIST SOILS 318. We strongly object to the David Fisher, Such analysis has been done 315. policy on fertile soils N.J. Builders by the Soil Conservation The definitions and policy Cape May County The policy on moist soils is since traditionally fertile Association Service. Prime agricultural for high permeability moist Planning Board a Resource Policy independent soils are also the best soils are prevalent in parts _soils is lacking clarity of Location Policies. These soils for development. of the coastal area, and in certain areas. Questions areas may be determined from There should be an analysis regulation is essential to as to which soils series the County Soil Survey or of how prevalent these prevent depletion of this are high permeability site inspection. Where fertile soils are in the soil resource which is moist soils remain moist soils overlap with coastal area and why fertile critical for food supply. unanswered. The definition Special Areas, the most soils are unique to the The fertile soil policy does and policy for "High Per- restrictive policy applies. coastal area or should be not in any case prohibit meability Most Soils" needs regulated. This type of development. to be modified in order to regulation goes way beyond answer such questions. the CAFRA statute. 316. Ve question why there should David Fisher, There is no blanket prohibi- 7:7E-8.23 FLOOD HAZARD AREAS be any prohibitions on N.J. Builders tion. Development is to building in areas with Association avoid these soils to the 319. seasonal high water table maximum extent practicable. We are gratified to see David Fisher, No response necessary. of three to five feet and The concern is rapid, that the flood hazard area N.J. Builders also question what type unfiltered transmission of policy is designed to com- Association of development would be contaminants to welts and ply with the law on flood acceptable in these areas. surface water. Development hazard areas and reguta-' that does not endanger thesf tions promulgated there- resources would be acceptab under. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response 7:7E-8-24 DECOMMISSIONING OF PROJECTS 7:7E-8.27 AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS 320. 323. Coastal development (e.g, M4. should include Middlesex County Policy on aquifer recharge The Port Authority When no future use is recommendation of instal- Planning Board areas has been deleted. port facilities) for which of N.Y. and N.J. planned decommission becomes lation of dry wells for another future use is not especially important as the rooftop runoff as an envisioned or predictable abandoned port areas o f the effective recharge mech- should be allowed to so Northern Waterfront show. anism. Drip lines under certify and thus be Proper demolition and site roofs as called for in exempted from this require- reclamation of discontinued the present wording may ment. It is also suggested uses should avoid blight in cause erosion and that the plan impose some the future. The suggestion structural maintenance -property maintenance for property maintenance problems which can be Standards to avoid future standards is well taken and avoided through effec- waterfront blight and will be further explored by tive use of dry wells. decay. DEP, and if appropriate, revisions will be incor- 324. porated to the coastal The last word on the third David Fisher, Policy on aquifer recharge program at a later time, line of the first policy N.J. Builders areas has been deleted. according to 923.80 of the should be changed from Association Federal Regulations. "possible" to "practicable". 32t. There should also be an indication that porous This should not be applied David Fisher, Disagree. The policy does pavement shall be used to housing since it is N.J. Builders not call for steps to adapt whenever practicable, not completely unrealistic Association to another use, but for the "possible" and that one for a developer to address removal of existing uses to of the criteria for deter- sliteps necessary to adapt make the site available for mining practicability is the site to another use further use. Past experi- that the municipality once the proposed project ence, especially in the allow such paving. is no longer functional. Northern Waterfront, but The rationale for this also in other areas, shows policy seems to be geared that this is essential. GENERAL towards the developed coast and not the CAFRA area. 325. Developers often rail at Hartz Mountain No response necessary. the imposition of additional Industries, Inc. 7:7E-8.25 NOISE ABATEMENT layers of governmental regulation. our experience 322. with HMDC suggests that, for the most part, regula- It should be emphasized David Fisher, Agreed. The description tion is reaonable and-in that only activities N.J. Builders has been revised so that the hands of professionals. covered by noise regu- Association this point is now clear. The private development lations of the Office of Noise Control should be community has come to see considered. For instance, the benefits of such the Office of Noise regional management programs Control does not cover and has acknowledged the any noise emanating from wisdom of seeking to imple- residential structures ment programs and has and it should be clearly acknowledged the wisdom stated that this noise of seeking to implement is not to be considered such schemes in other areas. in the resource policies, Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response GENERAL - Continued GENERAL - Continued 326. Had we been able to appear Hartz-Mountain Thank you. 330. at the June public hearings. Industries, Inc. Isn't all this management W. Elmer Seaman No. In the long term, it we would have expanded on inflationary? will lead to more productive our earlier testimony and use of limited resources. expressed continued support Also, see Economic Con- for your effort to bring sequences section of Part rationale planning to New IV. Jersey*s coastal areas. 331. 327. The second full paragraph The Port Authority No response necessary. We strongly urge that care The Port Authority Agreed. on page 8, the first para- of N.Y. and N.J. be exercised to assure that of N.Y. and N.J. graph on page 9, are the coastal management excellent descriptions program not emerge as a of how much of the Northern separate and distinct Waterfront Area requires layer of regulations. special coastal management Our hope is that the attention. We hope that management potential of implementation of the plan the proposed program be will assure recognition employed to expedite permit of the stated fact that and other review processes, the "economic revitaliza- facilitate decision making tion of New Jersey's and reduce delays. The cities is an increasingly pre-application conference recognized coastal issue". appears to address this issue, and we commend that 332. DEP innovation. The over-abundance of M. Hudson, The Program is intended to governmental regulations Atlantic City insure that the combined 328. makes it impossible for Development Corp. efforts of government and Why are the constitutional W. Elmer Seaman Constitutional property developers to represent developers achieve the property rights, as rights are fully protected the public interest. public interest. Govern- guaranteed by both the and maintained by the ment regulations provide U.S. and N.J. Constitu- Coastal Program. Those the specificity to implement tions never mentioned? rights prevent the taking of public laws consistently and private property without efficiently. compensation, but they do not include immunity from 333, regulation in the public Introduction, page 16 - In The Port Authority The Coastal Resource and interest which may increase the third paragraph, the of N.Y. and N.J. Development Policies are or decrease the value of suggestion that Coastal Departmental Rules, but that property. Policies could "be used other divisions of DEP will to guide other decisions be guided by them only to 329. not strictly subject to the extent that they do not At a time when the President W. Elmer Seaman This program is designed to the New Jersey Coastal conflict with the other of the U.S. and Congress are make use of existing laws Management Program" is divisions' legislative trying to reduce regulations more product-Lv-e-=anefficient. presumed to be voluntary mandates. and red tape, why is N.J. and without statutory trying to increase it? significance. Comments Commentor Response GENERAL - Continued Comments Commentor Response 337. GENERAL - Continued We hope that approval of Carol Barrett, A major aspect of the this program and additional Sierra Club, federal program is an annual 334. grants will not be given West Jersey Group evaluation called for by Section 305 of the Federal The Port Authority After careful consideration unless there is evidence Section 312 of the CZKA Coastal Zone Management Act of N.Y. and N.J. and wide public participa- submitted that enforcement of each approved state offers each state a choice tion, DEP has concluded that and implementation can be program. The basis for the in deciding which method technique "B" is the most carried forth. That means evaluation is the approved to use in exercising land appropriate approach for New enough staff and qualified program as implemented in and water use control in Jersey. Ibis approach was personnel will be used. that year's grant, including its coastal zone. We adopted after concluding that We would also like to be proper enforcement of State question why New Jersey techniques 'W' or "C" would assured that the federal laws. The State must care- considers management require State approval of agency responsible for fully follow the program technique "B" - direct local coastal regulation the financing and approval as well as show that the ; tate regulation and decisions, which was con- of New Jersey's Coastal laws which serve its basis Ianning - to be the sidered objectionable by Management Program will are adequately enforced. "only feasible approach". local governments. exert sufficient control in the present and future 335. so that it will be adhered In regards to the legality Pearl Schwartz No response necessary. to in spirit and letter, of this regional planning effort, land use planning 338. and zoning has been recently We are strongly opposed to Federation of Reach This opposition is noted. upheld as constitutional by the coastal management plan Associations The Program has been in the Supreme Court. and urge and expect it not effect since September 1978 to be passed. in the Bay and Ocean Shore 336. Segment of the State, with it should be specifically Carol Barrett, The federal CZMA requires beneficial results which included in this document Sierra Club, that revision to an approved approval will continue and that public notice and West Jersey Group coastal program have wide extend to the rest of the hearings will take place public review. This is coastal zone. when there are changes described in the management contemplated. Also, system and next steps 339. policies should not be chapters. Furthermore, The proposed program appears N.J. Conservation Thank you. permitted to be altered the New Jersey Administra- to be well organized, and Foundation because a locality changes tive Procedures Act requires in general we feel that its zoning or master plans. notification and public it will aid New Jersey in review of proposed rule protection of.its valuable changes. A change in coastal resources. municipal zoning or a municipal master plan is 340. not, by itself, a change in The proposed CMP is too Elmer Seaman DEP believes the regulation the coastal management much regulation. is needed to protect re- program. sources of regional and statewide interest. 341. The proposed GMP is a Natural Resources No response needed. positive step towards a Defense Council sound management program, and final federal approval of the CMP is important. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response GENERAL - Continued GENERAL - Continued 346. it is absolutely necessary A. Helwig, Adequate comment period has 342. that a time frame be estab- Pureland Industrial been provided in the six I must concede that some- Isabell Dietz lbank you for your support. lished between the date of Complex years of program develop- thing other than home rule adopting a Coastal Manage- ment. Adoption as rules must be tried. I support ment Program and a date will occur September 26, regional planning and when it becomes effective. 1980 at which time the this 'Coastal Zone Manage- We suggest a one year program will become effec- ment Plan. time frame. tive. 343. Does the document cover some- N.J. Marine The federal CZMA mandates BOUNDARY where procedures for self Sciences Consortium a procedure for review of modification at a later date changes to the document. 348. as events might dictate? This is described in Section Seaward and Interstate The Port Authority Delaware was singled out Can such procedures be 923.80 of the Federal Boundaries, page 18 - In of N.Y. and N.J. because the Delaware border effected at the executive Regulations. In addition, the last paragraph the extends to the mean low level of government or are the rules governing coastal need is stressed for water line on the New Jersey they restricted to the permit decisions will be coordination between Shore, thus creating a legislative authority? reviewed annually and Delaware and New Jersey. unique permit coordination updated as necessary. No We believe it is of situation. Policy coordina- legislative approval is equal importance to have tion with the New York and required for rule changes, similar joint efforts Pennsylvania coastal manage- but public notice and developed for coastal ment programs will also opportunity for comment zone cooperation between continue to be carried would be provided. New York and New Jersey, out. but found no such evidence 344. in the report. The Coastal Management R. C Westmoreland, The requirement that DEP Program smacks of land use Esquire submit a management strategy 349. regulation, the authority under CAFRA to the Legisla- Page 2, Figure I - Could A. Helwig, Contact DEP's Bureau of for which was not granted ture was fulfilled in 1977. DEP supply large-scale Pureland Industrial Coastal Planning and Devel- to it under the CAFRA Act. The enabling legislation for maps? Figure 1 is impos- Complex opment for detailed informa- It ignores the mandate to the CMP is not only CAFRA, sible to read. tion about any particular recogniz@ economic aspira- but also the Wetlands Act, segment of the coastal zone tions of the area, and it Waterfront Development Act boundary. is of no legal effect and Riparian Statutes. until it complies with the 350. enabling legislation (CAFRA) This boundary is far more Salem County Thank you. Maps will be by submitting the CMP to appropriate than the pre- Planning Board prepared during 1980-1981. the Legislature for review viously proposed boundary Under the Federal CZMA and and approval . which would have included 923.31(a)8 of its rules, extensive inland areas. states must be able to 345. However, the document makes indicate whether a.parti- Our office has for the most Michael Bryce, No response needed. no attempt to map the cular piece of property part been satisfied with Department of the boundary, which will tend is within the coastal zone the functioning of the Bay Public Advocate to create misunderstandings within a reasonable length and Ocean Shore segment. and confusion. The boundary of time, and DEP will do A review of the expanded should be delineated on a this. area and regulations, ini- regional basis by the tially indicates this Division of Coastal Resources proposed program should to eliminate most boundary function as well. discussions. Comments Commentor Response BOUNDARY - Continued Comments Commentor Response BOUNDARY - Continued 351. Recommend that head of A. Helwig, DEP elected to use the head 354. salinity rather than head Pureland Industrial of tide rather than the How accurately can DEP Gloucester County The 20-foot contour Jline nf tide be coastal zone Complex limit of salinity in defin- determine extent of tidal Planning Board was recommended by/the Office boundary in Delaware ing the coastal zone for influence by using the of Environmental Analysis River area. three reasons: (1) DEP-DCR very gross guideline of as a rough approximation already regulates tidal including all waters up of the maximum head of tide. waters and tidally influ- to where the 20 feet The coastal zone boundary enced wetlands, (2) con- contour crosses a stream? will be refined as data sistency with the proposed becomes available from OEA's Pennsylvania CMP, and (3) Tideland Delineation Project. the sensitivity of the aquatic habitats, breeding 355. and spawning areas of the We believe it is an unfair David Fisher, This burden will be assumed Delaware Bay to impacts burden of proof to require N.J. Builders by the Division at the originating higher up the a property owner to show Association request of a 4and owner. river demands some degree of that land within 500 feet upstream control. of tidal water is not within the waterfront 352. boundary. This burden It is suggested that NJDEP J. Shissias, The potential of waterfront of asserting jurisdiction delete the proposed expanded Public Service development along the should be on the Division. Delaware River Area from Electric Gas Co. Delaware causing degradation the proposed coastal zone of the critical Delaware Bay 356. boundary. The Federal estuarine areas is high. We are pleased to note Camden Department of Thank you for support. Coastal Zone Management Management to ensure water the addition of property Community Development Actof 1972 does not quality is essential. Also, lines as part of the require the inclusion see response above to boundary definition. of the Delaware River Helwig on why N.J. chose Area, and the intent to set boundaries at the 357. of Congress was not to head of tide. I disagree with the defi- David Fisher, In most cases only the first include substantial nition of the waterfront N.J. Builders lot adjacent to a waterway areas of freshwater as 500 ft. from the Association will be regulated. 