NEW JERSEY HIGHLANDS COALITION · NEW JERSEY HIGHLANDS COALITION 508 Main Street, Boonton, New...

NEW JERSEY HIGHLANDS COALITION 508 Main Street, Boonton, New Jersey 07005

973-588-7190 (office)/973-588-7193 (fax) www.njhighlandscoalition.org

February 27, 2008 Mr. John Weingart, Chairman New Jersey Highlands Water Protection and Planning Council 100 North Road Chester, NJ 07930 Re: Comments on Final Draft Regional Master Plan (RMP) Dear Mr. Weingart: The members of the New Jersey Highlands Coalition have reviewed thoroughly the final draft Regional Master Plan for the New Jersey Highlands and have identified important and substantial changes that are necessary to ensure compliance both with the Highlands Act and with the imperative to protect the Highland's critical resources immediately and in the long term. We take seriously this opportunity to contribute to a strong, protective Regional Master Plan that will lead to restoration, enhancement and protection of New Jersey's Highlands and its water supply. The Coalition submits the following comments and we urge the Council to incorporate these recommendations into the final RMP. Overall, it is our shared belief that the current draft RMP does not provide adequate protection for our critical Highlands resources, especially its drinking water. Chief among our concerns, which are described in much greater detail in the attached formal comments, are:

Further development in Water Deficit Sub-watersheds must be prohibited until deficits are corrected.

Extension of sewers or expansion of public infrastructure into or within the Preservation Area for any development (including clusters or redevelopment areas) must be clearly prohibited, except for clearly defined public health or safety reasons.

Natural resource standards and guidelines must be expanded upon to include: a hierarchy of

natural resource protections with clear standards requiring an applicant to move through (1) avoidance, (2) minimization, and (3) mitigation, with mitigation required in the absence of feasible impact avoidance; a definition of no net loss which incorporates quantity, quality, type, and function; and Forest Stewardship Plans approved by a state-certified forester replacing Woodland Management Plans prior to the purchase of any easements.

Clear, protective standards exclusively promoting environmental resource protection can be the only justification for Map Adjustments. Adjustments should be restricted to Plan Conformance and Council updates based on new data only and never considered in Project Review. It must be made clear that Map Adjustments are never made as part of any negotiation.

Supporting documents, standards, and guidance documents must be expedited, vetted by the Council with meaningful public participation, and included in the RMP. The standards should replace the goals, policies, and objectives repeated in Chapter V and must be included in Chapter VI where relevant, particularly in Project Review and Plan Conformance.

Overly broad, inconsistent exemptions to the 300’ Highlands open water buffer requirements

are weaker standards than those recently adopted under the Stormwater Management Rules at NJAC 7:8. Standards for exemptions should be clear and at the minimum, consistent with current regulations.

Protections for environmentally sensitive areas within Existing Community Zones are unclear.

Clear standards encompassing all environmental and cultural constraints must be specified.

The Plan’s economic sections fail to adequately evaluate the costs of inadequate Highlands protections and benefits of adequate Highlands protections both in the Highlands Region and in New Jersey as a whole-- health care and water treatment costs attributable to water pollution, economic development potential of industries reliant on Highlands waters (food processing, pharmaceuticals, etc.), state revenue derived from Highlands reliant industries, societal benefits of redeveloping urban areas vs. sprawling into less developed areas.

Agricultural viability of the Highlands remains threatened as long as we permit cluster

development on agricultural soils for anything other than agricultural related uses.

Cluster policies as proposed will result in nitrate loads exceeding DEP standards for public health and will degrade groundwater quality. Cluster development in the RMP must have it own unique standards, separate from how it is defined in MLUL, prohibitive of lot averaging and distinctive to the resource protection goals of the RMP.

Receiving areas for transfer of development rights should only be approved outside the Highlands Region.

Proposed definition for impervious surfaces must be abandoned or, at a minimum, modified. Among many of the detailed comments and clarifications submitted by the New Jersey Highlands Coalition is an over-arching concern that the Highlands natural resources are finite, once they are gone they are gone forever. The science while improving still has significant gaps, and thus the Council should employ a more precautionary, “first do no harm” approach.

The New Jersey Highlands Coalition commends the Highlands Council staff on their extensive work compiling, analyzing, and interpreting the most up-to-date and comprehensive science, data, and resource management practices available today. Their effort will be of immense importance to local planners and non-profit organizations that rely on publicly available data, including the new GIS data layers. The New Jersey Highlands Coalition appreciates the opportunity to comment on the final draft Regional Master Plan. If Council members and staff have any questions about our comments, we are available any time to respond. Thank you. Sincerely, Julia M. Somers Executive Director attachment

NEW JERSEY HIGHLANDS COALITION 508 Main Street, Boonton, New Jersey 07005

973-588-7190 (office)/973-588-7193 (fax) www.njhighlandscoalition.org

Final Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan Comments

New Jersey Highlands Coalition Board of Directors:

David Epstein, President, President, Morris Land Conservancy Eric Stiles, First Vice President, Vice President for Conservation and Stewardship, New Jersey Audubon Society

Michele S. Byers, Second Vice President, Executive Director, New Jersey Conservation Foundation John Thonet, Treasurer, President, Thonet Associates, Inc.

Michael Keady, Secretary, Founder, Friends of Holland Highlands Sandy Batty, Executive Director, ANJEC

Tina Bologna, Executive Director, Harding Land Trust Cynthia Ehrenclou, Executive Director, Upper Raritan Watershed Association

Lawrence S. Fox, President, Fox Valve Development Corporation James Gilbert, Senior Vice President, Merrill Lynch

Michael Henderson Dr. Christine Hepburn

Michael Herson, Highlands Issues Coordinator, Sierra Club, New Jersey Chapter Ted Koven, Tewksbury Land Trust

Tom Koven, Musconetcong Mountain Conservancy Dennis Miranda, Executive Director, Rahway River Association

Maureen Ogden, New Jersey Garden Clubs, affiliated with Garden Club of America Laura Oltman, Eco Action Initiatives of Warren County

David Pringle, Campaign Director, New Jersey Environmental Federation Jeff Tittel, Director, Sierra Club, New Jersey Chapter

John E. Ursin, Esq., Daggett, Kraemer, Eliades, Kovach & Ursin

New Jersey Highlands Coalition Member Organizations:

Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions (ANJEC)

Burnham Park Association Camden Greenways Citizens for the Preservation of Ogdensburg Citizens to Save Tewksbury Concerned Citizens Against Quarry Eco Action Initiatives of Warren County Friends of Holland Highlands Friends of the Sparta Mountains Hawthorne Park Club Highlands Coalition Lake Gerard Fish & Game Club Morris County Trust for Historic Preservation Morris Land Conservancy

Musconetcong Mountain Conservancy Musconetcong Watershed Association New Jersey Audubon Society New Jersey Conservation Foundation New Jersey Garden Clubs, affiliated with Garden Club

of America New Jersey State Federation of Women’s Clubs New York-New Jersey Trail Conference P.O.W.W.W. (Protect our Wetlands, Water & Woods) Preserve Historic Hackettstown South Branch Watershed Association Tewksbury Land Trust Upper Raritan Watershed Association

New Jersey Highlands Coalition Staff:

Julia M. Somers, Executive Director Becky Weinstein, Program Assistant

Elliott Ruga, Campaign and Grassroots Coordinator Mark Zakutansky, Campaign and Grassroots Coordinator

Page intentionally left blank for printing

Page | 2 New Jersey Highlands Coalition Comments on Final Draft Regional Master Plan

Table of Contents: Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................3 Chapter 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................5

Part 1. Description of the Highlands Region............................................................................5 Part 2. History of the Highlands Region ..................................................................................5 Part 3. The Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act ......................................................7 Part 4. The Highlands Regional Master Plan ...........................................................................7

Chapter II. Analysis of the Highlands Region .................................................................................8 Part 1. Natural Resources .........................................................................................................8 Part 2. Water Resources..........................................................................................................21 Part 3. Agricultural Resources................................................................................................29 Part 4. Historic, Cultural Archaeological and Scenic Resources ...........................................30 Part 5. Transportation ..........................................................................................................N/A Part 6. Community Character ..............................................................................................N/A Part 7. Landowner Fairness ....................................................................................................30 Part 8. Sustainable Economic Development........................................................................N/A Part 9. Air Quality ...............................................................................................................N/A

Chapter III. Regional and Local Community Character................................................................30 Part 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................31 Part 2. Physical Geography and Landscape............................................................................32 Part 3. Shared Values..............................................................................................................33 Part 4. Water and the Highlands Region .............................................................................N/A Part 5. The Element of Place ..................................................................................................33 Part 6. Resource Assessment and Regional Land Use Capability.......................................N/A Part 7. Highlands by Design: A Vision for the Future ...........................................................37 Part 8. Regional Elements ......................................................................................................39

Chapter IV. Goals, Policies and Objectives...................................................................................40 Part 1. Natural Resources .......................................................................................................40 Part 2. Water Resources and Water Utilities ..........................................................................49 Part 3. Agricultural Resources................................................................................................53 Part 4. Historic, Cultural, Archaeological and Scenic Resources ..........................................59 Part 5. Transportation .............................................................................................................61 Part 6. Future Land Use..........................................................................................................62 Part 7. Landowner Fairness ....................................................................................................63 Part 8. Sustainable Economic Development...........................................................................67 Part 9. Air Quality ..................................................................................................................70 Part 10. Local Participation .................................................................................................N/A

Chapter V. Programs......................................................................................................................71 Part 1. Natural Resources .......................................................................................................71 Part 2. Water Resources and Water Utilities ..........................................................................80 Part 3. Agricultural Resources................................................................................................80 Part 4. Historic, Cultural, Archaeological and Scenic Resources ..........................................82 Part 5. Transportation ..........................................................................................................N/A Part 6. Future Land Use..........................................................................................................86 Part 7. Landowner Fairness ....................................................................................................91


Part 8. Sustainable Economic Development...........................................................................96 Part 9. Air Quality ...............................................................................................................N/A

Chapter VI. Implementation ..........................................................................................................96 Part 1. Regional Master Plan Conformance, Consistency and Coordination.........................96 Part 2. Highlands Project Review...........................................................................................99 Part 3. Improvement of the Regional Master Plan ...............................................................100 Part 4. Highlands Council Implementation Programs ..........................................................102

Supporting Information................................................................................................................102 Glossary ................................................................................................................................102


Chapter I. Introduction

Part 1. Description of the Highlands Region The New Jersey Highlands Region p. 1 • This section should mention that while the NJ Highlands Region produces over half the

drinking water for the residents of the State, this water comes from only 13% of the land area of the State (Act).

• Historic, cultural and scenic resources should be mentioned as Highlands values to be protected.

Environmental and Land Use Setting p.1 • The idea of introducing the concept of a “significant green belt” is a good one. • This section should also cover climate: precipitation, maximum temperatures, minimum

temperatures etc. as typically found in environmental resource inventories. • This section contains no discussion of “Land Use Setting”. The council has numerous

statistics that could be employed here to describe the current land use situation.

Part 2. History of the Highlands Region

• Beginning the discussion with the end of the Wisconsin glaciation ignores significant parts of the region’s natural history and landform evolution. This discussion could be strengthened by a more thorough discussion including major geologic events. The discussion presented would more appropriately be titled “Recent Geologic History”. NJGS could provide substantial help here. Especially useful is the “Geologic History & Virtual Field Trip of the New Jersey Highlands” available at www.state.nj.us/dep/njgs/enviroed/freedwn/HighlandsVFT.pdf.

• The discussion of the differing character of the landscape due to the most recent glaciation is good. However, the nature and hydrologic value of the terminal moraine and associated outwash deposits, particularly where they are underlain by limestone, should be described.

• The traditional sequence of settlement events, beginning with agriculture and proceeding to

industrialization is generally not accurate in the Highlands. Early settlement was stimulated to a large extent by the extraction and production of iron. The extensive deforestation caused by the charcoal iron industry often created the opportunities for agriculture. Agricultural settlement was, however, a determining factor in the limestone valleys: Musconetcong and Long Valley. There is considerable evidence that, even in pre-revolutionary times, agriculture was involved with extensive trade networks outside of the region. Compared to other parts of New Jersey, agriculture was a later land use. See, Wacker, Peter O., and Clemens, Paul G.E., Land Use in Early New Jersey, New Jersey Historical society, Newark, N.J., 1995.

• The natural resources needed for the production of iron include:


http://www.state.nj.us/dep/njgs/enviroed/freedwn/HighlandsVFT.pdf

o Iron ore (magnetite predominantly used in the Highlands, but hematite also was extracted). Magnetite is an iron oxide but several other natural forms of iron ore exist).

o Fuel (charcoal first, followed by anthracite coal from Pennsylvania). The production of charcoal for ironworking fuel denuded large portions of the existing Highlands forests. As the forests were exhausted and technologies were developed to smelt the ores with coal, this fuel supplanted charcoal. This change was facilitated in part by the construction of the Morris Canal and later railroad development.

o Limestone is required as a flux in the iron making process to facilitate the separation of the iron from the rock matrix.

o Water Power, although highly desirable in the smelting process (providing an automated source of air blast to raise temperatures), is not strictly necessary to the production of iron. However, it was an important element in larger iron works

• P2, para. 3. Add: “Significant ironworks structures and related features include the mines

themselves (the Highlands contains 95% of abandoned iron mines in NJ), roads and other transportation facilities including the Morris Canal and numerous railroads, furnaces, forges (not forages), waterworks, and dams”.

Newark Watershed and Reservoir Development • Figures:

Areas Served Outside the Highlands Region, (p.5): As submitted in previous comments, the map under- represents the importance of Highlands water by omitting the proportion used from the Delaware River in Pennsylvania and Easton Pa., Point Pleasant Pa., (evaporative cooling for power generation, connected to the Merrill Creek Reservoir in Warren County) and as far downstream as Philadelphia, possible use on the Wallkill in New York (?) and possible (?) connections to New York via Staten Island. A calculable portion of the flows in the Delaware are discharges from the Highlands via the Paulin’s Kill, Pequest River , Musconetcong River, Pohatcong Creek and numerous other tributaries.

Source Water Protection Areas and Reservoirs (p. 11). Although improved from the earlier draft, this figure still contains two areas shown in yellow with no accompanying legend category. The HUC 14 boundaries are not included as a legend category. A similar map with municipal boundaries should be included. Getting municipal officials to relate to the landscape as a series of HUC 14 areas as opposed to municipal boundaries will be a major challenge during conformance.

• While the Newark reservoir system and the Spruce Run-Round Valley systems are

significant in the history of water supply development in the region, they were accompanied by a range of projects at smaller scales throughout the region. This history should be described in greater detail.

• Significantly, numerous water sources have been abandoned either due to pollution or inadequate supply. These losses should be discussed at a minimum and mapped if possible: e.g. Peapack-Gladstone Reservoir, Chester Twp., abandoned due to fecal coli form contamination and siltation.


• Perhaps the earliest major reservoir development in the region was connected with the construction of the Morris Canal. To supply water for this structure, the dam at Lake Hopatcong was raised, Cranberry Lake was improved and Greenwood Lake was tapped among others. All these actions have left lasting changes on the hydrography of the region and are of cultural and historic significance.

• Recent reservoir development included the construction of the Merrill Creek Reservoir in Warren County to provide flow augmentation to the Delaware River to support power generation at the Limerick generating plant in Pennsylvania. The construction and significance of this non-potable reservoir should be added to the discussion.

• The council has heard numerous public comments directed at recommending the development of new surface water reservoirs in the region. It is our current understanding that feasible sites do not exist within the Highlands Region. This fact, if true should be presented.

1907 Potable Water Commission Report This is an excellent discussion but should be augmented with a discussion of other water supply plans developed between 1907 and today. Of particular note is the 1955 Water Supply Master Plan which included evaluations of several reservoir projects in the region. United States Forest Service Study • Both of the U.S.F.S. studies should be made available by links on the Council’s website. • This section should contain a discussion of how the RMP interacts with the Federal program

both now and in the future. Highlands Task Force • The Highlands Task Force Report should be made available by a link on the council’s

website.

Part 3. The Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act

• The full text of the Act, and the other information posted on the Council’s web site should be joined by links.

• The discussion about the Act’s findings should be presented to help establish the legitimacy of the RMP.

• Reference should be made to the so called “equity issue” as defined in the Act, not as represented by commenters.

Part 4. The Highlands Regional Master Plan

Transfer of Development Rights Program (page 12) Identify transportation, water, wastewater power infrastructure and environmental constraints that would support or limit development and redevelopment in the Planning Area. This analysis shall also provide proposed densities for development, redevelopment or voluntary receiving zones for the TDR program; and identify areas in the Planning Area that could through the appropriate expansion of infrastructure or the modified uses of existing infrastructure serve as


potential voluntary receiving zones for the TDR program. No identification of receiving areas should take place without identification and acknowledgment of environmental constraints. TDR credits should be based on ecological function as with the PDC. There is no validity to the established 13 parameter framework that we see due to the fact that only an historical speculative market-based value is taken into account. It is inconceivable that environmental externalities are in no way figured into the equation. Therefore, it is our suggestion to stop throwing good taxpayer monies after bad and rely on the PDC mechanism for deciding TDR credits. A successful TDR simply cannot be called “Landowner Fairness.” By naming the program fairness, the Council is implying that all landowners, large and small, will be more than adequately compensated at the pre-Act value of their property. If the program is to be called “Land Owner Fairness”, then it must also draw attention to the fairness of water use downstream of the Highlands where many municipalities and homeowners have come to expect clean and plentiful water supplies to provide for their family and drive the businesses which support our State’s economy. While many landowners will receive some compensation through this program, this program must simply be referred to as “Land Owner Equity”. Equity indicates that there is some risk in owning property and TDR credits alike. There will always be risks in holding property and in holding TDR credits, therefore it is assuming too much to call the program fairness.

Chapter II. Analysis of the Highlands Region

Part. 1 Natural Resources The inclusion of open waters, riparian areas, steep slopes, forest integrity and critical habitat represent a significant stride forward in regional planning by assuring the protection of our most important natural resources and biodiversity. We applaud the efforts of the Council in utilizing the best-available applied science to incorporate a variety of important parameters in their goals, policies, objectives and programs. However, we are concerned that significant regulatory exceptions and unclear language in particular goals, policies and objectives presented later in the plan that may interfere with strong protection of biodiversity and natural resources difficult to accomplish through Plan implementation. Our specific clarifications and suggested changes are presented in this chapter and under chapters IV and V. These clarifications should be incorporated throughout the plan and clearly reflected in plan conformance and project review. In the Analysis of the Highlands Region, Chapter II Subparts a through f, we would like to highlight 5 main areas of concern reflected in our clarifications and comments:

• Although mentioned within the Master Plan, we feel that a stronger emphasis on stewardship of existing forest resources is required through reduction of deer overabundance and invasive species. These two threats significantly degrade existing natural resources and biodiversity regardless of other protections afforded through the Master Plan.


• In general, we feel the RMP must clearly adopt a standard of no net loss for forest, rare and endangered plants, rare, threatened and endangered wildlife, significant natural areas, and vernal pools. Net loss must be defined by the following interdependent variables: quantity (e.g. acreage), quality (e.g. core forest), type (e.g. scrub-shrub wetland), and function (e.g. timber rattlesnake hibernaculum).

• The RMP must state clearly and unequivocally that applicants first must demonstrate that impacts cannot be avoided or minimized. Then and only then should mitigation be considered. There must be clarity in the hierarchy of natural resource protection - (1) avoidance, (2) minimization, and (3) mitigation.

• While direct and indirect impacts on Critical Wildlife Habitat, Significant Natural Areas, and Vernal Pools are protected, there should also be clear protections for rare plant species and ecological communities located outside of Significant Natural Areas and protection of habitat detected through interim sitings.

• The Forest Preservation Easement Program offers another tool in the toolbox, but it must be included in the associated objectives that easements can only be purchased on forests currently managed under an approved Forest Stewardship Plan monitored and administered by the NJDEP. Stewardship plans are much more ecologically focused than the weaker Woodland Management Plans.

As commented in previous testimony, the RMP should also contain an objective inventory of environmental factors present in the region. This is an essential step in the development of policy and provides a “base line” against which to evaluate the operation of the Plan over time. The current RMP jumps directly from the “Introduction” to “Analysis of the Highlands Region”. This section improperly mixes the process of inventory preparation with analysis and policy development. Once the objective conditions of the region have been established it is then logically possible to analyze and develop policy responses.

The New Jersey Highlands Coalition strongly recommends that this entire section be re-written to add an objective inventory of the Highlands region.

The New Jersey Highlands Coalition and its member organizations (e.g. ANJEC) have long advocated the preparation of thorough Environmental Resource Inventories (ERIs) as the basis of municipal master planning. Such an approach is also essential to the rational development of a regional plan. The Final Draft has lost what little objective inventory data was presented in the Nov 30, 2006 Draft under Section II. C., Environmental and Land Use Setting. This is regrettable since the Council staff has compiled vast amounts of objective environmental data. Specific Guidance is available on the ANEJC’s website (www.anjec.org), “The Environmental Resource Inventory: ERI”. This guidance defines an ERI: “An ERI is an unbiased report of integrated data. It provides baseline documentation for measuring and evaluating resource protection issues. The ERI is an objective index and descriptions of features and their functions, rather than an interpretation or recommendation” (ERI, p.1). • Objective resource inventory data should be compiled and presented. These data

should be made available to local and county government in printed and electronic formats prior to the beginning of the conformance process.


http://www.anjec.org/

• The subject headings in the Nov. 2006 Draft should be retained but should be expanded

to include the following not included in the Final Draft RMP: o Geography/Topography: Physiographic region and sub-regions, relief, elevation,

slopes.

o Climate: Prevailing winds, maximum and minimum temperatures, precipitation monitoring sites, annual average precipitation, seasonal precipitation, growing season, USDA climate zones, frost dates and frost line.

o Air: Air quality, monitoring locations, stationary sources of pollutants, vehicular pollution “hot spots”

o Historic and Cultural Features: Historic sites, districts, areas, historic roads, railroads, bridges, existing and possible archaeological sites.

o Scenic qualities, viewsheds, discussed particularly in connection with the Lakes Management District.

o Known Contaminated Sites

o Critical Environmental Areas

o Energy: current consumption, sources, future demand, energy facilities, including power generation and transmission, alternative potential: conservation, hydro, wind, solar, biomass, and ethanol. For example, solar potential could be mapped using an aspect analysis.

o Add a separate Hydrology/Hydrography Section Discussion of groundwater, surface water, wetlands, vernal pools etc. should be

combined in a hydrology section, combined with the discussion of watersheds, waterways, and aquifers.

o Expand the discussion of vegetation to include:

Types of vegetation, forest communities in particular Fire hazard and history of wildfire Pollution-effects on vegetation Historic, recreational and economic values, especially forestry Forest cover Agricultural areas Street tree resources

o Add a separate geology section: We note that the current draft no longer contains a separate, identifiable geology section. This is particularly troubling now after the inclusion of the Karst section. Geology is the key to the definition of the region’s


boundaries, scenic and topographic character, hydrography and hydrology, and cultural history. Expand the discussion of geology to include: Bedrock geology, types and characteristics, especially carbonate rocks. Surficial geology Depth to bedrock Unconsolidated deposits Generalized groundwater yields and natural water quality issues: (e.g., arsenic,

corrosivity, radioactive substances and asbestos) all known to be naturally occurring Highlands issues.

Economic mineral resources, including historic iron mines, non-ferrous ore mines (zinc, graphite), quarries, sand and gravel, exempted mine properties and radioactive materials.

The New Jersey Highlands Coalition and ANJEC have previously presented testimony on the importance of carbonate rock formations in the Highlands, both as a constraint to development and as a significant natural resource. We complement the Council for including a section on Carbonate Rock (Karst) Topography. However, this discussion should be placed within the context of a complete discussion of geology.

Subpart a. Highlands Forest Resources

• The New Jersey Highlands Coalition agrees that forests are a crucial element of the natural resource base of the Highlands and with the need to preserve large tracts of contiguous forests.

• We support the approach of ranking forest integrity by sub-watershed but a review of the Ecosystem Technical Report has failed to clarify a number is issues critical to the ranking process. This lack of specificity will prove difficult during conformance. The RMP should clarify the following: o High Integrity Forest Sub-watershed: What is meant by “predominantly forested”?

What is meant by a “high proportion of forest cover consisting of ....? What is meant by “high core area”, “large patch size”? How large is “an increase in distance” to the nearest patch?

o Moderate Integrity Forest Sub-watershed: What does a sub-watershed that is “predominantly forested but does not exhibit a high proportion of forest cover, core area or patch size” mean? What is “an increase in distance to nearest patch”?

o Low Integrity Forest Sub-watershed: What is “predominantly non-forested”? What are “low values” for proportion of forest cover and patch size” and what is a “high distance” to nearest patch?

The specific values used to develop these rankings using GIS should be presented here, as well as referring the reader to the Ecosystem Management Technical Report. In reviewing the technical report, the language presented in the RMP is directly extracted but the values used in the analysis are not presented in either document. Highlands Forest Resources, Paragraph #2, Page 22.


This is the best discussion of the deer issue in this document. It actually says that deer overabundance and introduction of non-native pests are currently a significant threat to forest biodiversity and natural resources. This should be expanded to include an explanation of invasive plant species and the threats caused to forests by non-active management of invasive plant species and the ecological needs of the region to restore and enhance current forests suffering from non-native plant invasion. The term “sustainable use” should be applied carefully to connote ‘sustainable ecosystem,’ as presented in Paragraph #2, where it is stated: “sustained ecological and water quality benefits”. The term “sustainable use” or “sustainable management” can be misconstrued and should be carefully defined whenever used in the Master Plan. Other examples in the Master Plan include: “sustainable management policies” which could be replaced by ‘sustainable ecosystem management policies’ and reference to “Sustainable forest management” could be changed to ‘Sustainable forest management with a goal of maintaining ecosystem function’. Similarly, the term “forest management” should be replaced with ‘forest stewardship’ to highlight the intent of the Master Plan to protect forests.

Subpart b Highlands Open Waters and Riparian Areas Add a discussion of Trust Resources/Public Trust Doctrine This section introduces the important subject of Public Trust Resources. However, the concept of public trust resources is not well developed, particularly with regard to water resources. There is a fundamental lack of understanding among the reading public of this doctrine, its implications and, in particular, its difference to the more commonly understood western water rights doctrine, believed by many to apply to New Jersey. There are additional applications of the public trust doctrine, including wildlife and scenic quality of concern to the Highlands region. These should also be discussed, either here or in other appropriate sections. The section should be expanded to better inform the reader about the public trust doctrine as it applies to the Highlands. Comments have previously been submitted regarding the public trust doctrine, provided referenced legal articles and advocated for its inclusion in the RMP and continues to make these comments. It is our view that this is an important legitimizing argument for the entire Highlands effort, including the RMP. Add Policy/Programs to require on site mapping of Highlands Open Waters The New Jersey Highlands Coalition supports the definition of Highlands Open Waters and appreciates the efforts of the staff to provide an updated stream coverage map. The section should note, however, that although the protection of Highlands Open Waters applies throughout the region, many of the regulated/protected features (springs, smaller wetlands, intermittent or ephemeral streams), will only be discovered by direct, on-site investigation. The Policies and Programs sections should ensure that appropriate mapping is carried out in these circumstances.


The discussion of the magnitude of stream length within the Highlands, wetlands extent and the fact that 2/5ths of the region are in riparian areas is good and emphasize the critical water resources value of the Highlands. Evaluation of Watershed Value

• Define “HUC 14” and explain the rationale for selecting HUC 14 units as a planning focus

The New Jersey Highlands Coalition supports the approach taken but cautions that implementation of this “new” concept will prove difficult at the municipal level. The introduction of the HUC 14 concept should be accompanied by an accessible definition of a HUC 14 and an explanation as to why these, rather than smaller or larger units, were selected as planning units.

• Advise municipalities about use of HUC 14 units as planning areas. Municipalities should be advised that rarely, if ever will they have exclusive jurisdiction over a HUC 14 but rather they should expect to cooperate with their neighbors in land use planning and watershed management with the assistance of the Highlands Council and the NJDEP

• Develop a more finely resolved watershed classification system The classification of HUC 14 watersheds by resource value is an important effort. However, the methodology used is primarily an assessment of natural condition and is thus primarily a preservation strategy. The other goals of enhancing and restoring watersheds are not well supported. The literature, especially Schueler, (Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection, 1995) using only impervious cover as a planning factor, supports a specific policy framework. Schueler divides watershed into three categories:

o “Sensitive Sub-watersheds” (1-10% impervious cover) where the primary management goal is “to maintain predevelopment stream quality and protection strategies “rely on watershed wide and site limits on impervious cover as well as careful selection of urban best management practices”, (p. 43)

o “Degrading watersheds (11-25% impervious cover) that are “managed under a more active stream protection strategy that relies on widespread application of BMPs, buffers and other practices…” (p. 43)

o “Non-supporting sub-watersheds” (26-100% impervious cover) where “the overriding stream protection strategy for these streams shifts to the removal of urban pollutants to protect downstream waters”. Storm water retrofits are encouraged, where appropriate.

