Flood rules to affect
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
By BRUCE A. SCRUTON
The new rules, approved last week by the state
Department of Environmental Protection, are aimed at what is known as the
100-year flood plain, an area which covers major rivers and the
But to put those rules into effect, the new rules
cover Category One streams, such as the Pequest and Wallkill rivers as well as
some streams which support trout or are the natural habitat of threatened or
endangered species which rely on the water to survive.
As it flows through
Yet both are among state waters classified as Category
One, which will get the most restrictive changes, a protective zone which could
be as wide as 300 feet. There is also a "zero net fill" requirement
that any area within a restrictive zone which is filled in, must be recreated
in another spot in the same flood hazard area.
Prior to the change, developers can fill up to 20
percent of a flood hazard area's storage capacity with few restrictions.
Commenting on the overall effect of the new rules,
Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, said the program is an
important step forward to ensure protection for many areas which have seen
repeated flooding.
By expanding protection zones around certain streams
to include the vegetation, the DEP is acknowledging the water storage capacity
of those areas. Category One streams will get the 300-foot buffers, while trout
streams and areas for threatened and endangered species get a 150-foot zone.
Those protections expand what had been a 25-foot
corridor for most waterways and as little as 150 feet for Category One streams.
Sussex County Planner Eric Snyder said "a great
deal depends on what development is being proposed" as to the overall
effects of the new rules on the county.
But what he has more concerns about is the future and
a second set of proposals from DEP which greatly expands the amount of
waterways considered Category One.
Those rules, proposed in late April, have gone through
the public comment period and DEP staff is now looking at those comments and
working on language, said DEP spokeswoman Karen Hershey.
"They got plenty of them," said Snyder,
referring to public comments.
"I believe, and so do many others, that
performance standards are much more reasonable than just a number. A number
just doesn't take into account local topography, nearby roads, things like
that. The science has to be reasonable."
Should those rules go in as proposed, a wide range of
streams and tributaries feeding current Category One waters will get that
designation and these recently approved regulations.
"We have to assume those (corridors along streams)
will be wider," Snyder said. "The whole process of getting waivers
will be much more time-consuming and expensive."
Hershey said the department has no timetable on
completing the Category One regulations, although state law does set a one-year
deadline.
The new rules on flooding do encourage redevelopment
and simplify permit requirements for many urban areas which abut rivers and
streams. But, in exchange for the quicker, simpler permit process, the
redevelopment must include enhanced designs to prevent loss during a flood.
One of the problems which became evident during the
major floods of 2005 and 2006 was the lack of current and coordinated maps of
flood-prone areas for much of the state.
Tittel said the state needs to come up with the funds
for the Bureau of Flood Mapping to create new maps of flood-prone areas so
regulators do not have to rely on consultants, often hired by the developers,
to outline those areas.
While applauding the new rules, Tittel said the Sierra
Club also found some weaknesses or loopholes within the regulations. He said
the rules are still too loose when it comes to claims of hardship, with no set
standards on what constitutes "hardship."
Also remaining are the ability to get permits for such
auxiliary structures as oil tanks, utility crossing and up to five cubic yards
of fill.
In another recommendation to further update the rules,
the Sierra Club calls for stronger regional planning, especially in the
And, Tittel said, while there are protections for
trout production streams, there are no specific protections for drinking water
sources.
"If we do it for trout, we should do it for
people," he said.