500' is within the coastal zone. waterway. Only the first a maximum jurisdiction, substantial size lot should the first lot be 353. should be regulated. deeper than 500'. Itappears that the pro- Salem County Agreed. posed expansion of the CMP Planning Board 358. to include the Delaware The coastal zone boundary Helen Thompson, This minimum only occurs in River area will not signi- is inadequate; a minimum Save the Hudson, parts of the developed ficantly restrict new of 100 feet is too little. Our Riverland waterfront, where the development along the River Environment character of the area has but rather will affect the already been largely deter- manner of development in mined and the "coast-al" that area. The use and concern applies generally to location policies of the the first inland use. In document generally acknowl- other parts of the coastal edge the growth potential zone, the boundary is of the region and recognize wider. it as a region suited for development, in deference to other coastal munici- palities. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response PRINCIPAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS BOUNDARY - Continued 362. 359. DEP has proposed that Pat Castagno, Both DEP and the Port The character of the L. Caccese, The Northern and Delaware Waterfront Development Positive Action Authority are public service, Northern Waterfront and N.J. Alliance River waterfront areas have Permit decision appeals Citizen's Team (PACT) non-profit agencies. In Delaware River Area is for Action the capacity to have direct be made to the Commissioner both capacities, the Commis- industrial and developed, and significant impacts on rather than to the Tide- sioner of DEP would be an extension of the the coastal zone and must, lands Resource Council. striving to develop Coastal Management Program therefore, be included in The Commissioner of DEP, coordinated policy of outside of the Bay and the coastal zone under the however, is also a Com- benefit to New Jersey. Ocean Shore Segment and Federal CZMA (see Federal missioner for the Port the current proposals Regulation 923.11). Authority of N.Y. and are unnecessary. N.J. How can the Commissioner fairly 360. evaluate any appeals which The elimination of the J. Shissias, The exclusion of the Delaware involve the Port Authority? Delaware River Area Public Service River area would definitely would not delay or deny Electric and Gas result in the loss of CZM 363. federal approval of a and CEIP funds for that A ninety-day permitting A. Helwig, 90 days is a maximum time Coastal Management Program area. Furthermore, this process for a proposed Pureland Industrial frame set to @;n_sure timely nor would it result in a area would benefit from industrial user is too Complex permit decisions. For a loss of federal funding application of consistent long a period of time. major project, it is likely or other benefits that coastal policies and once a firm has made that other local, State or may accrue to the State federal consistency. the decision to establish Federal permits would under the CZM Act of a new facility, it is in require a longer decision 1972. its best interest to do period than the Coastal so quickly. Ninety days Permits. The State coastal 361. for a permit will cause permits should be pursued at The coastal zone boundary Sally Aaronson The Palisades are not him to look to Delaware the same time as other . outlined in the Proposed included in the Coastal Zone or Pennsylvania for his required permits to lesser CMP is inadequate; the because uses on the Palisades site. New Jersey will overall review time. Palisades are not included do not have a direct or then lose jobs and ratables. and a 500 foot boundary significant impact on coastal is not wide enough. waters. (See 923.11 364. of Federal Regulations). In Both the Coastal Area Natural Resources NOAA-OCZM has determined addition, DEP lacks the Facility Review Act and Defense Council that DEP jurisdiction under authority to regulate or the Waterfront Development CAFRA and the Waterfront manage development affecting Law contain serious defi- Development Act is adequate the Palisades. In Park II, ciencies which must be to manage all land uses Chapter 6, "Next Steps in noted ... In each act, which have a direct and Coastal Management in New the jurisdiction restric- significant impact on Jersey" it is suggested that tions bear no rational coastal waters. The CZMA while new legislation is not relation to the intent does not require every necessary to achieve federal of the CZ14A to regulate land use to be managed approval of the Coastal uses and areas having under the program, gee Management program, it may a "direct impact on section 923.11(b)l. be desirable in the future coastal resources". Section 3040) of the to improve the effectiveness CZMA states that the coastal and the efficiency of the zone extends inland from the program. Legislation to shorelines only to the protect the Palisades could extent necessary to control therefore be developed at a shore lands, the uses of later date. which have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response PRINCIPAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS - Continued PRINCIPAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS - Continued 365. 369. We believe that appeals The Port Authority The Tidelands Resource Public Trust Doctrine - In Audrey Zapp, The Coastal Program itself regarding Waterfront of N.Y. and N.J. Council has the responsi- 1978, the courts ruled that Hudson County Citizens will not affect Green Acres' Development permit deci- bility for protecting the sand beaches owned by a for Clean Air selection process for sions should continue to public interest in state municipality are in the projects they intend to fund be directed to the Tide- owned tidelands, and should Public Trust. Green Acres, except to prevent projects lands Resource Council be left free to deal with therefore, should acquire which would be inconsistent since. As a body of major issues regarding 20 additional acres of with Coastal Policies. twelve Governor appointed alienation of these lands, water edge uplands of Comments on this issue citizens, it is repre- without being burdened by Caven Point. should be (and have been) sentative of a broader detailed permit reviews. directed to DEP Green public interest. The Acres. Commissioner would still maintain veto power 370. over the Council. New Jersey should have a Nancy Fiordalisi, Agreed. federally-approved coastal NJDOE, Coastal Energy 366. management program in order Impact Program The streamlining of the Camden Department of No response needed. to obtain the benefits permit procedure is v ery Community Development of the Coastal Energy important. The pre-appli- Impact Program. cation conference, single permit office and the "90 371. Day Construction Permit There seems to be a Helen Bicher, The funds received by the Law" will assist with dichotomy between points Normandy Beach State under the FCZMA hav'e simplifying and speeding of the proposed CHP that Improvement Assoc. been used to develop poli- up the permit process. want to stop development cies and a management system of barrier beaches and a to regulate growth on 367. federal program that gives barrier islands and prevent The state should continue John Federico, The Sea Isle City jetty money to states for coastal unwise development. These the unfinished Sea Isle Cape May County project is a decision based management. efforts will continue City Jetty Project. Emergency Beach on the results of the Shore throughout the coastal zone Restoration Assoc. Protection Master Plan to be with approval of the pro- released this fall and gram. In general, manage- is not a direct outcome of ment funds cannot be used the Coastal Program. for construction or land acquisition. 368. Some scheme of exempting John J. Horn, Disagree. This would run 372. commercial and industrial Commissioner, counter to the intent of the The acceptance of juris- David Fisher, The review staff of DEP is zoned properties in the Department of Program to provide State tion over waterfront N.J. Builders expanding as rapidly as areas covered by the Water- Labor and Industry review, in addition to development activities Association civil service restrictions front Development Law municipal review of water- by the Division should permit. Meanwhile, the 90- and/or a method for front proposals. be accompanied by a day rule assures that no grandfathering future restructuring of the developer will be unduly modifications to existing review personnel of delayed by the permit facilities should be con- the Division. We strongly process. Federall approval sidered to minimize the oppose any further burden of the CMP will provide impact of expanded permit on the review staff until added funds to hire addi- authority. it has been bolstered and tional staff. has been awarded salaries commensurate with its experience, expertise, etc. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response PRINCIPAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS - Continued PRINCIPAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS - Continued 376. 373. CAFRA regulations can be Ihomas Neyenhouse Ibis is not the case. A The federal government Elmer Seaman The purpose of the program avoided by splitting a pro- property subdivided into should not be in the is not to restrict local posal into two separate developments below the business of giving money governments, but to imple- units too small to be threshold of CAFRA with the to the states to restrict ment State policies for its covered by CAFRA. This intent of avoiding State local government. coast, as provided by the is not the intent of the regulation is subject to CZMA. Act and this situation CAFRA for all units after Should be addressed in the first 24. The building 374. the proposed CMP. of one project with less Is there any provision in The Port Authority While CUP funds are to, than 25 units has been used this plan which would direct of.N.Y. and N.J. be expended in coastal to avoid CAFRA regulation Coastal Energy Impact Funds areas, the CMP does not and this is a problem DEP to areas of the state directly indicate how CEIP recognizes and has attempted suffering from the greatest funds would be alloted in to address in proposed dune adverse impacts due to the State, except to pro- and shorefront protection coastal energy faciLities? vide that they not be given legislation. See "Next to projects inconsistent Steps" Chapter. with the Coastal Policies. Section 308(g)(2) of the 377. Federal CZMA requires each The State of New Jersey New Jersey State DEP would seek such funding. state to develop an alloca- should reexamine its Chamber of Commerce Whether sufficient funds tion process for CUP funds. present policy of embrac- would be made available by This process is administered ing the obligations of the Legislature to ade- by NJDOE, and does direct federally-funded regu- quately manage the coast is funds to areas of the State latory programs simply uncertain. Congress has suffering the greatest because of the availa- established the CZKA to adverse impacts. bility of substantial address perceived deficiencies funding. Would State in achieving a wide range of 375. Government be willing coastal goals and has funded The commitment by DEP in John J. Horn, Agreed. to shoulder the full states through the Act triving toward a consoli- Commissioner, burden of financing the as the beat level of govern- dated/streamlined permit Department of developed coast program ment to take charge of the ystem addresses a real need Labor and Industry administration if federal management problems of the of the business community in funds were curtailed? coast and resolve them. New Jersey. It is hoped that the intra-Departmental 378. coordination that is referred Page 37, Section 4, second Pureland Industrial independent of the tidelands to as a means ofimplementing paragraph - Since DEP has Complex delineation process, New these proposed coastal poli- not yet completed the Jersey will have the authority cies could be intensified for tidelands delineation to regulate the waterfront the purpose of providing a program, isn't this pro- under the rules td N.J.S.A. truly consolidated environ- posed Coastal Management 12:5-3 which applies to mental permit system in Program putting the cart tidelands, but is not a New Jersey. before the horse and riparian statute. openiwz DEP to litigation? Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response PRINCIPAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS - Continued PRINCIPAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS - Continued 379. 383. Does DEP's mandate allow Roger Wells, DEP does not zone. No policy The proposed amendment to David Fisher, Disagree. This is an effort it to exercise regional Roger Wells, Inc. limits an area to a specific N.I.A.C. 7:7E-1.3(f) on N.J. Builders to insure the coordination control or state-wide use. Instead locations and 'pa-g-e-s-IT and 76 is a back Association, of DEP decision-making zoning? intensities of major devel- door way of gaining Al Mogerley, affecting the coast. opments are managed to jurisdiction over less N.J. independent preserve critical regional than 25 housing units. Liquid Terminals resources, as mandated by We feel this is over- Assoc., CAFRA, the Wetlands Act, and reaching. GATX Terminals the Waterfront Development Corporation Law. 384. 38U. Is there a provision for a Pureland Industrial There is not now such a The goal of unifying and N.J. Alliance The extension of the coastal Master Waterfront Develop- Complex provision. However, pro- simplifying the permit for Action zone to these areas is a ment Permit whereby a cedural rules for the three system is unrelated to the requirement of federal approval developer would have the coastal permit programs will extension, or non-extension because they have a direct flexibility of changing be prepared in 1981. These of the Coastal Zone into and significant impact on specific details on the rules will deal with the the Upper Delaware River coastal waters. The comment site as changes take place question of concept approval and Northern New Jersey is technically correct, during the course of the or a "Master Permit" for area. This can be done although federal approval project? future development of large without adopting the provides funding for permit tracts of land. present proposals. simplification and other activities. 385. 381. On page 41 relating to the David Atkin, Agreed. Revision made. CEIP program, the text NJDOE, Coastal Energy A suggestion has been made Michael Bryce, DEP will consider prepara- indicates that New Jersey Impact Program that three of the coastal Department of the tion of proposed legislation permitting systems be Public Advocate to accomplish this purpose CEIP staff approves project applications; this is not integrated into one during 1981. the case. permit system. We would strongly recommend this, in the interest of clarity and efficiency. SUPPLEMENTARY PROGRAMS 382. 