The amount of research and data developed by the Council if employed, would allow a more nuanced series of policies dealing with enhancement and restoration, important goals of the Highlands Act. The direct application of these strategies has been fully developed and could be the basis of a more effective approach in the RMP. See Article 27, Watershed Protection Handbook.


• Include positive consideration of scenic, historic and cultural features in the watershed classification system.

The simple three tiered valuation system does not consider other Highlands Act requirements such as scenic or historic character. For example, developed areas may include a deep and rich assembly of cultural resources that relate to and are within the watershed area. Such features as bridges, mills, iron forges, dams, water diversion structures, rail lines, residential and commercial structures, are routinely encountered within developed areas. However, while these features provide a “sense of place” in the landscape and are important habitats, for people, the classification system proposed treats these as negative factors along with development in general. Including a mechanism for a positive consideration of these values would allow the use of recently developed techniques like designation of “heritage corridors”. For example Article 27, mentioned above, includes Cultural/Historic areas as a component of land conservation, using a definition compatible with the RMP: “historic or archaeological sites, trails, parkland, scenic views, water access, bridges and recreational areas”. (p.127)

• Give positive consideration to Wild and Scenic River status in the classification system.

Wild and Scenic River designation is currently present in place on the Musconetcong and Delaware Rivers in the Highlands region. These designations pass through developed portions of HUC 14 areas and should be considered as positive criteria in watershed classification. Evaluation of Riparian Integrity

• Consider the presence of cultural features as positive values in riparian area classification.

Similar comments to those made about watershed classification can be made concerning the riparian area evaluation methodology where cultural activities may be more concentrated and are highly likely to occur. The title of the section is more appropriately “Riparian Area Natural Integrity”. Evaluating riparian area for their “naturalistic” conditions, keeping in mind that there are virtually no intact original natural areas in the entire Highlands, is an important part of the Highlands effort. However, none of the Highlands is in its purely natural condition. Cultural modifications may have added features of considerable value, and their protection is an important goal of the Act. For example every water impoundment in the North Branch of the Raritan watershed is manmade and many are of considerable ecological, recreational, scenic or water supply value. These alterations should be considered as positive values while ranking the value of riparian areas in the Highlands plan.

Subpart c. Steep Slopes

The New Jersey Highlands Coalition strongly agrees that steep slopes are areas of critical concern in the Highlands. However, as can readily be seen by the location, design and intensity of existing and recently permitted development throughout the region, the critical nature of steep slopes is not well understood by local jurisdictions. The RMP should:

• Clearly explain how slope categories are measured. The first line should read, “Slope is a measurement of the steepness of terrain and is defined as the vertical change in elevation over a given horizontal distance expressed as a percentage.


There is a common public confusion about steepness expressed as in degrees as opposed to a percentage. This should be clarified since a 45 degree slope is also a 100% slope.

• Clarify why steep slopes are critical areas. There is also a general lack of understanding about why steep slopes are critical. Steep slopes are, as a characteristic of their geomorphology, less stable than flatter land. The discussion should clearly distinguish between the loss of soils and critical topsoil (erosion) and the deposition of these detached soil particles, particularly in water bodies or wetlands (sedimentation). Sediment should also be discussed as impacting ecological processes as well as interfering with drinking water treatment, recreation, and scenic enjoyment.

• Prepare a new steep slope map using LiDAR data if available before final adoption The New Jersey Highlands Coalition recognizes the need to use the DEM data to generate the regional steep slope protection area map. However, the LiDAR data are essential to evaluating steep slopes during site plan review and in other areas of the Plan. A new steep slope map should be prepared immediately after the LiDAR data are obtained and quality checked, hopefully before final adoption.

Subpart d. Critical Habitat

• Rewrite the opening paragraph The New Jersey Highlands Coalition supports the protection of wildlife habitat and biodiversity. However, it is unclear as to why a section entitled “Critical Habitat” immediately begins with a discussion of biodiversity. The term is not defined in the glossary and is generally unfamiliar to the public. It appears that the intent is to discuss wildlife habitat at the landscape level, but the focus on a sub-category of wildlife habitat, critical habitat, is confusing.

• Define and clarify the term “biodiversity”. The first sentence is a “run on” sentence and should read, “Biodiversity is the variety of plant species, animal species and all other organisms found in a particular environment. Biodiversity is one recognized means of assessing ecological viability”. Although this would be a clearer exposition, the definition provided ignores the scope of biodiversity which includes genetic, species and ecological diversity. It is unclear which or all of these aspects of biodiversity the Council intend to protect or emphasize.

• Develop an explanation of landscape level habitat protection as a regional issue.

The general approach, based on the identification of “critical habitat areas” is disappointing. The result, as depicted on the “Critical Wildlife Habitat” map (p.35) seems to depict virtually the entire Highlands region except for developed and active agricultural fields as critical wildlife habitat. Although, based on the methodology used this may be “correct”, it is difficult to understand how such a coarse and undifferentiated analysis will be used to guide land use decision making at the local level. This is a critical matter since municipal officials do not commonly view wildlife habitat at the landscape level, preferring to deal with isolated “critical areas”. The approach taken by the Council in the Draft will tend to undermine the larger regional issues of protecting a functional regional ecosystem in the Highlands.


Critical Wildlife Habitat

• The first paragraph indicates that “….an updated Landscape Project (Version 2) was developed….” Should this not read Version 3?

The New Jersey Highlands Coalition supports the use of the Landscape Project, Version 3 data.

• Clarify, map and provide policy/programs to focus protective efforts on areas with high “Highlands Conservation” ranking.

It is interesting to note the attempt to develop a “Highlands Conservation Rank”. The New Jersey Highlands Coalition supports this approach but requests that the term “Rank” not be used to avoid confusion with the Landscape Project data and, most importantly, that the mapping resulting from this analysis be presented as a separate plate in the RMP. Clearly, these areas should have a heightened focus for the Council with separate identifiable policies and programs. Significant Natural Areas

• Provide Policies/Programs to link significant natural areas region-wide. The New Jersey Highlands Coalition supports the approach taken in designating and mapping significant natural areas. However, as critical “nodes” of natural quality, these areas should be linked with other connective areas into a region-wide natural sites system.

• It is a significant problem with the Master Plan that protection of rare plant species will not be fully served if they occur outside of Significant Natural Areas.

It should be stated that the discovery of new populations of rare plants outside of Significant Natural Areas will trigger their immediate protection, as suggested in the clarification for Policy 1F7. Project review and development application reviews should consider impacts to rare plants located within a Critical Wildlife Habitat or vernal pool buffer areas as well. Vernal Pools

• Expand the discussion about and clarify the importance of vernal pools. The New Jersey Highlands Coalition supports the approach used to designate DEP certified vernal pools. The New Jersey Highlands Coalition believes that protecting these areas will be controversial. The Council should expand and clarify the discussion of their importance, especially in the wider context of amphibian extirpation or extinction.

• Consider other specific habitat types for similar protective treatment. Other specialized habitat types could be considered for similar treatment, for example, bat hibernacula (often cultural features like abandoned iron mines), great blue heron rookeries, native brook trout spawning areas etc. While vernal pools are undeniably critical, other habitat types particularly those associated with “Critically Significant (Rank 3) Highlands species should be given specific protection.

Subpart e. Open Space: Land Preservation and Stewardship Questions and misrepresentations about funding for open space acquisition have been constant refrains during the comment period. This section should not only describe in more detail the amount and scheduling of available open space funding for the region but should also provide policy guidance as to how these funds are to be applied by the Council to achieve conservation


and stewardship objectives. If these cannot be shown to exist, at the present time, then the RMP should so state.

• The first paragraph in this section is unclear. This should be re-written to read, “Nearly one third of the Highlands Region (282,203 acres) has been preserved as open space. Open space preservation in the Highlands region serves a number of purposes, including providing space for active and passive recreation, preservation of scenic character, preservation of historic sites, farmland preservation and, importantly, the protection of public trust resources, most notably water and wildlife . Maintaining these lands to ensure that their conservation values are protected for future generations is an important part of land preservation. This continuing commitment, which continues beyond the initial purchase, is termed “stewardship”.

• The term stewardship is largely unfamiliar to most people and should be a defined term in the Glossary.

Stewardship may be accomplished in a number of ways, including resource preservation management of public lands, application of agricultural best management practices to privately held preserved farmland, monitoring and enforcement of publicly held conservation easements, and purely private management actions. Stewardship, particularly of privately held lands, must be accompanied by an on-going landowner educational effort and training of public officials. The discussion on the GSPT may need to be updated to reflect the situation current at the time of adoption. However, the “strong and significant commitment by the State”, (P.38) is difficult to envision without a fully funded GSPT.

• The New Jersey Highlands Coalition supports the re-authorization of the GSPT and strongly suggests that specific language either in the re-authorization instrument or in regulatory policy about the specific dedication of funding for the Highlands be included to address landowner concerns.

• The language about the critical nature of GSPT funding should be more forceful and the

Council should continue to advocate for re-authorization.

• The New Jersey Highlands Coalition supports the use of a “water consumption fee” as described on p. 38 provided that the use of these funds is accompanied by a prior planning framework to guide acquisitions to high priority water resources related lands. We would specifically object to the use of such funds for active recreational development, maintenance of active recreational facilities, or the construction of buildings and infrastructure. Funding from this source should be primarily used for planning, acquisition and stewardship of natural functions related to water resource preservation. Funds collected using this approach must be specifically dedicated to preserving and managing important, defined source water areas in the Highlands.


• All applicable Federal Programs should be described. The Forest Legacy Program’s priorities should be reviewed by and coordinated with the Council’s open space planning objectives.

• Discussion of the source of LWCF funding, the history of allocations to New Jersey and a

more detailed account of results of this funding in the region, including specific examples, should be included. The future outlook should be described.

• The importance of local and county open space funding should be stressed more strongly.

The Council should co-ordinate its open space acquisition programs with these programs. Charts showing current funding generation by counties and municipalities should be displayed. These are currently available from Green Acres. However, these data do not reveal how much (if any) of this funding, will be specifically available to Highlands region projects.

• The Council, in consultation with counties and municipalities, should attempt to establish

specific funding allocations for Highlands land preservation funding.

• The role of private land trusts as either “pass through” entities or holders of a property interest (conservation easements, or fee acquisition) should be included. At a minimum, this discussion should include:

o Current IRS income and estate tax advantages for private donations, including bargain sales. (Current regulations and pending legislation are highly favorable).

o Case examples of private land trust actions in the region o A list of private land trusts operating in the region with contacts. o A warning about the inappropriate use of the pre-Highlands Act appraisal values in

claiming deductions. o How to use Highlands data to substantiate the “public purposes test” for claiming

deductions.

• The role of other entities in land preservation in the region should be discussed, including at a minimum:

o The N.J. Infrastructure Trust o D.O T. programs: TEA 21, etc. o Palisades Interstate Park Commission o New Jersey Water Supply Authority

The final paragraph discusses the “equity standard” correctly. This discussion should also be included in the “’Landowner Fairness” section. The notion that landowner equity must include speculative values is simply wrong.

• The so called “equity issue” has been and will continue to be misrepresented unless the Council clearly defines what the Act requires and how the RMP responds.

Subpart f. Carbonate Rock (Karst) Topography


The New Jersey Highlands Coalition commends the Council for including this section in response to comments.

• Karst topography, while potentially visible at the surface, is not strictly a surface condition as implied on p. 38. To the contrary, karst is a three dimensional topographic condition with the potential to contain substantial sub-surface structural conditions of concern as correctly described.

• This section should note the extreme importance of carbonate rock aquifers in the region

(most prolific) especially where they are overlain by permeable sands and gravels. These areas should be shown on the Carbonate Rock Area map (p. 41).

• The Carbonate Rock Area map should include those areas that contribute drainage to the carbonate rock area once the LiDAR data become available. These areas have the potential to negatively affect carbonate rock aquifer water quality and cause subsidence if stormwater is not properly handled.

• The New Jersey Highlands Coalition commends the Council for noting that sinking

streams and sinkholes direct surface water run-off into karst aquifers with little or no attenuation of any transported contaminants. However, the list of potential sources (stormwater basins, septic system leaching fields and sewers) is incomplete. The list should include agricultural run-off, lawn run-off, underground pipelines, forestry activities, soil disturbance, underground storage tanks, toxic chemicals, and solid waste. Some of these are best controlled at the site planning stage while others are addressed by police ordinances and master planning and some are best addressed by continuing education programs.

This section should note that the nitrate dilution model utilized elsewhere in the RMP tends to allow greater septic density on the carbonate rock areas due to the larger volumes of groundwater present as compared, for example, to the Precambrian rock. However, due to the extreme sensitivity and high water supply value of these aquifers, they should not be allowed to develop to these densities.

• The section should note the role carbonate rock plays in:

o Landscape formation o Formation of important agricultural soils o Shaping the cultural landscape o Influencing settlement patterns o The role of carbonate rock in the Highlands iron industry o Ecological processes, especially stream flows and thermal control o Habitat significance (calcareous fens, cave dwelling species) o Economic value o Unique topographic developments and minerals (Franklin limestone).

• New land uses that constitute unacceptable risks in karst areas should be defined. For

example: (Anything here re: no high density development on sinkholes and safety issues)


o New underground storage tanks o Solid waste landfills o Hazardous waste storage and disposal o Hazardous materials storage and handling

• Remediation of current high risk land uses in karst areas uses should be prioritized. For

example: o Malfunctioning septic tanks o Existing underground storage tanks o Solid waste landfills o Known contaminated sites

Subpart g. Lakes, Ponds and Reservoirs

• The New Jersey Highlands Coalition supports the inclusion of the Lake Management

Area in the RMP .

• The New Jersey Highlands Coalition questions the use a 10 ac. surface area for mapping purposes. Numerous smaller ponds have considerable ecologic and scenic value.

• This section should note the historic significance of lakes and dams in the region,

including water powered development, ice harvesting, lake community development and recreational development. Of particular note is the Morris Canal’s use of several lakes as part of its navigation system and as a water supply. Examples include Saxon Falls Lake, Lake Musconetcong, Cranberry Lake, Lake Hopatcong, and Greenwood Lake.

• The scenic value of lakes should be addressed.

• Dams should be addressed and mapped showing their compliance status. There are

numerous dams within the region. Many of these are not in compliance with the requirements of the Dam Safety Rules and may constitute a public hazard during flooding. Aid and assistance to bring these structures into compliance (or demolished) should be an objective of the RMP. While dams may cause ecological problems (thermal, connectivity, dissolved oxygen, nutrients) the continual breeching of substandard dams under DEP order creates new environmental problems including silt mobilization as well as aquatic ecosystem impacts and loss of scenic amenity.

• The section should clearly state that the Lake Management Area is applied only to the

developed areas around lakes. Otherwise the policies of the resident zone apply. Lack of understanding of this fact continues to result in considerable confusion at the municipal level.

• Rather than using a fixed distance buffer (Scenic Resources Tier) a more effective

delineation approach would be a “viewshed” derived from topography particularly once LiDAR data become available.


Chapter II. Analysis of the Highlands Region Part 2. Water Resources

Subpart a. Water Quantity, Availability and Use

General Comments The apparently simple approach of “protecting existing safe yields” (p. 43) should be noted as a temporary condition of the RMP. The definition of “safe yield” in the field of water resources management is a moving target. In the case of the Highlands, the definition must include not only the preservation of Highlands aquatic ecosystems, but also their restoration and enhancement.

• The Council should re-define “safe yield” as it applies to the Highlands and include the definition in the glossary.

This approach may reveal that current assumptions about permissible water withdrawals are in conflict with the purposes of the act. The Council should be prepared to advocate for reductions in allocation where such conditions exist.

• The New Jersey Highlands Coalition recognizes that “methods that provide a direct relationship between aquatic ecosystem integrity and stream flows are not currently available” (p.43) but strongly urges the Council to continue developing such an approach.

• The terms “depletive” and “consumptive” water uses should be described in the text.

P.43). These are unfamiliar to most municipalities as defined in the RMP.

• The map of Existing Constrained Areas should be restored to the RMP

• The Net Water Availability Map should be accompanied by a discussion of the results. This discussion should include an analysis of the actual magnitude of the particular surplus/deficit by HUC and an explanation of the causes.

• The New Jersey Highlands Coalition remains unconvinced that “restoration of water

resources will occur through mitigation and management opportunities identified during the conformance process and local planning initiatives” (p.43)

Ground water availability The “Low Flow Margin” method chosen by the Highlands Council is clearly not an “ecologically-based” approach. Thus, it is limited in its ability to ensure that the Highlands Council’s estimates of the water available for human use will truly be protective of the Highlands’ ecological resources as required by the Act. The finding that the Low Flow Margin of Safety methodology is not an “ecologically-based approach was acknowledged by the Highlands Council in the January 2007 Draft Water Resources Technical Report. In addition, the Final Draft RMP recognizes this deficiency by recommending, “…the development of continuing improvements in calculating water availability, including methods of addressing all hydrologic flow regimes needed to support aquatic ecosystems.” [Page 43, Final Draft RMP] The fact that


the Low Flow Margin of Safety methodology is not an “ecologically-based” method is an important limitation in the Highlands Council’s chosen methodology for estimating ground water availability, especially in light of the fact that, the January 2007 Water Resources Technical Report documents that most of the Highlands’ streams currently fail to support the designated uses for aquatic life and primary contact recreation and a significant number of the streams currently fail to support drinking water use and trout use. In addition, the January 2007 Water Resources Technical Report documents that there is limited capacity for the natural and currently built infrastructure of the Highlands Region to support additional water withdrawals. For the above-discussed reasons, The NJ Highlands Coalition recommends that the Highlands Council recognize the inherent limitation of the Low Flow Margin of Safety methodology for estimating flow rates needed to support the Highlands Region’s aquatic ecosystems by exercising appropriate caution when relying upon such water availability estimates to plan for the preservation and protection of the Highland’s water resources. By utilizing the precautionary principle, the Highlands Council could avoid such failures encountered by the Wetland Mitigation program and ensure that the necessary mitigation will still be effective in 10 years or more, by simply recognizing that the data and science compiled to date is not adequate in ensuring the public health and safety of the region’s residents because the current data is fuzzy and based on inappropriate assumptions. Water Availability Thresholds Recognizing the Highlands Council’s acknowledgment of the inherent limitations of the Low Flow Margin of Safety methodology for estimating the flow rates needed to support the Highlands Region’s aquatic ecosystems, together with the fact that the Act itself requires the protection of the Region’s aquatic ecosystems, it is important that the recommended “Water Availability Thresholds” reflect the inherent uncertainty associated with that methodology in order that the RMP fully comply with those provisions of the Act requiring the protection, restoration, and enhancement of the Highlands Region’s water resources, including its aquatic ecosystems. For the reason indicated immediately above, the Coalition recommends,“…until such time as the Council’s water availability studies and methodologies are further enhanced to truly permit valid judgments regarding the amount of water needed to guarantee the ecological integrity of streams, threshold percentages in excess of 10% anywhere in the Highlands Region should not be specified…” In addition, we note that the Final Draft RMP states that, “Where deficits currently exist, restoration of water resources will occur through mitigation and management opportunities identified during the conformance process and local planning initiatives.” [Page 43, Final Draft RMP] The Coalition supports the concept of local planning initiatives and regionally-based programs aimed at restoration of ground water supplies in deficit areas and agree that the time to initiate such programs would be during the conformance process. In this manner, the Highlands Council would be helping to develop a comprehensive mitigation program for the entire region and such a program clearly reflects the intent and purpose of the Act. However, the Draft Technical Report Addenda and other parts of the Final Draft RMP indicate that the Highlands Council plans to immediately assign additional “water availability” to subwatersheds that are currently in deficit, and would allow applicant’s to immediately draw water from the deficit subwatersheds for individual projects conditioned on those applicant’s


providing “demonstration” of 125% mitigation of any proposed consumptive/depletive uses using ground water recharge and other water conservation measures. [Page 20, Draft Technical Addendum, November 2007]. Assigning additional “water availability”, without proven methodology and on-going monitoring, will not adequately protect, enhance, and restore the resources of the region. Effective mitigation for water deficits just simply cannot be done on a case-by-case basis because current technology does not demonstrate that this is scientifically defensible. Mitigation can only be ecologically based and effective if approached across the entire region and not left to individual applicants on a site-by-site basis, therefore the Coalition cannot support the use of threshold percentages in water deficit HUC-14s. The Coalition finds this proposal to immediately permit additional consumptive/depletive water uses in existing water deficit areas, subject only to case-by-case mitigation, contrary to the very concept of “regional planning” and specifically contrary to the Act’s requirement that the Highlands Regions’ water resources be protected, restored, and enhanced. Simply put, the Act does not instruct the Highlands Council to protect the region’s water resources “at some point in the future.” The requirement is to protect those resources now and implement programs to further restore and enhance those resources over time. Thus, allowing further withdrawals in deficit areas, even the “conditional” withdrawals proposed, fails to meet the stated purpose of the Act to restore and enhance the Region’s water resources. The NJ Highlands Coalition recommends that the Final Draft RMP be revised to prohibit any additional water consumption in deficit subwatersheds until such time as: The Highlands Council has completed “…the development of continuing improvements in calculating water availability, including methods of addressing all hydrologic flow regimes needed to support aquatic ecosystems…” as the Final Draft RMP specifically recommends; The Highlands Council has adequately addressed, on a regional and sub-regional basis, programs aimed re mediating deficit areas; and until such time as the Highlands Council fully accomplishes Proposed Policy 2B4, which calls for requiring, through Plan Conformance, “…the development and implementation of Water Management Plans to address any Current Deficit Areas…to ensure sustainable water supply, water resource and ecological values.” . Net Water Availability The Draft Technical Report Addenda explains that, “After ground water availability has been calculated, existing consumptive/depletive uses were estimated using 2003 NJDEP permit data and estimates for domestic well and septic system use…The analysis subtracted these consumptive/depletive uses from ground water availability. This difference is called net water availability.” [Page 29, Draft Technical Report Addenda, November 2007, Highlands Council] The consideration of consumptive/depletive uses due to “domestic well and septic system use” appears to be a change from the previous draft RMP’s calculation of net water availability. The previous draft specifically indicated consideration was given only to depletive uses associated with land developments served by public water systems. This is a positive change. However, no information appears to have been provided in either the Final Draft RMP or the supporting Draft


Technical Report Addenda, as to how the consumptive/depletive ground water use from domestic wells and septic systems was actually estimated. The Highlands Council should amend the November 2007 Draft Technical Report Addenda to clarify how the consumptive/depletive ground water use from domestic wells and septic systems was estimated for purposes of calculating net water availability.

Subpart b. Ground Water Recharge Areas The New Jersey Highlands Coalition commends the Council for developing a policy definition of Prime Ground Water Recharge Areas. The discussion of the 40% threshold should specify that this is 40% of the total recharge volume of a sub-watershed and that this is a relative, not an absolute, region-wide definition.

Subpart c. Water Quality

Surface Water Quality The figure entitled Impaired Waters Overall Assessment by HUC14 documents that most of the Highlands Regions surface waters are already impaired. In the Coalition’s opinion, this is evidence that New Jersey’s current environmental programs, policies, and regulations are insufficient to adequately protect the Highlands Region’s surface water resources and strongly suggests that conditioning additional withdrawals of water in deficit areas on “mitigations” measures is, at best, “wishful thinking.” This is just one more reason that the Highlands Council must be prepared to exercise an appropriate degree of caution in its efforts to comply with the Highlands Act’s emphasis on “…the protection, enhancement, and restoration of water resources throughout the Highlands Region, including the ground and surface waters that support aquatic ecosystem sustainability and provide necessary water supplies for the State.” [Page 45, Final Draft RMP] As presently proposed, the Final Draft RMP simply does not ensure the accomplishment of this fundamental goal. • Natural water quality should be discussed, particularly in light of the occurrence of

asbestos, arsenic, radioactivity, hardness, iron, and other naturally occurring substances in Highlands waters.

• The statements at “91% of assessed water units do not support primary contact use” and “aquatic life support (65% of assessed water bodies do not support the use”, “and “the most common water quality parameters in violation of the State’s SWQS (write out surface water quality standards) are bacteria, temperature, and phosphorous in descending order”, are excellent and should be highlighted.

• The potential causes for each of these parameters, including agriculture should be discussed.

• The potential causes of increased TDS (transport and road de-icing) should be discussed.


• The statement that “119 of the 183 sub-watersheds are impaired or threatened” is important and should be followed by a discussion of a representative sample of specific water bodies, the nature of their impairments, and their degree. This discussion should accompany the Impaired Waters Overall Assessment by HUC 14 map.

• The New Jersey Highlands Coalition notes that a substantial number of HUC 14 drainages (34 or 35) shown on the Impaired Waters Overall Assessment by HUC 14 map do not have sufficient data to allow a determination of impairment. The RMP must include a program for gathering initial (base line) surface water quality data and monitor water quality for each HUC 14.

Ground Water Quality The Final Draft RMP acknowledges that, “A thorough and complete assessment of ground water quality in all the Highlands Region bedrock aquifers is not possible at this time due to a lack of available data.” [Page 48, Final Draft RMP] The Highlands Council should recognize the current lack of a thorough and complete assessment of ground water quality in the Highlands Region by exercising appropriate caution when relying upon such inadequate information to plan for the protection, restoration and enhancement of the Highland’s water resources. Since the RMP acknowledges the inadequate data related to Ground Water Quality, it is necessary to include provisions in the RMP which allows for the Council to greatly increase the number of available water quantity monitoring stations throughout the region. This may be done in coordination with USGS. With these additional monitoring stations, data will become available which can provide a better ecological approach to ground water use in the region. The precautionary principle must be utilized in the meantime. All assumptions must be as conservative as possible until additional data is collected. The database must also contain a current listing of all currently known contaminated sites throughout the region. Until such time as this database is greatly expanded upon, it is critical that ecological considerations are conservatively utilized at all times.

• The New Jersey Highlands Coalition notes that there are substantial data gaps in ground

water quality assessment. The RMP must contain a plan to develop base line and subsequent monitoring data for the five major aquifers mentioned on p. 45.

• Despite this lack of data, natural water quality should be discussed with reference to naturally occurring water quality problems.

• The New Jersey Highlands Coalition commends the Council for mentioning the linkage between water quality and acid rain (air quality). The Air Quality section (Part 9) should be amended to discuss acid deposition.

• The inventorying, prioritization and advocacy for remediation of Classification Exception Areas, Well restrictions Areas, Currently Known Extent Areas and Deed Notice Areas should be objectives of the RMP


Wellhead Protection • ANJEC has previously submitted extensive comments on this section of the prior RMP.

The New Jersey Highlands Coalition supports these comments wishes to see them revisited.

The section is incomplete, technically flawed and fails to adequately address the issue of providing sustainable protection to the public and public non-community wells of the region. There is nothing offered that exceeds the current, largely ineffective DEP Wellhead protection program despite the Act’s mandates. The confusion between the Wellhead Protection Program and the Source Water Protection Program remains. On p. 50, there is mention of individual source water reports being prepared for systems relying on surface water. This has no relevance to wellhead protection. The section introduces numerous terms that remain undefined either in the text or in the glossary. Many of these are unfamiliar to municipal officials. The establishment of effective wellhead protection at the municipal level will require an accurate, defensible delineation of total contributing areas, not the current 3 Tier system. These areas should be the subject of strict prohibitions of lands uses with unacceptable risks. Remediation of known contamination sources within these areas should be pursued. Remediation of existing high risk uses such as underground fuel tanks should be pursued. Land management ordinances and policies should be specified and land acquisition prioritized to protect these total contributing areas. Educational programs should be developed and directed at landowners within the total contributing area. The issue of induced recharge to water supply wells requires additional upstream controls on surface water that are not provided for or discussed.

Subpart d. Water Supply Utility

• The section heading should read: Water Supply Utilities.

• The statement “Future development within the Highlands Region at densities consistent

with smart growth principles is generally reliant on access to public community water supply systems…” p.50) is unclear and misleading. Nowhere in the Act, the RMP, Technical Papers or DCA Smart Growth literature can we find any overt definition of “densities consistent with Smart Growth Principles”. This should be clarified by a general statement such as: “Development densities higher than those that can safely be sustained by individual on-lot water supply and sewage disposal will depend on access to public community water supply systems”.

• The New Jersey Highlands Coalition appreciates the difficulties encountered by the Council in mapping water supply areas. The lack of reliable data encountered reveals not only the lack of spatial information but also the nearly complete lack of a regulatory process governing the expansion of water systems. This contrasts to the much more thorough regulatory process governing wastewater treatment systems. The Council should clearly identify this problem and recommend regulatory or, if necessary, legislative changes to assure governance of water supply expansion.


• The Land Use Capability Public Community Water Systems Map is informative.

However, greater color separation is needed (blue tones). Further, the quintile breaks could be more numerous revealing a greater degree of information to municipal planners considering conformance.

• At this point, the narrative should discuss those systems with “no capacity”, those with the greatest capacity to support additional growth and the condition of those in the middle ground.

