February 27, 2002
Hon. Bradley Campbell
Commissioner
NJ Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
P.O. Box 402
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Dear Commissioner,
The Regional Planning Partnership (RPP) is writing to express our strong support for the watershed-based approach to environmental regulation and planning now underway in New Jersey. While writing, I wear three hats: 1) President of The Regional Planning Partnership, an organization that has been in the forefront of growth management initiatives for over thirty years; 2) former member of the State Planning Commission who chaired the Plan Implementation Committee for six years; and 3) project manager for two years as the lead agency contracted to manage the Central Delaware Tributaries Watershed Management Area (WMA #11) planning process. This experience enables RPP to provide pragmatic recommendations on how to sharpen and strengthen New Jersey's approach to watershed management.
RPP believes the current approach to watershed planning has merit but does not go far enough in five areas:
- rule implementation;
- policy and departmental integration;
- clarification of roles in the watershed management process;
- statewide standardization of research and coordination of products developed by each WMA; and
- recognition of the critical role of local government in managing non-point source pollution.
Rule implementation: Implementation of protective measures contained in the proposed rule, e.g., recharge rates that achieve "no net decrease in surface water baseflow," is necessary to strengthen the effectiveness of watershed planning. However, certain provisions of the proposed rule also require strengthening, e.g., references to the State Development and Redevelopment Plan (see RPP's web site for our previously submitted comments to the Whitman administration).
Recommendation: Move rapidly to propose an amended version of the previous Water Quality and Watershed Management Rule.
Departmental integration: Although divisions within NJDEP were renamed, the previous administration left intact the "siloed" approach to protecting and managing water quality and supply. To date, meaningful integration of policy, regulation and practices has not happened. By conceiving watershed plans as amendments to Water Quality Management Plans, as proposed in the new rule, the previous administration failed to allow watershed planning to achieve its full potential for shaping growth, based on a sound understanding of the requirements for water quality and supply.
In addition, the re-engineering process necessary for integrating watershed planning with other state departments and agencies, and with different levels of government, was not even begun under the previous administration.
Good watershed planning is not just about permits. Good watershed plans should determine where economic development (including transportation infrastructure) is appropriate and how economic activities can be accomplished with the least impact. Good watershed planning should implement the multiple goals, objectives and policies of the State Plan.
Recommendations: Within NJDEP, complete an effective re-engineering of the department so that the permitting process is replaced by watershed plans where the sum is greater than the individual permits.
With respect to integration horizontally across state departments and agencies and vertically across levels of government, revisit the Land Use, Infrastructure and the Environment (LUIE) project recommendations.
Also, ensure integration of the State Plan's endorsement process with the watershed management planning process:
- address the issue of growth management in the watershed management planning process by including targets to achieve the State Plan's land and water resources goals and creating meaningful monitoring programs; and
- include watershed planning data in the endorsement process (e.g., when capacity analyses are undertaken for endorsement include analyses of water quality and quantity capacity undertaken by the watershed process).
Clarification of roles: The Center for Watershed Protection in Maryland describes three phases in the development of watershed plans: data gathering, municipal institutional change and citizen engagement. NJDEP has a clear role to gather data (e.g., prepare water budget data, TMDL levels, etc.) and to encourage municipal institutional change by developing regulations and incentive programs for local government. The Department is not fulfilling this role. NJDEP needs more resources to do the required science necessary to prepare the watershed plans. Water budgets should already be available and TMDL data gathering should already be underway.
NJDEP could find resources to do the science by spending less on day-to-day management of the watershed management planning process. Instead it should use a more centralized information dissemination approach as well as promoting information sharing among contract entities
Recommendations: Ensure NJDEP has sufficient resources to produce the scientific data required for sound watershed planning. Reinstate positions lost in the recent budget cuts (e.g., water budget and TMDL modelers) and increase resources in these and other areas where needed by reducing duplication of efforts in managing the WMAs. Ensure New Jersey gets its share of funds available for Watershed Ambassadors under the AmeriCorps program. These Ambassadors are providing an enormous resource in community outreach and stream corridor evaluations.
Increase information sharing among watershed management areas. Hold a statewide meeting for contract entities to share their successful techniques for specific topics: public involvement, tool development, TMDL approaches, etc. Post successful initiatives on the Department's web-site.
NJDEP should develop statewide, uniform TV, radio and broadcast messages designed to shift values, similar to those developed for King County, Washington, rather than having each WMA come up with Public Service Announcements of varying quality.
Coordination of deliverables: Currently, there is little coordination among the Watershed Management Areas (WMAs) as to the deliverables each will produce for phase one of the planning process. For example, only a few WMAs include socioeconomic information in their Settings Reports. A few have introduced recreation data, and a variety of models have been employed across watersheds.
In addition, NJDEP has added requirements more than halfway through the process, without providing additional resources, that have diverted attention from ongoing areas of work.
Recommendations: To ensure that a compatible, statewide body of data is collected to be updated and useful in the future, DEP should encourage WMAs to use similar models, such as RPP's Goal Oriented Zoning (GOZ®) Build-Out Model, which we are using in WMA #11 and #20 (GOZ® was developed by RPP with some NJDEP, NJDCA and foundation funding for this purpose); Rutgers' Riparian Assessment Model used in WMA #1; NJWSA's Impervious Cover Model used in WMAs 8,9,10, etc.
Ensure consistency of deliverables in the scope of work for the second phase of watershed planning while allowing individual WMAs to develop implementation strategies appropriate to the characteristics of their area.
v) Recognition of the critical role of local government: The development of an effective watershed plan will require local governments to play two critical roles. From our work with municipalities in WMA #11, RPP believes that NJDEP has underestimated the complexity and cost of :
- achieving change in local land use and development practices and
- achieving successful TMDL negotiations with non-point dischargers.
More resources will be needed, not less, as is planned.
Recommendation: Education of local governments and non-point source dischargers must occur at the same time as development of the scientific data for setting TMDLs. Local government officials and staff need help to increase their understanding of the connection between land use patterns and development practices and water quality and quantity protection. They need to know about mechanisms available today to minimize impacts (e.g., impervious cover ordinances, Best Management Practices, etc.). The watershed planning process must be continued in order to educate local governments so that the current situation is not worsened while the science for the TMDLs is being developed.
As the premier regional planning organization in New Jersey, RPP has tools, models and experience to support and strengthen the watershed process. Please let me know when it would be convenient to meet with you and your staff to discuss these issues and determine how we can best be of help.
Sincerely,
Dianne R. Brake
President
cc: Curtis Fischer,
Jo Glading, Chief of Policy and Communication
Karen Kominsky, Chief of
Mitchell Ortis, Policy Counsel to the Governor