386. Sierra Club supports pre- We are pleased with the League of Women No response needed. Carol Barrett, Agreed. NOAA-OCZM will initiative taken to coordi- Voters of N.J. dictability in the permit Sierra Club, assure that this is the nate Division actions and process for developers. West Jersey Group case through grant review, decisions with other DEP DEP, however, should appropriate grant condi- branches, and with the strictly enforce its rules tions where necessary and once they are established. review carried out under extension of coordination process to regional and the annual evaluation federal agencies. authorized under Section 312 of the CZKA. Coniments Commentor Response OTHER AGENCIES - Continued Comments Commentor Response 390. How will the Hudson River Department of the The Commission is a temporary- SUPPLEMENTARY PROGRAMS Continued Waterfront Commission be Public Advocate body with no statutory interacting with the power. The permanent agency 387. Coastal Management Program? it recommends will have to Municipal consistency with The Port Authority Agreed. Sentence deleted. be considered by the Legis- Coastal Resource and Devel- of N.Y. and N.J. lature and Governor. If it opment Policies should not is created, its Riverfront be a condition for the Zw-ard Plan would be required to be of Harbor Clean-Up funds. consistent with all existing This project has regional State policies, including and national objectives the Coastal Management Program. related to navigation safety and environmental 391. enhancement, objectives The reco=endations of the Sally Aaronson "See Northern Waterfront which should be pursued Hudson River Waterfront Area" section of Chapter by,New Jersey without Study, Planning, and Three, which summarizes regard to a municipality's Development Commission the work and recommendations consistency with coastal should be included in the of the Commission. Since policies. GNP. its recommendation are only advisory and are subject to 388. change by the Legislature, We would like a clarifica- David Fisher, The 208 plans and CZMA plans they have not been included tion of the statement on N.J. Builders have been compared and are in full. page 46 that no Waterfront Association fully consistent. Revised Development or Wetlands language indicates that 392. permits will be granted CAFRA permits too must be Salem County is strongly Salem County This disagreement is noted, which conflict with a consistent with 208 plans. opposed to the statement Planning Board but DEP has found no other certified 208 plan. We Ibis is required by the in this revision that any. solution available by do not think that this N.J. Water Quality Planning project in the area must administrative action to should apply to CAFRA Act (N.J.S.A. 58:11A-10). be consistent with both address the peculiar N.J.- permits and would like Delaware's and New Jersey's Delaware boundary in Salem a clarification that coastal programs and County, where the Delaware this policy does not obtain permits from two State line reaches to low apply to CAPRA permits. states. . tide on the New Jersey shore. The administrative develop- Daniel Myers On the contrary, administra- OTHER AGENCIES ment of rules and regula- tive agencies at all levels tions by persons other than of government traditionally 389. elected officials has a prepare rules and regula-. There should be provision Daniel Myers DEP makes. and'will continue tendency to erode tradi- tions in response to legis- for coordination with other to make, extensive efforts tional concepts of home- lation enacted by elected government departments at at such coordination. See rule and true political officials. Local govern- the state and county level Appendix A. responsibility. It would ments have been involved in which has not always been be urged, therefore, that commenting upon DEP's apparent in the past. any proposed system for coastal program throughout regulation involve the the planning process. See local governmental units Appendix A. of each municipality and county on a meaningful basis and on a basis where full and complete dis- cussion and analysis can be had. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response OTHER AGENCIES - Continued OTHER AGENCIES - Continued 393, The role of the Department Commissioner Finley, Agreed. See revised section. 397. of Health should be dis- Department of Health The document lists the Salem County DEP will review this idea as cussed in the section possibility of delegating Planning Board noted in the Program document. "Other State Agencies". some regulatory responsi- bilities to county or 394. municipal governments. Northern Waterfront Area - The Port Authority Agreed. Section revised. The county supports author- page 61-- In the second of N.Y. and N.J. ity delegation to the County paragraph, please expand provided a Plan consistent the description of the with the Coastal Zone Port Authority's role program is adopted. I by inserting, after -- urge pursuit of the sug- "and industrial facilities", gested new legislation the following: "and its by the Department. mandate to protect and promote commerce through 398. the Port of New York and The mayors of municipalities Charles Susskind, This is inaccurate. The New Jersey". involved in the Hudson River Clerk, Borough of Hudson River Waterfront Waterfront Commission Study Edgewater Commission and the Coastal 395. were led to believe that Program will achieve similar in the description of Salem County See revised discussion of Hudson River waterfront results of benefit to the regional entitites and Planning Board Regional Land Use Authority towns would be excluded region. The Commission authorities which affect in Delaware River Area. from the CMP. It is cannot replace the Coastal land use, the Delaware unreasonable for these Program, in that it is River and Bay Authority towns to be covered by recommending a permanent is omitted. The DRBA has both. agency to oversee the recently analyzed various development of the water- new roles that is could front and to prepare a site fulfill along the Delaware specific master plan, while River and Bay and there- the Coastal Program is much fore should be mentioned more general, and its in the report. policies will recommend the protection of coastal 396. resources and encourage only We are glad to submit the Delaware River See discussion of regional general types of develop- study sites of the Delaware Port Authority agencies in the Delaware ment. The policies recom- River Port Study for inclu- River Area (Part II, Chapter mended by the Commission, sion in the NJCMP. By 3), which describes this however, are consistent with doing this, there will be submission. the Coastal Resource and no conflict in the Dela- Development Policies. ware River master plan and the NJCMP. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response FEDERAL CONSISTENCY OTHER AGENCIES - Continued 402. Page 248 - The second para- James Shissias, under Section 307(c)(3)(A) 399. graph of the Section Public Service of the FCZMA, certification The document should identify Middlesex County This is the responsibility entitled "Federal Con- Electric and Gas Co. of consistency with an that New Jersey Laws of Planning Board of DEP's Divisions of Water sistency" suggests that approved State CMP is 1979, Chapter 359, (S 1494) Resources and Environmental federally licensed and required before a federal allows for the delegation Quality and is distinct from permitted activities T-icense or permit may be of stream encroachment, the purposes of this Coastal should consider CZM issued. flood plain, riparian, wet- Program. programs, but are not lands and CAFRA regulations necessarily bound by to the Counties pursuant them. to State established stand- ards. A coastal zone policy 403. should call for the develop- Page 250 - The paragraph J. Shissias, It is correct that direct ment of those standards by entitTed "Direct Federal Public Service Federal activities must be the NJDEP to allow for County Activities and Development Electric and Gas Co. consistent with an approved assistance in implementation Projects" seems to further (Mp to the maximum extent where appropriate. support the case for federal practicable. However, as preemption. (Refer to noted in final Federal 400. comments on page 193 and Regulations (15 CFR 930.32) The County Environmental Middlesex County See above response. 248). Also refer to and related introductory Health Act, Chapter 443, Planning Board page 251 under "Federally connnents, this is an Laws of 1977 permits State Licensed and Permitted extremely strict standard pollution control authority Activities". that can be deviated from to be delegated to County only under the most unusual Health agencies pursuant circumstances. to State standards. This could also be a valuable 404. tool in coastal zone pro- Must state actions be Carol Barrett, The CMP must be consistent tection which should be consistent with federal Sierra Club, with the stated goals of the identified in the document. policies? What control West Jersey Group FCZMA. Failure to implement does the federal govern- federal coastal objectives 401. ment exert over New could lead to loss of We note on page 56 that David Fisher, Agreed. See revised language. Jersey's actions? federal approval and coastal there is a reference to N.J. Builders management funds. Annual the Soil Erosion and Association reviews of compliance are Sediment Control Act. held under the authority of This was amended in 1980 Section 312 of the federal. to delete the jurisdic- CZMA. tional requirement'of the municipal building 405. permit. The scope of federal J. Shissias, Limiting federal consistency consistency review is Public Service to the scope of regulations constrained both inside Electric and Gas Co. which are directly support- and outside of the defined able under state law would coastal zone to the scope make it meaningless, and of regulations which are this was not the Congres- directly supportable under sionallintent. state law. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response NATIONAL INTERESTS - Continued FEDERAL CONSISTENCY - Continued 409. 406. Page 260 - Liquified Natural James A. Shissias, Although it is agreed that The Division is improperly J. Shissias, DEP is extending the coastal Gas - The reference to the Public Service certain portions of the 1977 using the federal con- Public Service program to the developed National Energy Plan is Electric and Gas Co. National Energy Plan have sistency provision by Electric and Gas Go. coast because its direct inappropriate since it been replaced with subse- extending its jurisdiction and significant impacts on was superceded by acts quent acts of Congress and a to the developed coast, coastal values are required passed by Congress. revised document, the major not presently under state to be managed for federal Safety was addressed in objectives cited are still regulation, and to non- approval. This is being Public Law 96-129 passed applicable. However, note coastal areas having done under the jurisdiction November, 1979. The revisions to the section on only minimal or indirect of the Waterfront Develop- Energy Act of,1978 addresses LNG. impacts. ment Act, not by using pricing as well as Section federal consistency. The 3 of the Natural Gas Act. program is not being ex- The 1977 plan has been tended to any area more than superceded by the 1979 500' from coastal waters. plan, and will be super- Federal consistency will ceded by the proposed apply outside the coastal 1981 plan. zone only where a proposed federal activity would have spillover impacts on the REGIONAL BENEFIT DECISIONS coastal zone. 410. 407. The inclusion of energy James A. Shissias, See "Uses of Regional Congress intended pre-exist- James Shissias, Existing facilities do not facilities as "uses of Public Service Benefit" section of iig facilities to be exempt Public Service require consistency deter- regional benefit" will be Electric and Gas Co. Chapter Five. Facilities from federal consistency Electric and Gas Co. mination or new State permits meaningless if N.J. doesn't treated as uses of review as they are exempt unless the approvals they provide the necessary tools regional benefit cannot from the requirements for received require amending to insure that local dif- be arbitrarily restricted new facilities under the or renewal. 1he permit ferences don't restrict by local governments Clean Air Act and Clean renewal is not a mere or exclude such critical according to Section Water Act. paper-shuffling exer- uses. 306(e)(2) of the CZMA. cise, but rather an oppor- The annual review conducted tunity to decide anew under Section 312 of the whether the permitted CZMA will monitor compliance activity complies with with this provision. current laws and policies. As such, they may raise issues of legitimate concern GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN to a State coastal manage- ment program. 411. On the map on page 270, Audrey Zapp, The CZM regulations (Sections Caven Point should be President, Hudson 923.20(b)) state that the NATIONAL INTERESTS specifically indicated. County Citizens number and types of a@eas for Clean Air to be designated as GAPCs 408. are directly related to the Page 261 - Second paragraph James A. Shissias, See revision on page 255. degreeof comprehensive Restates incorrect state- Public Service controls applied. As New ments concerning LNG Electric and Gas Co. Jersey has an extremely addressed on page 206, comprehensive program, 207, item (n). further designations of GAPCs are not a requirement for federal approval. Comments Commentor Response Comments Commentor Response NEXT STEPS - Continued ENERGY FACILITY PLANNING PROCESS 415. 412. In order to provide con- The Port Authority Agreed. Change made. Now that the Commission has of the 1972 Coastal Zone Page 297 - The paragraph on Pat Castagno, sistency with Section 306(f) of N.Y. and N.J. the Hudson River Waterfront Positive Action completed its work, this Management Act as amended Commission should make it Citizen's Team paragraph has been deleted. in 1976, the words "regional clear that the Commission and interstate agencies" did not come up with the should be inserted before proposals for petrochemical "municipalities" on the storage along the Hudson. fifth line of the fourth paragraph on page 314. NEXT STEPS 413. DEIS - GENERAL Page 315, New Legislation - A. Helwig, Alternative b is what was 416. It appears that DEP has only Pureland Industrial proposed by the DEIS, Penjerdel Council objects J. Deitz, The federal law establishing two alternatives; 1) Submit Complex although new legislation as to the added control and Penjerdel Council the coastal management the Coastal Management discussed in the DEIS may be restriction which will be program gives leadership to Program (with necessary proposed after program imposed by bringing the the State with a large amount revisions) to the legisla- approval. Upon federal Federal Government into of discretion in the management ture, and b) Since the approval, the state becomes New Jersey's coastal manage- approach and policies used program is based on eligible for implementation ment program by seeking in development of a program. present laws, administer gants and the federal its approval. There are broad national these laws as it has been consistency provision takes goals which must be included doing perhaps with some effect . by the State but federal in-house procedural oversight following approval streamlining. is primarily related to effective administration of 414. the State laws. All federal Page 5, first paragrpah - A. Helwig, Proposed revisions to Rules actions must be consistent Does the management program Pureland Industrial on Coastal Resource and with the approval program. take effect when approved Complex Development Policies and by NOAA-OCZM or does it proposed rules under Water- 417. take effect when submitted? front Development Act take The CAFRA EIS does not dis- Roger Wells, Demand is not ignored, but is Page 313, Once again, the effect on promulgation, timetable does not establish cuss or analyze demand Roger Wells, Inc. factored into growth region on September 26, 1980. factors in any depth; policies and is explicitly a date when DEP proposed With their effectuation instead, it proposes noted by policies promoting to adopt the program. the Coastal Management policies which assume development. The policies Program may be considered to that a detailed, segmented are intended to accommodate have taken effect. Federal and allocated demand demand by steering develop- approval is expected shortly analysis using accepted ment to appropriate.locations. thereafter, but before statistical and impact October 1, 1980. probability assessments be incorporated into the revised EIS. Comments Conunentor Response Comments Commentor Response DEIS - GENERAL - Continued DEIS - GENERAL - Continued 418. 