• The New Jersey Highlands Coalition appreciates the discussion of allocation vs. firm capacity. However, from a planning standpoint the physical condition of the delivery infrastructure is a matter of concern. A map depicting the findings of the firm capacity analysis would be of use to municipalities.

• The New Jersey Highlands Coalition understands the use of the allocation data to determine

“ultimate utility capacity” (p 51). However, acceptance of the current allocations is only a first step to implementing the goals of the Act. It is clear that the ambitious mandates of the Act contemplate the adjustment of allocation, not only direct water to the most advantageous locations, but also to protect ecological functions. Historically, the allocation program may not have included these considerations.

• The last two paragraphs of the section reveal that the Council has not completed its most

critical work with regard to water supply. The statement (p.52), “The result of this analysis allows for a comparison of utility capacity (essentially, how much capacity the water utility has available for future development) to Net Water Availability within each sub watershed. The Council should perform this critical analysis and display the results in spatial and tabular form.

• Finally, the last paragraph of the section (p.52) indicates that the Council “identified the appropriate next steps” but defers these crucial analyses to “the “planning process”. These are defined as:

o Identify those areas for which growth capacity would be useful.

o Determine whether there is net utility capacity available to support additional demand.

o If net utility capacity exists, determine whether there are existing future commitments that

correspond to the Existing Community Zones or conflict with them. This entire paragraph, despite its purported importance, is incomprehensible. What is meant by “areas for which growth capacity would be useful”? The last “next step” makes no sense, nor the following discussion that hints at some undefined “equitable method(s) of capacity allocation presumably to be used to resolve “conflicts” during the planning process.

Subpart e. Wastewater Utility


• The section heading should read, “Wastewater Utilities”.

• This section notes that currently approximately 80% of the wastewater capacity within the

region is allocated. The New Jersey Highlands Coalition notes that traditionally in New Jersey wastewater treatment planning, an overall commitment of 80% signals a system “at capacity”.

• The three bullet points should be fleshed out to describe how the Plan “focuses” on these areas. It appears that the first bullet is met by the production of the Land Use Capability Domestic Sewerage Map, but how the other two are met remains difficult to understand.

• Despite considerable work done in the Technical Report, there is little information provided of use in this section. At a minimum, the results of the Land Use Capability Domestic Sewerage Facilities Map should be discussed with reference to system capacities.

Subpart f. Septic System Capacity

• The New Jersey Highlands Coalition supports the use of nitrate dilution modeling as on

factor in regulating septic system density and protecting groundwater quality. We caution, however, that reliance on any single factor exclusively is not wise planning or public policy.

• The discussion of nitrate found in the second paragraph on p 50-51 should begin the discussion, clearly establishing the human health impacts of nitrate, the ecological impacts and the use of this particular pollutant as an indicator of general groundwater quality.

• The first paragraph should be placed second. The New Jersey Highlands Coalition commends the Council for recognizing that agricultural practices and lawn care practices, in addition to septic system effluent contribute to nitrate concentrations in ground water.

• The New Jersey Highlands Coalition supports the use of drought conditions (1961-1965) in developing nitrate target levels but questions whether these targets include potential sources from agriculture and lawn care. The presentation is unclear in this regard.

• It appears that the highest nitrate concentrations have been encountered in the Conservation Zone, where land use is predominantly agricultural. We also note that much of this area is underlain by carbonate rock and that programs directed at managing septic system densities have no impact on agricultural components.

• On p. 53 the statement is made that “most of the region is considered unsuitable for the use of standard septic systems”. This statement is made without any supporting presentation either in the form of maps or tabular data. This should be corrected.


• We would also note that the DEP rules for the Preservation Area limit the construction of

septic systems to conventional systems. Does the Council have a position with regard to alternate testing and alternative design septic systems in the Planning Area? The use of alternative testing and design can greatly increase the land areas “suitable” for septic installation. The Council’s position on this critical issue should be clarified.

• The Land Use Capability Septic system Density Yield Map shows the highest allowable septic densities precisely in areas with agricultural uses, high existing nitrate concentrations and carbonate rock geology. This is a pitfall of using the dilution approach which places the highest allowable densities on the most prolific aquifers. Special treatment in policy and program is essential for protecting these unique and valuable water resources.


Part 3. Agricultural Resources

The initial discussion of agricultural land loss in the region is good. However it fails to address the root cause of agricultural land loss. Efforts should be directed at purchasing of development rights, while reducing the conversion rates of farmland (on average 1,346 acres per year preserved since 1983 but a continuing loss of 1.700 acres per year). • The New Jersey Highlands Coalition believes that the root cause of continuing farmland loss

is well stated as: “Parks and Quimio (1996) found that farmland conversion to developed uses in New Jersey is driven primarily by capital gains from selling land to developers and that net farm income has no statistically significant impact on conversion. The reason for this finding is that capital gains from selling farmland to developers are so large in most cases that moderate changes in farm income do not make a difference in the decision to sell. This suggests that policies targeted at increasing farm income might have little impact on farmland preservation, at least in relatively urbanized states such as New Jersey”. • Clearly, reducing the value of farmland for non-agricultural purposes is the key to preserving

the land base of the industry. However, exclusive reliance on purchase of development rights, without parallel controls over land value and development “potential” is a fool’s errand that will exhaust available public funding.

• The section mentions “sustainable agricultural practices” but does not describe what these are

in the context of the Highlands region. Substantial information of sustainable agricultural practices is available from ATTRA-National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service (www.attra.org), funded under a grant from the United States Department of Agriculture’s Rural Business-Cooperative Service (USDA-RBS). Through their website, a description of the ATTRA programs and “Applying the Principles of Sustainable Farming” is available, one of their many publications that the Council may find useful in defining “sustainable agriculture”.


http://www.attra.org/

• Although the previous section, Septic System Capacity, mentions agricultural run-off as a major contributor of nitrates, the surface water quality section mentions several potentially agriculturally related pollutants of concern (bacteria, temperature, phosphorous) and the Carbonate rock section mentions the possibility of contamination from non-point sources, this section does not acknowledge the link between agricultural land uses and surface and groundwater contamination. This should be addressed.

• In previous comment, The New Jersey Highlands Coalition requested that specific water

quality monitoring for agriculturally related pollutants be a part of the agricultural strategy. This has not as yet been adopted by the Council.


Part 4. Historic, Cultural, and Archaeological Resources

Subpart a. Historic, Cultural, and Archaeological Resources

This section should build upon the History of the Highlands Region (Ch 1, Part 2). However, the history section is quite weak and should be strengthened to include a thorough discussion of settlement history and subsequent elaborations. The New Jersey Highlands Coalition notes that in a previous technical paper “Historic Resources Inventory and Mapping-Interim Report (July 17, 2006)” contained a map “GIS Data Layer of Cultural Resources”. We note that this effort, originally part of the Smart Growth submissions, appears to have been abandoned. Pages 56, last line: The current sentence is incorrect. It should read: “A SHPO opinion of eligibility is issued as a preliminary to the nomination of a resource to the National Register.” (There may be no follow-up action.)

Chapter II. Analysis of the Highlands Region Part 7. Landowner Fairness

A successful TDR simply cannot be called “Landowner Fairness.” By naming the program fairness, the Council is implying that all landowners, large and small, will be more than adequately compensated at the pre-Act value of their property. If the program is to be called “Land Owner Fairness”, then it must also draw attention to the fairness of water use downstream of the Highlands where many municipalities and homeowners have come to expect clean and plentiful water supplies to provide for their family and drive the businesses which support our State’s economy. While many landowners will receive some compensation through this program, this program must simply be referred to as “Land Owner Equity”. Equity indicates that there is some risk in owning property and TDR credits alike. There will always be risks in holding property and in holding TDR credits, therefore it is assuming too much to call the program fairness.

Chapter III. Regional and Local Community Character


General Comments The Chapter III Final Draft RMP expresses a much more complete and nuanced understanding of the built environment than the previous Draft RMP, which is excellent. It acknowledges the critical importance of the scale, size and design of development, as well as placement and location. However, the chapter is deficient in its portrayal of some of the basic factors that make the Highlands what it is, and the values that necessitate its protection and preservation. The Highlands physiographic region’s geology forms the underlying basis for the region’s characteristics. Geology has made the region what it is, but there is a gaping hole in the document describing this. In addition, as water protection was a primary reason for the Highlands Act and the RMP, water features should appear prominently in any description of the region. Please see below for specific comments on these aspects. Since it is our understanding that this document will be undergoing constant revision, perhaps it is not necessary to note that, in general, this chapter needs be clearer, more tightly organized, less repetitive, and checked for accuracy. The “Vision for the Future” should focus not only on the built environment and communities of place, but on the entirety of a vision for the region. It should portray, with equal emphasis and enthusiasm, the future outcome of the protection and preservation aspects of the Regional Master Plan, which were the essential reasons for passage of the Highlands Act. Perhaps the “Vision” should not even be included within this chapter, but should be a separate chapter, or a prologue, as in the 1992 U.S. Forest Service Report.

Part 1. Introduction

We do not think it wise to refer, in the first sentences, to “several different landscape types.” The introductory description should focus on the Highlands Physiographic Region and its characteristics (which are admittedly diverse), and merely note that parts of the Ridge and Valley and Piedmont Physiographic Regions are also included in the Highlands Act, since municipal boundaries, rather than physiographic ones, were used by the Act to define the region. The Introduction attempts to describe in summary form the uniqueness or distinctiveness of the Highlands Region, however, most of the items listed do not appear to be distinctive. At the very top of the bullet-point list, not buried in the text, should go: The Highlands is the source of drinking water for almost 64% of the State’s population, more than five million people. That is more than the combined populations of the seven least populated States in the U.S. combined (list them). Next bullet should be:

• The Highlands’ surface water features are prominent in the landscape, and frequently visible from roads that wind beside the numerous rivers and streams, whose valleys formed natural transportation corridors. Dramatic reservoirs are enclosed by hills, while the Region contains more than 400 diverse lakes and ponds –


large and small, remote and urban, wild and industrialized, natural and manmade, not to mention countless farm ponds that dot the rural landscape.

Add:

• Mining, especially iron mining, is part of the heritage of much of the Highlands Region, with the remains of the iron industry found in nearly all parts of the region, especially in the north: stone furnaces, forges, mine openings and land underlain with tunnels and shafts.

In addition, a type of analysis that was done by the USFS Regional studies would be useful in the introduction: i.e. the percentage of undeveloped land that is forested vs. agricultural fields/meadows. The northern Highlands are more forested (around 65% - the percentage has probably changed since the 1992 and 2002 reports), while the southern Highlands (Warren and Hunterdon counties) have a greater proportion of undeveloped land that is farmland – it was over 50% agricultural. The region’s limestone valleys also need to be noted, e.g. in Hunterdon and Warren counties, esp. along with the abundance of water to be found there, but also the extreme vulnerability to pollution. The Morris Canal is an historic feature that should be mentioned. Operational for about a hundred years, it was considered an engineering marvel in its day. Industrial archaeology as a whole is an important historic resource in the region. Associated with the Canal were lakes that were enlarged to provide the water to run the Canal e.g. Lake Musconetcong, Lake Hopatcong. The historic role of the Highlands as a summer retreat should be noted. There were large lakeside hotels that have disappeared. Many of the older settlements in the region were originally summer places located around lakes in Passaic and Morris counties and along rivers and streams in Hunterdon County. These dwellings were gradually winterized and most, but not all, have become year-round residences and permanent communities. Some seasonal lake communities still remain, e.g. Beaver Lake, Lake Hawthorne and Lake Gerard in Sussex County.

Part 2. Physical Geography and Landscape

Missing from the characterization is a section on geology, leaving a significant hole in the basis of understanding. Geology is what has made the Highlands what it is. Once the geology is more clearly understood, the rest of the description will begin to fall into place. See “Geology of the New Jersey Highlands” NJDEP, 1994. Geology is what controls the water supply and soils, which in turn determine the region’s vegetative communities, whether forest, grassland or wetland, which provide homes for its diverse wildlife. Geology determines the quantity and to a degree, quality of the water supply. The fractured bedrock of the majority of the region is a poor aquifer with only limited groundwater resources, while the glacial buried valley fill aquifers are prolific sources of groundwater, upon which the region depends. Limestone karst found in some parts of the Highlands is also water rich, but easily polluted, as well as causing hazards for construction.


The mineral rich rocks of the Highlands provided the basis for a region-wide iron industry significant to the early history of the United States, which shaped the region’s built environment and left hazards in the form of mine shafts in many places. Other minerals were mined or quarried, such as zinc and marble, while the Highlands also boasts many unusual minerals, some of which are only found here, e.g. franklinite. The chapter’s geological description is not only deficient but also inaccurate: the southern Highlands were not glaciated, at least not recently, compared to the north, and the glacial moraine divides the northern and southern Highlands. The North was most recently glaciated, the terrain was scraped bare by the glaciers, glacial lakes were gouged into the bedrock, and as a result, it is less suited for agriculture, and forest vegetation is predominant. The terminal moraine crosses the Highlands from east to west about in the middle, where Route 80 is located. It left gravel and sand deposits along river corridors, creating buried valley fill aquifers that are prolific sources of water supply, especially in the Rockaway River valley, which support the highly developed, more urbanized central portion of the Region. The less recently glaciated southern Highlands have had more time to recover from past glaciation, and its older and better soils are more favorable to agriculture. An additional result is that the southern Highlands were occupied more consistently by pre-historic peoples, e.g. the Plenge site, along the Musconetcong River.

Part 3. Shared Values Some of this section might be better used in the “Vision of the Future.” We particularly like the phrase in reference to transportation and road capacity issues: “the value of community character outweighs the inconvenience of delay.” Very nice!

Part 5. The Elements of Place Comment and Clarification: We strongly urge that the Highlands “Critical Treasures” Areas be incorporated into the RMP, and suggest that they be employed to help define the “places” in the Highlands Region. As noted in the Draft RMP, “The essential character of the Highlands Region is not easily reduced to an overall description.” In order to comprehend the Highlands, a fairly large and admittedly complex region, it is helpful to divide it into sub-areas that people can identify with. The Highlands Coalition has identified seventeen such areas – called “Critical Treasures of the Highlands” – areas that generally have a core of preserved lands which create a focus for the sub-region. Many of these areas were recognized long before the Highlands Coalition came into being, and therefore, these places, and their names, have meaning for many inhabitants of the Region. They are also being utilized by both State and Federal agencies, namely the State’s Green Acres Program, the USDA Forest Service and the US Department of the Interior. Some of these Critical Treasures were named as “Important Areas” by the USDA/Forest Service in 1993, and others were identified as “Conservation Focal Areas” in the Agency’s 2002 Regional Study Update. Conservation Focal Areas were defined as having high resource values as well as major clusters or large contiguous tracts of unprotected land, making them a high


priority for conservation and deserving of special attention. Green Acres names them as acquisition areas, as do the federal Forest Legacy and Highlands Conservation Act funding programs. A 2002 Highlands Coalition map of the Critical Treasures found that the “Critical Treasures” comprised over two-thirds of the Highlands Region, omitting only heavily developed areas, based on mapping from the Rutgers/USDA Forest Service Highlands Study Update, the NJDEP Landscape Project and NJCF/Green Acres Garden State Greenways “Hubs” (Core Conservation Areas). Together, the “Critical Treasures” give a face and identity of place to nearly the entire New Jersey Highlands Region. We urge that these places and their names, described below, be incorporated into the RMP, especially in reference to rural, scenic and environmentally sensitive lands that require protection and preservation. 1.RAMAPO MOUNTAINS AND VALLEY (BERGEN AND PASSAIC COUNTIES)

At the eastern edge of New Jersey’s Highlands, the Ramapo Mountains delineate “where the pavement ends and nature begins.” Ramapo State Forest and Ringwood State Park form the core of this area. The western slopes of the Ramapos form part of the Wanaque/ Monksville Reservoir watershed while the eastern slopes feed the Ramapo River. The Ramapo Mountains were identified by the Forest Service in both 1992 and as a Conservation Focal Area in 2002. The area is a prime recreational resource to densely populated northeast NJ, as well as New York.

2. WYANOKIE HIGHLANDS/WANAQUE WATERSHED (PASSAIC COUNTY)

The Wyanokie Highlands, located mostly west of the Wanaque Reservoir in Ringwood and West Milford, hold critical watersheds that protect New Jersey’s most significant and most threatened water supply – the Wanaque Reservoir system - on which nearly two million people rely. Burnt Meadow and West Brooks, waterways of exceptional ecological significance, flow directly into the Wanaque Reservoir. The Wyanokies boast a network of historic hiking trails, including the Highlands Millennium Legacy Trail which links to New York’s Sterling Forest State Park, as well as dramatic scenic overlooks. The Wyanokie Highlands are Green Acres top rated project area for funding from both the federal Highlands Conservation Act and the Forest Legacy Program, and were identified as important by the Forest Service in both 1992 and 2002.

3. PEQUANNOCK (NEWARK) WATERSHED (PASSAIC, SUSSEX AND MORRIS

COUNTIES) The 35,000-acre Pequannock River watershed, which forms the wilderness core of the NJ Highlands, held for a century by the City of Newark to safeguard its water supply, is now largely also protected by State conservation easements. Its water is the purest that feeds Highlands reservoirs. Home to hundreds of bear, native trout, bobcat and rare interior forest birds, its diverse ecosystem contains enormous biological values. The key importance of the Pequannock Watershed has been recognized by both the State and federal governments.

4. HAMBURG MOUNTAIN (SUSSEX COUNTY)


A chain of state wildlife management areas begin on Hamburg Mountain, which overlooks the rapidly developing Vernon Valley. The Appalachian National Scenic Trail descent into the valley is legendary.

5. WALLKILL RIVER AREA (SUSSEX COUNTY)

The Wallkill Valley, at the western edge of the Highlands, is threatened by excess development from Sparta north into New York State. The Wallkill National Wildlife Refuge has just developed a Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan that proposes a significant expansion widely supported by local residents as necessary to protect the area’s rural character and wildlife resources.

6. FARNY HIGHLANDS (MORRIS COUNTY)

The forested Farny Highlands, named after Farny State Park, contain the headwaters of five rivers, significant contiguous forests and biologically rich northern Picatinny Arsenal. Conservation focus areas include Farny State Park, Wildcat Wildlife Management Areas, Beaver Brook, Splitrock Reservoir, and Mase, Buck, Green Pond, Waughaw and Pyramid Mountains. The Farny Highlands have been recognized as federally significant since 1992.

7. ROCKAWAY RIVER WATERSHED (MORRIS AND SUSSEX COUNTIES)

The Rockaway River watershed, which supplies Jersey City’s Boonton Reservoir with drinking water, begins its journey in headwaters high on Sparta Mountain and in the Farny Highlands. It traverses some of the more developed portions of Morris County, and includes the dramatic Boonton Falls

8. SPARTA MOUNTAINS (SUSSEX AND MORRIS COUNTIES)

The westernmost ridge of NJ’s northern Highlands, traversed by the Highlands Millennium Legacy Trail, connects a chain of several State Wildlife Management Areas (Hamburg Mountain, Gerard Woods, Sparta Mountain, and Weldon Brook) to Allamuchy State Park to the south. Sparta Mountain South in Byram and Andover Townships is a top priority project and has received federal Forest Legacy Program funding. The Mountain offers magnificent vistas overlooking pristine lakes and ponds, glacial erratics, and a diversity of natural communities which contain threatened and endangered wildlife. Morris Lake Reservoir and lands adjacent to Allamuchy are also among critical unpreserved tracts. Sparta Mountain/Lubber’s Run were identified as a Conservation Focal Area by the 2002 Forest Service Highlands Study Update.

9. PEQUEST RIVER VALLEY (WARREN AND SUSSEX COUNTIES) The Pequest River feeds the Pequest Trout Hatchery, a significant State facility that relies on high water quality. However, the Pequest Watershed’s enormous ground and surface water resources are extremely vulnerable to nonpoint source pollution from sod and truck farms and residential and commercial development. The Upper Pohatcong/ Pequest Valleys were identified as a Conservation Focal Area by the 2002 Forest Service Highlands Study.

10. UPPER PASSAIC RIVER HEADWATERS (MORRIS AND SOMERSET COUNTIES The winding Passaic River rises in Leddell’s Pond in Jockey Hollow National Historic Park, and heads south before leaving the Highlands for the Great Swamp National Wildlife Area.


11. UPPER NORTH BRANCH RARITAN RIVER (MORRIS AND HUNTERDON

COUNTIES) The headwaters of the Raritan River supply the drinking water uptakes on the Raritan River on which some 1.2 million people in central New Jersey depend. Development of unprotected headwater areas could jeopardize this critical water supply source.

12. UPPER SOUTH BRANCH RARITAN RIVER WATERSHED (MORRIS AND

HUNTERDON COUNTIES) The New Jersey Water Supply Authority’s Spruce Run and Round Valley Reservoirs store drinking water for release and uptake from the Raritan River. The “Spruce Run Initiative” has protected thousands of acres on the threatened watershed. Sprawl-induced water quality degradation could destroy the fabled brown trout fishery at Ken Lockwood Gorge WMA.

13. MUSCONETCONG/SCHOOLEY’S MOUNTAIN (HUNTERDON AND MORRIS COUNTIES) Identified as an “Important Area” by the U.S. Forest Service in 1992, the forested and farmed Musconetcong ridge is in great demand for housing sites with a view, and for its proximity to Route 78. Hunterdon County’s Point Mountain Reserve offers breathtaking views over the Musconetcong Valley. Schooley’s Mountain is threatened by subdivisions and by a road bypass. The Musconetcong Ridge, along with Scott’s Mountain, were identified as Conservation Focal Areas by the 2002 Forest Service Highlands Regional Studies.

14. MUSCONETCONG RIVER VALLEY (HUNTERDON, MORRIS AND WARREN

COUNTIES) Recently designated as part of the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers System, the “Muskie’s” headwaters lie in Sussex and Morris counties, in particular Lubber’s Run in the Sparta Mountains. The valley becomes more rural as the river travels south through an outstanding agricultural and historic area, where the river forms the boundary between Warren and Hunterdon counties. It makes its surface water supply contribution to the Delaware River.

15. POHATCONG GRASSLANDS AND MOUNTAIN (WARREN COUNTY)

Over two-thirds of the Grasslands, a State Priority Heritage Site that is home to numerous threatened and endangered species of birds, is under extreme development pressure, as is Pohatcong Mountain, a linear forest island linking Delaware River bluffs with the Musconetcong Valley.

16. POHATCONG CREEK VALLEY (WARREN COUNTY)

Hidden away in a scenic rural setting, the Pohatcong Valley nevertheless suffers from some significant water pollution problems. However, it was identified, along with the Pequest, as a Conservation Focal Area in the 2002 Forest Service Highlands Study Update.

17. SCOTTS MOUNTAIN (WARREN COUNTY) Scotts Mountain, the largest contiguous forested area in the southern NJ Highlands, was named an “Important Area” by the U.S. Forest Service in 1993. It was again identified by the Forest


Service in 2002 as a Conservation Focal Area in the Highlands Study Update. Little of the mountain is protected at this time.

Part 7. Highlands By Design: A Vision of the Future

The final draft of this section focuses on the built environment. The first part of the Vision should instead focus on the vision of what is being preserved – the water, the forests, the wildlife habitat – and the critical and substantial benefits of preservation. These were the reasons for the Highlands Act. The benefits of preservation need to be stated enthusiastically, in glowing terms. The RMP should not take for granted that people understand the critical need for preservation/protection, the benefits that will accrue from it and the potential disastrous results if preservation does not happen. The sustainability of the water supply, both for the region itself and the more than four million people who live elsewhere, the sustainability of biodiversity and homes for much beloved wildlife and birds, the avoidance of flooding and erosion, the contribution to carbon sequestration, cleaner air, clean water, the ability to enjoy locally grown food, the multiple opportunities for recreation close to home, the multitude of historic sites and structures, all combine to create a region of diverse scenic beauty – that is what needs to be described. And describe what could happen on the other hand: Drinking water is becoming scarce worldwide. India, China, Latin American countries, Africa, the American West, the American Southeast – all are suffering from water supplies that are inadequate to supply current human needs, not to mention future needs and ecological needs. The Colorado River is dry by the time it reaches the Gulf of California. Multinational conglomerates are investing in the water supply business – Suez, French; RWE, German and Thames, British – all are buying up water companies and water rights worldwide, and making populations dependent on these corporations, which will charge whatever the market will bear for this essential of life. The Draft RMP is showing that much of the Highlands is already in water deficit. Not only the quality of life, but the economy of the entire State, depends on having a clean and adequate water supply. Another point is that the source of New Jersey’s water is overwhelmingly located in New Jersey (except for the Ramapo River watershed). While other states may take water from large rivers whose watersheds lie elsewhere, the headwaters for New Jersey’s reservoirs and stream intakes are located within our small state. They are all that we have. We must protect them. Similarly, the RMP could and should address how the RMP will address the multiple threats of global warming, and how adherence to the RMP will reduce the carbon footprint of the region. Preservation of the region’s forests has multiple benefits; not only protection for wildlife and biodiversity, recreation potential and scenic beauty, but things like climate moderation, preservation of rainfall, and perhaps most importantly, carbon sequestration. The Vision says that the Highlands RMP provides for a planned future of the Region which is Governed by five fundamental principles (page 13). This would be better couched in active mode: “Five fundamental principles govern the future of the Highlands Region:


1. Preserve and protect the resources of the natural and built environments, especially land and water resources;

2. Restore and enhance those aspects of the natural and built environment…. 3. Distribute the benefits and burdens of implementing the Highlands Regional Master Plan

equitably among all affected interests both within and outside the Highlands Region; 4. Maintain and enhance the fiscal and economic viability and sustainability of the Region

and its constituent communities; 5. Ensure that all new growth and development is sustainable over the long term based on

water, energy and other critical resources, organic to its environment, harmonious with historical…Etc.

Preservation Area Goals This section should feature the following essential information:

• The total acreage of the Preservation Area, • The acreage already preserved (public lands at all levels and preserved farmland), • The remaining undeveloped acreage in the Preservation Area. • The acreage already developed (e.g. Califon Boro, Hampton Boro, etc.), and • The latter acreage is the basis upon which planning will take place.

Future land use should describe how protection of forests and wetlands in the Preservation Area are providing positive benefits:

• Protecting essential water supply for the Highlands region and the state • Preserving wildlife habitat, Threatened and Endangered plants and animals, biodiversity,

wild trout, etc. • Provide opportunities for eco-tourism, a $3.9 billion a year industry in New Jersey alone • Moderating climate and cleaning the air • Serving as a carbon sink and combating global warming • Safeguarding important recreational and scenic resources.

Planning Area Goals The second paragraph states that “The Highlands Regional Master Plan contemplates that development and redevelopment within the Planning Area incorporate development rights transferred from lands in the Preservation Area in order to mitigate any disproportionate burden imposed on Preservation Area landowners.” We do not favor transferring development rights within the Highlands; we favor that most transferred development occur outside the Highlands Region. The objective of the conservation organizations supporting Highlands preservation was to protect and preserve the entire region, not the political compromise of protecting just half of it. Much of the Planning Area includes values (water, forests, wildlife, and farmland) on a par with values in the Preservation Area. Land Owner Fairness The issue of equity needs to be more broadly framed and not limited to the equity of land owners. Rather, it should address and include the larger issue of “equity” for all, most particularly those who depend on the Highlands for their water supply. The draft points out that “by law, New Jersey’s water resources are held in trust for the public, and allocated by the State for public and private use.” There needs to be a clear recognition of the very different legal


constructs that govern water rights in the Eastern U.S. vs. the West. In the West, water is a right that can be owned and sold by a landowner; in the East, it cannot. Water rights in the West can be, and are, sold and distributed among different parties, as a commodity, much like mineral rights are in coal mining country in the East. Some of our Eastern land owners may be influenced by comments regarding Western water rights, which may cause them some misunderstandings. We suggest that the language from the State Development and Redevelopment Plan regarding “equity” might be used. In addition, this section focuses too much on TDR’s, and does not currently recognize both the benefits and burdens of receiving areas. Further, while the Highlands may supply water to areas outside the region, taxpayers in other parts of the State have contributed funding for infrastructure in the Highlands, such as roads, while many in the Highlands derive their income from enterprises located outside the region, moving money back to the region. Fiscal and Economic Vitality of Highlands Communities We appreciate the discussion about a potential shift in perspective with regard to land and land use, away from “land as a commodity” to a perspective where the land and waters of the Highlands are viewed as precious resources. We hope to help make that happen.

