Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan November 2007 Comment and Response Document

Transcription

1 Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan November 2007 Comment and Response Document Prepared by State of New Jersey Highlands Water Protection and Planning Council in Support of the Highlands Regional Master Plan

2 Contents INTRODUCTION CHAPTER DESCRIPTION OF THE HIGHLANDS REGION... 1 HISTORY OF THE HIGHLANDS REGION... 2 THE HIGHLANDS WATER PROTECTION AND PLANNING ACT... 3 THE HIGHLANDS REGIONAL MASTER PLAN... 4 ANALYSIS OF THE HIGHLANDS REGION CHAPTER WATER RESOURCES GROUND WATER QUALITY WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS SEPTIC SYSTEM DENSITIES/ NITRATES GROUND WATER RECHARGE AREAS WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING WATER SUPPLY UTILITIES MISCELLANEOUS AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES GENERAL AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY AND VIABILITY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAMS, CONSERVATION PLANS AND WATER USE MAPPING CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT AGRICULTURAL LAND USE PLANNING RIGHT TO FARM HISTORIC, CULTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES SCENIC RESOURCES TRANSPORTATION COMMUNITY CHARACTER LAND USE CAPABILITY MAP SERIES LANDOWNER FAIRNESS GENERAL COMMENTS CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE HIGHLANDS ACT FUNDING FOR COMPENSATION EXEMPTIONS TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AIR QUALITY REGIONAL AND LOCAL COMMUNITY CHARACTER CHAPTER GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES CHAPTER NATURAL RESOURCES HIGHLANDS FOREST RESOURCES HIGHLANDS OPEN WATERS AND RIPARIAN AREAS STEEP SLOPES i

3 CRITICAL HABITAT LAND PRESERVATION AND STEWARDSHIP CARBONATE ROCK (KARST) TOPOGRAPHY LAKE MANAGEMENT WATER RESOURCES AND WATER UTILITIES WATER RESOURCE AVAILABILITY PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES QUANTITY WATER QUALITY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND WATER RESOURCES AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY AND VIABILITY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAMS, CONSERVATION PLANS AND WATER USE IMPERVIOUS COVER CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT RIGHT TO FARM AND FARMLAND ASSESSMENT ACT HISTORIC, CULTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES SCENIC RESOURCES GOALS, POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES TRANSPORTATION SAFETY AND MOBILITY FUTURE LAND USE REGIONAL GUIDANCE PROTECTION ZONE CONSERVATION ZONE EXISTING COMMUNITY ZONE REDEVELOPMENT SMART GROWTH HOUSING LANDOWNER FAIRNESS SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AIR QUALITY LOCAL PARTICIPATION PROGRAMS CHAPTER NATURAL RESOURCES FOREST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY RESTORATION OF STREAMS AND RIPARIAN AREAS CRITICAL HABITAT CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT LAND PRESERVATION CARBONATE ROCK (KARST) TOPOGRAPHY LAKE MANAGEMENT AREA WATER RESOURCES AND UTILITIES HIGHLANDS RESTORATION: WATER DEFICITS THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER WATER QUALITY RESTORATION WASTEWATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY HISTORIC, CULTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES HISTORIC RESOURCE PROTECTION ii

4 SCENIC RESOURCE PROTECTION TRANSPORTATION SAFETY AND MOBILITY FUTURE LAND USE LAND USE CAPABILITY ANALYSIS APPROACH CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT HOUSING AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES SMART GROWTH MANUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DESIGN GUIDEBOOK LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT LANDOWNER EQUITY TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK DEED RESTRICTIONS SUSTAINABLE REGIONAL ECONOMY AIR QUALITY IMPLEMENTATION CHAPTER REGIONAL MASTER PLAN CONFORMANCE, CONSISTENCY, COORDINATION RMP UPDATES AND MAP ADJUSTMENTS GRANTS AND FUNDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COAH NJDEP REGULATIONS AND COORDINATION STATE PLAN/PLAN ENDORSEMENT STATE, FEDERAL, REGIONAL AGENCY COORDINATION PLAN CONFORMANCE GUIDELINES AND MODEL ORDINANCES HIGHLANDS PROJECT REVIEW IMPROVEMENTS OF THE REGIONAL MASTER PLAN HIGHLANDS COUNCIL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS SUPPORTING INFORMATION GENERAL COMMENTS HIGHLANDS WATER PROTECTION AND PLANNING ACT EQUITY CONCERNS HIGHLANDS COUNCIL PROVISIONS OF THE HIGHLANDS ACT iii