423. We believe it would help League of Women See new index at back of Prepare an objective, A. Helwig, This is essentially what if the index were more Voters of N.J. document. independent analysis of Pureland Industrial New Jersey did propose in specific. utilizing in-house mechanics Complex the DEIS and in this FEIS. to efficiently administer The reorganization of the 419. the present laws, thereby Division of Marine Services The present DEIS is not a Roger Wells, The proposed CMP is the giving Federal approval into the Division of Coastal rational approach to coastal Roger Wells, Inc. result of seven years of to what we believe is Resources has already management and should be study. it is the profes- a much simpler, less improved efficiency of reevaluated. sional judgement of DEP and costly approach. existing laws. No new NQAA that it is a rational laws are proposed. approach to managing the coast. 424. This document represents N.J. Marine No response necessary. 420. an enormous improvement in Sciences Consortium Page 426, Preparers of the Pureland industrial With the exception of Messrs. both coverage, treatments propo :cume;@F_7_Could Complex Yoskin and McKenzie, who and language from its the e:e:r@@ nc. ot candi- spent two years and four predecessor. A particu- dates be broken down to years, respectively, in the larly admirable feature years of government/quasi- private sector, the relevant is its treatment of government service and experience of preparers has "balance" and multiple service in industry or been entirely government, use of the coastal zone. consulting? quasi-government and aca- demic service. DEIS - DESCRIPTION OF THE COASTAL-ZONE 421. NOAA should withhold action Al Mogerly, Disagree. DEP has clarified 425. on the DEIS until New Jersey N.J. Independent this through regulation as Change the description of Audrey Zapp, Agreed. See revised descrip- clarifies DEP's legal Liquid Terminals provided by legislation. the Claremont Terminal and President, Hudson tion. authority for planning and Association and has obtained the Attorney the Greenville Yards, which County Citizen regulation outside the CAPRA General's opinion to support has been proposed for for Clean Air zone through the legislature. the legal interpretation industrial development as indicated in the comment by the Fort Authority, to Section 923.41 of the to reflect that Community Federal Regulations. groups have proposed the land for residential uses. 422. A statement such as this lianiel Myers DEP has separate planning 426. DEIS should be prepared and regulatory staffs. The I am pleased to note that Daniel L. Martin, No response necessary. by someone separate from interaction of these staffs NJDEP and the City agree Mayor, City of Rahway the person who is going insures that the Coastal on the types of improve- to be charged with ulti- Program is clear from a ments that should be made mate control. regulatory viewpoint, and to the Rahway River in reflects the experience of Rahway. regulation. 427. trial No. Note correction in Page 325 - Is Logan Pureland Indus Township (Gloucester County) Complex FEIS. excluded by intent? Comments Commentor Kesponse Comments Commeritor Response DEIS - DESCRIPTION OF THE COASTAL ZONE - Continued DEIS - CONSEQUENCES Continued 432. 428. Shouldn't an analysis of Pureland Industrial Municipal zoning defines Page 320, second para- A. Helvig, Until DEP's Office of zoning laws in individual Complex acceptable uses for special graph - The 20 foot Pureland Industrial Environmental Analysis municipalities be made? land areas, while Coastal contour has no bearing Complex establishes surveyed and Policies specify development whatever on tidal computed mean head of tide conditions based upon a influence in Logan lines for each coastal matrix of generic location, Township, New Jersey. stream, the coastal program proposed use and affected Why use it? accepts their expert advice resource. The presence or that the 20' contour is an absence of conflicts between appropriate interim approxi- the two policies cannot be mation. determined by simple com- 429. parison, but is dependent upon the nature and location Page 327 - The proposed Pat Castagno, See revised discussion of proposed development. CMP discusses the Greenville Positive Action which notes this position. Yards as an area for future Citizen Team The Coastal Program does 433. development. I feel the not address the best use The state's objectives and Department of We are pleased that the Greenville Yards should of specific sites,.but policies for waterfront Community Development - Planning Board finds no not be developed for instead receives pro- redevelopment and environ- City of Elizabeth conflict between the City's industry. I support posals for consistency mental protection are con- policies and those of the new housing on Jersey with the Coastal Policies. sistent with the adopted Proposed Coastal Management City's waterfront. plans and policies of the Program. Figure 38 has been 430. Planning Board of the City revised to include a 11+.. in of Elizabeth. However, the the Site Plan Review cate- Page 336, first paragraph Pureland Industrial This is more than a mile "Municipal Government gory for Elizabeth. There is a public sewer in Complex from the Delaware River, and Profiles" chart (Figure 38, place (Logan Township MUM outside the area being page 358) incorrectly states in the form of a force described in the section. that Elizabeth has no site main between Raccoon plan review ordinance. Creek and High Hill Road The "Land Development on U.S. Route 130 in Logan Township. Control Ordinance of the City of Elizabeth, New Jersey" includes all DEIS - CONSEQUENCES subdivision, site plan review and flood control 431. ordinance elements. Page 340, last paragraph Pureland Industrial CMP regulates rather than Will the Coastal Management Complex preempts development. CHP DEIS - ALTERNATIVES Program insure that will not compensate land owners/developers recoup owners if this regulation 434. their costs to date if is alleged to prevent them The alternatives to the L. Caccese, under the "No Action!. DEP preempts the from achieving increased proposed action have not N.J. Alliance alternative, NOAA would not development of this land? property value, just as been properly discussed. for Action approve the proposed CMP. other state agencies do not The "No Action" alterna- As discussed on the first expect compensation from tive is a reasonable page of Part V. this would land owners when publicly course of action. not terminate New Jersey's funded infrastructure CHP, since DEP would still increases land value. be mandated to manage the coast by State laws. Denial V. 5 FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES Comments Commentor Response DEIS - ALTERNATIVES Continued Comments Response 434. - Continued of federal approval would, USDA - SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE however, limit the State's 437. ability to fully implement Page 109, fifth paragraph - Soil Surveys Revision made. Soil surveys do show its CMP by curtailing do not show "wetlands types". Soil tidal marshes. funds and denying the use of surveys show locations of wet soils federal consistency. and soils that flood, such as soils with high water tables. 435 Isn.t a summary of existing Pureland Industrial Essentially, the Proposed 438. laws and DEP's methods of Complex CMP is a summary of existing Page 116, 7:7E-3.25, paragraph (a), third Agreed. See revised paragraph. enforcing them an acceptable coastal laws, criteria for line - The sentence beginning with alternative since DEP has enforcement decisions "Alluvial soils are ..." would be more concurred the de facto (policies), and a proposed acceptable as "Alluvial soils are those extension of the CAFRA boundary in which they will developing in recent sediment deposited boundary is not necessary be enforced. Continued by surface water and exhibiting essen- for Federal funding? funding of the Bay and tially no modification of the deposited (For example, the DEP Ocean Shore Segement is materials." has a one day per- dependent upon approval mitting process already of the management program in place for minor water- for the remainder of the PLATER T. CAMPBELL, U.S.D.A. STATE_SOIL CONSERVATIONIST front development projects.) State's coastal areas that meets Federal approval under 439. 15 CFR 923.93. Page 18, Seaward and Interstate Bound- The State has no jurisdiction beyond aries - shouldn't the Seaward boundary its 3-mile territorial sea. 436. of the coastal zone be redefined? The Alternatives to the proposed CATX Terminals Because of its mandate under United State Territorial Sea is now action should not be limited Corporation CAFRA, the Wetlands Act, the set at a 200 nautical mile limit. The to consequences of federal Waterfront Development Act seaward boundary still may be at 3 miles rejection of the program, and the tidelands statutes, but terminology is no longer consistent. and the department should DEP will have to manage the not view the proposed Coastal coast, with or without 44U. Program as a fait accompli as federal approval. As noted Page 75, DEP Management Actions, no Preparation of plans is not considered stated on page 363. The DEIS above, denial or delay of mention is made of the i7rt-erim Guidelines a management action. does not adequately examine federal approval could for the Preparation of Slud g e Management alternatives to the proposed materially affect the Plans, DEP, Division ot water Resources, action, and is inadequate. efficiency and capability TOTTi-ce of Sludge Management and Industrial of the state to manage its Pretreatment. Should your rules cover coastal resources. these guidelines also? 441. 7:8E-3.19, page 105-2(v) - Definition The section the comment refers to of stabilized dunes. Dunes are not specifically defines dunes that are only maintained in a fixed location bulldozed, fenced and maintained by artificial means, but may also be actively in a fixed position. Other stabilized through the use of vegeta- sections speak to the process of tion, such as American beach-grass. migration. No dune will remain stable for ever. Every major hurricane and storm alters a dune, whether it is stabilized or not. Comments Response PLATER T. CAMPBELL, STATE SOIL CONSERVATIONIST - Continued Comments Response 442. DEPARTMENT OF ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS Continued Page 265, under Floodplain and Erosion We regret the omission. Materials Hazard Areas, several federal agencies prepared by SCS were used in prepara- 446 were consulted, however, the USDA-Soil tion of the CHP. Page 1011. Par ph -5. @ver Barrier islands do migrate via an Barrier islan r% ;wash Areas Conservation Service is not mentioned. 3%. ratio overwash overwash mechanism which can be amply The Soil Conservation Service is the is a hypothesis posed by scientists substantiated in post 1962 storm agency with the most expertise in associated with the National Park aerial photography of New Jersey. identifying and treating erosion Service. Engineering investigations hazard areas. The Soil Conservation of the validity of the hypothesis for Service also prepares flood hazard several of the lower elevation islands studies and manages the Small Water- of the outer banks of North Carolina shed Protection Program P1.566. do not support the hypothesis. These investigations indicate both ocean 443. and bay shorelines are eroding with Page 43 - The South Jersey Resource Thank you for this information. it is no significant overall increase in Conservation and Development Council now noted in Chapter Three, discussion the marsh areas. Unless the hypo- (RC&D) and the Cape-Atlantic Soil of Department of Agriculture role. thesis has been substantiated by Conservation District with technical analysis of factual data on the New assistance from the USDA-Soil Con- Jersey barrier islands, the phrase servation Service have worked with "and is the principal technique by several municipalities.on dune stabi- which barrier islands migrate inland" lization and dune management. The should be deleted. Without remedial municipalities have done this work action, overwash may result in inlet Z ith State matching fund grants. formation in some instances. RC&D council and the various Soil Conservation Disti-icts should 447. also be mentioned along with the 7:7E-4.10 (f) Dredging - New Seasonal restrictions have been modi- Corps of Engineers. We object to the proposed d ging fied. See revised policy. Seasonal restrictions indicated on page 149. dredging limitations will only be It is recommended that any references applied when necessary to protect DEPARTMENT OF ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS to time restrictions be deleted until a specified resource in a special the recently established Federal- area. 444. State interagency and public task Development in the national interest is Agreed. See change in policy, 7:7E-3.2, force on dredging and disposal problems "conditionally acceptable" in surf which incorporates your coment. in New Jersey reaches a final recom- clam areas. This is not the case mendation on this issue. with the shellfish policies, although both policies' rationales are based 448. on similar economic considerations. Please explain the rationale for the Policy revised. Filling is now Recommend that the last sentence in filling criterion of 18 feet. discouraged at all depths to allow for surf clam policy be incorporated in shellfish policies to recognize administrative discretion. national interest concerns. 449. Coastal Engineering, 7:7E-7.11, (b), Disagree. The Program favors non- 445. Shore Protection Priorities - a. Policy. structural solutions and wants proof Finfish Migratory Pathways - Based The present language displays a The second sentence should be deleted. as to their infeasibility before on the definiti@o-n-s-o-T'rp-r-ohibited" stronger concern. Development creat- There may be instances where both structural solutions are considered. and "discouraged", pages 78 and 79, ing a physical barrier is prohibited non-structural and structural solutions it appears that under the referenced unless acceptable mitigating measures are feasible and the structural solu- policy, development should be "dis- are taken. tion provides a desirable advantage couraged" rather than "prohibited" over the non-structural solution. since mitigation is recognized in the context of the policy statement. Comments Response Comments Response DEPARTMENT OF ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS Continu.ed DEPARTKENT OF COMMERCE - NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 456. 450. It is our understanding that the term The water-related definition has been Coastal Engineering, 7:7E-7.11, Item (iii) only states that con- "water related" development will be deleted. In New Jersey, there is more Structural Shore Protection, Item struction which does not result applied to projects requesting permits than enough waterfront to accommodate (iii). This is unreasonably restric- in extension of a structure by in areas which are already filled. water dependent uses. The revised tive and is not compatible with more than 18 inches is acceptable. By definition, this term considers policy aims to insure that those item Gv). It does not impose any additional development such as a hotel or activities are sited before other uses conditioqs on construction resulting restaurant as water related. The preempt their sites. in an extension of more than 18" and effect of this broadened definition does not conflict with item (iv). will be to allow more development 45L. along the filled water's edge. Utilization of these areas for Shore Protection Priority - The Thank you for revised language, but non-water dependent development will rationale is not rational.. it the purpose of the rationale is not to ultimately create greater pressure provides an indictment of those criticize previous decisions to on natural areas. responsible for maintaining the provide Structural solutions. The structures and those who destroyed Shore Protection Master Plan in its 457. the dunes, but it does not provide final draft will begin to provide a The proposed program allows wetland See General question V. a rationale for preferring non- complete rationale for Structural vs. alterations for water-related and structural solutions over Structural nonstructural shore protection non-water dependent activities and solutions. A substitute is offered. measures. therefore is less restrictive in the 452. protection of wetlands than the current federal habitat protection 7:7E-7.12, Dredge Spoil Disposal - Disagree. To insure that adapted program. The effect of OCZM approval Policy. Co_nTt-E-L-o_n_CT1T is --expensive vegetation of surrounding area can of the program could be construed to Trw-indow dressing" when combined succeed on the area that has been be an endorsement of weaker state laws. with item (ii). Recommend item (i) filled, the top soil should have a be deleted. similar texture with the surrounding 458. soils. Ibis way restoration of the State-Federal conflicts will probably See General Question #7. Approval of site will occur more rapidly. increase in the Hackensack Meadows a wetlands permit by the Hackensack 453. Area if the State permits decisions Meadowlands Development Commission that are not allowed under federal does not preclude a Federal decision Page 243, Decommissioning of Projects. Such a requirement would apply to permit criteria, such as 404(b)(1). contrary to approval. Further clarification is requested. Corps and other Federal projects which Would such a requirement apply to require a consistency determination, 459. Corps projects or only to projects as well as to projects requiring a DEP We recommend that a grant condition A task in the proposed New Jersey grant requiring an explicit application? coastal permit. include a mapping task for all coastal under the approved program is to 454. wetlands. update the State wetlands maps and the Page 249, Federal Consistency. Under Agreed. See revised language. upland coastal boundary. Geographic Scope, it should be revised 460. 