Part 8. Regional Elements Land Owner Fairness A goal of the Highlands Act is to protect undeveloped lands within the Region which have limited or no capacity to support development if water resources, historic and scenic sites, and critical habitat are to be protected (there should be much more to the TDR program than just paying off landowners). The Highlands Act recognizes that implementation of the Regional Master Plan will result in adjusting landowner expectations regarding future land use potential. As a matter of fairness, reasonable future land use expectations of landowners should be mitigated to the extent possible. The Highlands Act provides several potential mitigation methods, including a transfer of development rights (TDR) program, land acquisition, exemptions, and waivers. The TDR concept involves the transfer of development rights from lands where new growth and development is severely constrained to areas where additional development will not have an adverse impact on the important natural and historic resources of the Highlands Region. TDRs are a recognized program which have been used to mitigate the windfalls and wipeouts of resource planning and management programs in New Jersey and around the country. TDRs are not a panacea, but they are a practical and useful way of mitigating the impact of new regulatory requirements on land owners by providing a marketing opportunity for otherwise unusable development rights. The Regional Master Plan recognizes the implementation challenges which attend the creation and operation of a TDR program and contemplates that additional action will be required if TDRs are to provide significant mitigation to land owners. Those actions include the establishment and capitalization of a development rights bank to create a market in TDRs.


A successful TDR simply cannot be called “Land Owner Fairness.” By naming the program fairness, the Council is implying that all landowners, large and small, will be more than adequately compensated at the pre-Act value of their property. If the program is to be called “Land Owner Fairness”, then it must also draw attention to the fairness of water use downstream of the Highlands where many municipalities and homeowners have come to expect clean and plentiful water supplies to provide for their family and drive the businesses which support our State’s economy. While many landowners will receive some compensation through this program, this program must simply be referred to as “Land Owner Equity”. Equity indicates that there is some risk in owning property and TDR credits alike. There will always be risks in holding property and in holding TDR credits, therefore it is assuming too much to call the program fairness.

Chapter IV Goals, Policies and Objectives Part. 1 Natural Resources

Introduction paragraph should discuss European agricultural and forestry activities that shaped the landscape prior to suburbanization.

Subpart a. Highlands Forest Resources Comment and Clarification: The introductory paragraph unfortunately omits many of the critical services and values provided by forests. We urge the following additions [and deletions]: “The Highlands Region contains some of the most important forests in the state. These forests are vitally important to every element of the Highlands Region, including the natural and the built environment. Forests provide essential ecosystem functions, including the most effective recharge of groundwater aquifers that supply Highlands wells and surface water filtration, both of which are important to protecting essential drinking water supplies for the Highlands Region and for the state as a whole. Forests protect water quality in streams and other surface water bodies, supporting wild trout and healthy aquatic ecosystems. Highlands forests moderate climate and purify the air, and being of young to moderate age, virtually all Highlands forests sequester atmospheric carbon and combat global warming. Forests replenish the fertile surface organic horizon of the soil. Forests serve as habitat for plants and animals and, as forests constitute a majority of critical habitat in the Highlands, they are critically important to the maintenance of biodiversity in one of the most populous states in the nation. Highlands forests safeguard important recreational, historic and archaeological resources and make an enormous contribution to the Region’s outstanding scenic values. In addition, when managed for sustainable use, forests can be a source of renewable wood products. Forests are a defining visible and functional feature of the Highlands [and constitute a majority of critical habitat in the Region]. Objective 1A2b: Caution should be exercised here. An approval must be based on whether or not a specific property has conditions that merit the granting of a hardship; the quality of a mitigation plan must not influence the decision on a waiver. For the phrase “relief from strict adherence...forest mitigation plan,” there must be clear and unequivocal standards. Throughout


the plan, wherever mitigation is an option, there must be very clear benchmarks for moving through avoidance through minimization to mitigation, emphasizing avoidance first and foremost. Objective 1A2c: The term “deforestation” is used here but is not defined in the glossary. Does it include land that might be cleared for habitat management or forest management practices? If so, this should be defined clearly to allow practices that support restoration of rare or declining species habitat biodiversity and exclude other practices. Objective 1A2d: The list of exemptions to the regulation is too broad and could be loosely interpreted to the detriment of natural resources and biodiversity. What standards define “support clustered development that cannot feasibly be located outside of the Forest Resource Area”? The concept of exemptions that serve a Highlands Redevelopment Area require benchmarks and standards that include a mechanism to weight the value of the Forest Resource Area under consideration for development activities. It could be possible to limit this extension into Low Integrity Forest Sub-Watersheds only. The Highlands Act states that the extension of Sewers or community-based on-site treatment facilities will not be allowed in the Preservation Area, yet this Objective appears to allow either in the Preservation Area to support clustered development or a Highlands Redevelopment Area. This must be clarified because as currently written, this Objective is clearly inconsistent with the Highlands Act. (Clarification): To prohibit through local development review and Highlands Project Review the extension of public water supply systems or public wastewater collection and treatment systems or community-based on-site wastewater facilities into the Forest Resource Area except in Low Integrity Forest Subwatersheds as shown to be necessary for and is approved by the Highlands Council [remove to support clustered development (see Objectives 2K3d and 2K3f) that cannot feasibly be located outside the Forest Resource Area or the forested portion of the Forest Resource Area,] to serve a designated Highlands Redevelopment Area, to address a documented threat to public health and safety where no alternative is feasible, or to provide for minimum practical use in the absence of any alternative through issuance of a waiver by NJDEP or the Highlands Council, and will maximize the protection of forest. The Highlands Act does NOT allow for the extension of sewers or infrastructure into the Preservation Area to serve cluster development, therefore this shall be removed because this Objective is “blind to the line”. Policy 1A4 (Clarification): To assign lands within the Forest Resource Area a high priority for fee simple and secondarily easement acquisition. Policy 1A5: We strongly urge that all forest management should be in accordance with an approved Forest Stewardship Plan, not the less biodiversity/ecosystem sensitive Forest Management Plan (see Objectives 1B1b, 1B1c and 1B2a, 1C2d). This change should occur throughout the Master Plan to emphasize the intent of protecting forest resources. The term “clear cutting” should be changed to all forestry activities because there are numerous forestry practices with other names that essentially involve clearing of nearly all trees.


(Add) Policy 1A6: To preserve Highlands forests to the maximum extent to ensure carbon sequestration to combat global warming. Policy 1B1: Clarification of sustainable forestry activities to include ecological forestry. Policy 1B1 (Clarification): To establish and implement resource management techniques to encourage sustainable forest management, restoration and stewardship practices on public and private lands with ecological forestry that restores ecosystem health and integrates management of habitat for rare plants and animals as a key goal in the Forest Resource Areas within the Protection Zone and the Conservation Zone in the Planning Area. Objective 1B1c (Clarification): Implementation of programs which [encourage] require the inclusion of appropriate Threatened, Endangered and Rare species habitat protection and enhancement, appropriate wildlife and invasive species management techniques in all Forest Management Plans and Forest Stewardship Plans adopted by any federal, state, county or municipal government entity. Policy 1B3: See comments under Objective 1A2c. Policy 1B4 and Objective 1B6a: It is imperative that the higher standards of a Forest Stewardship Plan be required to fulfill the goals of the Master Plan to protect forests and water quality. Objective 1B6a (Clarification): Forestry activities are allowed within a Forest Resource Area of forested lands within a High Integrity Forest Subwatershed only in compliance with an approved [Forest Management Plan] Forest Stewardship Plan . Policy 1B7: See comments above under Policy 1A5 and 1B3. This policy must require Forest Stewardship Plan, not the weaker Forest Management/Woodland Management Plan. Policy 1B7 (Clarification): To prohibit clear-cutting of forest lands except pursuant to an approved Forest Stewardship Plan to the extent necessary to promote native forest regeneration, early successional wildlife habitat, or to remove invasive species. (Add) Policy 1B8: To support legislation requiring a Forest Stewardship Plan instead of a Forest Management Plan in the Highlands Region. (Add Policy) 1B9: To preserve the ecological integrity of Highlands Forests through preservation and management that includes a reduction in deer density to a low level that allows the successful growth of native shrubs and canopy tree seedlings, and minimizes susceptibility to invasive species infestation. (Add) Policy 1B10: To preserve and restore the ecological health of Highlands forested ecosystems by maintaining an appropriate vegetative structure that meets the ecological objectives of maintaining large tracts of contiguous forest canopy for interior forest species,


providing critical habitat for rare, threatened and endangered plants and animals, sequestering carbon, and protecting water resources in wetlands and vernal pools and along riparian areas, ponds and lakes. (Add) Policy 1B11: To prohibit removal of the forest shrub layer and understory, except for removal of non-native invasive species, and to prohibit replacement of forest herbaceous layer with turfgrass/lawn, which degrades forest functions, including surface water filtration, groundwater recharge, natural biodiversity and wildlife habitat. (A forest lacking understory is a degraded forest.) Policy 1C2 (Clarification): To develop technical guidelines and procedures to assist municipalities and counties in the development of forest/woodland protection and mitigation ordinances and… community forestry plans….. Policy 1C2c (Clarification): A model municipal [tree] forest/woodland protection ordinance that allows active forest management with an approved [Forest Management Plan] Forest Stewardship Plan that requires mitigation for loss of forest resource. Policy 1C2e (Clarification): Technical guidelines establishing forest clearing thresholds and mitigation requirements for inclusion in municipal development ordinances. Policy 1C3 (Clarification): To require that conforming municipalities adopt a forest protection/tree clearing ordinance consistent with an approved community forestry plan under the New Jersey Forest Service Community Forestry Program as part of the municipal master plan and local development regulations.

Subpart b. Highlands Open Waters and Riparian Areas Policy 1D1: “Special Waters” should also include all NJDEP lands with the Natural Area designation. Objective 1D2a: There needs to be clear definitions for “wildlife passage corridors”. Objective 1D4d: Clarification of exceptions to the 300-foot Highlands Open Water buffer to explicitly ban buffer averaging. (Clarification): Exceptions may be made to the 300-foot Highlands Open Water buffer in the Planning Area in the following circumstances prohibitive of buffer averaging, where the applicant further demonstrates that the exception will not cause measurable degradation to the quality and ecological integrity of Highlands Open Waters. Specifically... Objective 1D6c: Habitat management to improve biodiversity/ecosystem function should be clearly separated from “development” to avoid unnecessary regulatory issues involved with practices that coincide with goals of the Master Plan. Objective 1D6d: It is unclear where mitigation will be required. What will trigger mitigation?


Subpart c. Steep Slopes

Comment and clarification: Disturbance of steep slopes can trigger additional outcomes in addition to those noted in the introduction. In addition, there needs to be broader recognition that even a small degree of slope can have problems. Please modify the introductory paragraph as follows: “Steep slopes within the Highlands Region play an important ecological, recreational, scenic and functional role. Steep slopes and rocky ridgelines provide specialized habitats that are home to rare plant and animal species. Areas of steep slope provide popular recreational opportunities including hiking, skiing, climbing and wildlife observation. Ridgelines, hillsides and steep slopes offer scenic views and vistas, which contribute to the rural character of the Highlands Region and help to define the landscape. Disturbance of areas containing steep slopes can trigger erosion and sedimentation, resulting in the loss of topsoil. Silting of wetlands, lakes, ponds and streams damages and degrades wetland and aquatic habitats, especially trout streams that are found throughout the Highlands and receive the State’s highest water quality protections. It can also result in [the disturbance of habitats,] degradation of surface water quality [silting of wetlands,] alteration of drainage patterns, and formation of gulleys. Steep slope disturbance may cause storm deposition of rocks, gravel, sand and silt on public roads and private property. These processes, when severe, can also result in land slumping and landslides that can damage both developed property and ecosystems. Erosion can occur on a slope as shallow as 2%, depending on the soil type, as some soils are extremely erosive. The identification and classfication of steep slopes is important in order to effectively manage critical natural resources in the Highlands Region.”

Subpart d. Critical Habitat

Introduction: “Biodiversity is the variety of plant, species, animal species, and all other organisms found in a particular environment and is a critical indicator of ecological [viability] integrity. The protection of habitats that are critical to maintaining biodiversity contributes to the protection of rare, threatened, [or] and endangered plant and animal species of the Highlands Region. There are three categories of critical habitat in the Highlands Region: 1) Critical Wildlife Habitat (habitat for rare, threatened or endangered species and species of special concern); 2) Significant Natural Areas (regionally significant ecological communities including Natural Heritage Priority Sites and rare plants); and 3) Vernal Pools ……” Policy 1F1 and Policy 1F6: Clarification which would include protections for rare plants not recognized in Significant Natural Areas. Policy 1F1 (Clarification): To prohibit through Plan Conformance, local development review and Highlands Project Review the direct impacts of new human development or expansion or increased intensity of existing development within Critical Wildlife Habitats, Significant Natural


Areas, within 1,000 feet of Vernal Pools, Natural Heritage Priority Sites, and/or to rare plant species or rare ecological communities not recognized as Significant Natural Areas. Language included Natural Heritage Priority Sites and protections for rare plants must be included throughout Subpart d. Critical Habitat. Their omission is very concerning. Policy 1F2 (Clarification): To assign land within Critical Wildlife Habitats, Significant Natural Areas and within 1000 feet of Vernal Pools a high priority for fee simple and/or easement acquisition and for the allocation of Highlands Transferable Development Rights with periodically monitored easement restrictions protecting the critical wildlife habitat, rare plants, and ecological communities from any changes in land use or management practices that would impact these resources. TDR credits must be based on ecological function and value, not speculative land value lost, therefore it is critical to mention that these critical areas can be protected through the TDR program. Policy 1F3: What is meant by “promote”? Is this through incentive mechanisms? What are the mechanisms? Objective 1F4a: Clarification of process to move from avoidance to minimization and finally to mitigation. Objective 1F4a (Clarification): Implementation of performance standards through local development review and Highlands Project Review requiring all development to demonstrate the feasibility of avoidance and avoidance alternatives, selecting the alternative that will cause the least harm before mitigation can be considered, employ low impact development best management practices and avoid disturbance of a critical habitat feature whenever possible, and to promote avoidance and minimize impact when disturbance is unavoidable. Objective 1F4a through 1F4d (including Policy 1F5): The development of a Habitat Conservation Plan should be required through conformance and include the same requirements included in forthcoming NJDEP Critical Habitat Rules. Objective 1F4: Unavoidable disturbance must be defined. There should be language to clarify the sequence of moving from avoidance to finally mitigation with clear standards to define mitigation. Objective 1F4b: This objective should include benchmarks and performance standards for avoidance, minimization and mitigation. Objective 1F4c: Is disturbance defined as human-induced or ecological? Does this objective include onsite impacts only or does it also include disturbance from offsite impacts? Although we recognize that many species benefit from ecological management (e.g., bog turtles – removal of woody species, grassland birds – warm season grass management, golden-winged warblers – scrub-shrub management), this must be defined appropriately.


Objective 1F4d: This should ensure no net loss in the quantity and value of critical habitat. Objective 1F5a: Language should be changed to ‘Prohibit direct impact’ to provide stronger protection. Is minimum practical use the same as court takings standards? If not, then what is the difference? Objective 1F5a: Prohibit the direct impact of Critical Wildlife Habitat, Significant Natural Areas, and within 1,000 feet of Vernal Pools, except as necessary to protect public health and safety, or to provide for minimum practical use of in the absence of any alternative. Objective 1F5b: There is a need to define no net loss as habitat value quantity (e.g. acreage), quality (e.g. core forest vs. edge forest), type (e.g. scrub-shrub), and function (e.g. winter hibernaculum for timber rattlesnakes). The mitigation must meet requirements of the specific impacted species. Objective 1F5d: There is a need to define “feasible”. The granting of waiver language should clearly indicate that both NJHC and NJDEP permission is required. The first bullet point should be omitted because it would weaken protection of the best areas. A Vernal Pool represents a habitat opportunity, and should not be deleted on the basis of its specific occupation, or lack thereof, at a particular point in time. The second bullet point should be adjusted to state that ‘existing land uses present an impenetrable, human-made barrier’. Natural barriers do not occur in this region of New Jersey. The second bullet should read, “Existing land uses present a significant, insurmountable and permanent human, natural, or development barrier to vernal pool-breeding wildlife that is impossible to mitigate.” This language also occurs in Objective 1F5e (third bullet point). This objective (1F5d) conflicts directly with Objective 1F5a. If 1F5a states that exception can only be made for public health and safety of in minimum practical use, why is Objective 1F5d needed at all? Remove 1F5d for consistency and clarity. Objective 1F5e: The delineation should be modified only if it can be demonstrated that the land use changes are so extreme/permanent as to prevent habitat restoration. If the habitat is restorable to improve or expand adjacent habitat (like a small field in the midst of a contiguous forest), then a modification should not be allowed. Objective should include requirement for avoidance, then minimization then mitigation. Objective 1F5e: Clarification of when modification to a Critical Wildlife Habitat Area or Significant Natural Area may be allowed by removing natural barriers. Objective 1F5e: 3rd bullet: Existing land uses present a human or development barrier to the use of the site by species of concern; or Policy 1F7: Clarification of expanding Critical Wildlife Areas, Significant Natural Areas, and Vernal Pool buffers to include newly established Critical Wildlife Areas, Significant Natural Areas, Vernal Pool buffers, and interim sitings of rare and threatened wildlife and plants.


Policy 1F6 and Objective 1F6a: This is a good objective. Policy 1F7 and 1F8: Both policies should also include coordination with NJDEP. Policy 1F7 (Clarification): To establish standards and procedures for the identification of lands where it is necessary that Critical Wildlife Areas, Significant Natural Areas, or Vernal Pool buffers be expanded or created in order to protect an individual species or ecological community in the event that it is determined that a larger area is required to protect the functional integrity of the habitat, including interim sitings of rare and threatened wildlife and plants. (Add) Policy 1F9: To require that all public agency projects, including those of the Department of Transportation, Department of Community Affairs, Council on Affordable Housing, and both public and private water and sewer infrastructure and utilities, including gas, electric, telephone, cable, etc. are subject to the requirements of Highlands resource management programs designed to protect, enhance and restore critical wildlife habitats, significant natural areas and vernal pools. Policy 1G1 and 1G2: These are good policies with the caveats of above comments.

Subpart e. Land Preservation and Stewardship Objective 1H3a and 1H5e: These are both good examples of well-written, thoughtful objectives. Policy 1H5: Policy should state that a dedicated source of funding is needed for acquisition and stewardship. Stewardship is required to mitigate persistent and pervasive direct and indirect negative impacts on biodiversity and natural resources from a variety of human-related sources. Policy 1H8: This is another example of a very good policy. Policy 1H10: Clarification which would include non-profit organizations on the interagency working group coordinating open space activities. (Clarification): To promote and facilitate the formation of an interagency working group comprised of representatives of non-profit organizations and appropriate federal, state, and county agencies for the purpose of coordinating open space acquisition activities, including identification of high priority lands for preservation, land stewardship initiatives, and funding needs. Policy 1I1: It is very good to require municipalities and counties to include open space planning and management in their master plans. Policy 1J1: Clarification which would only allow the Forest Preservation Easement Program to operate through the NJDEP Green Acres program and to require Forest Stewardship Plans on all properties included in the Forest Preservation Easement Program.


Policy 1J1 (Clarification): To promote the creation of a Forest Preservation Easement Program for the Highlands Region, which would be eligible for use through the Green Acres Program only with a Forest Stewardship Plan approved by a state forester. Policy IJ1: Forest Preservation Easement Program should be solely administered by NJDEP because they have specific knowledge of biodiversity.

Subpart g. Lake Management Policy 1L1 (Clarification): “To establish tiers of lake management appropriate to management strategies that help protect lake water quality, ecosystem values and community value from the impacts of present and future development.” Objective 1L1a: “Lake management programs shall use the following management tiers around Highlands Region lakes of greater than 10 acres in size:” (Clarification): The scenic resources tier should be clarified to include historic and cultural resources, which frequently comprise an important part of the scenic resource of the NJ Highlands. This would be especially true of the landscape surrounding a developed lake.

• “A shoreland protection tier…” • “A water quality management tier…” • “A scenic/historic/cultural resources tier

Comment and clarification on the delineation of the scenic and historic/cultural resources tier: Comment and explanation: The scenic/historic/cultural tier will be viewed from many locations, both on the lake itself (boaters, swimmers, windsurfers, fishers) as well as from houses and roads on the opposite shore and slopes. The tier should therefore not be limited to what is seen from the opposite shore. Likewise, the tier should not be limited to a maximum of 1000 feet in depth, as on a lake surrounded by high, sloping hills, development beyond 1000 feet could have severe impacts. Developers will seek out ridge tops with views surrounding a lake to locate expensive large houses. These out-of-scale structures looming from ridge tops will destroy local community character as well as ecologically sensitive terrain that are home to special plants and ecotypes, as well as containing high public recreational values. Therefore, the definition of the scenic/historic/cultural tier must be designed to capture and protect these resources. A simple and uniform 1000 foot depth is unlikely to do so in many instances. Therefore, the area in the tier should include all the land that slopes down to the lake from a ridgeline above a lake, plus at least 100 feet additional over the top and down the backside of the ridge, to prevent taller structures from being constructed on the backside of a ridge and looming over the lake anyway. Proposed clarification and change in definition of the scenic/historic/cultural resources tier, reflecting the comment above:


“A scenic/historic/cultural resources tier consisting of an area measured perpendicular from the shoreline [300 feet] to the greater of 1000 feet perpendicular from the shoreline of the lake or 100 feet beyond the height of land (the ridge top) of the slopes surrounding the lake. Policy 1L2: “To establish and implement management strategies to help protect lake water quality, scenic, historic and cultural values, and ecosystem values from the impacts of present and future development for all lakes.” Objective 1L2c: “Implementation of standards through local development review and Highlands Project Review regarding the protection of visual and scenic resources and cultural and historic resources, including but not limited to requirements for vegetative screening of buildings, building height limitations, recommended building materials, forms, and design applications, and limits on tree and understory vegetation removal for reasons other than public health and safety or as the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the designated building envelope for the parcel proposed for development. Policy 1L3: “To require that conforming municipalities adopt and implement for all lakes the standards applicable to the shoreland protection and water quality management tiers; the standards applicable to the scenic/cultural/historic resources tier shall be adopted and implemented for all public lakes…..” Objective 1L3b: “Scenic/cultural/historic resource tier requirements shall apply to all lakes with public access and to lakes …….For lakes that are privately held and managed by a single homeowner or lake community association, the scenic/cultural/historic resource tier requirements shall be voluntary.” Policy 1L4: “To require that conforming municipalities develop and adopt lake management and restoration plans….. A vegetation survey should be required in these plans, both shoreland and water based-vegetation. Policy 1M1: “to provide guidance regarding evaluation of and standards for lake character and aesthetics, historic/cultural resources and ecological values, that shall be adopted by municipal ordinance for application to public lakes….” Policy 1M5: “To encourage municipalities to protect, maintain and restore the ecological values of lake recreation sites and to utilize them [recreational sites] as opportunities to educate the public to the ecological and water supply/quality values of lake environs.” Policy 1M6: “To encourage municipalities to explore appropriate means to provide public recreation at the shoreline and on the water while ensuring the maintenance, restoration and retention of opportunities for passive recreation (e.g. natural areas, open space) and for healthy lake ecosystems.”

Chapter IV. Goals, Policies and Objectives

Part 2. Water Resources and Water Utilities


Subpart a. Water Resources Availability Goal 2B calls for, “Protection, restoration and enhancement of water quality and quantity of surface and ground waters …and to determine “the amount and type of human development and activity which the ecosystem of the Highlands Region can sustain while still maintaining the overall ecological values thereof…” (Emphasis added) [Page 126, Final Draft RMP] Policy 2B4 would, “…require through Plan Conformance the development and implementation of Water Management Plans to address any Current Deficit Areas or subwatershed that could become deficit areas based on projected development and water uses, to ensure sustainable water supply, water resource and ecological values.” (Emphasis added) [Page 127, Final Draft RMP] Policy 2B5 is then established to, “…conditionally provide water availability within Current Deficit Area.” [Page 127, Final Draft RMP] A clear contradiction of goals -- There is an obvious disconnect between the Highlands Council’s acknowledgment in Goal 2C that its selected water availability methodology cannot be relied upon to protect stream ecology, Goal 2B’s commitment to protecting, restoring, and enhancing stream ecology, Policy 2B4’s commitment to eliminating current deficit areas, and Policy 2B5’s stated intention to conditionally permit additional water to be withdrawn from subwatersheds that are currently in deficit. The inherently inadequate Low Flow Margin method simply cannot be relied upon for accurate estimates of current net water availability and yet, even with this significant element of uncertainty, the Highlands Council is suggesting that additional water should be made available in deficit areas as long as some as yet undetermined “mitigation” is agreed upon, on a project-by-project basis, that would more than compensate for the water withdrawn. The Highlands Council’s duty is to ensure that the Highlands Regions’ water resources are protected, restored, and enhanced; including ecologically necessary stream flows in a region in which the Council’s own studies document the majority of the streams are already impaired. And yet, despite the Council’s acknowledgement that it lacks an ecologically-based water availability methodology that can ensure that its responsibilities are fulfilled, it nonetheless writes a policy calling for continued “mining” of water resources in documented deficit subwatersheds, even prior to implementing its own recommended water management programs to reduce deficits. This proposal fails to meet the clearly stated purpose of the Act to protect the Highlands Regions’ water resources. In the Coalition’s opinion, implementation of proposed Policy 2B5 and its related objectives 2B5a and 2B5b would be premature absent first fulfilling Goal 2C and Policy 2B4. Accordingly the following recommendation is made. The NJ Highlands Coalition recommends that implementation of proposed Policy 2B5 and its related objectives 2B5a and 2B5b be postponed until such time as the Highlands Council accomplishes Goal 2C and Policy 2B4. Objective 2B8d Give highest priority for the use of Net Water Availability to Highlands Redevelopment Areas and Receiving Zones as designated by the Highlands Council. Does this mean designation during after or never as a result of municipal conformance? Objective 2B9d Give highest priority for the use of Net Water Availability for agricultural and related water uses to those using best management practices for irrigation and other activities. These are thrown in scattershot all through the draft 2B9e, below, takes care of it.


Objective 2B9e Give highest priority for the use of Net Water Availability for non-agricultural water uses to clustered or compact development, Highlands Redevelopment Areas as designated by the Highlands Council, and designated Receiving Zones that result in the preservation of agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands. Objective 2B10d Give highest priority allocation of remaining Net Available Water to areas that can accommodate designated Receiving Zones. This raises a question of remaining after what, and, what is the relationship of Objectives referred to but is not reflected in the Programs.

Subpart b. Protection of Water Resources Quantity Goal 2C calls for “Refinement of water availability methods and estimates” and establishes Policy 2C1 in order to, “…improve estimates of New Water Availability over time, including testing, development and adoption of ecologically-based assessment techniques to evaluate the high and low flow needs of streams necessary to maintain the health of aquatic ecosystems, and the relationship between ground water recharge, ecological flow needs, consumptive water uses and estimates of water availability for both ground and surface water resources.” [Page 129, Final Draft RMP] Thus, the Final Draft RMP formally acknowledges that the current Low Flow Margin Factor of Safety methodology of estimating water availability is not ecologically-based and cannot be relied upon to accurately estimate flow needs of streams necessary to ensure the health of aquatic ecosystems. It is necessary that the Council work to expand its database by installing new monitoring stations throughout the region.