5 Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan November 2007 Comment and Response Document Reorganization of Chapters in the Regional Master Plan The chapter organization of the Highlands Regional Master Plan (RMP) has been modified to move Regional and Local Community Character which appeared as Chapter III in the 2007 Draft RMP to Chapter 2 and Analysis of the Highlands Region which appeared as Chapter II in the 2007 Draft RMP to Chapter 3. Chapter numbers are also now in Arabic rather than Roman numerals. The changes were made in response to public comments regarding the flow of the RMP and to present the existing conditions of the Highlands Region, as contained in the community character description, prior to the analysis of those conditions. Individual comments reference the chapters as contained in the 2007 Draft RMP and responses refer to information as contained in the adopted Regional Master Plan. INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE HIGHLANDS REGION COMMENT: A few comments stated that this section should mention that while the 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. RESPONSE: The RMP specifies that over half of New Jersey s residents rely on the 860,000 acre Highlands Region for drinking water supplies. The RMP was revised to include the important point made by these commenters that the Highlands Region, while it only includes 17 percent of the State s land area, serves nearly 65 percent of the State s population with clean drinking water. COMMENT: Several comments stated that historic, cultural and scenic resources should be mentioned as Highlands values to be protected. RESPONSE: The RMP does address historic, cultural and scenic resources in numerous sections throughout the RMP, including the Chapter 1 - Introduction, and the RMP advances goals, policies, objectives and programs to protect these resources in Chapters 4 and 5 respectively. COMMENT: Comments supported the characterization of the Highlands Region as a significant green belt within the larger metropolitan area. RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges these supporting comments. COMMENT: A few comments stated that there should be a discussion of climate; including precipitation, maximum temperatures, and minimum temperatures, as typically found in environmental resource inventories. RESPONSE: The RMP contains an extensive array of environmental resource information in order to respond to the mandates of the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act (Highlands Act). The commenters are correct that such details, such as climate and precipitation, while they are not addressed in the RMP, may be appropriately addressed in local plans, local environmental resource inventories, and as factors related to low impact development and sustainable design practices. COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the section lacked a discussion of Land Use Setting. RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges these comments and the Land Use Setting subsection has been expanded to include additional discussion about existing land use in the Highlands Region 1

6 HISTORY OF THE HIGHLANDS REGION COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the Plan should have a section about trust resources and the public trust doctrine. RESPONSE: The RMP does include numerous sections relating to the public trust doctrine in Chapters 1, 2 and 3. Specifically, Chapter 1 includes specific references to the public trust doctrine in Part 3 quoting from the Highlands Act as follows: The Legislature specifically recognized that the resources of the Highlands Region are a vital part of the public trust. It declared that the measures of the Highlands Act should be guided, in heart, mind, and spirit, by an abiding and generously given commitment to protecting the incomparable water resources and natural beauty of the New Jersey Highlands so as to preserve them intact, in trust, forever for the pleasure, enjoyment, and use of future generations (Section 2). COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the history section could be strengthened and a more thorough discussion of the geologic events that shaped the Region should be included. RESPONSE: In Chapter 2, Part 2, of the RMP was expanded to include a section specifically addressing the geological conditions of the Highlands. In addition, the Council s technical reports address geologic conditions of the Highlands. COMMENT: Several comments suggested that the figure titled, Areas Served Outside the Highlands Region, under-represents the importance of Highlands water by omitting the proportion used from the Delaware River. RESPONSE: The figure actually does include areas along the Delaware River that draw water from the River. However, it is important to note that most of these areas derived less than 10 percent of their supply from the Highlands, relative to flows from New York, Pennsylvania and other parts of New Jersey. COMMENT: A few comments stated that the figure titled, Source Water Protection Areas and Reservoirs, contains two areas shown in yellow with no accompanying legend category. The same figure also does not include the HUC 14 boundaries as part of the legend. Comments suggested that a similar map with municipal boundaries should be included; stating that 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. It was also suggested that the map be updated to clarify which HUC 14s are threatened by non-highlands development and which areas receive water from deficit or constrained watersheds. RESPONSE: The Council has prepared an updated figure, see Figure 1.3, which responds to many of these comments. The two sections that appeared to be yellow were intended to be white and are outside the mapped area, and the updated map more clearly indicates this fact. An additional map has been added to the RMP which shows watersheds and subwatersheds, see Figure 3.1 Watersheds and Subwatersheds. For additional flexibility in map applications and public transparency for the use of RMP data, the Council has posted a new interactive map on the Council s website that allows individuals to choose which data layers to display and overlay. COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the description of the 1907 Potable Water Commission Report is excellent, but should be augmented with a discussion of other water supply plans and reservoir projects. RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges these comments as the 1907 Potable Water Commission Report provides an important historical perspective on the need to protect the waters in the Highlands Region. While additional analysis could have been included, the RMP was designed to include an overview and not a detailed analysis of prior plans and specific water supply projects. COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the section describing the US Forest Service Study should include a discussion of how the Highlands Council will interact with the federal program both now and into future. RESPONSE: The RMP does include a discussion on federal government coordination in Chapter 6. 2