7o reflect curr-ent regulations; signi- A pollution block in Philadelphia- DEP will work with DRBC and the, ficantly affect should be changed to Camden area of the Delaware River Pennsylvania CMP to address the pollu- directly affect. prevents anadromous fish from migra- tion block. It cannot be designated 455. ting upstream to spawn because of low as a GAPC by New Jersey because the dissolved oxygen concentrations. We State does not have full authority in 7be final RIS should include coverage Such programs are specifically ex- recommend the NJCMP provide added the areas, as required by CZMA. of mosquito control programs located empted from Wetlands Act jurisdiction emphasis to existing efforts to reduce within the coastal zone. and therefore cannot be included. pollution within the area by desig- nating the "block" as a geographical area of particular concern in need of restoration. Comments Response Comment s Response DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE - NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 465. We commend DEP for the way in which they Thank you. 461. have integrated the previously approved We also suggest that the Delaware The Co-op will be utilized to identify Bay ana Ocean Shore Segment and the River Co-op be utilized to identify tasks but implementation would be remainder of the State's defined coastal priority tasks. through DRBC. zone. The DEP is also to be commended for their efforts to develop a program document which provides an overview of DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY the full State program and an indication of,the changes made to the previously 462. approved program segment. Passive and active solar power See revised language, Policy 7:7E- are encouraged as an energy conser- 8.17 which adds such recognition. 466. vation measure in part 7:7E-8.17. We are seriously concerned that the See General Question 7. The plan does The program does not, however, spe- Hackensack Meadowlands Master Plan not preclude disapproval by a Federal cifically recognize that some larger may be inconsistent with Section 307(f) agency of action in wetlands within scale solar technologies, possibly of the CZMA because it fails to reflect the Hackensack Meadows. large scale wind turbines, may the environmental guidelines developed require coastal energy sites. under Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. 463. The proposed program does not appear At present this technology is highly 467. to distinguish geothermal fluid from speculative except near very active Neither the Plan nor its associated The Master Plan Zoning Map is shown at general ground water resources. plate boundaries where heat is near documents, which would become the Figure 36. The Zoning Regulations are 7:7E-8.6 should include recognition the surface. if in the future this, State's enforceable policies for N.J.A.C. 19:4-1.1 et seq. and are of possible future location of or other innovative energy technology Meadowlands District, are included available on request from the HMDC, geothermal resources. such as harnessing the tides, appears in the program document for Federal 200 Murray Hill Parkway, East Ruther- to be both technically and economi- agency review and comment. ford, NJ 07073. Inclusion of the plan cally feasible, the close working would have added unnecessarily to the relationship between DEP and DOE will length of the document, violating the be used to produce recommendations and NEPA regulations. policy revisions. At present the opportunities and possible impacts of 468. such technology are not sufficiently The Plan apparently was developed At the time the HMDC plan was designed, welt documented to prepare general without opportunity for full partici- the CZMA had not been considered by policy for this presently remote pation by Federal agencies, as required Congress. The possible rote of Lhe possibility. by Section 306(c)(1) of the CZMA. plan in New Jersey's coastal program was raised for federal comment in 464. Options for New Jersey's Developed C@eothermat energy projects should be Page 29t lists energy facilities Coast (March, 19-7-9-T and-in the DEIS. recognized in the identification of likely to be proposed in or signi- energy facilities stated on page 291. ficantty affecting the coastal zone. 469. Geothermal energy production is not It does not appear that any memorandum The Division of Coastal Resources wilt likely to be proposed in or affecting of understanding or other binding be guided by the policies of the the coastal zone in the foreseeable agreement has been executed between Master Plan in making decisions on the future. DEP and HMDC to ensure the RMDC manages Waterfront Development: Law. The DCR the Meadowlands in a manner consistent will make all federal consistency with the CZMA, to ensure that national determinations. Such an action would and Statewide interests are considered be superfluous since the two agencies by HMDC, and to provide for the resotu- are mandated by their respective laws tion of differences between DEP and HMDC. to protect the area. .... ....... Comments Response DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - Continued Comments Response 474. We also recommend that the term "water Agreed. Definition was deleted. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Continued related" be either more precisely defined or deleted. Many projects, including 470. house developments, would "benefit We are concerned that approval of this See General Response V. economically" from direct access to a part of the NJCMP may constitute a water body and yet housing is specifi- violation of the President's Executive cally excluded. The definition does Order on Protection of Wetlands because not acknowledge that significant it permits substantial filling of economic benefits may accrue from wetlands for non-water dependent something less than direct physical purposes. access, such as visual access. We would not object to this term if the 471. definition were supplemented by the While the Department is in agreement The Meadowlands fit the criteria for statement "water related development with the decision designating the APC designation. The policies of the is acceptable provided that it is Meadowlands as an area of particular Master Plan are consistent with the located on fastlands and does not concern (APC), we object to the State's special management goals of an APC. modify in any way the water or wetlands". use of the APC provisions of the regula- such designation was not required tions (e.g. 923.20(a)) to achieve program prior to approval by the CZMA and the 475. approval by NOAA, which apparently document carefully explains that the Policy 7:7E-3.12 states that an activity The CHP does not have regulatory could not be achieved without such Meadowlands are not a special area which would increase the likelihood of authority over fishing and Sheli- a designation. The Department believes management plan as described in infrastructure (pipeline) damage or break- fishing methods. that this approach to coastal zone 404(b)(1) guidelines. ing or interfere with the maintenance of management violates the intent of operations is prohibited. We question the APC process, the spirit of the whether or not New Jersey plans to adhere CZMA, and is inconsistent with the strictly to this policy and prohibit proposed OCZM goals for special bottom trawls and scallop dredges which area planning, which includes increased at times disturb the subsea bottoms permit predictability and improved in pipeline corridors. intergovernmental coordination. .476. 472. We would like to point out that some Endangered species habitats are We. would like to emphasize the ecolo- The Hackensack Master Plan recognizes borrow pits in southern New Jersey protected-by 7:7E-3.33. There is no gical and recreational importance of the importance of this man-made marsh. provide the only breeding habitat for need to list habitat for each species. Hackensack Meadowlands, particularly Present zoning (Special Use) would the southern gray tree frog and tiger the Kearny Marsh. We consider this preserve at least 40% of the marsh, salamander, both of which are on an extremely important issue which but HMDC is negotiating with the New Jersey's endangered species list. requires prompt reevaluation and owner to preserve a higher percentage We recommend that the policy be revised resolution. should it be developed. to include this information. 473 477. We recommend that the last sentence Agreed. See revised policy. We question why the Floodplain Policy As noted in the rationale the policy in the definition of "water dependent" does not apply to barrier islands. recognizes that infiLl development in be revised to include hotels, casinos, Given the serious threat to life and Central Barrier Island Corridor will and restaurants as examples of uses property on barrier islands posed by not add appreciably to public service which are not water dependent. periodic severe storms, a stronger State and emergency evacuation costs. policy than that evidenced by the Central Barrier Istand.Corridor Policy would seem warranted. We do not believe that the existence of structures should be used as a justification for permitting addi- tional development in hazardous areas. Comments Response Comments Response DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - Continued DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Continued 478. We believe that this policy would allow Disagree. The intent of the policy is 482. and encourage re-establishment of old not to encourage the re-establishment Energy facilities in the State are to All policies must be met, none can be be sited using the Coastal Location violated, even for an encouraged navigation channels. Many channels in of abandoned channels, thus the Acceptability Method (CLAM) consistent use. New Jersey backbays have not been definition refers to "maintaining" with the Energy Use Policies and other dredged for a number of years, and have rather than "restoring" authorized applicable policies. A problem arises, been repopulated with submerged vege- water depth and width. The alternative however, due the fact that DEP has tation beds. We recommend that the language suggested fails to mention 0tor not weighed r anked the various policy be revised as follows: "Main- access channels, anchorages and moorings, policies. The failure to rank these tenance dredging is conditionally all of which require maintenance acceptable in authorized and currently dredging. priorities becomes crucial when a maintained local, State and Federal proposed land use is affected by navigation channels. Otherwise, main- policies which "encourage" and others tenance dredging is discouraged but which "discourage" a given use. in any case must comply with all other coastal policies". 483. The organization of the program into Location Policies normally do not 479. sections on areas, uses, and resources refer to specific uses and are We recommend that the NJCMP develop a Many bays are dredged for shipping and becomes confusing in attempting to intended to be applied to any use strong policy against new overboard the bay itself is the only feasible interpret the State's policies. In proposed at the location. Pipeline disposal of dredge material. We area for disposal, especially if particular, pipelines are condition- siting, however, would be determined suggest that the policy be revised sidecasting is necessary. Lakes, ponds ally acceptable" provided that they by the Policy on Location of Linear to state that dredge spoil disposal and reservoirs are dredged to remove are not sited within any of the 39 Development (7:7E-6.1). is prohibited in Open Bays and Semi- silt and sometimes a contained portion Special Areas (which essentially Enclosed and Back Bays as well as of the lake Is the only suitable cover all potential pipelines landfall in Tidal Guts, Medium Rivers, Creeks disposal site. sites). While the prohibition an destruction of submerged vegetation and Streams, Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs, beds is expressly lifted to provide and that the remainder of this paragraph be deleted. for the conditional acceptability of pipeline placement, the section on 480. beaches does not discuss pipelines at all. This general problem could We believe that a strong policy covering Ibis will weaken the policy. Under be avoided by a statement at the fill (the major environmental pollutant the policy filling is not acceptable beginning of Chapter 4, Section which permanently eliminates habitat) is unless all the conditions are met. needed. We recommend that part 2(ii) of 7:7E-1.6, that where a specific use the Filling Policy be revised to state: is not mentioned in the area section. "in all other areas, filling is dis- the state policies in regard to it couraged unless the project can meet all in the use section will prevail. of the following conditions: (a) 484. 