Subpart d. Sustainable Development and Water Resources

Objective 2K3d: The provision of a set resolute limit on impervious cover would be more desirable. Impervious cover limits such as those being pursued by NJCF should be set for Highlands Agricultural Resource Areas because limiting impervious cover is as important to water quality as protecting forest cover. This should be for a specific site not an entire project area. Prohibit expansion of public infrastructure for all development in the Preservation Area, including for clusters and redevelopment areas except for public health and safety, and limit such expansions in the Planning Area to areas adjacent to land uses of similar density and existing public infrastructure with capacity. Clustering adjacent to current sewers should only apply to a specific site and not consider other properties in the valley, town, or geographic area as adjacent as well. Finally, impervious cover limits must apply to the entire site if clustering is considered, which means that the 9% maximum must apply to all farm and residential buildings on the farmland portion and the calculation must add in the footprint of the cluster and its driveways and parking areas as well. The growth inducing features of public service extensions, the “chaining” of such expansions as well as the proliferation of scattered and piecemeal development of small cluster are a major concern. Revise the Policies and Objectives 2K3d et seq. to clarify the prohibition against the expansion of infrastructure into clusters in the Preservation Area. Clarify that expansions of


public systems can only take place in the Planning Area for clusters that meet all the other criteria and standards including adjacency to areas of similar density and served by existing public infrastructure. Prohibit clusters into which public sewers and/or water have been extended since 2004 from serving as the required adjacency as described above. There are numerous RMP policies and Objectives that relate to the expansion of infrastructure. For example, Objective 2K3d seems to require that any expansion of wastewater systems to serve clusters in the Agricultural Resource Area be within or immediately adjacent to an Existing Area Served (i.e. pipes in the ground), without distinguishing the Preservation from the Planning Area which have different legislative requirements for sewer extensions. The RMP states that the Council shall also consider areas identified as appropriate for clustered development as Future Sewer Service Areas when the cluster development will have densities that prohibit the use of septic systems” Waste Water Management Plans should not set the stage for future development by establishing Future Service Areas when no cluster development planning has been finalized. There could just become a future service area with no criteria for cluster development. Project Review Standards state as follows. “New, expanded or extended wastewater collection or treatment systems outside of Existing Areas Served in the Preservation Area and in the Protection and Conservation Zone of the Planning Area are prohibited unless they are shown to be necessary for and are approved by the Highlands Council to address a demonstrated threat to public health and safety that cannot reasonably be addressed through on-site alternatives, for Highlands Redevelopment Areas, [remove or for cluster development] that is otherwise consistent with the Resource Protection and Smart Growth standards and policies of the RMP. In each case, extension of existing wastewater systems shall only occur if the area to be served is adjacent to an Existing Area Served. Otherwise, community-based on-site treatment facilities shall be created that only serve the proposed project, shall not include infrastructure to support future growth, and shall have legal guarantees that prohibit the provision of services to secondary growth. The Act allows for the extension of sewers only in the case of public health and safety. The RMP polices must reflect this clear language. Permits from NJDEP, where they are considered an expansion of a public system at least in the preservation area, are hard to get and certainly never expedited. Exceptions are rare because such systems, and their nitrate loading of the ground water, would make meeting the Nitrate dilution extremely difficult when combined with the other uses of the parcel. It would be highly inappropriate to have a proliferation of small community systems in the conservation or protection zone. Municipalities in planning for Clusters and transfers to non-contiguous lots should be required to take both the point and non-point loadings and cumulative impact into consideration as per the Highlands Act. Because of these serious and continuing losses of farmland, we cannot support the policies in the RMP that encourage more development of agricultural lands, including clustered development. Development on agricultural lands reduces the amount of land available for agriculture and does not protect farmland soils. 2K4C: “Allow the expansion or creation of wastewater collection systems beyond Existing Areas Served to serve lands which are appropriate… to serve cluster


development or to provide for minimum practical use…” Change the language by removing “to serve cluster development, or to provide for minimum practical use in the absence of any alternative through issuance of a waiver by NJDEP or the Highlands Council,” because neither cluster development, nor minimum practical use can maximize the protection of sensitive environmental resources nor an agricultural land base for the future, which are stated goals of the RMP. We also urge the Council to include the following language in the RMP: “Expansion of public wastewater collection and treatment systems and community on-site treatment facilities within the Preservation Area are prohibited expect as necessary for public health and safety.”

Chapter IV. Goals, Policies and Objectives

Part 3. Agricultural Resources

Change title of Part 3 to “Part 3. Agricultural/Farmland Resources” General comments: Agricultural soils, including prime soils, soils of statewide importance, unique soils and locally important soils require strong protection throughout the Highlands Region. Specifically, locally important soils are key Highlands’s resources needing strict protections. Agriculture in this region depends upon locally important soils. To allow development here would devastate the viability of the local agricultural economy as well as the important historic pastoral qualities that define this region. We urge the Council to extend strict protections to not only prime soils, but also soils of statewide importance, unique soils and locally important soils. As food security issues continue to come to the fore, it is imperative that all agricultural soils and agricultural lands be available for sustainable food production. Any limited permissible uses within the Agricultural Resource Area should protect soils for cropland, water recharge and habitat. Agricultural expansion such as crop farming and grazing that do not result in reduced water quality or the paving over of agricultural soils should be encouraged in the Highlands Region. There is a growing awareness and demand among New Jerseyans for local food production, and maintaining healthy cropland can help meet this demand. Proper management of nutrient pollution from agricultural areas should be mandatory, particularly where intensive practices in the Agricultural Resource Area have resulted in greater pollution problems than smaller agricultural areas might experience. The Council should develop a strong monitoring system to ensure that agricultural practices do not degrade water quality in the future, which would conflict with the goals of the Highlands Act. The Council should also provide oversight of best management practices to ensure that the coordination with NJDA and NJDEP does in fact result in the protection of the Highlands’ water quality. Because greater pollution has resulted in these intensive agriculture areas, farmers will have to modify their practices so that water quality is restored and enhanced. We suggest that the Council assist farmers in implementing Natural Resources Conservation Service and Farm


Service Agency practices on their farms. These programs include the Wetlands Reserve Program, which pays farmers to protect agricultural wetlands; the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, which pays 100% of the cost to plant riparian buffers and filter strips; and the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, which assists farmers to transition to organic agriculture and provides efficient irrigation system cost share. The paperwork involved for these programs can be burdensome and many farmers may not be aware of the assistance available to them; hence the need for Council assistance and outreach. Introduction: Please make the following changes to the introduction: Agriculture and farmland, especially preserved farmland, is an important part of the essential character of the Highlands Region’s culture, landscape, and economy. Farmland is also an important scenic resource in the region, that provides important economic benefits to the Highlands Region in the form of agricultural production and agritourism, provides food to area residents using less energy than would be required to import produce from other regions and helps maintain the Highland’s rural character. Residential development pressure has resulted in the loss of farmland and prime agricultural soils, as well as the erosion of the rural character in some parts of the Highlands. Preserving farmland in the Highlands is a top priority. Policy 3A1 (Clarification): To create and maintain an inventory of agricultural lands which includes lands which are used for agricultural purposes or which contain soils which are highly suitable for agricultural use and to prioritize these lands for permanent preservation. Policy 3A3 (Clarification): To consider Prime, Statewide Importance, Unique, and Locally Important soils as Important Farmland Soils which are critical agricultural resources of the Highlands Region that should be permanently protected. Policy 3A5: Promotes farmland preservation within the Agricultural Resource Areas through fee simple acquisition, less than fee acquisition, Transfer of Development Rights and other agricultural land conservation techniques. To best meet this policy goal, the New Jersey Highlands Council could research all potential sources for conservation funding available and hold outreach workshops for landowners on every preservation option that exists. Objective 3A6a, Objectives 3A10a-d, Policies 3C1-2, and Policies 3D1-3; These Policies and Objectives should guide Implementation by way of reference to better establish standards of conduct. Objective 3A6a “or are compatible with cluster development that preserves agricultural lands” should be deleted because cluster development is inherently not compatible with viable agricultural and must only be considered when the cluster and the farm buildings can meet both the maximum 9% impervious cover limit and can meet the nitrate limit at the edge of the property factoring in non-point source nitrates from the actively farmed lands and the nitrate loads from the cluster itself. Cluster development does not enhance agricultural resources, phrase should be deleted.


(Clarification) Objective 3A6a: Implementation of regulations which limit non-agricultural uses within an Agricultural Resource Area to those uses that support the preservation of farmland and the continued viability of the agricultural industry, [Delete: or are compatible with cluster development.] Cluster development is not an agricultural use, nor does it protect and maintain the essential character of the Highlands as mandated by the Act – should be deleted. (Add) Objective 3A6b: Implementation of regulations that prohibit non-agricultural development on agricultural soils so that critical soils are permanently protected in order to ensure the continued viability of Highlands agriculture and local food production. (Add) Objective 3A6c: Implementation of regulations that prohibit non-agricltural development on farmland so that the essential character of the Highlands Region is maintained, as directed by the Highlands Act. Policy 3A7 (Clarification): To permit through local development review and Highlands Project Review limited development, only for family and farm worker housing in Agricultural Resource Areas which are accessory to and/or supportive of sustainable agriculture, subject to compliance with the resource management programs of the RMP. Explicit standards are needed for what constitutes Agricultural Housing, limits to its use and location and how “development” activities are regulated to ensure enhancement of agriculture as a land use. As in other areas of the Draft RMP, there are no standards governing agricultural housing and permitted land uses on agricultural lands and /or preserved areas of cluster development. e.g. the permitted uses as described above in Objectives, Project Review that permit “additional land use opportunities” expressly permit these non-farm uses “by-right” and “above the minimum land area threshold” and further states that this activity “enhances the ability of the farm to continue as an agricultural operation”. As an example how does a totally unregulated farm tractor repair operation that uses toxic materials, needs parking space and impermeable surfaces operating on 50 % of a farm meet the goals of the Act? How does an aquaculture operation requiring huge greenhouse like buildings, housing and parking for workers meet the goals of the Act? There are no controls in the plan as to how such land uses will be controlled to save farmland. Policy 3A8 (Clarification): To [Delete: encourage] require the use of [Delete and/or clarify meaning of: agro-forestry] best management practices and techniques on cultivated farmland located within the Agricultural Resource Area and the Forest Resource Area. The Highlands Council should require BMP’s in order to meet stated goal 3A Protection and Enhancement of the Agricultural Resources of the Highlands Region. Policy 3A9 (Clarification): To implement programs which encourage owners and operators of farmland with woodlots with Agricultural Resource Areas to prepare and implement approved [Delete: Forest Management Plans] Forest Stewardship Plans that conform to the resource protection standards of this Plan.


Objective 3A9a (Clarification): Coordinate with the State Forester, NJDEP and conservation experts to provide guidance for the development of [Remove: Forest Management Plans] Forest Stewardship Plans that improve maintenance of ecosystem and water resource values of the Highlands Region. Policy 3A10 (Clarification): To establish and implement resource management programs which protect agricultural resources during site plan or subdivision review and approval for construction of ancillary structures and housing for family and farm workers that are necessary to support farm operations. Objective 3A10a (Clarification): “Implement regulations which ensure non-agricultural land development within an Agricultural Resource Area (ARA) protects and enhances agricultural production, protects important farmland soils, and meets other natural resource management and protection requirements.” Change language to: “Implement regulations which ensure non-agricultural land development is prohibited within an Agricultural Resource Area.” Any development on important farmland soils will harm those soils and should be prohibited. We strongly urge the Council to prohibit all development within the Highlands Region Agricultural Resource Areas, including clustered development. In addition, all farm family and agricultural labor housing, as well as agricultural infrastructure, should be allowed on a very limited basis, and prohibited on prime soils and in environmentally constrained areas. Objective 3A10b (Clarification): Implementation of regulations which provide that all [Delete: non-agricultural land development] farm family and agricultural labor development which is proposed in an Agricultural Resource Area comply with open space design requirements to avoid conflicts between such development and agricultural activities and protect farmland and sensitive environmental resources. Objective 3A10c (Clarification): Implementation of regulations which require mandatory clustering for [Delete: residential development] farm family and agricultural labor development in an Agricultural Resource Area such that at least 80% of the parcel proposed for [Delete: residential development] farm family and agricultural labor development is preserved as farmland or natural resource area. In no way does clustering residential units on farmland meet the Goal 3A for the Protection and Enhancement of the Agricultural Resources of the Highland Region. Clustering must only be permitted for farm housing and agricultural buildings. Objective 3A10d (Clarification): Implementation of regulations which require that all land preserved as farmland or natural resource area as a result of clustering or as a result of designation as a TDR sending area be subject to a conservation easement enforceable and monitored on a regular basis by the appropriate municipality, or a qualified nonprofit organization, and the Highlands Council. Policy 3A11 (Clarification): To require agricultural [Delete: activities] operations which [Delete: involve] incur agricultural impervious surfaces of greater than 3% but less than 9%, to


prepare and obtain approval for a Farm Conservation Plan from the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. Policy 3A12 (Clarification): To require agricultural [activities] operations which [involve] incur agricultural impervious surfaces of 9% or greater to prepare and obtain approval of a Resource Management System Plan from the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service in the Planning Area. Police 3A13 (Clarification): To advocate for the amendment of the Farmland Assessment Act to permit the inclusion of credits for the control of invasive species, white-tailed deer reduction programs, protection and enhancement of wildlife and rare, threatened and endangered species habitat, protection of riparian areas, rare plants, Significant Natural Areas, vernal pools and the water value of [a] well-managed agricultural lands. Policy 3A14: Promotes working with the SADC and GSPT to establish an incentive program for any landowners accepting a 5% impervious cover limitation when preserving their farms. We urge the Council to implement this program as soon as possible to avoid further loss of agricultural soils. Properly managed agricultural lands can help decrease global warming by increasing carbon sequestration but only if the soil is available for crops, and not removed, compacted or built upon. We remain very concerned that farmland is not sufficiently protected by the RMP. The Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act (the Act) emphasizes the economic benefits that agriculture provides the region, concern regarding the loss of farmland over recent decades, the “irreplaceable loss of important farmland soils,” and the need to protect and maintain the essential character of the Highlands environment, including rural landscapes. The RMP states (page 55), “The Highlands Region has experienced a steady loss of agricultural lands representing an average rate of loss of 1,700 acres per year, a 19% decline between 1986 and 2002, representing over 27,500 acres. According to the NJDA, between 1998 and 2003 there was an 8% decrease in farmland.” (Add) Policy 3A15: To establish an incentive program for any landowner in the Highlands Region seeking to preserve land under the farmland preservation program who would agree to permanently restrict the amount of impervious coverage, including agricultural impervious surfaces, to a maximum of five percent of the farm’s total land area, as called for by the Highlands Act. (Section 6.w) (Add) Policy 3A16: To preserve farmland in both the Preservation Area and the Planning Area by designating it as a Sending Area in the Transfer of Development Rights Program (TDR). (Add) Objective 3A16a: Implementation of a TDR program that allows farmland in both the Preservation and the Planning Area to be designated as Sending Areas in the TDR program, while areas with or adjacent to existing sewer and infrastructure and deemed appropriate for development by the NJ Highlands Council may be designated as Receiving Areas.


Policy 3B2 (Clarification): To promote…Highlands Region through innovative programs, including but not limited to health care, …. Policy 3B3 (Clarification): To seek additional funding…programs for sustainable, non-detrimental agriculture…. Policy 3B4 (Clarification): To promote and enhance…agricultural practices including but not limited to direct marketing…agro-tourism, organic farming and CSA. Policy 3B5 (Clarification): To promote and enhance innovative agricultural practices including direct marketing, farmers markets, community commercial kitchens for value-added products, road side stands, agri-tourism, and community supported agriculture. (Add) Policy 3B6: To support proposals to enhance the long-term viability of the agriculture industry in the Highlands Region through innovative programs with regard to sustainable and organic agriculture. Policy 3C1: “To prohibit through Plan Conformance… the development of additional water and wastewater infrastructure in a [sic] Agricultural Resource Area within the Protection Zone and Preservation Area, unless… to serve… a mandatory cluster development, or to provide for minimum practical use in the absence of any alternative through issuance of a waiver…” Cluster Development should not be allowed in an Agricultural Resource Area. This policy would also allow the development of additional water and wastewater infrastructure “to provide for minimum practical use in the absence of any alternative through issuance of a waiver by NJDEP or the Highlands Council…” This language, “to provide for minimum practical use in the absence of any alternative through issuance of a waiver by NJDEP or the Highlands Council…” should be deleted, because it is too open ended and could allow harmful development. (Clarification): “To prohibit through Plan Conformance…the development of additional water and wastewater infrastructure in an Agricultural Resource Area within the Protection Zone and the Preservation Area, except where such additional infrastructure is necessary to address an existing public health concern, [Delete: a redevelopment waiver, or to provide for minimum practical use in the absence of any alternative through issuance of a waiver by NJDEP.] mandatory clustering, or open space design development for family and farm labor housing or limited agricultural infrastructure are located in or directly adjacent to existing infrastructure, subject to approval by the Highlands Council. Policy 3C2 (Clarification): To prohibit the development of additional water and wastewater infrastructure in a Agricultural Resource Area in a Conservation Zone, except in or directly adjacent to existing infrastructure and where such additional infrastructure is necessary to address the needs of an existing public health concern [Delete: a redevelopment waiver, or to provide for minimum practical use in the absence of any alternative through issuance of a waiver by NJDEP] or mandatory clustering or open space design development for family and farm labor housing or limited agricultural infrastructure, subject to approval by the Highlands Council.


Policy 3D2: To promote efforts…IPM, ICM programs, and organic farming and other...techniques that reduces or eliminates pesticide and chemical fertilizer use …. Policy 3D3: “To identify subwatersheds with elevated nitrate levels, develop management plans for enhancing water quality, and implementing those plans in ways that enhance agricultural viability wherever feasible.” If nitrate levels are elevated, only agricultural practices that won’t exacerbate that problem should be allowed; if this is not feasible, no agriculture should take place in these areas. Policy 3E3: Requires conforming municipalities and counties to incorporate Right-to-Farm provisions in their master plans and development regulations. It must be mandated that Right-to-Farm provisions do not trump the natural resource and environmental protection standards of the Highlands Act and NJDEP regulations. They currently do not trump NJDEP regulations although this could be reiterated. The mention of the “Right to Farm” should removed from the RMP especially in consideration of uses of lands in the ARA for anything but active agriculture which meets the impervious limits of the RMP, utilizes BMP’s and farms organically. Additional Land Use Opportunities: Additional business opportunities should not be allowed on farms in the Highlands as a matter of right. We respectfully urge the Council to delete this entire paragraph, because it unfairly allows farm owners unlimited use of their land, which no other landowner is allowed, with the exception of the residential use exemption. If home businesses are to be allowed on farms, there must be strict standards set to be sure that no negative impacts to Highlands’s natural resources, including water, occur.

Chapter IV. Goals, Policies and Objectives Part 4. Historic, Cultural, and Archaeological Resources

General Comments: The plan recognizes that SHPO can assist with development of processes and standards, but beyond that, we recommend that a member of the SHPO staff be formally attached to the Highlands staff to perform the reviews that are outside of the Council’s statutory authority. Precedents for this arrangement exist, for example, in SHPO’s agreements with the DOT and NJ Transit. No additional legislation would be needed. The process can be funded by applicant fees. The presence/absence determination for a resource is not enough, even if it is unambiguous. Every resource must be considered in context, and the decision must be broad enough to prevent degradation of context. The terms context and degradation of context should be defined in the glossary. It is an excellent idea to provide a set of design guidelines specific to the Highlands. Presumably this would cover not only the usual topics like architectural forms, scale, massing, etc., but also the land use arrangements and other aspects of context characteristic of the area.


References to the use of the Secretary of the Interior’s standards are confusing and unidiomatic, particularly when qualified by the impenetrable term “at a minimum.” There are four kinds of Secretary’s standards; each applies in accordance with the kind of work being proposed: restoration, renovation, rehabilitation, or adaptive reuse. Laymen have difficulty interpreting them. Professionals wishing to divine the intent behind the plan’s current use of the terms will be at a loss. The review process offers a built-in opportunity to let applicants contribute to the maintenance of the Highlands inventory. As is required for reviews under Section 106 of the federal historic preservation law, applicants should be required to identify newly-recognized historic resources within an area of potential effect, according to a detailed standard. Beyond providing information from Register listings and inventories of the previously-identified, for projects of a certain size the research and identification should be carried out by a preservation professional. In example, for the Canfield project, the applicant could have presented their cited archaeological work, though it was in fact limited to the identification of mine shaft entrances, and did not look for auxiliary building foundations or other relevant ruins. Introduction Second Paragraph “….. Scenic resources are sites, landscapes and vistas that are remarkable, [or] distinctive [because] or outstanding examples of geology, topography, vegetation, history, culture or use of land. In the Highlands Region, reservoirs, lakes and ponds, topography forming ridgelines and mountainsides, panoramic views, streams and rivers, forests, wetlands and meadows, agricultural landscapes, scenic roads, trails and viewpoints, and leafy suburbs are important scenic resources. The scenic beauty of the Highlands is widely appreciated by both residents and visitors, and forms the basis of a growing Highlands tourism/ ecotourism/ agritourism industry. The Highlands Council has assembled a Historic and Cultural Resource Inventory and a Scenic Resources Inventory.” (Add) Policy 4B6: To establish a Highlands Council Scenic Resources/Design Advisory Review Board to review and update the Highlands Scenic Resources Inventory, to develop standards to ensure that Highlands Scenic Resources are not impaired by new human development, and to review human development proposed for the Highlands to ensure that it does not adversely affect the character or value of resources listed on the Highlands Scenic Resources Inventory. (Add) Policy 4C4: Require that municipalities conduct an inventory of their archaeological, historic and cultural resources. (Add) Policy 4C5: Encourage municipalities to conduct a scenic inventory process, involving local residents, to identify locally significant scenic resources. (Add) Policy 4C6: Encourage municipalities to establish and designate a system of local Scenic Roads and corridors.


(Add) Policy 4C7: Encourage municipalities to establish a scenic resources/design advisory board to review and provide recommendations to the Planning Board, Board of Adjustment and Land Use Board on applications for development, alterations to existing development, proposed public works and utility projects, signage, and streetscapes that may affect scenic resources listed on the Highlands Scenic Resource Inventory or those identified through a municipal scenic resources identification process.

Chapter IV. Goals, Policies and Objectives Part 5. Transportation

Introduction The Introduction to this section needs to acknowledge that the Highlands Act goals for transportation differ between the Preservation Area and the Planning Area. Specific to the Planning Area is the Highlands Act goal “To promote a sound, balanced transportation system that is consistent with smart growth strategies and principles and which preserves mobility in the Highlands Region.” The Act mentions NO transportation goal for the Preservation Area. Consequently, one must deduce that the promotion of a transportation system is not, in fact, a Preservation Area goal, and that the development of a transportation system may have been viewed as inconsistent with the Act’s other goals for the Preservation Area. (Add) Policy 5A6: To accord lower priority to commuter mobility across the Highlands that is unrelated to the region itself, e.g. between Pennsylvania and New York City, and that is likely to be detrimental to Highlands protection goals, e.g. oppose Lackawanna Cutoff reactivation. (Add) Policy 5A7: In the Planning Area, promote a sound, balanced transportation system that is consistent with smart growth strategies and principles and which preserves mobility in the Highlands Region. (Add) Policy 5A8: In the Preservation Area, minimize transportation infrastructure improvements and transportation impacts to Highlands natural and man-made resources and the essential character of the Region, to the maximum extent possible. (Add) Policy 5A9: To evaluate opportunities to increase non-recreational bicycle transportation for commuting and services through the preservation and development of abandoned rail lines as rail-trails, as well as development of road related bicycle routes and facilities. (Add) Policy 5A10: Support protection and development of historic transportation corridors to increase recreational tourism opportunities, e.g. support development of the Lackawanna Cutoff as a world-class rail-trail. GOAL 5B (Clarification): MAINTENANCE OF THE LEVEL OF SERVICE ON THE EXISTING HIGHLANDS ROAD SYSTEM WITHOUT THE USE OF INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS THAT COULD TRIGGER ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS THAT ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR “GROWTH INDUCING” LAND USES, INCLUDING THE MAJORITY OF THE HIGHLANDS PRESERVATION AREA.


Policy 5B3 (Clarification): To prohibit through Plan Conformance and Highlands Project Review road improvements in the Highlands Region which a Growth Inducing Study demonstrates that proposed improvements are likely to be growth-inducing for lands with limited or no capacity to support human development without an adverse impact on the Highlands ecosystem or the essential character of the Highlands region. GOAL 5C (Clarification): TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE HIGHLANDS REGION THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE HIGHLANDS ACT AND WITH THE HIGHLANDS REGIONAL MASTER PLAN. Objective 5C2a (Clarification): Highlands Region transportation site development activities will reflect Highlands Act and Regional Master Plan resource protection, development, and redevelopment goals. (Add) Objective 5C2b: Support Regional tourism economy by designation and protection of scenic roadway corridors, bikeways, trails, viewpoints and viewsheds, and through protection of the scenic and historic character of existing roads, bridges, and other transportation infrastructure. Policy 5C3 (Clarification): To limit road improvements through local development review and Highlands Project Review, including expansion of historic bridges, where roads are are constrained by location in the Preservation Area, Protection Zone or Conservation Zone, topography, forested lands, wetlands, vernal pools, riparian areas, open waters, habitat of Threatened, Endangered or Rare species, historic, cultural, archaeological or scenic resources or the community character of land uses fronting on the road. Policy 5C7 (Clarification): To require conforming counties to develop a transportation plan that supports local and regional land use planning that promotes connectivity, shared service opportunities and long-term transportation network needs, and demonstrates consistency with the Highlands Act goals and the Regional Master Plan. (Add) Objective 5D1d: Increase opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle transportation in the Highlands Region and adjacent areas, through development of railtrails, other offroad bicycle routes, and designation of bicycle lanes on existing roadways. Policies 5D2 and Polices 5D3: The New Jersey Highlands Coalition supports these policies.

Chapter IV. Goals, Policies and Objectives Part 6. Future Land Use

Policy 6I1: To encourage new growth, where desired by the municipality, and development in the Existing Community Zone in the form of center based and mixed use development. Again we have a series of policies with no back up Objectives or Standards to judge their implementation. Throughout the rest of the RMP, similar policies cross-reference the goal of the RMP to protect natural resources especially water quality and quantity. This policy must state


that it encourages new growth where it is environmentally appropriate and only where it will benefit the cultural or natural resources of a municipality and the region.

Chapter IV. Goals, Policies and Objectives Part 7. Landowner Fairness

General Comments The title of this section must be “Landowner Equity”. The value of HDC’s must also be solely based on the ecological value of the property being preserved. The TDR program is a preservation program, not a compensation program. 1. General Comments

a. It is imperative that the transfer not adversely impact the cultural or natural resources of the receiving area.

b. Policies and strategies must be developed to care for deed restricted sending areas. c. Provide incentives for preservation of cultural assets in receiving areas. d. The Draft RMP purports to set out the policy framework for a Transfer of Development

Rights program. As is the case with many other aspects of the draft RMP, it is quite difficult to comment on the policy statements without access to underlying data, including but not limited to build out analyses and capacity assessments of the Highlands region.

e. The Act requires that the TDR program be consistent with the State TDR law. Both the state TDR law and the Highlands Act require a real estate analysis. A real estate analysis cannot be completed without identifying with some specificity receiving areas. It is not enough to simply state that areas within the planned community designation are appropriate receiving areas. The Council must determine a capacity based build out to estimate the ability of the region to absorb the development credits.

f. The Draft RMP would permit municipalities to participate in the TDR program i.e. sending zones or receiving zones, without conformance with the Regional Master Plan. This policy should be eliminated except in the case of municipalities outside the Highlands Area. If indeed the Highlands TDR program is to be consistent with the statewide MLUL TDR requirements as stated in the Act those municipalities should have achieved endorsement under the State Development and Redevelopment Plan.

2. Sending Area Policies a. Sending Areas Delineation - Importantly, the Draft recognizes that identification of

sending and receiving areas is a critical first step in the development of a TDR program. It is the Coalition’s position that Highlands TDR sending areas be limited to the Preservation area at the outset. The mandatory opt in for municipalities in this area and the DEP regulations will make the work quantifiable in a way that even upon adoption of this RMP will not be possible in the Planning Area. The additional sending areas of municipalities in the Planning Area as they opt in will be easily accomplished in later years.

b. Allocation - The policies concerning the allocation of Highlands Credits are worrisome in their level of complexity. As the Council has taken steps towards implementing these policies, it has put forward a system that will result in the use of no fewer than 59 market adjustment factors to be used in allocating credits. At the outset, the calculation of the


market factors will be open to challenge followed closely by the potential for each and every property owner to challenge the application of a particular market factor in his or her application for allocation of credits. This creates the potential for more money to be spent on litigation than preservation, which truly would undermine the goals of the Act. There is no suggestion in the Act that market, relative value of resources, or any other variable is to be taken into account. Realizing how variable the market can be over time and space it is our recommendation that the allotment be based on the actual loss of development potential as measured in units of development. Those could be measured in units of housing or square-feet of commercial. As for the allotment being based on “the importance of the resources” on a sending zone property it is far too judgmental and unpredictable a call to make and its fairness could easily be called into question. It also will vary wildly from place to place. The Coalition does recommend incentivizing landowners to forgo exempt development by awarding some additional measure of credits to those who choose not to exercise their exemptions.

c. Regardless of the allocation method, the RMP should state clearly the impact an allocation of HDCs will have on a subject parcel. It should clearly explain that: Once the rights have been severed from the land and the remainder interest reflected in a deed restriction the holder of such rights may then keep the rights as an investment, use them as collateral for loans or sell them to a developer in the receiving area. Once a parcel’s development potential is severed, the parcel is encumbered with either a deed restriction or conservation easement, limiting its future use in perpetuity. Underlying ownership of the encumbered parcel remains with the existing landowner until he or she decides to transfer the deed restricted parcel to another owner. As for the transferred development potential, once it has been severed and is held as a marketable investment, as collateral for loans or sold, it cannot be restored.

3. Receiving Area Policies a. The success of the TDR program depends in part on the existence of sufficient demand to

absorb the credits. While the market will, and does, provide the return on investment just as in the case of stocks or bonds, the availability of opportunities underlies the program’s success. Towards that end the Council should require that in order to be approved as a receiving area, municipalities should require the use of transferred Highlands Development Credits for a percentage of the units in its receiving area. Municipalities may develop their own system for that use but must have some mandatory use of HDCs. Moreover, to be eligible for receiving area benefits, municipalities must require the purchase and retirement of some amount of transferable rights take place before any waiver of development standards is granted by the municipality and the Council.

b. The Coalition suggests that receiving areas should be required to use Transferred Credits for all development and not just for bonus densities.

4. TDR Bank Policies a. The RMP should include a requirement that the Highlands Development Bank shall not

sell or establish values of Highlands credits in a manner that disrupts the functioning of the market. The council is required to establish an initial price for the purchase of credits but the market alone should be responsible for adjustments.

