WolfeNotes.com

I urge the Commission to conduct technical reviews and submit technical comments on DEP regulatory proposals, instead of vague and misleading political endorsements.

The NJ Pinelands Commission is by law an independent regional planning and regulatory agency.

The Commission is bound by law to base its decisions and actions on the best available science in accordance with the policies and standards adopted in the Pinelands Protection Act and codified in the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP).

The Pinelands Act directs and authorizes the Commission to adopt more stringent regulatory standards than DEP, in order to protect unique and sensitive Pinelands ecosystems.

The Commission is independent and not a political institution or an arm of the Governor’s Office (despite the fact the Gov. Murphy installed his political loyalist as Chair of the Commission).

Yet, based on my review of recent comments submitted to DEP in support of DEP’s recent flood rules, it is obvious that the Commission has been captured by the Governor’s Office and is running political interference for the Gov. and the DEP.

So, I just fired off this letter to the Commission:

Dear Pinelands Commission:

Please consider the following as public comments during your upcoming public meeting.

I just read the Pinelands Commission’s 2/2/23 written comments submitted by Stacey Roth on proposed DEP stormwater management and Flood Hazard Act regulations.

The Commission supported those proposed rules on the following basis:

“Development within the State of New Jersey must be designed and constructed to manage not only for today’s flood conditions but for the significantly higher precipitation level anticipated to occur in the future.“

Yet, according to the DEP proposal itself, the proposed rule’s precipitation, runoff, flood elevation, and storm frequency data do not reflect current conditions and do not reflect projected (modeled) conditions.

Accordingly, as explained below, the Commission’s comments are not accurate.

1. DEP based the rule on the 100 year storm event, despite the fact that NJ already has experienced several far more severe 500 year storm events.

DEP’s proposal documents the fact that NJ has suffered 500 year (or more) Storm events and flooding (proposal @ page 10):

Specifically, the remnants of Tropical Storm Ida resulted in flooding significantly more severe than FEMA’s published 100-year flood at various locations in New Jersey:

Raritan River at Bound Brook:

• Flooding during Tropical Storm Ida equaled 1999’s Hurricane Floyd, which was the highest elevation ever recorded at Bound Brook.
• Including Floyd, flooding at this location in the past 23 years has equaled or exceeded FEMA’s 500-year flood elevation three times.
• The Raritan River during Tropical Storm Ida peaked at 42.13 ft NGVD (41.21 ft NAVD) which is 3.01 feet above FEMA’s 100-year elevation (38.2 ft NAVD) and 0.21 ft above FEMA’s 500-year flood elevation (41.0 ft NAVD).

Raritan River at Bridgewater

• Flooding during Tropical Storm Ida peaked at roughly FEMA’s 500-year flood elevation (41.0 ft NAVD) which is 2.8 ft above FEMA’s 100-year flood elevation (38.2 ft NAVD)

Millstone River at Manville:

• Flooding during Tropical Storm Ida peaked at roughly one foot above FEMA’s 500-year flood elevation (43.5 ft NAVD) which is 2.5 ft above FEMA’s 100-year flood elevation (41.0 ft NAVD). Thus, flooding at this location peaked at approximately 3.5 feet above FEMA’s 100-year flood elevation.

DEP then explains the significance of the 500 year flood event: (@page 11):

“These examples illustrate not only that Ida was a significant flood event that exceeded the anticipated flooding depicted on available flood mapping products, upon which many roads and buildings were financed, constructed, and insured in the impacted communities, but also that there is an upward trend in the number and severity of flood events in the State. As noted above, flooding in Bound Brook has exceeded FEMA’s 100-year flood elevation four times and FEMA’s 500-year flood elevation three times since 1999, which leads to the conclusion that we are already experiencing increased flooding as compared with past recurrence interval calculations.”

Despite the facts that NJ is already experiencing 500 year floods and that climate science projects that extreme storms will significantly increase in rainfall amount, rainfall intensity (short severe bursts of rainfall that create floods), and extreme rainfall frequency, the DEP did not even use the 500 year storm.

Instead, DEP merely added a 25% “safety factor” addition to the current 100 year storm event they’ve been using for decades.

And look how they then falsely stated that it would be adequate – a statement made before the facts on 500 year storms are summarized on page 10-11: (@page 5):

“This rulemaking incorporates anticipated greater depths of precipitation for the two, 10, and 100-year storm events for the purposes of stormwater management.These proposed amendments are necessary to ensure that buildings, roads, stormwater management features and other structures are designed and constructed to manage and be protective for today’s flood conditions and precipitation as well as anticipated future conditions and precipitation. […]

Specifically, the flood hazard area design flood elevation is based on a flood that is 25 percent greater than the 100-year peak flow rate in the stream or river being analyzed and mapped.”

The technical regulatory fine print for this standard is on page 102:

“6. Table 3.6B below sets forth the change factors to be used in determining the projected 100-year storm event for use in this chapter”

The 100 year storm – even with an additional 25% “safety factor” increment – can not “ensure that buildings, roads, stormwater management features and other structures are designed and constructed to manage and be protective for today’s flood conditions and precipitation as well as anticipated future conditions and precipitation.”

That proposed new standard is already exceeded now, never mind projected climate driven increases.

DEP admits this multiple times in the proposal:

“More than 12 rivers exceeded their 100-year flood levels”

“On August 27 and 28, 2011, Hurricane Irene resulted in record breaking floods on many New Jersey streams, with 33 USGS stream gauges recording peak flows equal to or greater than the 100-year recurrence interval (USGS, 2011).”

DEP exposed the inadequacy of the 100 year design storm for the purpose of justifying their new 25% “safety factor”.

But, ironically, in doing so, DEP also exposed the flaws in relying on the 100 year flood.

2. DEP Ignores Land Use Increases In Development. DEP’s proposed new standards are obsolete for the same reasons that DEP correctly rejects current rainfall methods

Just some basic observations make it obvious that, in addition to underestimating extreme rainfall amounts and flood elevations, DEP is failing to consider a basic driver of increased flood impacts.

Flooding is a combination of the amount and timing of rainfall and the ability of the landscape to absorb that rainfall.

NJ is a highly developed state.

Development destroyed forests, wetlands, and natural landscapes that absorb rainfall and dampen flooding. It also puts people and property at risk when located in areas prone or vulnerable to flooding.

Development also increases impervious surfaces that dramatically increase the generate stormwater runoff volumes.

Yet the DEP proposal ignores the changes in land use and impervious surfaces that generated huge volumes of stormwater that contribute to bad land use decisions that result in devastating deadly flooding.

The proposal ignores existing development, it will influence new development at the margin, and it therefore depends on market forces, not any overarching State Land use and climate plan or infrastructure investment program.

A critical Star ledger editorial got that:

“A lot of New Jersey was developed prior to the stormwater regulations,” Obropta said. “The state needs to require municipalities to begin retrofitting existing development with stormwater management if we have any hope to reduce flooding.”

The proposal ignores existing development.

The proposal does very little to cap or reduce impervious surfaces or stop the loss of natural lands like forests, wetlands and stream buffers. It guarantees that the flooding problems will get worse.

I urge the Commission to conduct technical reviews and submit technical comments on DEP regulatory proposals, instead of vague and misleading political endorsements.

Bill Wolfe