481. Wet sand beaches (which cover the if possible, a pipeline should not We are concerned about the potential Agree. However, a change was made entire 126 mile Atlantic Coastline) come onshore on a wet sand beach. are a special case in that they are While such use would be a low prior- change in the low growth designation to the Limited Growth (formerly called designated as Geographic Areas of ity, it may be allowed under 9peci- for parts of Galloway and Egg Harbor Low Growth) designation of a portion Particular Concern (GAPC). The fied conditions. Townships in Atlantic County. We urge of the Mullica-South Ocean Region to priority of uses for these beaches DEP to give careful consideration to create the Tuckerton Region, which indicates that a pipeline right-of- the precedent-setting implications of has been designated an Extension way would have "lowest priority". any change in designation. Should a (Moderate Growth) Region. The Tuckerton Would this classification have the pattern of such designation changes Region was designated to meet housing effect of precluding any pipeline develop, we believe that it could needs by allowing development to landfall on a beach area? if so, effectively negate a major thrust of extend out from the Borough of Tbckerton we believe that the NJCMP fails to the NJCMP. through an upland area to the already developed Mystic Island section of make adequate provisions for national Lower Egg Harbor Township. interest in OCS oil production. Comments Response Cmmments DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Continued DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - Continued 485. policy 77E-7.4(b)(iv) states that Under "Pipelines and Associated Facili- 488. - Continued pipeline corcidors for natural gas are ties", a pipeline is prohibited in bulk of New Jersey's defined uses of t discouraged in the Central Pine Barrens, certain defined areas and allowed regional benefit), DEP cites the yet the Pinplands National Reserve within limits in others. If it is in authority of the Board of Public and pinelands Protection Area Policy the latter areas the policy l(ii) Utilities (BPU) in the Department of 0 label this area as the "Offshore oil applies. Energy (DOE) to overrule local toning t or Cas Pipeline Exclusion Area". If decisions. We Consider the process by S pipelines are excluded in this area, which this authority is invoked to be 5 then Policy 77E-7.4(h)(ii) which both complicated and uncertain for the Fj discusses pipelines using established following reasons. First, it appears M rigbt-of-way would be invalidated. that only the "aggrieved utility" can a reuest action by the Board. Second, 486. although the BFU is in the DOE, the The document fails to incorporate the DEP is familiar with this study and BPU retains the stature of a inde- findings of a recently completed study is now conducting a follow-up pendent regulatory board Therefore, by the Center for Coastal and Environ- Pipeline siting study. the adoption of a Memorandum of Under- mental Studies of Rutgers University standing between DEF and DOE has not entitled OCS Natural Gas Pipelines An in our opinion bound the BPU to the Ana u Is 4HS. The study policies developed by DEP in this entirLed threti6Rpe routing I sis of go e Fin program. The NJCMP maintains that scenarios which would "enable the.State Dof "intervention authority" can be to amend andfor resolve its policies used to ensure that the program's where needed and to develop now policies policies an uses of regional benefit where they did not exist previously". "will be recognized" by the Board, but does not explain under what 487. circumstances this authority would We take exception to the last para- The sentence has been deleted, be invoked or what effect it would graph entitled Rationale. We believe have. bat mining use policies should be designed to provide for the prudent 489. development of minerals having local, The statement expressing New Jersey's regional, or national significance, policy regarding Federal consistency while at the %am time ensuring that determinations contains a clause which acceptable environmental standards should be deleted in the interest of are maintained. the end use of a both clarity and accuracy. The full product derived from mined materials statement in uestion asserts that may be dictated by economics and "New Jersey will consider an activity consumer demand and should have no consistent if it does not conflict bearing on NJGNP's Mining Use Policies. with the Coastal Resources and Devel- opment Policies and is the available 88. alternative most supportive of New Section 306(e)(2) of the CZMA reuires The procedure seems some1what complicated a I I 8Hm - If the C t. largely because the issue of unreason- j a Co 0R that an approvable program must provide 4E4f4fied eploagn t"intended to for "a nethod of assuring that local able exclusion of energy facilities add new meaning, it should be deleted land and vater use regulations within has never risen in New Jersey and as a redundancy with confusing the coastal zonte do not unreasonably the process has, therefore, never implications. restrict or exclude land and water uses been used. The comment, however, of regional benefit." In order to meet underestimates the power of N.J. the reuirements of this section for DOE in relation to the Board of public utilities (which comprise the Public Utilities. N.J. DOE has Comments Response DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - Continued Comments Response DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - Continued 490. The procedure for Federal consistency New Jersey has discussed this in 495. as described in thi-q section may have detail in its Federal Consistency We believe that the DEIS does not See general question #6. been too simplified to reflect the Handbook. Its procedures are adequately respond to our concerns actual requirements in 15 CFR 930. -consistent with federal law and for protection of the Hackensack For example, the time-frame of the regulations and have been used Meadowlands. State's consistency certification without complaint for two years process and the requirements of in the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. 496. "conclusively presumed" in the absence We would also like to point out that The CZ14A does not require the of timely State response are not the State alternatives considered on document to consider State alter- discussed. page iii of the document are not covered natives. See General Questions in the alternative discussion in Part V. 6 and 7. 491. We request that these alternatives be The phrase "significantly affect" is Agreed. Changes have been made. examined, with particular emphasis used where the correct phrase as used on including choices that would better in 15 CFR 930 is "directly affect" or protect the Hackensack Meadowlands "affect". District. 492. 497. The forinat of this section is confusing. Agreed. Format changed. We believe that the DEIS would bene- Because the document addresses poli- A case in point is the term "Licensed and fit from more comprehensive discussion cies without knowing definite uses for Permitted Activities Described in OCS of how the coastal policies will a specific site, discussion of eco- Plans" which Looks as if it were a part affect various economic sectors and nomic impacts would be guesswork. The of the Econotaic Regulatory Administration further qualification and quantifica- environmental impacts are considered responsibilities. In fact, of course, tion of environmental impacts. as much as possible for development of the Department of the Interior, through a broad program. See also general the U.S. Geological Survey, is responsible question #1. for OCS plans. 498. 493. It would be useful to have, in addition Agreed. This has been added. The second paragraph on page 254 states Agreed. See revised language. to the general Table of Contents provided, that applicants for permits described in an appropriate general index to the OCS plans must supply the State with a subject document, as a matter of practical description of the proposed activities. convenience or those who are to review it The description of the proposed activi- as well as those who are to work with it. ties (i.e., the OCS Plan) will be pro- vided by the D01 and not the applicant. 499. We request that this paragraph be Before finalization of the FELS process, Agreed. This officer, as part of DEP, rephrased to reflect the correct require- the State Historic Preservation officer was part of the State preparation and ments. should be invited to comment on policies review process. and procedures which significantly impact 494. areas of concern. in the section on qhorefront access/ Those initiatives are ongoing in DEP recreation regarding the three areas and the Legislature. Since this 500. of islands, rivers, and trails, the document can only address the coastal We are pleased to see that this Coastal Thank you. subject of resources is of course zone, where the DEP has authority Zone Management document clearly recog- addressed, but their particular place under the legislation, a broader nizes that the starved Littoral drift in a comprehensive state-wide resource picture was not possible. system deprives Sandy Hook of its natural vision for the long-range is not clear, sand supply and that: "the focus of and the initiatives which might foster shore protection efforts will continue and nurture desirable future objectives to shift from structural to non-structural are not discernible. Their interrela- measures, including a halt to development tionship with the Coastal and Bay Area most likely to be destroyed by storms zones should be more clearly delineated. and floods". ....... .... Comment s Response DEPART14ENT OF THE NAVY Comments Response 501. Page 248, third paragraph - There is This phrase has been deleted through- U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY no requirement that a federal action out the Program. is consistent only if it is "the 506. available alternative most supportive 7:7E-3.18, Exi s ting L o@ Edge - We Adequate solid waste disposal is c new development through- '07 d2 of the (New Jersey) coastal program. suggest alditin @gon. tor required for Accordingly, the second requirement development: availability of adequate out the coastal. zone (7:7E-8.8). This of your two prong test for consistency waste collection, treatment and dis- policy applies only to existing seems inappropriate. posal; and shallow lagoon design to lagoons. Filling to create new lagoons prevent anoxia and odor problems for residential development is pro- 502. caused by poor tidal flushing and hibited. Page 248, fifth paragraph - The words Disagree. The suggested change would drainage of street runoff and septage. "if required by Federal law or regula- be confusing. The point of the tion" should follow the last sentence sentence is to make the federal 507. of this paragraph to clarify the fact consistency determination process 7:7E-3.19, Beach and Dune Systems - The No response necessary. that federal. agencies are required to easier for those activities which do discussion of beach and dune systems obtain state (coastal) permits only otherwise require State coastal (page 103-108) appears consistent with when directed by Federal law or regu- permits. federal efforts to preserve these lation. systems (Reference Department of Interior: "Alternative Policies for Protecting 503. Barrier Islands Along the Atlantic Page 248, sixth paragraph-- The first 7be first suggested change has been and Gulf Coasts of the United States", two sentences should be modified to made; the second has not for the Dec. 1979). include the underlined phrases: reason noted directly above. Fhe appropriate state permit application 508. 7:7E-3.22, Central Barrier Island New infill policies group Barrier should, therefore, be submitted to DEP prior to or concurrent with the submission Corridor - We suggest that Or the Islands with limited growth and "I_n= criterion be very strictly extension regions as areas where to the Federal licensing or permitting agency initiating the Federal review applied on barrier islands to limit infill requirements are most process. Should the Division of Coastal growth to already developed areas rigorous. Resources receive a consistency certifi- and to discourage sprawl, and (2) cation for an activity which requires consideration be given to applying a state permit by Federal law or regula- more rigorous criteria to barrier tions but for which .... island development. Barrier islands, themselves, could reasonably be 504. classified as Special Hazard Areas. Page 249, Second and third paragraphs - Agreed. See revised language. The phrase "significantly affect the 509. coastal zone" has been deleted in the 7:7E-3.26, Coastal Bluffs - Makes There is no agreed defensible amended consistency regulations. (See no allowance for a particularly figure which would be appropriate. Federal Register, Volume 44, Number 123, severe series of events during Very severe erosion from storm events June 25, 1979 (15 CFR 930)). which bluffs and structures could of low statistical probability is erode at an unusually high rate. possible but legally acceptable 505. We suggest, therefore, the inclu- calculations are hard to makei thus Page 250, Page 258 and Page 375, also Agreed. See change. sion of an appropriate buffer zone the reference to erosion history. The Map on page 376 - The Navy activity into the applicable formula (page Buffer Resource Policy provides some referred to as either Leonardo-Earle 117). additional protection. Naval knmunition Depot or Earle Naval 510. Supply Depot should be the Naval Weapons Station, Colts Neck. Comments Response Comments Response U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - Continued FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 510. 514. 7:7E-5.3, Coasts th Ra;42g - The Most of the coastal areas in this Page 207 states that "the tankering. The discussion of potential LNG risks ,I GWw to _ i.1 transfer, and storage of LNG pose was not intended to represent a con- designation of he en n adelphia corridor are on the water's edge and corridor, especially in development so are governed by Special Area significant risks to public health, clusion of the cited FERC report. centers, as part of a high growth policies which do not vary by Growth safety and welfare". This statement However, this section has been revised region does not appear to recognize Region. Policy 7:7E-8.6 on Ground- is unacceptable, and if intended as to add clarity. the groundwater quality and quantity water Use, as noted, offers protection a conclusion from the FERC (FPC)/DEIS problems currently experienced. We to groundwater which would increase on the formerly proposed West Deptford recommend that the coastal management dramatically if a validated aquifer LNG terminal is grossly inaccurate, plan consider the need to protect model of the Coastal Plain were avail- since none of the conclusions on page available drinking water resources able to calculate safe sustained 207 can be derived from the cited DEIS. from further overdraft. Although yields. Only tankering is identified as an the policy under subchapter 7:7E-8.6 unacceptable risk to public safety, recongnizes this need, we believe and this was only in a certain segment that an attempt should be made to of the river. resolve conflicting policy directions. 515. 51L. In accordance with the requirements of Note revision to discussion of feder- 7:7E-5.6, Definition of Acceptable Provisions for such buffers is in- section 307(c)(3)(A) of the CZMA, a ally licensed and permitted activities. Intensity of Development - The example cluded in 7:7E-8.15 Buffers and decision on consistency certification used on page IbB tor Special Area types Compatibility of Uses. for Federal license must be made by the delineates possible minimum areas for State within six months after receipt of endangered species habitat. We recom- its copy of the applicant's certification. mend provision for the fact that Otherwise, the State's concurrence with endangered species are endangered the certification shall be conclusively because, among other factors, they presumed. This time limit on con- cannot coexist with intense develop- sistency review should be clearly ment; buffer areas may be appropriate. defined in the NJCMP (page 248). 512. 516. 7:7E-8.6, Groundwater Use - Please That level of continued pumpage which The statement on page 249 implies that Hydroelectric plants have now been explain the deFi-nition of aquifer would not lower water tables or Federal licenses for hydroelectric listed among facilities discussed in safe yield used on page 226. piezometric Surfaces to levels that projects located on river segments the section on the energy facility would cause saline intrusion changes upstream and outside of the coastal planning process. of vegetation or drying of streams. zone would require consistency certi- fication. Hydroelectric powerplants, 50. however, are not identified in the 7:7E-8.11, Air quality - Recommend To satisfy NOAA requirements the State energy facility planning process that consideration be given to the must have jurisdiction over land (page 291) as energy facilities likely designation of Air Quality Manage- areas of GAPC's. precluding the to locate in, or significantly affect ment Areas and Air Quality Men- addition of the large areas sug- New Jersey's coastal zone. attainatent Areas as Geographic gested. The State Implementation Areas of Concern so that a potential Plan available for DEP provides 517. developer will be informed early in some guidance in this direction. Revise list of FERC licenses and permits Agreed. Revision made. project processing that a site has subject to federal consistency. air quality constraints and that fie should seek a determination 518. from the state Bureau of Air Figure 36 should indicate possible Agreed. Appropriate changes have been Pollution Control. impacts from LNG facilities; for made in Figure 36. example, the thermal impacts of cooling or heating water effluents. CAxments Response FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Continued 519. 7:7E-7.4,_Energy Use Policies - (n).- Agreed. As indicated by brackets in T.N(; - Tne Intormatton on the Staten the draft document, the mid-1978 Island'apptication (page 207) should citation was to be deleted and is not be updated, from the "mid-1978" citation. included in the FEIS. 520. The FERC is receiving a great number No response necessary. of applications for small-scale hydro- electric power development at existing dans in the U.S. A list of retired hydropower plants in the U.S., maintained by the FERC, shows 19 retired small-scale hydropower plants in New Jersey, some of which appear to be located within the New Jersey coastal area or near its boundary. 