GOAL 7B PROVISION FOR COMPENSATION TO LANDOWNERS IN THE PRESERVATION AREA WHOSE PROPERTIES HAVE LIMITED OR NO CAPACITY TO


SUPPORT ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND WHO ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY BURDENED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE HIGHLANDS ACT THROUGH A REGION-WIDE PROGRAM OF TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. This is a first and may be replicated in other regulatory programs. It should at least be couched as reduced beneficial use not in terms of future additional development. What does the term “disproportionately” really mean? The TDR program will provide landowners in areas which are not marketable as development areas, for the public good, to areas of marketable potential. None of the Policies and Objectives under this Goal is repeated in the Program Section. The TDR program is absolutely not a program of compensation, but rather a preservation tool. Language referring to the program including the title, “Landowner Fairness,” is absolutely inconsistent with the intent of the program for preservation purposes. It should be called “Landowner Equity.” Policy 7B4: The Highlands TDR program shall provide for the allocation of Highlands Development Credits to landowners in the Preservation Area where reasonable future development expectations have been disproportionately limited by the provisions of the Highlands Act or implementation of the programs established by the RMP. Again this is a total judgment call. It would imply that some are more affected by regulation than others and thus be prioritized. Would one then prioritize those without or chose not to use exemptions? TDR credits should be based on ecological value of the land which is being preserved, not based on the reasonable future development expectations of landowners. Through this valuation, the Highlands Council can ensure that they are transferring appropriate development outside of the region not just any theoretical possibility of new development. Objective 7B6e: Establishment of Receiving Zones where Highland Development Credits can be used as soon as possible. No standards exist yet in RMP. Policy 7B8: The allocation of Highlands Development Credits to individual Sending Zone parcels shall be adjusted according to the location of the parcel within the Highlands Region, the comparative development potential of the parcel, the regional resource value of the parcel, and likelihood of the parcel’s development under an exemption. How is this to be judged? On an impartial factual basis who will decide if that particular parcel might or might not get developed or even marketed in the future? Policy 7C8: The Highlands Development Credit Bank shall monitor real estate values throughout the Highlands region and shall submit an annual report to the Highlands Council, including a recommendation with regard to the minimum value of a Highlands Development Credit. It is unclear how this will work, as the HC attempts to change the values arbitrarily over time. If the market were established through the bank, buyers and sellers would set their own values and


the HC wouldn’t be using real estate consultants to arbitrarily move prices up and down-- and depending on what? What the property looked like? Where the property with the HDCs is held is located? What happens when someone decides to buy up and hold some HDCs for investment? What happens to HDCs being held as collateral will those owners have to come with more or less collateral depending on the report? Policy 7D4: Highlands municipalities in the Planning Area may seek designation of Receiving Zones and participate in the Highlands TDR program without regard to whether such municipality is in conformance with the Highlands RMP. There are no standards by which to measure consistency with the RMP, no ability to ascertain whether the rest of the municipal planning is in conformance with the RMP. Should only happen during conformance for inside towns and certain standards re infrastructure capacity maybe even endorsement for outside towns. Policy 7D6: The Highlands Council shall provide Highlands’s municipalities with financial grants-in aid for planning and feasibility studies in support of designating appropriate Receiving Zones. No grants should be given for any municipality unless they are moving to conformance. Policy 7D7: A Highlands municipality in the Protection or Conservation Zone in the Preservation Area may limit the use of Highlands Development Credits to intra-municipal transfers in designated Receiving Zones if the Highlands Council determines that the goals, policies and objectives of the Highlands RMP will be best served by a determination of conformance, notwithstanding the limited use of Highlands Development Credits within the municipality. Policy 7E2: To identify ways and means by which the highest possible value of Highlands Development Credits can be achieved. This is totally up to the market. These are programs to even out the windfalls and wipeouts between the growth and the protection areas. If the market for development is down there are few windfalls and therefore no wipeout. If the market is good the HDC program allows the preservation area landowners to market their otherwise unmarketable development rights. Policy 7F4: The Highlands Council shall not find a Highlands municipality in conformance with the Highlands RMP unless the municipal master plan and development regulations require the use of equivalent Highlands Development Credits for any locally approved increases in development or redevelopment density or intensity of use through variances or municipal ordinance modification that occur after the date of Highlands Council determination of conformance. This statement doesn’t make sense. These would be call ups under the Project Review. Are they saying that variances are ok as long as they require the use of HDCs? This is one of several Policies with no supporting Objectives.


Policy 7G2: To provide an opportunity for landowners whose property is entitled to an exemption under the Highlands Act to voluntarily apply for and receive an allocation of Highland Development Credits in lieu of developing on-site under the provisions of Section 30. There are no objectives or standards supporting this policy making it impossible to judge its ability to either deliver or judge what the potential for HDCs from this source could or would be.

Chapter IV. Goals, Policies and Objectives Part 8. Sustainable Economic Development (SED)

SED needs to be put in the context of the overriding need to regain adequate water supplies. If an area proposed for development has a water deficit, the proposal needs to be cognizant of and subservient to this, and the preferred hierarchy expressed in other sections of these Comments utilized: avoidance, minimization, mitigation, respectively. Even more preferably, development should, at minimal risk of performance failure, contribute to a net increase in water recharge. If the proposed development can not meet the above overriding need, then it should not be allowed. In addition, there is no discussion, objectives, policies or goals that view sustainable economic development within the confines of their overall carbon footprint for the Highlands and what effect these potential businesses will have on climate change Even the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences have studies coordinating 52 climate models showing that the northeast area of the U.S will be suffering from ‘drought and deluge’ as global temperatures rise. Economic development should at the very least not exacerbate this pattern. This section of the Draft RMP is a mixed bag of areas where the document is fully consistent with the tenets of sustainability, key areas (both problems and opportunities) are entirely missed, and some alarming areas where sustainability is misapplied and a bias shown. While not often explicit, one can look at the whole Highlands Act as a huge regional initiative to ensure the sustainability of New Jersey’s water supply. The concept of “Sustainability” has not been a common way to frame these issues, nor its tenets explicitly used to guide the formulation and evaluation of policies. There is no reason why it can’t be so utilized, and there would be multiple benefits to doing so. The Draft RMP is consistent with sustainability tenets and is at its best when it mentions that:

“The trends of the past cannot be sustained (page 67)” “Economic development… (must) involve the sustainable use of natural resources” (although a caveat in another section of the Highland Coalition’s comments that ecological factors must be a part of the determination of “sustainable use” is relevant) (‘Introduction’) Economic output must not mean “the continual development of undeveloped lands (‘Introduction’)” The emphasis on the long term is admirable and consistent with sustainability (“A focus more on long term sustainable economic viability than (the) short term.”) (Policy 8A5)


The whole area of economic development as a subject is not inappropriate to include in a discussion framed around sustainability—albeit subject to the water deficit constraint. In most treatments of sustainability, economic development, often put as “economic vitality,” is seen as crucial, both to human society and sometimes even to further efforts to protect the environment. Of course, how you do it is the key. Objective 8A1a.i (new objective): Promote economic development within the context of sustainable communities, i.e., community energy (wind, solar) versus allowing the federal power lines to eviscerate the northern part of the Highlands. This would be exceptionally beneficial to the agricultural community (on a larger scale than simply homeowners although this should be enlisted as well) as a mechanism to foster renewable energy and another source of income to farmers. This would also tie in well with Policy 8B2. At the same time, discourage businesses that exploit genetically engineered crops for the communities’ energy needs as these exacerbate chemical pesticides and chemical fertilizers use and are antithetical to sustainable development. For example, the Draft RMP’s promotion of certain environmentally-friendly or relatively environmentally-friendly industries: tourism (ag, eco, historical) Objective: 8C1a, energy efficiency, resource conservation Goal 8D, green buildings (pages 68-69, 265), low impact development (Chapter 5, Programs. Part 6), even though the latter two are not framed as “businesses”-- and agriculture are big steps in the right direction--as compared to “business as usual” economic development. The possibility of the Highlands Council getting involved in certifying businesses in these sectors as legitimately environmentally friendly is an innovative use of a government/ business/environmental group partnership, particularly if they take the Coalition’s recommendation in another section to use the Forest Stewardship Council’s program as the way to do this. On the other hand, nowhere does the Draft RMP state that economic development depends on environmental protection, a critical tenet of sustainability. That is, if the environment is not protected (e.g. water levels maintained), there can not be economic development in the long run. This omission is seen through-out a couple of sections that may have been intended as “objective” ways to monitor, track, and report on economic trends--but miss this overriding point. A common theme in the management field, even as applied to sustainability, is “You manage what you measure.” What you measure tends to be what gets the attention, and, therefore, possible further actions. What is not measured can tend to get lost. A certain level of measurement is not inappropriate, but the omission of the environment in these sections is alarming. An extensive system of fiscally oriented measures is recommended in the Draft RMP. These include: farm value, number of residential units, infrastructure investment, property taxes, and others (Objective: 8A5a). There are no environmental measurements, or, at a deeper level of


sustainability thinking, innovative measures that explicitly integrate the economy and the environment, such as water use per job over time. The danger is that over time economic measures will drive out the importance of environmental factors, particularly as these measures will be used to track the performance of the Highlands against that of other regions and, surely, unfavorable relative trends raised as a concern. It is predictable that pressures will be generated against environmental efforts if the latter are seen as hampering economic performance, especially with nothing in this sphere of currency to counteract it. Similarly, cost: benefit analysis (CBA) is inherently biased against environmental protection, as measuring benefits like the value of health are more difficult to assess. A cautious use of CBA can still be a useful management tool if used judiciously, and if special attention is given to the neglected environmental factors, including innovative ways to bring them into the analysis. However, the Draft RMP does not call for any measures of the economic benefits of preserving the environment (Goal 8E). There is no mention of the methodologies utilized in recent NJDEP studies on the economic value of ecotourism, or studies of birding, or even more fundamentally the economic value of ecosystems! (New) Policy: Measures of the economic costs of implementing the Highlands Act should not be made unless a parallel effort is made to develop and utilize measures of the economic benefits of the Act. (New) Objective: Conventional measures of economic costs purportedly looking at the Highlands’ “economic sustainability” are inappropriate as sustainability, by its nature, means the integration of economics, the environment, and social factors. That is, it makes no sense to talk about economic sustainability independent of the environment or social factors like COAH. Another overlooked area of sustainability, ironically one focused on business, is green business. The latter includes the above-mentioned sectors; however, it does not assume that even these generally cleaner businesses are operating at as high a level of environmental performance as they could. For example, even a solar company may not recycle, or their purchasing of products may leave much to be desired from an environmental perspective. The one exception is that in Environmentally Constrained Conservation and Existing Community Zones, tourism “should have to meet additional standards to prevent degradation of natural resources (Policy 8C3).” As noted elsewhere in the Coalition’s comments, the agricultural sector is given a bye (Goal 8B & Objective 8B2a). It is assumed that agriculture is environmentally friendly, with no attention to organic agriculture or other ways to reduce this sector’s environmental footprint. It is assumed that agriculture’s economic sustainability is synonymous with sustainability—which is


not the case! In fact, there should be other objectives that specifically promote organic farming as well as transitioning to organic agriculture. In addition, green business can also include all business sectors. There is now a large body of work showing the multitude of ways that “non-environmental” sectors can upgrade their environmental performance to beyond compliance levels—and, by doing so, enhance their economic performance. We’re beginning to see companies committed to achieving carbon-neutrality, greening their supplier base, and, at the furthest extreme, even to becoming “zero pollution companies.” The NJDEP has a very new program, administered by its Enforcement Division, to encourage business’ environmental stewardship. The Draft RMP shows no awareness of this field or this thinking. “Technology-dependent enterprises” are called for, but not discussed, and no connection with the environment shown (‘Introduction’). A small business incubator is suggested, but an insufficient environmental connection made (Objective 8D1a). “Municipal and County Master Plans and development regulations which [permit] encourage…small business incubator programs and innovative technologies that focus on and promote…native species landscaping, low impact development, energy efficiency, & resource conservation in support of comprehensive RMP goals.” Clarification needed Small businesses that are not in these sectors should still be strongly encouraged and helped to adopt environmental stewardship practices, particularly involving water conservation. There is no mention of a possible opportunity to bring both dollars and jobs to the Highlands region through learning about, tracking, and taking advantage of the coming market for carbon sequestration. It may be economically viable (as well as environmentally protective if carefully structured) to set up services in the region to pay for the preservation of land and reforestation projects that provide sinks for some level of carbon emissions. (New) Objective Add “carbon sequestration” to the above. Also, sequestration should only include means that involve the biologically-based holding of carbon, such as through trees and soils. (New) Policy There is no definition of sustainability in the Glossary. The definition should borrow from the discussion in the “Smart Design Choices” section (page 68), but add themes from the above, including something on green business (e.g. a focus on businesses that aim to minimize their environmental impact, regardless of their sector; or develop or market products that improve the environment), and “decisions , [which are largely in the realm of local government] (also from “Smart Design Choices”) that involve all sectors of government, business, nonprofits, and citizens.”

Part 9. Air Quality


Objective 9A2a (new policy): To require any new Highlands businesses not to add to greenhouse gas emissions. Policy 9A4: To encourage…limited to: ozone, Sulfur Oxides, Nitrous Oxides, land fill gases, methane and other hydrocarbons, dioxins and furans, fine particulate matter…. Methane is 23 times more damaging to earth’s outer ozone layer than is CO2. It is necessary to at least recognize current threats to air quality in the region.

Objective 9A5a: Encourage plans for development activities to include but not be limited to an evaluation…. Policy 9A7 (new policy): To support State and federal initiatives that will reduce air pollution emanating from incinerators and landfills located in the seven Highlands counties.

Chapter V. Programs

Part 1. Natural Resource Programs

The Highlands Region contains magnificent natural resources that must be protected, but these resources lie on lands that have been utilized by people for tens of thousands of years. The RMP must cross-reference historic, cultural, archaeological, and scenic resources throughout, especially when discussing natural resource protection. Most historic resources lie on environmentally sensitive lands, like riparian areas and steep slopes, and therefore must be afforded the protections that they legislatively deemed to have by cross-referencing the need to evaluate sites for natural resources and historic resources. When any site is rated with a point system, we urge that positive points be given for the presence of a historic resource, or for an act, such as a TDR, which protects it. Thus, a development credit would be worth more if the development is withheld from a historic site An earlier technical report on cultural assets included a partial map of historic sites. Even unfinished, the map revealed some patterns of concentration that should be recognized and designated no-build areas for the fact of their concentration. We suggest that a new sub-zone be created, perhaps called Historic Resource District. These groupings, as with Register-listed historic districts, increase in value by the fact of their location together. Finishing and maintaining this map would be a useful goal for the staff, because districts not yet inventoried will be recognized in future. Of course this information applies to other parts of the Programs in addition to the cultural part.

Forest Resource Management and Sustainability

“The Highlands Region contains some of the most important forests in New Jersey. These forests are vitally important to every element of the Highlands Region, including the natural and the built environment. Forests provide essential ecosystem functions, including the most effective recharge of groundwater aquifers that supply Highlands wells and surface water filtration, both of which are important to protecting essential drinking water supplies for the Highlands


Region and for the state as a whole. Forests protect water quality in streams and other surface water bodies, supporting wild trout and healthy aquatic ecosystems. Highlands forests moderate climate and purify the air, and being of young to moderate age, virtually all Highlands forests sequester atmospheric carbon and combat global warming. Forests replenish the fertile surface organic horizon of the soil. Forests serve as habitat for plants and animals and, as forests constitute a majority of critical habitat in the Highlands, they are critically important to the maintenance of biodiversity in one of the most populous states in the nation. Highlands forests safeguard important recreational, historic and archaeological resources and make an enormous contribution to the Region’s outstanding scenic values. In addition, when managed for sustainable use, forests can be as source of renewable wood products as well as alternative forest products. Forests are a defining visible and functional feature of the Highlands. This program seeks to balance the need to protect the forest resource, biodiversity and water resources with the economic use and continued sustainable management of forests while promoting active stewardship to provide/optimize the multiple benefits and services forests provide including ground and surface water supply, clean air, clean water, soil protection, carbon sequestration, recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, Threatened, Endangered and rare species protection, cultural and scenic values,` and forest products.” For long term sustainability of the forest resource in the Highlands there must be proactive management of deer populations, non-native invasive species and reductions in the rate of forest fragmentation Issue Overview, p. 169-70: Following sentence 2, “… natural and the built environment,” insert: “It is necessary to identify and protect existing historic sites in forested regions.” Program Summary, p. 171: Sentence 1 to read: “… water resources with the protection of historic resources as well as the economic use …” Forest Sustainability section, Page 171: It is important that a stronger statement be added to stress that Region-wide deer management decisions be based upon ecological indicators that support healthy forest ecosystems. The language here and on Page 337 understates the impacts of deer on forest health and does not emphasize that the problem is current and severe and that immediate action is required to mitigate the problem. The plan should consider a discussion on the impacts of deer on water quality, forests, rare and endangered plants and animals, and ecological communities due to significant loss of forest understory vegetation. Develop a Model Municipal Tree Ordinance, Page 171: A requirement for Forest Stewardship Plans could afford greater resource protection than BMP’s. Model Municipal Tree Ordinances must require forests stewardship plans because such plans provide significantly greater ecological benefit than the much weaker and non-ecologically focused woodland management plans. Develop Forest Stewardship Plans for Preserved Lands, Page 172.


The development of Forest Stewardship Plans must be extended to all woodland assessed properties in the Preservation Area not exempted by the 2004 Highlands Act. Since the Act explicitly exempts currently forested lands under woodland assessment, it is critical that the RMP takes the necessary ecological approach to forestry by requiring forest stewardship plans. Forest product markets should not be considered on public lands, which should have plans driven by biodiversity and natural resources. “Green” or Third Party Certification for Highlands Forest Products, Page 172: The certification process should focus on protection of biodiversity and natural resources. The following is taken directly from the NRDC website (http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/qcert.asp): “The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) runs the only credible forest certification program. The FSC is an independent, international nonprofit organization whose membership is comprised of more than 500 environmental groups, progressive companies, forestry professionals, social scientists and groups representing labor, church and indigenous people's interests. Formed in 1993, the FSC has established a set of international forest management standards; it also accredits and monitors certification organizations that evaluate on-the-ground compliance with these standards in forests around the world.” FSC's "Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship" set forth strict environmental and social standards for forest management. In order to address societal and ecological differences in countries around the world, these standards are refined through national or regional processes involving local forestry, environmental and social stakeholders. Not all certification programs are credible. Spurred by the success of the FSC and consumer demand for certified products, at least eight other forest certification programs have formed internationally. However, these programs are backed by timber interests and set weak standards for forest management that allow destructive and business-as-usual forestry practices. FSC certification remains the only credible seal of approval for good wood. Don't be confused by forest industry substitutes. Always ask for FSC-certified wood -- look for the FSC logo, which depicts a checkmark and the outline of a tree. Minimum municipal requirements Ordinances must meet the intent of the Highlands RMP as far as exempting forest management activities conducted under a forest management plan approved by the State Forester. Ordinances should be consistent across the region, to the extent possible, to provide equal protection of the resource throughout the Region.

1. Limit human development in the Forest Resource Area in the Preservation Area in order to protect and enhance forest resources, critical habitat and the quantity and quality of water resources.

2. Prohibit the deforestation of lands within the Forest Resource Area of the Preservation Area for human development except where authorized as an exemption by the Highlands Act.

3. Limit deforestation in the Forest Resource Area and forested lands within High Integrity Forest Subwatersheds within the Existing Community Zone to the maximum extent practicable.


4. Protect Forest Subwatersheds in master plans and development regulations and maintain forest cover to the maximum extent possible in the natural as well as the built environment.

5. Implement low impact development and best management practices to protect, enhance and restore forest resources include forest mitigation and community forestry plans in municipal master plans and development regulations.

6. Enact municipal tree ordinance for municipalities that allows active forest management with approved Forest Management Plans.

7. Include wildlife protection, stewardship and the control of invasive species in all Forest Management Plans. Proactive management of deer populations, non-native invasive species and reductions in the rate of forest fragmentation.

8. Adopt low impact development principles in land use ordinances to prevent further fragmentation of forest habitats.

Restoration of Streams and Riparian Areas

Issue Overview, p. 173: Following the last sentence of 1st paragraph, “… woody debris.” Add “And in riparian areas there is an increased likelihood of archaeological finds.”

Critical Habitat Conservation and Management

Critical Habitat Conservation and Management, Page 175-178: The Regional Master Plan does not afford protection of rare plants located outside of Critical Wildlife Habitat, Significant Natural Areas or Vernal Pools (but they are required to be protected under the Act). Therefore, there should be a policy that explicitly states that new Significant Natural Areas (and other critical habitats) will be delineated as data is assembled to support such designations. An additional policy statement should be added: ‘To develop, identify, list and protect new Critical Wildlife Habitat, Significant Natural Areas and Vernal Pools as data is assembled’. The program summary (page 177) should replace “promote” with “require”. The development of municipal conservation and management overlay district ordinances (Page 177) does not stipulate how the overlay is delineated. For example, it should state that zone is delineated by the presence of one or more natural resources as defined by NJHC data. The development of critical habitat conservation and management guidance (Page 177) needs to state technical guidelines will set mandatory benchmarks and standards which must be met or exceeded.

• There is a need to define standards for avoidance, then minimization and finally mitigation.

• There is a need to develop annual reporting. • There is a need to identify metrics for determining impact (i.e., habitat quantity, type,

quality and function). • The Wildlife Habitat Council standards are completely inappropriate in this context. • The Wildlife Action Plan may be informative, but are not directly applicable in this

context.


• The NJDEP HCP manual should be considered for application here. • The design standards should provide guidance or means of avoidance.

For ensuring implementation of critical habitat conservation and management (Page 177), a municipality should require onsite mitigation through habitat conservation and management practices only if appropriate. If a more biologically meaningful mitigation is possible elsewhere (either inside or outside the municipality), then mitigation should occur in the most appropriate location in close proximity to the harm. Annual reporting should be required. Mitigation must include post-application performance requirements. For implementation of critical habitat (Pages 177-178), the 3rd bullet should state restoration of undeveloped land, including on large corporate campuses. There should be an additional bullet point for farmland and forest land that discusses available funding for incentive programs through NRCS, NJFS and USFS. For conservation, restoration and management projects (Page 178), the concept of enhancement, improvement, or creation of critical habitat should be included in this section.

Land Preservation Issue Overview, page 178: Please substitute overview suggested in Forest Resource sections. “The Highlands Region contains some of the most important forests in New Jersey. These forests are vitally important to every element of the Highlands Region, including the natural and the built environment. Forests provide essential ecosystem functions, including the most effective recharge of groundwater aquifers that supply Highlands wells and surface water filtration, both of which are important to protecting essential drinking water supplies for the Highlands Region and for the state as a whole. Forests protect water quality in streams and other surface waterbodies, supporting wild trout and healthy aquatic ecosystems. Highlands forests moderate climate and purify the air, and being of young to moderate age, virtually all Highlands forests sequester atmospheric carbon and combat global warming. Forests replenish the fertile surface organic horizon of the soil. Forests serve as habitat for plants and animals and, as forests constitute a majority of critical habitat in the Highlands, they are critically important to the maintenance of biodiversity in one of the most populous states in the nation. Highlands forests safeguard important recreational, historic and archaeological resources and make an enormous contribution to the Region’s outstanding scenic values. Forests are a defining visible and functional feature of the Highlands and constitute a majority of critical habitat in the Region. Issue Overview, p. 178: Following paragraph 3, “… Highlands rural character,” insert new paragraph, “Historic structures may occur in land considered to be open space, and they often comprise a significant part of an agricultural landscape. Such structures, or their archaeological remains, or other archaeological sites, must be identified and preserved.” Page 178: The paragraph on the multiple benefits of local agriculture is very important. The Master Plan should also emphasize the need for IPM, ICM, organic farming practices as well as soil and water conservation practices to protect critical biodiversity and water resources.


RMP Policies and Objectives Addressed: Objective 1H5a. “Establishment of dedicated sources of state revenue to be used for open space preservation in the Highlands Region, such as coordination with NJDEP Green Acres Program for re-authorization of the Garden State Preservation Trust Fund, including a dedicated fund for the anticipated land acquisition needs of the Highlands Region, and enactment of a water user fee dedicated to land preservation and of sufficient size to accomplish substantial acquisition. Objective 1H5c. “Establishment of an on-going program to support and secure significant federal funding in support of land acquisition and stewardship efforts in the Highlands Region including, but not limited to, additional appropriations under the federal Highlands Conservation Act, Forest Legacy Program, Land and Water Conservation Fund, and federal Farm Bill conservation programs.” Policy 1H6. “To promote the acquisition and protection of open space resources within the Highlands Region under existing and new local and state open space preservation and land stewardship programs.” Add Objective 1H6c: Encourage municipalities currently lacking open space/farmland/historic preservation trust funds to establish such programs as part of Plan Conformance. Policy 1J1 (page 181): Clarification which would only allow the Forest Preservation Easement Program to operate through the NJDEP Green Acres program and to require Forest Stewardship Plans on all properties included in the Forest Preservation Easement Program. Policy 1J1 (Clarification): To promote the creation of a Forest Preservation Easement Program for the Highlands Region, which would be eligible for use through the Green Acres Program only with a Forest Stewardship Plan approved by a state forester. Program Summary (page 182) “….Additionally, a federal, State and county interagency working group will aid in coordinating land acquisition activities, identification of high priority lands, stewardship initiatives and funding needs.” Comment: Add land trusts and other nonprofit organizations to those included in this working group. Identification of Critical Lands (page 182) Establishment of Land Preservation Priorities and Special Areas (page 182) and Conservation Priority Area Figure (Map - page 183). We are unclear why the map depicts such a small amount of conservation priority lands. The amount of High Conservation Priority land on the map appears to be almost non-existent. The mapped areas appear to diverge strongly from the stated indicators of water and ecological resource values, which include “quantity and quality of regional resources such as: watershed conditions, open waters, riparian areas, prime ground water recharge areas, forests, critical habitat and steep slopes.”(Page 182) It does not appear to reflect the 32 values that were used to delineate the Conservation Zone in the original Draft RMP. The map does not appear to


accurately depict the critical ecological, water resource and forest values of the Highlands. It does not comport with the last sentence on page 184 “Given the fact that the Highlands Region is over 50% forested and maintaining forest land is important to protecting water quality, a program specifically for purchasing forest land easements should be available.” We urge that this map be redone to reflect the important values that exist in the Region. The map does not accurately support the essential need to preserve lands in the Region. For example, Policy 1A4 is “To assign land within the Forest Resource Area a high priority for fee simple and easement acquisition.” However, while the Forest Resource Area map (page 23), shows the Forest Resource Area covering approximately two-thirds of the Highlands Region; the Conservation Priority Areas map bears no resemblance to it. It appears to reflect primarily riparian areas, and little in the way of forest resources. The Forest Resource Area map, on the other hand, reflects assessments made by the USDA Forest Service in 1992 and 2002, which assigned a high priority as forested areas in need of protection to, for example, Scotts Mountain in Warren County and Musconetcong/Schooley’s Mountain in Hunterdon and Morris counties. However, these areas, which were also delineated by the Highlands Act as part of the Preservation Area based on forest and wildlife values, barely show up on the Conservation Priority Areas map. Lastly, we urge the Council’s Land Preservation Program to incorporate the seventeen “Highlands Critical Treasures,” as described in our comments on Chapter III, Regional and Local Community Character, Part 5. Elements of Place. These are all subregions of the Highlands that contain important natural and cultural resources and are a focus of land preservation for the State, the federal government and the Highlands Coalition. Please see the description of these areas earlier in our comments (page 31).

Lake Management Area We support the designation of a Lake Management Sub-Zone in the Existing Community Zone as an important step in recognizing and identifying special features within the Existing Community Zone that have common characteristics in terms of resource values, constraints and opportunities. While water pollution from failing septics may be a very important issue in the Lake Management Area, the Lake Management Areas overview needs to also recognize and provide for the historic and cultural values of the built-up areas surrounding lakes, as well as the underlying ecological and natural resources values, and the need to protect, restore and maintain both. First and foremost, the definition of the scenic tier must be expanded to include the entire viewshed which also encompasses the ridgeline and lands just beyond the ridgeline. Lake Management Area goals, policies and objectives and the implementing program should be clarified to specifically include the protection of ecological and natural resources values, as well as historic and cultural values, are these are important Highlands Act and RMP goals and policies. Proposed clarifying additions to existing language: …. Many lake communities contain cultural, architectural and historic values that deserve recognition and protection.