7 Implementation. The role of the federal government is crucial to the successful implementation of the RMP including, but not limited to the Forest Legacy Program and the federal Highlands Conservation Act. COMMENT: The National Park Service pointed out that the US Forest Service commented on the Musconetcong River Management Plan. The National Park Service is concerned that the Planning and Preservation Areas are split by the Musconetcong River and suggested that watershed planning indicates that like areas should be dealt with together and the separation of the two sides of the River will make protection of the resource more difficult. RESPONSE: The boundaries between the Planning Area and the Preservation Area of the Highlands Region were established by the Highlands Act. The Legislature s delineation of the Preservation Area and Planning Area boundary was based upon the need to identify the most important resource lands. After identifying these lands, the Legislature used identifiable demarcations such as roads, water bodies, municipal boundaries and certain institutional property boundaries (such as State Parks) to establish a clear boundary for the Preservation Area. The resource assessment performed by the Highlands Council, for the development of the RMP, examined the protections measures that are necessary for the protection of Highlands Open Waters. As a result of this assessment, the RMP includes specific standards to provide a 300-foot buffer on each side of Highlands Open Waters, including the Musconetcong River. In addition, a specific policy was added to Chapter 4 to specifically address the project review needs regarding federal Wild and Scenic Rivers. COMMENT: A few comments suggested edits to the paragraph relative to the history of the iron industry in the Highlands. RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges these comments and notes that the paragraph has been amended to expand the RMP to be responsive to the comments. COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Highlands Task Force Report should be made available by link on the Council s website. RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The report is presently available through NJDEP s website on the Highlands and the Highlands Council is presently updating the Council s website to include the Highlands Task Force Report. THE HIGHLANDS WATER PROTECTION AND PLANNING ACT COMMENT: One comment suggested that the full text of the Highlands Act should be available by link on the Council s website. RESPONSE: The full text of the Highlands Act is available by link on the Council s website at: COMMENT: One comment suggested that the findings of the Highlands Act be presented in the introduction and reference should be made to the equity issue as defined in the Act. RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The issue of equity is addressed in various sections of the RMP and specifically in the sections titled Landowner Equity. In addition, the Council recognizes that issues relating to landowner equity are contained in numerous sections of the RMP. Accordingly, the Council staff has prepared an abstract that compiled the equity provisions in the Highlands Act and the RMP. This document will be made available on the Council s website. COMMENT: The New Jersey Department of Agriculture suggested language be added to describe their Agricultural Development in the Highlands Rules (N.J.A.C. 2:92), adopted in May 2006, which outlines the level of review for new agricultural impervious cover. They also suggested adding a statement that explains that agricultural and horticultural activities within the Preservation Area are not considered major Highlands development, and clarifying that current and future cropping activities are protected and may continue. RESPONSE: A paragraph has been added to the RMP describing the treatment of agricultural and horticultural activities under the Highlands Act. This paragraph explains that in the Preservation Area, 3