521. Should it be the intent of the NJCHP Any federal approvals for projects that Federal licenses for hydro- which will directly affect the electric projects, which are located coastal zone are subject to con- outside of the State's coastal zone, sistency certliWcation. be subject to consistency certification? APPENDIX I: GLOSSARY Introduction This glossary is intended to provide the reader with understandable defini- tions of technical terms used and undefined in the text. Terms which have been previously defined include a reference to the appropriate section of Part II. acceptable - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-1.6(c). acceptable intensity of development - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-5.6. accretion the process of gradual and imperceptible addition of solid mater- ial, thus extending the shoreline. action See Chapter Four, 7:7E-1.6(c). activity See Chapter Four, 7:7E-1.6(c). adverse impact a negative effect. algae non-vascular simple aquatic plants, without true roots, stems, or leaves, that vary from single celled to large multicellular forms; most noted groups are: green, brown, red, blue-green and diatoms. alluvial deposits of flowing water; clay, silt, sand, gravel, and/or organic detritus. alluvial flood margins See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.25. aquaculture See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.10(a). aquifer a water-bearing underground layer of sand, gravel, or rock; a porous sub-terranean water-bearing stratum of unconsolidated sediments. anadromous marine or estuarine species of finfish that spawns in freshwater. approved a CAFRA, Wetlands, or Waterfront Development permit has been granted by NJDEP to develop a site as proposed by an applicant. archaeological resources See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.31. area See Chapter Four, 7:7E-1.6(c). artificial reef - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.13. 517 assimilative capacity - the amount of adverse impacts (pollutants) that a water body or land area can absorb and neutralize before it begins to display a significant reduction in biological diversity, chemical, and/or physical quality. back bay - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.5. backfilling - the action of removing trench spoil from its temporary spoil storage site(s) by a bucket-type piece of trenching equipment and replac- ing it in the trench. This activity follows pipeline placement. bathymetry the measurement of depths of water areas; underwater topography. beach - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.19. benthic - occurring or living on or in the bottom of a water body. biota - the plant and animal assemblage of a biological community. bluffs - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.26. boat ramp - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.10(b). bog - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.20. borrow pit - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.15 and 7:7E-3.30. brackish - partially saline water. bridge - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.10(m). built-up urban area - land areas already intensely developed for housing, commerce, indus- try, etc. cable route - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.10(n). canal - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.8. carcinogen - capable of causing cancer in humans. central barrier island corridor - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.22. clay lense - a lense-shaped deposit of clay. coastal bluff - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.26. coastal region - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-5.3. coastal water - all tidally influenced waters under New Jersey State jurisdiction. 518 coastal wetlands - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.20. cond it ional ly acceptable - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-1.6(c). cranberry bogs - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.23. creek - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.8. critical wild- life habitat - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.34. dam - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.10(p). datum - a reference point, line or plane used as a basis of measurements. depuration - the process by which potentially contaminated shellfish are cleansed prior to human consumption. After harvest shellfish are held in controlled conditions for a sufficient, length of time until pathogenic organisms are purged. detritus - particulate matter, especially of organic vegetative origin in vary- ing stages of decomposition. development - a facility, use, or alteration as defined in enabling legislation. See Chapter Four, 7:7E-1.6(c). development potential - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-5.5. direct impact a change in the built or natural environment that is either the immediate result of an impacting activity or is linked to the impacting activity through an identified chain of cause and effect without further human intervention. discouraged See Chapter Four, 7:7E-1.6(c). disturbance a disruption or perturbation; significant changes in the equipli- brium of natural or social processes and resources from artificial or natural causes. diversity the variety of species present in a habitat or ecosystem. High di- versity indicates environmental health. dock - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.10(c) and (d). dredge spoil disposal - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.10(g). dreging (main- tenance) - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.10(e). dredging (new) - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.10(f). 519 dry borrow pit - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.30. dumping - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.10(h). dune - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.19. ecosystem the complex of a community and its environment functioning as an ecological unit. ecotone - an edge or border zone between different habitats usually with high diversity of species. effluent a discharge of pollutants into the environment; untreated or par- tially or completely treated. encouraged See Chapter Four, 7:7E-1.6(c). endangered See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.33. environmental sensitivity See Chapter Four, 7:7E-5.4. ephemeral - lasting only a short time; temporary; transient. (See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.27). erosion the wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, or other geological agents. (See Chapter Four, 7:7E-8.8). escarped foredune - wave eroded sand dune, with steep slope in ocean front adjacent to beach. estuarine - of, relating to, formed, or living within an estuary. estuarine sanctuary - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.14. estuary any confined coastal water body with a connection to the sea and measurable quantity of marine salt in the waters; greater than 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt). euthrophi- cation nutrient enrichment, leading to excessive growth of aquatic plants, usually resulting in anoxic (lack of dissolved oxygen) water conditions. excluded federal land See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.37. farmland conser- vation area - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.28. fauna - a collective term for the animal species present in an ecosystem. feasible - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-1.6(b). 520 feasible alternative - an action possible using current technology and resources. filled water's edge - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.17. filling - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.10(i). finfish migra- tory pathway - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.5. floodplain - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.21. flora a collective term for the plant species present in an ecosystem. flushing rate the rate at which the water in a water body is replaced, usually expressed at the time needed for one complete replacement. food chain the step-by-step transfer of food energy and materials, by consump- tion, from the primary source in plants through increasingly higher.forms of animals. food web the network of feeding (trophic) relationships in and between (a) biological community(ies). forage food source. freshwater wetlands See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.20. gabion loose rock held together with wire mesh used to promote groundwater recharge. growth rating - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-5.3. gut - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.6. habitat - place of residence of plants and animals; community of species. Hackensack Meadowlands District - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.40. hazardous substances - includes petroleum and petroleum products; all pesticides designated as "prohibited", "restricted" or "specially restricte@" pursuant to New Jersey Pesticide Control Act of 1971 (N.J.S.A. 13:lF-1 et seq.) and N.J.A.C. 7:30-1.5 through 1.7 (Appendix A); and sJb_- stances identified as hazardous by the Federal Envir*onmental Protection Agency at 40FR 59961 December 30, 1975 proposed pur- suant to Section 311(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 USC 1251 et seq. (Appendix B). This definition conforms to that in N.J.A.C._7:TV_-l.l pursuant to the Spill Compensation and Control Act of 1976 N.J.S.A. 58:1-23.11. 521 high risk beach erosion area - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.19. historic resources - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.31. housing - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-7.2. impact - ecological or sociological effect; impinge; an impelling or compel- ing effect. impinge - to hold fast, as with finfish being held against a screen within a water intake system. impoundment - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.10(p). indigenous - having originated in and being produced, growing, or living naturally in a particular region or environment; native species. industrial wast.es - an extremely wide variety of chemicals which must be disposed; poten- tial pollutants not usually of residential origin. infill development of vacant land within general built-up area; develop- ment of land parcel with at least 50% of boundary of site pre- sently developed in the same way as that type proposed. (See Chapter Four, 7:7E-5.5(iii). infrastructure a facility, frequently linear, which transports people, materials, energy or information, and directly associated point facilities. inlet See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.9. inorganic non-living or of non-organic origin; mineral. intensity See Chapter Four, 7:7E-5.6. intermittent stream See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.27. intertidal the area between high and low tide levels, twice daily exposed and flooded. intertidal flats See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.16. invertebrate animals without backbones. This composite term covers a wide vari- ety of organisms. jetting the action of liquefying and lightening of marine bottom sediments by blowing high pressure air and water into sediments from a specially designed jet sled. This alternative trenching technique has been used for laying pipelines. 522 lagoon -.an artific,ially created linear waterway sometimes branched endinj in deadend with no significant upland drainage. See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.18. lake See Chapter Four, 7: 7E-4.9. large river -See Chapter Four, 7 :7E-4.7. littoral -shoreline; related to edge of the water body. littoral drift the movement of sedimentary material, e.g.: sand, silt, gravel, parallel to shoreline under the influence of wind, waves, and currents; commonly used as synonymous with longshore transport. location See Chapter Four, 7:7E-1.6(c). long a word sometimes used to describe state programs prepared under Fed- eral law in the format of environmental impact statements. major devel- opment a facility as defined by New Jersey Coastal Area Facility Review Act of 1973 (N.J.S.A. 13:19-3 et seq.). marina a waterfront facility predominantly used for the dockage (wet or dry stack) or moorage for recreational boats, for which dockage or moorage fee is charged. marine sanctuary - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.14. maximum extent practicable - the use on consideration of best available technology and mitiga- tion measures resulting in selection of measures, technique, or level which produces most environmentally desirable effect. See Chapter Four, 7:7E-1.6(c). mean high water (MHW) a tidal datum; the arithmetic average of the high water heights observed over a specific 18.6 year Metonic cycle (the National Tidal Datum Epoch). mean high water line the line formed by the intersection of the tidal plane of mean high water with the shore. mean low water (MLW) - a tidal datum; the arithmatic average of the low water heights observed over a specific 18.6 water Metonic Cycle (the National Tidal Datum Epoch). medium river -See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.8. mitigation -a measure or system of measures taken to make an action less severe. 523 mooring. - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.10(k) and 7:7E-3.10. multi-purpose marina - a small harbor facility that maximized diversity of user groups and activities. multi-use developmet - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-7.2(i). navigable - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-1.6. navigational channel - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.7. ocean - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.3. open bay - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.4. organic - living, related to living substance or living organisms. Chemical compounds formed of carbon united with hydrogen (hydrocarbons). outfalls - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4-IO(q). overhead trans- mission lines - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.10(o). overwash an area on barrier island which has a history or potential to be inundated by ocean storm waves. pathogenic capable of causing disease. perennial present at all seasons; persisting for several years; continuing without interruption. permit a writing, issued by a person in authority, empowering the grantee to do some act not forbidden by law, but not allowed without such authorization. photosynthesis the vegetative manufacture of organic carbohydrates from carbon dioxide and water in the presence of chlorophyll by utilizing light energy and releasing oxygen. phytoplankton the single-cell plant component of plankton. piers See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.10(d). Pine Barrens See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.39. Pinelands See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.39. piling See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.10(j). pipeline route - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.10(n) and 7:7E-6.1. pipes - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-7:7E-4.10(q). 524 plankton small suspended aquatic plants and animals which passively drift or swim weakly. pond See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.9. potential - existing in possibility; capable of development into actuality. (See Chapter Four, Section 7:7E-5.5 for discussion of Development Potential). port See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.11. practicable See Chapter Four, 7:7E-1.6(c). pre-application conference informal meeting with Division of Coastal Resources staff member, prospective permit application and consultant to discuss develop- ment proposal prior to formal application, to determine con- sistency with coastal policies and define specific application requirements. (See Chapter Four, 7;7E-1.6(d)). preservation - to maintain in existing condition; protection from permanent alteration by human activity. prime fishing See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.4. productivity (primary or biological) - The amount of organic matter produced by photosynthesis usually expressed as weight per area over a given period of time. prohibited See Chapter Four, 7:7E-1.6(c). project See Chapter Four, 7:7E-1.6(c). proposal See Chapter Four, 7:7E-1.6(c). prudent a wise choice. (See Chapter Four, 7:7E-1.6(b). public launch- ing facility - a facility available for use by the general public or on a free or fee basis, used for launching and returning recreational boats. public open space - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.35. regional impact- an economic, environmental, or sociological effect extending beyond the municipal boundary in which the causative use is located. reservoir - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.9. resource recovery - the extraction and utilization of materials and energy from the waste stream. Materials would include, for example, metals and glass which can be used as "raw materials" in the manufacture of new products. 