However, many lake communities have been experiencing intensifying land uses as the original buildings are torn down and replaced by larger structures. The Council seeks to identify both redevelopment and historic and ecological preservation and restoration opportunities, to protect, restore and improve both community character and value and ecological functions. The goal is to protect both natural and cultural/historic/scenic resources and to enhance and restore the quality of lake environments in the Region.” Comment and clarification on the delineation of the scenic and historic/cultural resources tier: Comment and explanation: The scenic/historic/cultural tier will be viewed from many locations, both on the lake itself (boaters, swimmers, windsurfers, fishers) as well as from houses and roads on the opposite shore and slopes. The tier should therefore not be limited to what is seen from the opposite shore. Likewise, the tier should not be limited to a maximum of 1000 feet in depth, as on a lake surrounded by high, sloping hills, development beyond 1000 feet could have severe impacts. Developers will seek out ridge tops with views surrounding a lake to locate expensive large houses. These out-of-scale structures looming from ridge tops will destroy local community character as well as ecologically sensitive terrain that is home to special plants and ecotypes, as well as containing high public recreational values. Therefore, the definition of the scenic/historic/cultural tier must be designed to capture and protect these resources. A simple and uniform 1000 foot depth is unlikely to do so in many instances. Therefore, the area in the tier should include all the land that slopes down to the lake from a ridgeline above a lake, plus at least 100 feet additional over the top and down the backside of the ridge, to prevent taller structures from being constructed on the backside of a ridge and looming over the lake anyway. Shoreland Protection Tier 1. We strongly support that “alteration of the shorelines shall be limited to …water dependent recreational uses...and “generally limited to 10% or 25 feet of the shoreline of any parcel proposed for development…” Clarify 3. “Existing shoreland vegetation, especially trees and shrubs, within 50 feet of the shoreline shall be protected and preserved from direct and indirect impacts, including soil disturbance, soil compaction, and man-made changes in grade level, except for a minimum area permitted…for water dependent recreational facilities… Restoration of native vegetation, especially including trees, shall be required where development is proposed on property with existing disturbed areas within 25 feet of the shoreline.” “No new structure other than water dependent recreational facilities shall be constructed within fifty (50) feet of the shoreline;” We support this standard. Please clarify; does this rule cover a picnic pavilion, gazebo, beach house, tool shed, or outdoor hot tub? Implementation of Lake Management and Restoration Plans: These plans should include land use and vegetation elements. Please clarify: Re Scenic/Historic/Cultural Resources Tier Please clarify: “The Highlands Council will establish standards regarding the protection of visual and scenic resources in the Scenic/Historic/Cultural Resources Tier from development or redevelopment that include, but are not limited to, the following:


Clarify: 1. “Building heights should be limited so that the top of a building does not exceed thirty (30) feet from the lowest ground level to the apex of the roof, or the height of the tallest residential building within the existing Lake Community, whichever is less, except in Designated Centers where a greater height may be found to be in keeping with existing community design.” Clarify: 2. “All buildings shall be screened from view from the lake by trees, shrubs and other natural plant material.” Clarify: 5. “Clearing of trees should be limited to the minimum area needed for construction in the footprint of a building, ten feet beyond the outer walls of the structure.” Clarify: 6. “Outdoor lighting should be employed only to the extent necessary for safety purposes, provided by cut-off (?) and downward facing fixtures, and be directed away from the shoreline.” Please clarify and add: 7. Every effort shall be made to restore and reuse existing buildings that are historically or culturally significant to the Lake Community. 8. New buildings being integrated into an existing Lake Community shall be designed so that massing, proportions, angle of roof lines, window placement or proportions, materials, or other design features reflect or complement existing structures and community character. 9. Lot coverage by structures shall be a maximum of xx percent. (Need to develop this policy) Education and Awards Program: Please clarify as follows: “The Highlands council will develop a Lakes Landscape Handbook and awards program for ecologically sound and Highlands-compatible waterfront restoration and environmentally friendly landscaping. In both the 300 foot and 1000 foot Tiers, ecological landscaping and yard maintenance and land stewardship can make a contribution to improving lake quality. The handbook will focus on how –to material for landowners to illustrate how they can replace lawns with groundcovers and natural vegetation, preferably native and non-invasive species, and restore shorefront areas to a more natural condition that is attractive and enhances property value. The Highlands Council will coordinate with NJDEP, the American Society of Landscape Architects, landscape professionals and hardware and garden centers to promote the use of fertilizers for lawn usage that do not contain phosphorous, providing information that recommends minimizing fertilizer, herbicide and pesticide use, as well as promoting natural organic alternatives such as composting.


Chapter V. Programs Part 2. Water Resources and Water Utilities

Highlands Restoration: Water Deficits Please note that despite the significant amount of space devoted in the Final Draft RMP and the Draft Technical Report Addenda regarding the Highland Council’s ill-advised proposal to allow project-specific consumptive/depletive uses in existing deficit areas (Policy 2B5), the “Program” section of the Final Draft RMP makes no mention whatsoever of Policy 2B5 in this section of the RMP, presumably because the Council recognizes that in fact, Policy 2B5 is not a water deficit “program” but rather was an ill-advised “afterthought.” This section of the Final Draft RMP elaborates on “strategic approaches to mitigating water deficits,” the need for municipalities in deficit areas to implement “Municipal Water Management Plans,” and the importance of involving all “stakeholders” in developing a strategic approach to addressing water shortages. Policy 2B5 is not wise, forward thinking planning, and should not be included in a regional planning document as important as the Highlands Regional Master Plan until additional science can support this approach. The Efficient Use of Water It is in this section that the Final Draft RMP makes reference to the Highlands Councils’ ill-advised Policy 2B5, “to conditionally provide water availability within Current Deficit Areas.” However, Policy 2B5 really has nothing to do with “efficient use of water,” thus all references to Policy 2B5 and associated Objectives 2B5a and 2B5b should be eliminated from Chapter 5, Part 2, Efficient Use of Water in the Final RMP.

Chapter V. Programs Part 3. Agricultural Resources

Agricultural Management & Sustainability

Overall Comments: There should be no residential clustering on farmland. It is simply inconsistent with the goals of the Highlands Act to allow residential clustering on actively farmed lands. Unless it can be demonstrated that clusters will still meet the maximum 9% impervious cover limit on the site (the farm buildings + cluster = 9% impervious) and that the nitrate load at the edge of the property, factoring in non-point agricultural nitrates and nitrates from the cluster, will be met and monitored, clustering should not be permitted on agricultural lands. Clustering should only be considered when the 80% open space will be fee simple or easement purchased as dedicated open space for the immediate benefit of the residents of the cluster.

Development of Open Space/Conservation Design Standards “Council will develop Open Space/Conservation Design development layout standards that support the RMP and which take advantage of, but are not limited to, techniques such as residential clustering and lot-size averaging and the establishment and implementation of resource management programs which protect agricultural resources during site plan or subdivision review and approval. In the case of clustering, which requires retention of the


undeveloped land by a homeowners association or a municipality, the standards will emphasize layouts that maximize the potential for continued farming under leases.” Recommendation: Standards for uses of the preserved lands and the stewardship of them should be established in the RMP. The inclusion of lot averaging, open space design etc. will increase the fragmentation of agricultural lands. Comment: The RMP acknowledges that it will use the MLUL requirement for the ownership of 80% of the land in a cluster. There are no standards for these lease agreements or permitted uses on the land regardless of ownership. Lot averaging and so called open space design will not do anything for preserving large contiguous areas of farming. Standards for proposed development on agricultural lands have to be more rigorous for the goals of the Act to be achieved. Cluster Development “Preservation cluster development with a minimum of 80 percent open space will provide for a development that allows agriculture to continue. The clusters should use public sewer systems where feasible and appropriate to maximize the amount of open space and eliminate the impact of septic tank systems.” Recommendation: All cluster development should be adjacent to other similarly developed areas and on Public Sewer and Water if available otherwise a Community Waste Water System. Comment: The fragmentation of agricultural lands with scattered development even clustered is a huge problem and should be avoided at all costs. The use of transfers of development density to non-contiguous parcels is enabled in the MLUL and should be used as a part of mandated cluster planning at the Municipal level. Additional Land Use Opportunities “Additional business opportunities should be provided to the owner/operators of farm to increase the economic potential of the farm unit. Alternates to a home occupation business types; home business and cottage industry, should be permitted on farms above a minimum land area threshold should be permitted as a matter of right. The ability of a farm family to have a bed and breakfast, agricultural product processing facility, artisan or craft business with several employees other than family members enhances the ability of the farm to continue as an agricultural operation.” Recommendation: Establish standards for such uses including the number of employees Nitrate loading form septic systems, parking, air emissions, impermeable cover etc... Comment: With the exception of the exemption for residential use no other landowner has a by-right ability to have unconstrained use of his/her land. E.g. Product processing can impact the air, water and eco system. There are some standards for home businesses in the MLUL but to suggest that these activities can occur at just any scale because the land is in agriculture is damaging to agriculture and unfair to those who preserve their land for other than agriculture.

Chapter V. Programs


Part 4. Historic, Cultural, Archaeological and Scenic Resources

Historic Resource Protection As mentioned on page 29 of our comments under Chapter IV. Goals, Policies and Objectives, Part 4. Historic, Cultural, Archaeological and Scenic Resources, we believe at least one SHPO staff member should be formally attached to the Highlands staff to perform the reviews that are outside of the Council’s statutory authority. In addition, the program Identification of Historic, Archaeological and Cultural Resources should be altered to use the broadest possible standards for these resources. Once resources are included on the inventory it would be the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate by means of a quality test that resources either will not be adversely impacted or that certain resources listed do not qualify for protections under a stricter set of standards, possibly determined in coordination with SHPO. This process would greatly simplify the inventory creation process. It would ease the development of municipal and county Historic Preservation Plans, by allowing municipalities and counties to better determine the historic, cultural, archaeological and scenic resource present in their communities and how to establish a comprehensive plan to protect these values resources, instead of simply being required to identify “known historic, archaeological and cultural resources within their borders and the immediate surrounding area”. [Final Draft RMP, p. 225] Scenic Resource Protection “The Highlands were recognized as a ‘landscape of national significance’ in the 1992 federal NY-NJ Highlands Regional Study. Protecting scenic resources and maintaining the visual integrity and scenic beauty of noteworthy viewsheds and natural and cultural features of significance, as well as protecting and maintaining the essential character of [in] the Highlands environment [Region is a goal] are specific goals of the Highlands Act and the RMP. The essential character of the Highlands is intrinsically tied to the physical environment, both natural and cultural elements, and how one element relates to another. The scenic character of the Highlands will be a major contributor to the Region’s success as a recreation and tourism destination and its ability to generate economic activity in the form of tourism, eco-tourism and heritage tourism. Scenic character is also valued by Highlands residents as a significant contributor to their quality of life. Preservation of that essential character can best be accomplished through a comprehensive approach to scenic resource protection. Other than a few scenic resource ordinances and even [less] fewer scenic resource inventories, there has been no comprehensive attempt to address the important issue of scenic resource protection in the Highlands Region.” It should be made crystal clear that Highlands Act goals are specific regarding scenic and aesthetic resources and regional character. It also needs to be clear that these values are recognized as having national significance. Policy 4B1: “To maintain and periodically update the Highlands Scenic Resources Inventory. We strongly support the creation, maintenance and expansion of a Scenic Resources Inventory.


Policy 4B5: “To require that the impact of proposed human development on the scenic resources of the Highlands Region be addressed during local development review and Highlands Project Review and approval. We strongly support this requirement. Objective 4B5a: “All development applications shall include identification of any scenic resources in the Highlands Region [which] that are listed on the Highlands Scenic Resources Inventory or on any local scenic resource inventories and may be affected by the proposed development.” The program includes the development of local scenic assessments and inventories. These should receive equal consideration by any development proposal. Objective 4B5b: “All development which affects identified scenic resources shall comply with minimum standards for the preservation of the affected resources.” The minimum standards referred to MUST be included as part of the Final RMP. Policy 4C1: “To require that conforming municipalities and counties include a Historic, Cultural and Scenic Resource Protection Element in municipal and county master plans and development regulation and update the Historic and Cultural Resources Inventory through local development reviews” and create a local scenic resources inventory.” We strongly support this requirement. We urge that municipalities also be required to create a local scenic resources inventory. Policy 4C3: “To require that conforming municipalities and counties include minimum standards for the protection and enhancement of scenic resources listed in the Highlands Scenic Inventory in their development regulations,” as well as scenic resources listed on local Scenic Resource Inventories. We strongly support this requirement, and urge that it be expanded to include minimum standards applicable to local scenic resources as well. Program Summary: “The program establishes a procedure for identifying regionally significant scenic resources within the Highlands Region and provides methods, including standards, mechanisms and programs, to preserve these vistas, byways, ridgelines, corridors and trails, cultural landscapes and natural features, including scenic rivers and streams. The program provides for input from local government entities as well as public participation. Inventory of Highlands Scenic Resources: “Baseline Inventory – Having identified [131] publicly owned [potential] scenic resources, consisting of federal, state and county open space and recreation areas, that currently comprise the Highlands Scenic Resource Inventory, the Highlands Council will [evaluate the initial baseline sites,] refine the list and [seek to] add to it through additional nominations.”


It should be made clear that the current scenic resources are all properties already in public ownership, and that the public’s investment in the scenic values of these lands deserves to be protected. Further, we strongly urge the Council to immediately add additional scenic resources to its inventory to be included in the Final Regional Master Plan. The current inventory consists of 131 areas already identified in the DEP Highlands rules for the Preservation Area. The Council needs to go beyond simply applying this same minimal list to the Planning Area. Immediate additions should include municipal public lands, specifically conservation lands that are on a Green Acres Recreation and Open Space Inventory (ROSI) list. The Council should also immediately add to its Final RMP inventory two scenic and recreational features that have both received federal recognition: the Musconetcong Scenic River, which underwent a ten-year process to be designated as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and the long-distance Highlands Millennium Trail, created with the help of the National Park Service Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program, which was awarded federal recognition in 2000 as New Jersey’s only Millennium Legacy Trail. Highlands water supply reservoirs, highly visible features of the landscape that make a significant contribution to the Region’s “essential character,” should be added immediately to the Scenic Resources Inventory. Finally, the Council should expand its Scenic Resource Inventory to include nonprofit lands preserved with the assistance of public funding. And while undoubtedly controversial, preserved farmlands, in whose continuing pastoral beauty the public has a direct financial investment through state, county or local taxes that contributed to its preservation, should be included on the Scenic Resources Inventory. “The Council will establish procedures for nomination, evaluation and inventory of Highlands regionally and locally significant scenic resources.” The Council needs to develop procedures and standards, to be included in the Final Regional Master Plan, for the identification of scenic resources at all levels of significance. “The Council will establish guidelines for the preparation of the scenic resource inventory, including modifications to the baseline inventory [of 131 potential scenic resources].” We strongly urge the Council to finalize its baseline list of scenic resources prior to issuance of the Final RMP, adding to it as detailed above. Please, just DO IT! Do not waste more time mulling over the 131 items on the DEP list. “The council will identify unique scenic vistas (big sky views), and protect them.” We strongly support, and urge the addition of other features. We urge adding other regionally significant scenic resources including ridgelines, forests, meadows, scenic corridors, water bodies, scenic byways, trails and rivers, geologic formations, significant natural communities, agricultural landscapes and orchards, industrial archaeology remains, and historical/cultural resources, structures, sites or districts that can be viewed from a public vantage point.


Regarding municipal and county actions We strongly support Council encouragement of municipal and county scenic resource inventory, planning, and protection. Scenic Resource Protection Mechanisms We strongly support Council development of scenic resource protection mechanisms. We urge the Council to develop specific standards and guidelines, as well as model ordinances, for protection of scenic resources and include them as part of the Final Regional Master Plan. “The Council will develop strategies to protect scenic ridgelines, including the identification of key provisions for a Ridgeline Protection Ordinance. The provisions may include location of buildings, preservation of trees up slope and down slope of structures, building colors and types of glass, and other siting techniques that would blend structures with the landscape.” We support, and urge that specific implementation standards are included in the Final RMP. “Municipalities and counties shall be strongly encouraged to develop a Scenic Resources Management Plan for the jurisdictions of sub-regions.” “The Highlands Council will prepare guidelines and standards to assist municipalities in drafting and implementation of scenic resource protection measures in the community, including lake management. “Municipalities shall be encouraged to advocate cluster development within rural areas, locating development away from the road, protecting the rural road frontage and maintaining the rural landscape. Where land is in agricultural use, municipalities should retain this use along roads and locate development in locations that do not damage the scenic viewshed. Hedgerows, mature trees and other rural features should be protected.” While this practice will help protect rural landscapes, the Council needs to be aware that it is likely to conflict with forest and biodiversity protection goals in many instances. It is important that woodland and forest resources, even those that are less significant, not be sacrificed on the altar of scenic protection. In addition, we continue to advocate that non-farm residential development not be permitted at all in the Highlands Conservation Zone. That would be the surest, most reliable way to protect scenic, rural landscapes! “Establish road corridor [regulations] standards that protect existing tree rows, wooded and forested areas along roads, and require minimum buffer yards (e.g. 100 feet) to be left in natural vegetation, not maintained as lawns. Minimum landscape provisions of the buffer should be established for different types of roadside environments.” Again, deep setbacks such as this protect scenic views from roads, but fragment forests with long driveways and houses, garages, pools, tennis courts, etc. punching holes in the forest. This destroys interior forest habitat, and many thousands of acres of it have been lost in the


Highlands already. This should not be encouraged or permitted in a contiguous Forest Resource Area.

Chapter V. Programs Part 6. Future Land Use

Cluster Development Changes in the criteria and standards in the RMP should never be made without a full RMP Amendment process. Such changes affect the implementation of the RMP throughout the Highlands Region and require a full and public review which is impossible to achieve during the conformance process. There are two places in the RMP where modifications could be made in the Clustering standards of the RMP which could be used to destroy the benefits of the clustering provisions. On page 250 there is a provision suggesting that the standards and criteria applicable to cluster developments may be adjusted during Plan Conformance provided the Highlands Council finds the adjustments consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the RMP and that the adjustments provide comparable Protection for the Highlands ecosystem. It is appropriate to allow adjustments to the design of a cluster but the standards and criteria should not be altered unless the RMP goes through a full public amendment process. If a developer proposes something that is truly superior in meeting the objectives of the RMP and meets the standards and criteria in the RMP, but is not permitted by the municipal regulations, the remedy should be through modification of the municipal regulations subject to review and approval by the Council under Plan Conformance.” The ad hoc permitting of Clusters is not appropriate and in fact can be very damaging to Highlands Resources. In order to ensure the efficient and appropriate use of the cluster concept municipalities that want to use this tool in their planning should include it in their Master Plan and Land Use ordinances along with a provision for the calculation of densities on non-contiguous lots. The FDRMP (Pages 248-249) encourages and funds cluster planning during conformance. The use of Clustering as a permitted use requires planning in particular where clustering is mandatory. In addition municipalities will need tools to implement appropriately located clusters; mixed use centers hamlets and villages. If exemptions can be better located and planned for, and if clusters are indeed a tool to be used to preserve contiguous farmland and forest, transfers of development rights from preserved land to clusters will be a necessity. If planned and a part of the municipal land use scheme the use of cluster development could prevent the misuse and poor location of such clusters by including an ordinance permitting the calculation of development density by the deed restriction of a non-contiguous parcel. In effect this transfers the development rights, as provided for in the MLUL, to appropriately located clusters. The remaining land would be restricted to agricultural or natural resource protection and could be part of the 80% set aside. Establish Protective standards for use of 80% Set Aside lands in Cluster Developments Recommendation: Establish stringent standards for the use of the 80% set aside land in cluster development to prevent cumulative impacts on water quality and the loss of forest, agricultural


soils or habitat. Standards must be established to control the use of the 80% deed restricted land set aside either as the result of on parcel cluster development or as a set aside when development rights are transferred to a non-contiguous site. The whole purpose of clustering or transferring development is lost without easily enforceable standards to meet the goals of the RMP and the cluster provision. The FDRMP lacks standards for the agricultural or other use of the required set aside of deed restricted land in cluster development. The MLUL requires that these lands either belong to the home owners or are deeded to the municipality. Either one could, as suggested in the RMP, lease those lands for agricultural or recreational use. The RMP does not include standards for permitted uses on the deed restricted 80% of land. If the cluster is on the parcel it is evident that the remaining 80% of the land must meet the resource goals of the Highlands Act for the whole parcel. Standards such as no clearing of forested land, no use of fertilizers or pesticides, mandatory restrictions on use of impervious surfaces, mandatory implementation of USDA plans or BMPs, protection of steep slopes, and other environmentally protective standards would have to be put in place. According to the RMP cluster development is supposed to meet the nitrate dilution criteria for that zone at the boundary of the property. However, in the case of the ARA, in particular, most of the area is at the highest nitrate levels already. It is unclear how the nitrate dilution model and the standards of 10mg/l at the cluster boundary and the standard for the zone will be met at the parcel boundary. No such measurable standards exist in the RMP. Develop Realistic Incentive Programs for the Clustering of Exemption. Develop an incentive program to encourage the transfer of exempted development rights to planned legitimate clusters where supporting infrastructure exists. The clustering of exemptions would be a big plus and should be more than just a policy in the plan. Though incentives exist in fact such as permitted infrastructure etc. it would be worthwhile for the Council and the Municipalities to provide other incentives such as pre planned clusters and immediate approvals to encourage land owners with exemptions to transfer them and have their deed restricted property become a part of the required 80% set aside. It would improve the market for sellers, carry out smart growth development principles, save agricultural and forest lands. An incentive program should not be in the form of a density bonus. Perhaps the towns could buy the exemption and then use the development right in a cluster as a non-contiguous parcel. As noted the transfer of density from one parcel to a non-contiguous parcel could be used to cluster exemptions appropriately. Program Summary: Insert a new paragraph at end of section, following present 2nd paragraph: “Care must be taken that clustered development follow a site plan typical of the immediate context and of the Highlands. Historically, Highlands residential and commercial development grew along waterways and roadways. Agricultural development consisted of farm buildings and housing for the farm family and workers. Modern cluster development must respect the scale, massing, and arrangement of these precedents. Cul-de-sacs are inappropriate. In cases where fewer but larger buildings were the norm, modern design may offer multiple residential units in single structures reminiscent of, say, barns or multi-gabled Queen Anne houses. It is important that modern design not attempt to “imitate” these earlier designs.


Cluster Development in the Conservation Zone: Require the grouping of all farm related housing and auxiliary structures on non-prime soils. Non-agricultural related development should only occur in villages and hamlets and the permissive requirement for “open space design” eliminated. Scattered buildings whether for agricultural related uses or not will have a detrimental effect on the future of the farms. Open space design for non agricultural development simply means fragmentation of farmland and should not be employed as a tool for non-farm related development in the agricultural areas. Farm areas should be zoned at a density which will permit farm related activities on the average size farm in the Highlands Region. Setbacks from the Road Comment, page 249: In the 1st sentence, instead of it reading “… shall be setback [this verb should be 2 words] from existing roads …” it should read, “shall conform with established front and side yard setbacks [the noun is 1 word] along existing roads.” Modification of Standards for Cluster Design, page 250: Reword the 2nd sentence to read “… emphasize preservation and design quality – in particular, compatibility with the historic site and architectural context – over the specific standards …” Redevelopment Issue Overview, page 250: Add to last sentence of 1st paragraph, “… environmentally sensitive resources or encroach on cultural resources.” Issue Overview, page 250: Insert a new 2nd paragraph: “Redevelopment takes place within existing architectural context, which may or may not be historic. Viable buildings on the site should not be removed for convenience; they should be adaptively reused, and should serve as standards for the scale, massing, and design of new buildings. On former industrial sites, there is a high probability of recovering industrial archaeological information. Care should be taken to include this investigation in the proposal. Housing and Community Facilities Issue Overview, p. 260: Additions to current paragraph: “The RMP guides development ... provided that it is compatible with existing land uses, compatible with cultural resource protection and sympathetic to community character.” “Previously developed areas are by their very nature areas with existing cultural resources. Therefore, in order to ensure appropriate treatment of existing resources an evaluation of the significance and integrity of the cultural resources within the project area is necessary.” Smart Growth Manual General Comment: Rather than two separate manuals (Smart Growth and Community Design), it would be appropriate to combine the Smart Growth Manual and the Community Development Design Guidebook into one manual. In keeping with the holistic nature of the Highlands Act and RMP, the Manual should address issues at the macro and the community level, all resources, and


design at all scales, from the macro to the micro. That said, my comments will address the language in each RMP section separately. RMP Policies and Objectives Addressed: Clarification of Policy 6H3: “To ensure that development activities within the Existing Community Zone are subject to standards and criteria which ensure that development and redevelopment incorporate smart growth principles and do not adversely affect natural, water, agricultural or historic, cultural, archaeological or scenic resources.” Clarification of issues to be addressed by the Smart Growth Manual: The Smart Growth Manual should clearly address the existence of and need to protect the critical natural, water, agricultural and historic, cultural, archaeological and scenic resources of the Highlands, as mandated by the Act. The Manual should provide techniques to ensure that these resources are not degraded by proposed growth or development. Specific issues that should be addressed by the Manual include:

• List/summary of environmental protection standards that apply in the Highlands (NJDEP regulations, RMP standards, federal requirements)

• Site analysis techniques and site selection criteria, including climate, micro-climate, sun (exposure, angles, maximum/minimum), wind, precipitation, geology, soils, topography/slope/erodibility, vegetation, wildlife values, and natural, water, agricultural, historic, cultural, archaeological, and scenic resources present or affected

Community Development Design Guidebook Issue Overview clarification: “The Highlands Act notes that, ‘the existing land use and environmental regulation system cannot protect the water and natural resources of the New Jersey Highlands against the environmental impacts of sprawl development.’ (Section 2). The Regional Master Plan guides new growth and development to areas of existing development. In addition, the Plan contemplates that Highlands Development Credits will be transferred to receiving sites with the Existing Community Zone in the Highlands and to sites outside of the Highlands Region. The Plan provides, however, that community development and redevelopment must be carefully tailored to ensure that new growth and developments [is] are compatible with existing community character and respect and avoid to the maximum extent possible negative impacts on natural, water, agricultural, historic, cultural, archaeological or scenic resources.” Clarify Policy 6H3. “To ensure that development activities within the Existing Community Zone are subject to standards and criteria which ensure that development and redevelopment incorporate smart growth principles and do not adversely affect natural, water, agricultural, historic, cultural, archaeological or scenic resources.” Clarify Policy 6H5. “To ensure that development, redevelopment, rehabilitation and restoration in the Existing Community Zone are compatible with existing community character.”


Clarify Policy 6I1. “To [encourage] permit new growth and development in the Existing Community Zone, [where] when desired by the municipality and when any water supply deficit has been mitigated, and to encourage such development to take the form of center based and mixed use development, that meets standards and criteria that ensure that the development does not adversely affect natural, water, agricultural, historic/cultural/archaeological or scenic resources, and that the development is compatible with existing community character. Highlands Development Design Guidebook Since the Highlands Act is above all about protecting the Region’s water, natural and cultural resources, the guidebook must address land and resource factors, in addition to the architectural factors included on the list of issues. The best design will grow out of an understanding of the site and its context, both natural and historic/cultural. Good design is not created by applying architectural or community design “patterns” to either a rural or a more urbanized landscape without first fully understanding the context.

• The guidebook should begin with site analysis techniques and site selection criteria, including climate, micro-climate, sun (exposure, angles, maximum/minimums), wind, precipitation, geology, soils, topography/slope/erodibility, vegetation, wildlife values, and natural, water, agricultural, historic, cultural, archaeological, and scenic resources, either present or affected by the potential development.

• It should continue from this base to community, site and building design based on and guided by the factors noted above. For example, design that maximizes use of sun angles, slope exposure and prevailing winds to heat and cool structures or outdoor spaces. Community design that incorporates hedgerows as an important design element. Contemporary design that reflects local historical materials, roof pitch, stonework, or relationship of structures.

• Clarify 3. “Historic landscape, site, structure, building and feature preservation, restoration, re-use and development practices.

• Clarify 4. “Scenic/aesthetic Resource Protection design elements” • Clarify 5. “Techniques for community character analysis and development of

community design guidelines based on the analysis” • Clarify 7. “Handbook of traditional design practices.

• a. Community patterns. Insert: Analysis of existing community patterns. • b. “Landscape [patterns] structure, features and materials Comment: Landscapes

do not lend themselves to patterns. Landscapes generally cannot be repeated over a site, unlike buildings.

• We would very much like to see the Guidebook encourage innovative, creative, context and site sensitive design in the Highlands, that may or may not utilize components of traditional design, but are not thoughtless copying of traditional design practices.

Low Impact Development Program Issue Overview, p. 268: Add a new sentence after “have value in reducing the impacts of development.” “Low impact development must also evaluate the impact to community character and cultural resources, including but not limited to cultural landscapes, structures, and archaeology. The Highlands Regional Master Plan recognizes ...”


Chapter V. Programs

Part 7. Landowner Fairness

Overall Comments: Please see general comments from Chapter IV, Part 7. Highlands Development Credits Highlands Development Credit Bank Created

1. The Highlands RMP provides for the creation of a Highlands Development Credit Bank. 2. The Highlands Development Credit Bank is to serve as a regional clearinghouse for

information with regard to the Highlands Development Credit program. 3. The Highlands Development Credit Bank is to serve as the administrator and official

recording agency for the Highlands Development Credit program. 4. The Highlands Development Credit Bank is authorized to buy and sell HDCs.