8 agricultural and horticultural use or development is not subject to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) rules. The paragraph specifically references the Agricultural Development in the Highlands Rules (N.J.A.C. 2:92), as adopted by the Department of Agriculture, and references the standards and criteria to be followed for agricultural and horticultural activities in the Highlands Region. THE HIGHLANDS REGIONAL MASTER PLAN COMMENT: Several comments stated their support for the Regional Master Plan s regional approach to natural resource protection and recognized that in order to protect the integrity of the water supply of the Highlands the Plan must focus on an approach that cuts across political and jurisdictional boundaries. RESPONSE: The Council appreciates the support expressed in the comments. The development of the RMP was specifically designed to address the mandates of the Highlands Act to create a plan for the entire Highlands Region. COMMENT: One comment suggested that the National Wild & Scenic Lower Delaware River and its accompanying Management Plan be mentioned in the RMP. It was pointed out that the Management Plan covers all of the Highlands municipalities within Warren County bordering the Delaware River and the Hunterdon County municipalities of Alexandria, Holland and Milford. The Lower Delaware River serves as a regional water resource. RESPONSE: The RPM was revised to address this matter. Specifically, the scenic resource protection objectives in Chapter 4 include a requirement that actions that may impact the resource values of the Musconetcong National Scenic and Recreational River and the Scenic Lower Delaware River shall require review by the National Park Service, National Wild and Scenic Rivers Program. COMMENT: A number of comments stated that the economic impacts of the implementation of the Highlands Act and the Regional Master Plan, as required by the Act, are missing. RESPONSE: The Highlands Act, in Section 11, requires that the RMP include a financial component detailing the costs of implementing the RMP and the sources of revenue for covering such costs. Chapter 3, Part 8 includes the substantive discussion of the financial component including an analysis of the Highlands Protection Fund that was created by the Legislature through the passage of the Highlands Act. The costs of RMP implementation at a municipal and county level will primarily be funded through the revenue provided by the Highlands Protection Fund. To date the Legislature has appropriated extensive finding for the implementation of the RMP. In addition, the RMP, in its Sustainable Economic Development Program in Chapter 5, includes an economic tracking component to evaluate the condition of the regional economy. COMMENT: Several comments stated that the Highlands Act requires a Resource Assessment and determination of capacity for human development, but no build-out numbers have been provided. COMMENT: Several comments noted that the Highlands Act mandates that the RMP include a natural resource capacity analysis and that the requirement was ignored. RESPONSE: The Highlands Council conducted a thorough resource assessment to determine the ecologically sustainable amount and type of human development while still maintaining the overall ecological values of the Highlands Region. In terms of quantifying sustainable development, the RMP includes specific zones, resource areas, and associated policies to protect the ecological integrity of Highlands resources. In terms of sustainable use of water and wastewater utilities, the RMP similarly includes numerical thresholds in order to protect both water quantity and water quality. The policies of the RMP were integrated in a build out analysis, which includes a numerical projection of sustainable development in the Highlands Region, in the Highlands Regional Build Out Analysis Technical Report. This technical report is available on the Council s website. In addition, the Net Water Availability and Utility Capacity results in the RMP have been modified based on new policies and updated information. This information will be further updated using a refined water use tracking model and water use data as it becomes available from municipalities and utilities. Future efforts will also link water utility capacity to the net water availability of its source subwatershed. The build 4