525 retained water's edge - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.17. retaining structure - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-7.11. riparian lands - land now or formerly flowed by the mean high tide. riprap - a foundation of stones or rocks loosely placed together without order to prevent scour and erosion. river - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.8. rookery - a communal breeding site for certain species of aquatic birds. runoff - the portion of precipitation on land that flows over the land sur- face; overland flow (See Chapter Four, 7:7E-8.7). salinity - a measure of the quantity of dissolved salts in water expressed in parts per thousand of water (ppt). salt water intrusion - the movement of salt water inland into subterranean aquifers. salt wedge - estuarine water mass of higher salinity found along the.bottom over which lighter fresher waters move. sand and gravel extraction - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.10(l). seasonal home - a non-year round residence frequently without insulation or heating system. secondary impacts - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-6.3. sediment - material deposited by water, wind, or glaciers. sedimentation - the process of gravitational deposition of organic and/or inorganic suspended particles by water (See Chapter Four, 7:7E-8.8). semi-enclosed bay - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.5. sensitivity - the capacity of an organism, community, or area to respond to stimulation; susceptibility to disturbance and change. (See Chapter Four, 7:7E-5.4). shellfish - a misnomer of common use for a group of organisms none of which are true vertebrate finfish;. includes mollusks and crustaceans such as clams, oysters, scallops, conchs, squid, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp. (See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.2, 3.3, and 8.3). shellfish beds - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.2. shipwrecks - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.13. 526 significant - a measurable change in the built or natural environment that is cause for concern. silt - fine particulate matter suspended in water and later deposited on water body bottom. sludge dumping - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.10(h). spawn - the reproductive act of lower organism where fertilization of eggs is usually external. special hazard area - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.36. special urban area - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.36. specimen tree - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.32. steep slope - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.29. storm surge - the piling up of water against (or withdrawal from) a coast by strong winds and reduced atmospheric pressure such as that accompanying a hurricane or ther intense storms. streams - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.8. submerged infra- structure - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.10(n). submerged vegetation - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.6. successional - plant species or vegetative community which will be successively replaced by more stable communities. A sub-climax vegetation type. surf clam area - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.3. surface water runoff - See runoff (See Chapter Four, 7:7E-8.7). surrounding region - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-1.6(c). swale - a low lying or depressed land area commonly wet or moist; an inter- mittent drainage way. tertiary water treatment - a process following secondary treatment involving filtration, acti- vated carbon, and chlorination. In the process, the effluent is subjected to denitrification and phosphorus precipitation. tidal flooding - inundation of land caused by an abnormally high tidal water having an average frequency of once in 100 years, although the event may occur in any year. 527 tidal influence- water which measurably rises and falls with twice-daily tides. tide - the periodic rise and fall of the water resulting from gravitational interaction between the sun, moon, and earth. The vertical component of the particulate motion of a tidal wave. In each lunar day of 24 hours and 49 minutes there are two high tides and two low tides. tidelands those lands now or formerly flowed by the mean high tide, held in trust by the State unless alienated. toxic substance a poison. transferred impacts See Chapter Four, 7:7E-6.4. trenching the action of removing sediments or substrate for the purpose of in- stalling a linear facility accomplished by use of a backhoe, bucket, clam, dragline, shovel or similar method. turbidity - reduced water clarity resulting from presence of suspended matter. use - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-1.6(c). water areas - See Chapter Four, 7:7E-4.1. water access - direct physical availabiity to water body. water dependent- use which requires navigation in, or direct physical contact with, water body. (See Chapter Four, 7:7E-1.6(c)). water disturbance - measurable change in biological, chemical, or physical water qual- ity. water oriented - use with strong need for water access. waterfowl - a group of aquatic birds within the family Anatidae which includes ducks, geese, swans, and mangansers. wet borrow pits- See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.15 and 7:7E-3.25. wetlands inundated areas supporting emergent aquatic plants (See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.23 and Chapter Five. white cedar stands See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.23. wildlife a collective term used for living organisms neither human or domes- ticated (See Chapter Four, 7:7E-3.33, 3.34, and 8.10). zooplankton the animal component of the plankton. 528 INDEX A - 95 Review - 17, 356 Commercial Facilities - 209 Acceptability Conditions for Uses - 141 Community Affairs, Dept. of - 58 Acceptability Intensity of Development Conflict Resolution - 66 162 Convention Centers - 221 Acceptability of Development in General Counties - 59 Land Areas - 151 Cranberry Bogs - 109 Agriculture, Dept. of - 58, 249 Air Quality - 56, 225, 257 Alluvial Flood Margins - 100 Dams - 149 Amusement Piers - 183 Decommissioning of Projects - 237 Aquaculture - 142 Definitions - 76 Army Corps of Engineers - 245, 247 Delaware - 20 Artificial Reefs - 89 Delaware and Raritan Canal - 51, 52(i), 53(i) Delaware River Area - 60, 328 Barrier Free Design - 237 Delaware River Basin Commission - 60, 61, Barrier Islands - 95(i), 106, 259, 325 62(i) Basic Coastal Policies - 10-12 Delaware River Port Authority - 63 Bays - 138, 139 Development Potential - 157 Bay and Ocean Shore Area - 324 Development Region - 169 Beach and Dune Systems - 100-106, 101 Docks - 142, 143 Beach Shuttle - 299 Dredge Spoil Disposal - 92, 117, 145, 214 Beaches - 100-106, 101(i), 213, 265, Dredging - 82, 86, 87, 88, 143, 144 292, 294 Dumping - 146 Bicycle Paths - 202 Dunes - 100-106, 101(i), 212 Bluffs - 112, 114(i) Boat Ramps - 142 Boardwalks - 183 Economic Development Authority - 59 Bogs - 108-111 Economic Regulatory Administration 248 Borrow Pits - 90, 116 Electric Power -197, 254 Borrow Pits Margins - 110 Endangered or Threatened Vegetation 119, Boundary - 2(i), 19-21, 21(i), 310-313, 257 312(i) Endangered or Threatened Wildlife - 119, Bridges - 48 257 Buffers - 229 Energy - 9, 12, 253, 364 Energy Conservation - 231 Energy, Dept. of (U.S.) - 250 CAFRA - 3, 4, 19, 32, 36(i), 38(i) Energy, Dept. of (N.J.) - 12, 42., 43 Campgrounds - 161 Energy, Dept. of-Memorandum of Under- Canals - 86 standing - 372-377 Casino Hotels - 210 Energy Facility Planning Process - 42 CEIP - 5, 43, 46, 289, 376 Energy Use Policies - 184-201 Channels - 85 Engineering - 212 CLAM 3, 79-80, 308 Environmental Advisory Group -.290 Clams 82 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - Coast Guard - 247 248, 250 Coastal Permit Jurisdiction - 40(i) Environmental Quality, Division of 29, Coastal Zone Management Act - 4, 24, 226, 238, 259 226, Chapter 5 - 241 Environmental Sensitivity, Rating 155 Commercial Development Potential - 160 Erosion - 102, 105, 222, 301 Estuaries - 85, 90 529 Fair Share Housing - 178, 262 Labor and Industry, Dept. of - 59 Farmland - 115, 260 Location Policies - 79, 175 Federal Agency Authority - 64 Lagoon Edge - 96, 97(i) Federal Consistency - 64, 242-250, 358 Lakes - 141 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - Land Acceptability Tables - 167, 168(i) 247 Land Areas, General - Subchapter 5 - 151 Federal Lands - 122, 370, 371(i) Legal Authority - 9, 297, 390 Fertile Soils - 234 Limited Growth Regions - 152 Filled Waters Edge - 96, 123 Linear Development - 175 Filling - 87, 88, 91, 93, 146 Location Policy, Basic - 175 Fish, Fishing, Fisheries - 83, 217 LNG Facilities - 199-201, 254 Fish, Game, Wildlife, Division of 30 Fishing Platforms 148 Forests - 260 Marinas - 88, 182 Flood Hazard Areas 49, 235 Mining - 91, 110, 206, 260 Flood Margins, Alluvial - 100 Mooring - 147 Floodplains - 98 Mosquito Control - 108 Foot Paths - 202 Municipalities - 60, 314-318, 337-354 Gas - 192, 193, 194, 196 National Defense - 215, 252 Gas Processing Plants - 194 National Interests - 251-260 General Areas - 79 Natural Areas - 265. Geographic Areas of Particular Concern Natural Areas System Act - 56 263, 264(i) Navigation - 85, 86 Green Acres 17, 30, 31, 44, 284, 298 Neighborhoods - 232 Ground Water 220 Noise Abatement - 238 Growth Rating - 151-155, 153(i) Northern Waterfront Areas - 63, 319-324 NPDES - 47 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) - Hackensack Meadowlands - 2(i), 3, 20, 197, 198, 248 21(i), 31, 42, 75, 127, 128(i), 269-283, 270(i), 277(i), 279(i), 280(i), 323, 359, 384 Ocean - 131 Hazard Areas, Special - 122 Oil & Gas - 185, 186(i), 196, 254 Higbee Beach - 265 Oil Refineries - 195 High Rise Housing - 180 Onshore Support Bases - 187 Historic and Archeological Resources - Open Space - 11, 121 118, 259 Outer Continental Shelf Development Hotels 209 185, 186(i) Housing 177 Outfalls - 149 Overhead Transmissions Lines - 149 Impoundments - 147 Industrial Development Potential - 160 Parking Facilities - 202 Industry - 205 Parks - 11, 183 Infill - 159(i) Parks and Forestry, Division of 29 Infrastructure, Submerged - 87, 89, 148 Pennsylvania - 20 Inlets 87 Pesticides - 108 Intakes 149 Petrochemical Facilities - 195 Interior, Dept. of the - 250 Piling - 146 Intermittent Stream Corridors - 113, 114(i) Intertidal Flats - 93 530 Pinelands, Pine Barrens - 51, 54, 55, Tanker Terminals - 196 124, 125(i), 189, 191(i) Tidal Guts - 139 Pipe Coating Yards - 188 Tidelands - 3, 39, 41(i) Ports - 12, 88, 207, 256 Traffic - 232 Port Authority of NY & NJ - 63 Transportation - 179, 201, 256 Pre-Application Phase - 77 Transportation, Dept. of - 59 Program History - 3 208 Plans - 48, 219 Project Application - 77 Public Access - 228, 292-294, 296, 297, 363 Urban Areas - 123, 205 Public Comments - Urban Waterfronts - 12, 123, 295 Public Facilities - 203 Use Policies - Subchapter 7 - 177 Public Participation - 65, 289-290, 361 Public Services - 227 Public Transportation - 201 Vegetation Habitats - 119 Vegetation, Submerged - 85 Recreation - 181, 255 Regional henefit Decisions 261, 262 Wastewater Treatment - 48 Regional Land Use Authority 60 Water Areas - Subchapter 4 - 131 Residential Development, Large-Scale - Water Area Policy Summary Table - 131, 181 132(i) Residential Development Potential 157 Water Body Types - 133, 137(i) Resorts - 181 Waterfront Development Law/Permit - Resource Policies - Subchapter 8 217 3, 6, 32, 33(i), 34(i), 66, 360, Retail Trade & Services - 210 378-388, 379(i), 380(i) Roads 201 Waterfront Parks - 11 Rivers 140 Water Quality - 46-49, 219, 256 Rivers, Wild and Scenic - 50, 127 Water Resources, Division of - 28 Runoff - 113, 220 Wetlands - 107-109, 257, 263, 280(i) Wetlands Act - 4, 35(i), 37, 107-109 Sand & Gravel Extraction 147 White Cedar Stands 107, 109 Scenic Resources & Design 229 Wildlife Habitats 119, 120, 225 Secondary Impacts - 175 Shellfish 81, 217 Shipwrecks 89 Shore Protection - 3, 17, 31, 45, 212-214, 292, 301-306 Soil Erosion & Sedimentation - 222 - Soils, High Permeability Moist - 233 Soils, Wet 233-234 Solid Waste 57, 108, 117, 203, 230, 262 Special Areas - 79, Subchapter 3 - 81 Special hazard Areas 122 Special Urban Areas 122, 205 Special Waters Edge Types - 94(i), 95(i), 96-115 Specimen Trees - 119 State-Owned Land - 56 Steep Slopes - 116 Submerged Infrastructure 87, 89, 148 Submerged Vegetation - 85 Surf Clam Areas - 82 Surface Water - 219 531 APPENDIX J - PREPARERS OF THE NEW JERSEY COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND T= ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT The National Oceanic and Atomospheric Administration - office of Coastal Zone Management (NOAA-OCZM) in the United States Department of Commerce together with the Bureau of Coastal Planning and Development in the Division of Coastal Resources, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection prepared this document with the assistance of present and former staff of the entire Department of Envi- ronmental Protection, other state, federal and local agencies, interest groups and citizens. The preparers are listed below and, as required by regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (1502.17), academic degrees and the number of years of relevant experience of the primary authors are listed in parentheses. NOAA-OCZM William Matuszeski, Deputy Assistant Administrator (J.D. - Harvard University, 13 years experience) Kathryn Cousins, North Atlantic Regional Manager (M.P.A. - Public Administration, George Washington University, 10 years experience. Richard O'Connor, North Atlantic Deputy Regional Manager (M.P.A. - Public Administration, 5 years experience) David Duncan, North Atlantic Assistant Regional Manager (M.P.A. - Public Affairs, University of Texas, 2 years experience) 532 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection - Division of Coastal Resources David N. Kinsey, Director (Ph.D. - Public Affairs, M.P.A.U.P. - Public Affairs and Urban Planning, Princeton University, 8 years experience) Bureau of Coastal Planning and Development John R. Weingart, Chief (M.P.A. - Domestic and Urban Policy, Princeton University, 5 years experience) Allan Campbell, Assistant Chief (Ph.D. - Political Science-Policy Analy- sis, Rutgers University, 4 years experience) Planning Staff Jane Darden (B.S. - Environmental Studies, Rutgers University, 1 year experience) Adele Gravitz (B.A. - Botany and Art History, Connecticut College, I year experience) Michael Hochman (M.R.P. - Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania, 7 years experience) Richard A. Kantor (M.S. - Marine Biology, Long*Island University, 11 years experience) Barbara Kauffman (B.S. - Natural Resources, University of Michigan, 2 years experience) Stewart McKenzie (M.L.A. - Landscape Architecture, University of Pennsyl- vania, 6 years experience) David Stern (M.U.P. - Urban Planning, University of Illinois, 3 years experience) Saul Wiener (M.S., M.L.A. - Regional Planning, Landscape Architecture, University of Pennsylvania, 4 years experience) Neil Yoskin (J.D. - Temple University, 3 years experience) Support Staff - Celeste Allen, Marvin Atwood, James Azzinaro, Debbie Brown, Carol Claudili, Wilma DeFazio, Tina Gutierrez Ada Jurado, and Daisy Rodriguez Planning assistance was also provided by Chief Steven Whitney, Perry Boynton, Karl Braun, Charles Durfor, Ruth Ehinger, Steven Epstein, Mark Fedorowycz, Susan Fisher, David Haines, Andy Heyl, Darryl Jennus, Amanda Kirkpatrick, Robert Piel, Barry Rechtorovich, Phil Sandine, and Douglas Wehrle of the Bureau of Coastal Project Review, Chief Thomas Hampton of the Bureau of Coastal Enforcement and Field Services, Chief James Johnson of the Bureau of Tidelands, Chief Bernard Moore of the Bureau of Coastal Engineering, and Chief Ed Lutz, Joan Caivano, Walter Dryla, and Helen Giallela of the Office of Administration. This report was typed by Vicky Posluszny of the DEP Word Processing Center under the leadership of May Stevens. Special thanks to DEP Assistant Commissioner for Natural Resources Donald T. Graham. Thanks also to Chester Mattson of the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission, Assistant Commissioner Charles Richman and Administrator Edward J. Linky of the Department of Energy, and Deputy Attorney General John Van Dalen. 533 Let'S pn*d ourmM NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 3 6668 00002 7005