The authorization for the creation of a new bank comes from the Act. These points do not clarify where it will be located i.e. in what agency, who will be on the Board under what rules it will operate- all of which make it impossible to evaluate.

Allocation of Highlands Development Credits

1. The owners of land in the Protection Zone and the Conservation Zone in the Preservation Area, which was zoned for residential use on August 9, 2004 and which satisfy one (1) of the following criteria, are eligible to apply for an Highlands Final Draft Regional Master Plan allocation of HDCs: - The parcel of land has an area of at least five (5) acres; or the area of the parcel of land is

at least three (3) times the minimum lot size in effect on August 9, 2004; - The owner voluntarily chooses not to develop the parcel of land pursuant to one or more of

the exemptions under section 28 of the Act; or - The owner demonstrates unique and extenuating financial circumstances such as imminent

bankruptcy, extraordinary medical expenses, or loss of job and inability to secure new job within 6 months, which may only be ameliorated through an expedient sale of his Highlands Development Credits.

Hardship criteria should be set by rule. Who is going to make the judgment call over these needs?

2. The owners of land in the Protection Zone and the Conservation Zone in the Preservation

Area, which was zoned for non-residential uses on August 9, 2004, are eligible to apply for an allocation of HDCs.

3. The owners of eligible parcels of land may apply to the Highlands Council for an allocation of HDCs by submitting an application for an HDC Allocation Determination to the Highlands Council together with the information required for the Council to make an allocation of HDCs.

4. HDCs shall be allocated to individual parcels of land on the basis of the following formula (CB-ER) x KMA x KE-U = # HDCs


CB = Base Credit – the residential units or residential unit equivalents that could have been developed on the parcel of land on August 9, 2004, taking into consideration all municipal development regulations and applicable state and federal laws and regulations.

ER = Reserved Exemptions – the number of exemptions reserved by the owner for development of the parcel of land.

KM A = Market Adjustment Factor – an adjustment factor to recognize that per unit value of land varies by location within the Highlands Region.

KE-U = End Use Factor – an adjustment factor to recognize that the value of the land varies according to the end use to which the property can be developed.

What are these values based on? Appraisals of each property? Will they be made on whether the lot was actually developable and marketable and if so who will do all that work and make a professional judgment?

5. In the event that a property owner voluntarily chooses not to develop a residentially zoned

parcel of land pursuant to one or more exemptions under section 28 of the Act, the Base Credit Number shall be increased reflecting the parcel’s regional resource value.

What is a regional resource value? Where are the standards of value? If an exemption is for one use on a huge lot does it mean the exemption can be exercised on and then the rest of the lot sold depending on the zoning?

6. As soon as practicable after the Highlands Council receives a complete Application for an

HDC Allocation Determination, the Council will issue an HDC Allocation Letter setting forth the number of HDCs allocated to the parcel of land.

7. An HDC Allocation Letter shall include a specific restriction on the future use of the parcel of land to which HDCs are allocated.

8. If the owner of land disputes the number of HDCs allocated to his or her property, the owner may seek reconsideration by the Highlands Council only on the grounds of specific factual errors.

What facts?

9. Lands within the Protection Zone and the Conservation Zone within the Planning Area may be made eligible for allocations of HDCs if approved by the Highlands Council through the municipal Plan Conformance process.

Where and what standards will govern this and how then can the ultimate need for a receiving area be determined?

Sale and Use of HDCs

1. Prior to the sale, transfer or conveyance of HDCs, the holder of an HDC Certificate shall apply to the Highlands Development Credit Bank for the re-issuance of a HDC Certificate in the name of the grantee.

2. An application for re-issuance of an HDC Certificate in conjunction with a sale, transfer or conveyance of HDCs shall include the name(s) of the grantee(s), the name(s) of the


grantor(s), the number of HDCs to be sold, transferred or conveyed, the date of the proposed closing of the transaction, written documentation of the interest sold, transferred or conveyed and the consideration for the sale, transfer or conveyance.

3. Prior to the encumbrance of HDCs as collateral or other security, the holder of the HDC Certificate shall notify the Executive Director of the Highlands Development Credit Bank of the name and address of the lender and the date, amount and term of the loan or obligation.

4. In the event a government agency or non-governmental organization proposes to acquire conservation or agricultural easements which restrict the future use of land in the Protection Zone or the Conservation Zone in the Preservation Area and the agency requests a HDC Certificate from the Highlands Development Credit Bank, the Executive Director shall procure an HDC Allocation Letter from the Highlands Council and issue a HDC Certificate to the agency or organization when the easement(s) are recorded.

Are these HDCs then to be retired?

5. When HDCs are used in conjunction with a development project, the holder of the HDC Certificate shall, within ten (10) days of municipal development approval, notify the Highlands Development Credit Bank of the use of the HDCs and apply for a Certificate of Redemption.

6. An application for redemption of a HDC shall include the name of the holder of the HDC Certificate, the name of the developer who used the HDCs, the municipality where the development using HDCs is located, the legal description of the parcel of land on which the HDCs were used and the date of the municipal approval of the development.

7. In the event that only a portion of the HDCs which are authorized in a HDC Certificate are redeemed, the Highlands Development Credit Bank shall issue a new HDC Certificate for the HDCs which were not used.

Designation of Receiving Zones 1. Parcels of land located within the Existing Community Zone and Highlands Redevelopment

Areas, may be designated as Receiving Zones by a Highlands municipality upon approval by the Highlands Council in conformance with the Regional Master Plan.

Can only be determined through conformance. No conformance will have the same result as center designation did –hence the move to whole town endorsement- lessons learned.

2. Parcels of land located in the Conservation Zone may also be designated as Receiving Zones

upon approval of the Highlands Council, provided that such receiving zones are consistent with the Highlands RMP and the development does not conflict with the maintenance of viable agriculture.

See above comment. 3. Municipalities may, through the municipal Plan Conformance process, establish Receiving

Zones in the Existing Community Zone which are restricted to transfer and use of HDCs which are allocated to parcels of land located within the municipality and/or county where the Receiving Zone is located through municipal plan conformance.


Further complicating the market and restricting land owners ability to get the most for their credits.

4. Municipalities may establish brownfields as Receiving Zones through municipal Plan

Conformance, provided that the Highlands Council determines that such brownfields can be developed without adversely affecting the Highlands Ecosystem.

No standards for affecting the Highlands ecosystem. 5. Municipalities within the Planning Area, which do not petition the Highlands Council for a

determination of conformance, may establish Receiving Zones for the use of HDCs for areas which are in the Existing Community Zone or Conservation Zone upon approval of the Highlands Council.

No conformance will have the same result as center designation did –hence the move to

whole town endorsement- lessons learned. 6. Lands which are located within Highlands Counties, but not within the boundaries of the

Highlands Region, may be designated as a Receiving Zone for the use of Highlands Development Credits upon approval of the Highlands Council, provided that the municipality in which the Receiving Zone is to be located has first examined the land capacity, infrastructure capacity, ecological capacity and real estate market of the proposed Receiving Zone lands consistent with the requirements of the Highlands Development Credit Program Receiving Zone Feasibility Grant Program.

Is this where the standards for receiving areas are? 7. Within the Highlands Region, the Highlands Council may designate parcels of land as either

Higher Intensity Receiving Zones or Lower Intensity Receiving Zones, in response to a petition from the municipality in which the receiving zone is to be located.

Should be conformance as above. Higher Intensity Receiving Zones are those zones that will require appropriate public water and wastewater infrastructure with capacity to accommodate additional or new growth and which are proximate to existing developed lands and multi-modal transportation infrastructure. Areas that serve as Higher Intensity Receiving Zones will have a minimum net residential density of 5 dwelling units per acre or its residential unit equivalent for non-residential development. Lower Intensity Receiving Zones are those zones that have residential densities below 5 dwelling units per acre but which provide some amount of bonus residential density or increase in non-residential intensity which is consistent with existing community character. In many cases, Lower Intensity Receiving Zones will be located in areas where the community character is more rural or suburban. Highlands Council Identification of Potential Voluntary HDC Receiving Zones


Are these the long lost standards for receiving zones? The Highlands Council has developed a preliminary, GIS-based analysis of lands that may have potential for serving as HDC receiving zones, as follows: 1. Areas within the Existing Community Zone that are not environmentally constrained and are

served by public wastewater infrastructure with treatment capacity are identified as the first level of potential voluntary HDC receiving zones. These areas represent acres across the Highlands Region and are shown as First Level Receiving Zones on the figure Potential Areas for Voluntary HDC Receiving Zones.

2. Areas within the Highlands Region that are in the Protection or Conservation Zones of the

Planning Area and are not environmentally constrained and are served with public water and public wastewater infrastructure with treatment capacity are identified as the second level of potential voluntary HDC receiving zones. These areas represent acres across the Highlands Region and are shown as Second Level Receiving Zones on the figure Potential Areas for Voluntary HDC Receiving Zones.

(paragraph 3 deleted). 4. Areas in the Highlands Counties outside the Highlands Region that are served with both

public water public wastewater infrastructure with available capacity are identified as the fourth level of potential voluntary HDC receiving zones. These areas represent acres across the Highlands Region and are shown as Fourth Level Receiving Zones on the figure Potential Areas for Voluntary HDC Receiving Zones.

5. Any area within the Highlands Region identified by the Highlands Council as a potential

voluntary HDC receiving zone may not be designated as such unless the municipality in which the zone is identified petitions the Highlands Council for the designation as part of the conformance process.

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Grants The Highlands Council has established a $1 million Voluntary Receiving Zone Feasibility Grant Program. This grant program is designed to assist municipalities in assessing the potential for locating a receiving zone within their communities. Eligible municipalities will receive both financial support and technical assistance from the Council. Participation in the grant program requires a commitment by a municipality to fully evaluate the feasibility and desirability of designating a receiving zone as a part of conformance. Additional grant funding will be made available to offset the costs of implementation of a TDR program. Once a municipality or county has received Plan Conformance approval, they have an obligation to maintain the plans, ordinances and regulations that brought them into conformance. They may not adopt additional plans, ordinances or regulations which are contrary to the mandatory elements of the RMP. According to the Highlands Act, “the council may revoke a conformance approval granted . . ., after conducting a hearing, if the council finds that the local government unit has taken action inconsistent with the regional master plan.” Section 14.c. Municipal and county Plan Conformance will be periodically verified through the Grants Program with the submission of a


required status report. If the council revokes a Plan Conformance approval for a municipality or county that has received grants or funding based on their conformance status, they may be required to return those funds to the Council.

Chapter V. Programs Part 8. Sustainable Economic Development

Propose rewording to accomplish cross-references for historical concerns within these program sections.

Chapter VI: Implementation

Part 1. Regional Master Plan Conformance, Consistency and Coordination

Subpart a. Plan Conformance “Municipal and county conformance with the RMP (Plan Conformance) is the overall goal for implementation of the various elements of the Plan. The Highlands Act establishes the requirement that all municipalities and counties with land in the Preservation Area bring their local plans and development regulations into conformance with the “goals, requirements, and provisions of the regional master plan.” Voluntary conformance for municipalities and counties with land in the Planning Area is also provided for in the Act, which outlines the benefits that shall accrue to those municipalities and counties that conform.” In order to be certified by the Highlands Council as being in conformance with the Regional Master Plan municipalities must enact planning and regulatory regimes which at a minimum implement the following Policies and Objectives of this Plan for the protection, enhancement and restoration of Highlands Resources. Compliance Component “Once a municipality or county has received Plan Conformance approval, they have an obligation to maintain the plans, ordinances and regulations that brought them into conformance. They may not adopt additional plans, ordinances or regulations which are contrary to the mandatory elements of the RMP. According to the Highlands Act, “the council may revoke a Conformance approval granted . . ., after conducting a hearing, if the council finds that the local government unit has taken action inconsistent with the regional master plan.” Section 14.c. Municipal and county Plan Conformance will be periodically verified through the Grants Program with the submission of a required status report. If the council revokes a Plan Conformance approval for a municipality or county that has received grants or funding based on their conformance status, they may be required to return those funds to the Council.” Recommendation: It should be made clear that the Highlands Council will maintain a process whereby municipalities may return to the Council when new or modified ordinances that are related to Highlands Conformance requirements are adopted. No municipal ordinance that has substantial issues with the RMP should go into effect until it is certified to be in conformance


with the RMP. It should also be made clear that development that is not in conformance with the conformed municipal ordinance will be called up for Council Review. Comments: The RMP presently is lacking in clarity regarding the effect of conformance and the ability/ necessity for the Council to review all major development for compliance with the RMP before conformance and the ability/necessity for the Council to review major development for compliance with conformed ordinances following conformance. Procedures for a petition for conformance require that the municipality conduct a “community visioning session(s) to involve the local public”, and that “The results of the community visioning shall be included as part of the Petition for Plan Conformance.” In further stating the procedures for the Petition for Plan Conformance (p. 290), “The Petition shall include the Municipal Assessment Report, the community vision (if available), and all supporting documentation…” which contravenes the above requirement for public involvement. In addition, in the Draft Plan Conformance Guidelines (Jan. ’07), there is no language requiring public involvement in municipal conformance procedures. In contrast, OSG requires at least 3 Visioning sessions as a component of SP Endorsement (including at least one held on a Saturday), with minutes taken, conducted by a board that includes both elected and non-elected community individuals and a representative from OSG.

Subpart b. RMP Updates and Map Adjustments

RMP Policy 6A3 “To develop a program allowing the approval of municipal and county petitions (with accompanying municipal support by resolution) for Map Adjustments to the LUCM Series and other RMP maps, other than the RMP Updates addressed in Policy 6A2. Recommendation: Strike the ability for municipalities and counties to petition the Highlands Council outside of the Conformance process; and strengthen the standards governing the implementation of such changes. The standards for zone boundary changes should be eliminated as being not scientifically based and portend more tradeoffs and must solely be defensible as water protection based. There is no clear rationale for limiting map adjustment petitions to counties and municipalities. Non-profit organizations should also be given the right to petition the Council for map adjustments. These non-profit organizations utilize teams of research scientists and planning professionals to determine local and regional threats to water quality and quantity, natural resource protections, and threats to ecosystem viability. They work on the ground everyday and very much should be afforded the opportunity to harmonize their protection and preservation plans for the future with the goals and planning of the Highlands Council. Concern: Map changes will be required as the regional LUCM maps are adjusted to current on the ground conditions during Conformance. Such changes should only occur in the context of conformance that will be an ongoing process at every level. Petitions, no matter how carefully worded, do not carry the relevance to neither local conditions nor do they carry the same long term visioning that conformance carries. There is little difference between a petition process and asking for a map change as a part of conformance except that the latter is undertaken as part of a


more specific land uses planning analysis that involves the whole municipality and ultimately the public at large. Further the requirements for public participation and hearings at the local level should all be part of any request for changes whether in a LUCM, Master Plan or Zoning. Standards for such changes should be established in order that no net loss of Highlands Resources occurs due to the movement from a protective area to a less protective area. Appropriately according to the Draft RMP Such Map Adjustments must be supported “by a demonstration that they: (1) comply with the intent of the RMP, (2) are based on municipal and county planning that results in a no net increase in land use intensity from the existing LUCM Series and RMP policies, (3) support both smart growth and resource preservation, (4) provide a no net loss of Highlands resources and resource values within the municipality or HUC14 subwatershed such that all Map Adjustment protections are equal to or exceed, on a whole, the protection provided by the existing LUCM Series and RMP policies, and (5) do not result in the change in Zone, Sub-zone or Resource Area designation of any area outside of the Map Adjustment area as an indirect result of the Map Adjustment.” The draft RMP goes on to state “In any case where the Map Adjustment involves a proposed adjustment to the Highlands Land Use Capability Zone Map designation from the Protection or Conservation Zone to Existing Community Zone, the demonstration must additionally meet at least five of the following standards:

• Creates a meaningful opportunity for the use of Highlands Development Credits; • Reduces the net impact on Highlands natural and agricultural resources; • Improves Highlands agricultural resources or agricultural viability; • Eliminates substandard wastewater treatment facilities; • Contributes to the elimination of net water availability deficits in HUC14 subwatersheds; • Creates meaningful opportunities to provide affordable housing; • Creates meaningful employment opportunities for the residents of the Highlands Region

in terms of the quantity and quality of jobs; • Improves the balance of housing and employment in a manner which reduces the length

of home/work trips within the Highlands Region; • Promotes the use of alternative modes of transportation, including transit; or provides

uses and facilities which promote eco- and/or agri-tourism.” Concern: The above standards serve to promote political and development goals of the RMP rather than ensuring the protection of the water supply and the eco system. Such standards rather than utilizing science as the impartial rationale rely on a “stroke of genius” or “greed”. They should be eliminated as ground rules for map changes. Therefore, the following bullets must be removed as potential criteria for map adjustments because they are not consistent with the resource protection goals of the RMP and are simply not water protection based:

• Creates a meaningful opportunity for the use of Highlands Development Credits; • Eliminates substandard wastewater treatment facilities; • Creates meaningful opportunities to provide affordable housing; • Creates meaningful employment opportunities for the residents of the Highlands Region

in terms of the quantity and quality of jobs;


• Improves the balance of housing and employment in a manner which reduces the length of home/work trips within the Highlands Region;

• Promotes the use of alternative modes of transportation, including transit; or provides uses and facilities which promote eco- and/or agri-tourism.”

RMP Policy 6A2. To develop a program for RMP Updates for all substantive components of the RMP based upon the receipt of new, corrected or updated factual information and verification by the Highlands Council, when and where necessary to improve the accuracy of the RMP. Recommendation: Regional Map changes that are proposed due to updates of data and new studies should be the sole prerogative of the Highlands Council and be subjected to the same level of expert and public review as has been true of the initial mapping as included in the Final RMP. This program should establish an impeccable scientific standard that will govern such changes and not allow changes by petition or in Project Review for the convenience of Planners. Concern: Mapping that is subject to trade offs and alteration for planning convenience become political tokens to be exchanged and abused. The LUCM is based on science as we know it today and should only be changed for two reasons 1) scientific analysis indicates new data will more accurately depict conditions on the ground 2) scientifically accurate local data can be proven to create inaccuracies in existing map during conformance review.


Part 2. Highlands Project Review

Subpart a. Project Review Process Overall Recommendation: The same problems accrue during Project Review as with Map Adjustment petitions. They are made on a site by site basis and are subject trade and play planning. No such changes to the maps should be the result of Project Review unless new and definitive science indicating increased protection is the basis. Environmental constraints must be given equal consideration and must be applies “blind to the line”, especially in the existing community zones where it is unclear what environmental constraints will apply. There also needs to be a very clear definition of the Existing Community Zone – Environmentally Constrained Sub-Zone, explaining not just why it is environmentally constrained, but what policies and standards will apply in this sub-zone because it is environmentally constrained. Currently there are no standards.

Subpart b. Project Review Standards Forest Review Standards Forest Management Plan should be replaced with Forest Stewardship Plan (also included on pages 319 and 322). (Clarification page 319): The expansion of public infrastructure into the Forest Resource Area is prohibited except in Low Integrity Forest Subwatersheds as shown to be necessary for and


is approved by the Highlands Council [remove to support clustered development (see Objectives 2K3d and 2K3f) that cannot feasibly be located outside the Forest Resource Area or the forested portion of the Forest Resource Area,] to serve a designated Highlands Redevelopment Area, to address a documented threat to public health and safety where no alternative is feasible, or to provide for minimum practical use in the absence of any alternative through issuance of a waiver by NJDEP or the Highlands Council, and will maximize the protection of forest. The Highlands Act does NOT allow for the extension of sewers or infrastructure into the Preservation Area to serve cluster development, therefore this shall be removed because this Objective is “blind to the line”. Agriculture Review Standards “The Highlands Act provides special status to agricultural development activities in the Preservation Area, requiring the development of farm conservation and resource system management plans when a 3 or 9 percent increase impervious cover is proposed, respectively. The Act also establishes goals for the protection and preservation of agriculture in the Region. Non-agricultural land development within an Agricultural Resource Area must not conflict with the protection and enhancement of agricultural production, protection of prime farmland soils, or other natural resource management and protection requirements. All non-agricultural development that is proposed in an Agricultural Resource Area must comply with open space design requirements to avoid conflicts between such development and agricultural activities and protect farmland and sensitive environmental resources. Clustering for residential development is mandatory in an Agricultural Resource Area such that at least 80% of the parcel proposed for residential development is preserved as farmland or natural resource area. In addition, the agricultural use on the remaining parcel is limited to the 3 percent and 9 percent requirements for farm conservation and resource system management Plans.” Recommendation: The implementation of suggested performance standards in BMPs and in USDA should be mandatory. Comment: There is nothing in the Act that requires that agriculture be given uninhibited use of lands nor does the act prevent the Highlands Council from making the performance standards suggested in BMPs and in USDA Plans mandatory. Just requiring a Plan does not require that that Plan is carried out. Most of these plans and BMPs are voluntary performance standards


Part 3. Improvement of the Regional Master Plan

Subpart a. Water Resources and Ecosystems Science Agenda

This section of the Final Draft RMP discusses what needs to be done to improve the RMP, and in particular discusses the need for a long-term science agenda for the Highlands Council. Of particular relevance to water resource issues, are the following statements that further


acknowledge the ecologically-related limitations of the Low Flow Margin of Safety methodology: “The Highlands Council investigated several methods to calculate ground water capacity. However, no accepted method provided a direct relationship between aquatic ecosystem integrity and stream flows. Therefore the Highlands Council focused on the severity and duration of base flows as a reasonable surrogate for ecosystem and water supply impacts. Ultimately the Highlands Council utilized the Low Flow Margin of Safety method, which is also being used by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for the upcoming NJ Water Supply Plan” [Page 333, Final Draft RMP] Please note that the while the Low Flow Margin of Safety Method may be an appropriate method of determining water availability for purposes of the NJ Water Supply Plan, it is clearly inadequate for the purpose of evaluating stream flow needs to ensure the ecological integrity of the streams in the Highlands or anywhere else for that matter. Thus, this methodology cannot be used to fully meet the purposes of the Act, regardless of the fact that the NJDEP is currently utilizing that methodology for other purposes. “Several other methods, which were not initially selected because of the limited schedule and lack of regional data available, may yet show promise for additional research in estimating the availability of water resources for human and ecological needs. Additional research may be warranted for the following methods: New Jersey Hydrologic Assessment Tool (Eco-flow goals), Range of Variability, R2Cross, or Wetted Perimeter method.” [Page 334, Final Draft RMP] Please note that is inaccurate to suggest that additional research may be warranted with regard to other methodologies needed to conclusively establish the ecological flow requirements of the Highlands’ streams. This research is not only warranted, but the Highlands Act requires it because absent that research, the purposes of the Act simply cannot be fulfilled. The NJ Highlands Coalition strongly recommends that the Highlands Council clarify that the research will indeed be done to accurately establish ecological flow requirements for the Highland Regions’ streams. If the Highlands Council cannot make this clear statement, then it cannot claim to have met the requirements of the Act. “Another critical determinant in the net water availability analysis is determining the amount of ground water capacity that is available for human uses without adversely affecting aquatic ecological integrity. This parameter, known as ground water availability, is computed as a fraction (or threshold) of ground water capacity. The aforementioned models can aid in improving estimates of appropriate thresholds.” [Page 334, Final Draft RMP] This statement again acknowledges that the Low Flow Margin of Safety method of determining water availability is simply insufficient to accurately determine ecological flow needs, a specific requirement of the Act. In addition, it acknowledges the “critical” nature of making this determination, thus establishing need for further research and study in order to fulfill the purposes of the Act as well as confirming the need to exercise appropriate caution in relying of the uncertain results obtained by the Low Flow Margin methodology. The point here, once again, is that the Highlands Council’s ill-advised decision to permit additional


consumptive/depletive water uses in areas already exhibiting water availability deficits, should be reversed. Forest Sustainability, Page 337. See comments under Forest Sustainability, Page 171 above.


Part 4. Highlands Council Implementation Programs

Subpart a. Highlands Council

Technical Assistance Documents and Guidance Manuals, Page 341. They are going to need more than just documents. If real habitat protection, restoration and enhancement (including mitigation) are going to take place in the Highlands, then the Council will need to establish (either internally or through partnerships) a team of landscape ecologists. The municipalities, private landowners, county park systems and the NGOs would all require assistance to perform these activities.

Supporting Information Glossary

Cluster Development Eliminate Lot Averaging, and other MLUL permitted activities from the definition of RMP Clustering. That wouldn’t mean they are forbidden but simply not treated as a “cluster” The general definition inclusion of Lot Averaging, non –contiguous density calculations and other MLUL permitted activities in the definition of an otherwise precise land use planning activity including planning for infrastructure is not acceptable nor clear to readers of the RMP. The clustering definition in the RMP includes other types of development patterns which though they involve the same kind of transfers of development from place to place and calculate density differently than the usual Euclidean zoning do not accomplish the same goals and could be very damaging to the Highlands. These are lot averaging, open space planning and non-contiguous density calculations. The latter can be a very important tool in developing a plan for clusters but are not clusters per se. Context of Resources The relevant setting of a resource; its site Culture The systems of interaction between humankind and its world. Cultural Landscape The visible assembly of signs of human settlement, past or present. Cultural Resource Types For the Highlands, the following categories of cultural resources would be useful [this is incomplete]

• Archaeology. Artifacts, remains, or indications of former cultural use –often but not necessarily below ground

• Industrial Archaeology. Structures, remnants, or artifacts of former industrial use, e.g. buildings, machinery, land disturbances, shafts related to mining.

• Commercial Archaeology. Structures, site designs, signage in commercial use historically and perhaps still, e.g. diners, 1930s and ‘40s motels.


• Significance. The importance of a resource in light of its cultural function, integrity, and associations.

• Collection. A group of resources brought together deliberately out of context, for protection or preservation, as, a museum collection.

• Appropriateness. A formal judgment about the compatibility of a change to a cultural site or landscape

Cultural Resources Artifacts singly or in groups, of human settlement, or their remnants. Deforestation The term “deforestation” is used in Objective 1A2c but is not defined in the glossary. Does it include land that might be cleared for habitat management or forest management practices? If so, this should be defined clearly to allow practices that support restoration of rare or declining species habitat biodiversity and exclude other practices. Degradation of Context Treatment of a resource site so as to impair the integrity of the resource. Historic Resources Cultural resources which have reached a defined age or significance. Linear Development Should be defined and clarified to require the consideration of location, design and or configuration as part of the test of feasible alternatives for all applications proposing linear development and should reference standards to require avoidance of impacts where feasible. Lower Intensity Receiving Zone means a Receiving Zone in the Highlands Development Credit Program that has a residential density below 5 dwelling units per acre or its residential unit equivalent for non-residential development, but which provides some amount of bonus residential density or increase in non-residential intensity above base zoning which is consistent with existing community character. In many cases, a Lower Intensity Receiving Zone will be located in areas where the community character is more rural or suburban. How do you measure non-residential equivalent? No Net Loss Should be clarified through definition in the glossary to include multi-parameter, interdependent factors of quantity (e.g. acreage), quality (e.g. core forest vs. edge forest), type (e.g. scrub-shrub), and function (e.g. winter hibernaculum for timber rattlesnakes). The mitigation must meet requirements of the impacted species. Open Space Design Development A creative land use technique using an open space ratio that allows a community to guide growth to the most appropriate areas within a parcel of land to avoid impacts to the environment and impermeable surfaces on Prime and Special Highlands Soils, and to protect the character-defining features of the property. Sending Zone means an area or areas designated in a master plan and zoning ordinance, for purposes of participating in the Highlands Development Credit Program (delete: “within which development is restricted in light of the requirements of the Highlands Act”).


Shoreland Please define. Word does not appear in any standard dictionaries. Stewardship Stewardship may be accomplished in a number of ways, including resource preservation management of public lands, application of agricultural best management practices to privately held preserved farmland, monitoring and enforcement of publicly held conservation easements, and purely private management actions. Stewardship, particularly of privately held lands, must be accompanied by an on-going landowner educational effort and training of public officials. Sustainable Should be defined as an ecological balance that avoids the depletion or loss of natural resources through a consideration of the interaction and dependency of each resource upon other resources in the framework of the entire ecosystem. This standard of ecological integrity should also be defined to include water quality and quantity of river and streams as an input in ensuring this critical ecological balance. Unavoidable Should be defined to clarify the parameters by which mitigation and required and minimization is encouraged through benchmarks and standards. Wildlife Passage Corridors Corridors should be defined based on relevant knowledge and research. The use of 100-year flood zone designation is out-of-date under existing levels of impermeable surfaces (e.g. 100-year flood zones may now flood at much shorter intervals) and should be considered when defining “flood prone areas”. We recommend consideration of FEMA 500-year flood zones.


NEW JERSEY HIGHLANDS COALITION · NEW JERSEY HIGHLANDS COALITION 508 Main Street, Boonton, New...

Documents

Transcript of NEW JERSEY HIGHLANDS COALITION · NEW JERSEY HIGHLANDS COALITION 508 Main Street, Boonton, New...