9 out analyses have incorporated this information in their models, indicating where utility capacity or net water availability constraints are the limiting factor in potential residential and non-residential development capacity. COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Council does not have enough money to support the implementation of the Highlands Act and the RMP. There is no money in the budget to use for land preservation, although it is required by the Act. The Plan should detail sources of revenue to cover costs of implementation. RESPONSE: As discussed above, the costs of RMP implementation at a municipal and county level will primarily be funded through the revenue provided by Legislature in the Highlands Protection Fund. As specified in Chapter 3 of the RMP, the current balance of over $21 million in the Highlands Protection Fund is available to support the conformance activities of the 88 municipalities and seven counties stands. In addition, the Legislature has consistently appropriated $4.4 million on an annual basis. With respect to land preservation, the financial component in Chapter 3 of the RMP details required analysis of acquisition costs and revenues for preservation or recreation and conservation purposes. This includes the costs associated with the five and ten year priorities for land preservation identified in the RMP. The analysis concluded that prior revenue under the Garden State Preservation Trust (GSPT) needed to continue for Green Acres and be considerably increased for Farmland Preservation. The Council acknowledges the comment and continues to work to secure a dedicated funding source to assist in implementing the RMP, specifically regarding land acquisition. To that end, the Highlands Council continues to advocate for the reauthorization of the GSPT and the imposition of a water user fee. COMMENT: One comment pointed out that the Resource Assessment, as outlined in the Highlands Act, is only meant for advisory purposes in the Planning Areas. RESPONSE: The Highlands Act includes numerous provisions in which the implications of the RMP are designed to vary depending on whether the activity is in the Preservation Area or the Planning Area. The Highlands Council makes it clear throughout the RMP that the Highlands Act mandates that municipalities and counties with lands in the Preservation Area are required to revise local master plan and development regulations to conform with the goals, requirements, and provisions of the RMP. This requirement in Section 14.f goes on to specify that voluntary conformance with the regional master plan is applicable to those portions of a municipality or county lying within the planning area. Accordingly, the RMP is only advisory with respect to municipalities and counties for lands in the Planning Area. Should municipalities and counties voluntarily choose to conform to the RMP, the Highlands Council will review petitions for Plan Conformance in accordance with Section 15 of the Highlands Act. While municipal and county conformance is clearly voluntary in the Planning Area, the Highlands Act, in Sections 38 through 82, amends numerous statutes of State agencies to specifically require coordinated action to implement the RMP. In these sections, the Act requires consultation between the Highlands Council and State agencies to ensure that the RMP is considered prior to State agency action in a manner consistent with their respective statutory or regulatory mandate. The agency coordination requirements of the Highlands Act are also set forth in Section 11 which requires that the RMP include a coordination and consistency component which details the ways in which local, State, and federal programs and policies may best be coordinated to promote the goals, purposes, policies, and provisions of the regional master plan, and which details how land, water, and structures managed by governmental or nongovernmental entities in the public interest within the Highlands Region may be integrated into the regional master plan. The Highlands Council included a section on agency coordination in Chapter 6 of the RMP. In Part 1, Subpart D, the RMP specifies that the agency coordination requirements in the Highlands Act do not negate Sections 14 and 15 of the Act which specify that conformance with the RMP is voluntary for the Planning Area portions of Highlands municipalities and counties. Accordingly, the language in Section 11.b of the Highlands Act specifying that the resource assessment, transportation component, and smart growth component prepared pursuant to subsection a. of this section shall be used only for advisory purposes in the planning area and shall have no binding or regulatory effect therein clearly means that municipalities and counties may voluntarily utilize the RMP for with lands in the Planning Area and that agencies use the RMP in the Planning Area in accordance with their respective statutory and regulatory authority. 5

10 COMMENT: A few comments suggested that TDR receiving areas should not be identified unless they are accompanied by the existing environmental constraints. It was also suggested that the Highlands TDR program should follow the example of the Pinelands in deciding TDR credits. There was concern that the title, Landowner Fairness, gives an unwarranted impression that there is no risk in owning property. It was suggested that a more accurate title would be Land Owner Equity, because the term equity indicates risk in owning both land and TDR credits. RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has re-examined its Receiving Zone identification from the 2007 Draft RMP focusing now on the Existing Community Zone within the Planning Area only and excluding any environmentally constrained subzones. The analysis includes both developed and undeveloped areas both with and without infrastructure. Through this analysis, the Highlands Council has identified approximately 12,000 acres that have some potential to serve as voluntary Receiving Zones, though many of these areas currently have constraints regarding water availability or utility capacity. The Highlands Council has chosen not to follow the model of the Pinelands Development Credit Program due to the significant differences in real estate values that exist in the Highlands Region which were not as prevalent in the Pinelands when that program was established over 25 years ago. With respect to the concern regarding the term Landowner Fairness, that term has been changed in the RMP to Landowner Equity. COMMENT: One comment suggested that the introduction be expanded to add a section explaining the relationship between the NJDEP rules (N.J.A.C. 7:38) and the policies and standards found in the Plan. The Plan does not indicate how its policies may be used by the NJDEP (i.e. how the NJDEP will use the Plan to amend its rules and make decisions in both the Planning and Preservation Areas). It was suggested that a side-by-side comparison of the standards related to specific resource areas should be provided. It was further suggested that the Plan should acknowledge those activities that are exempt from the Plan because these exemptions will require municipalities to maintain their non-highlands plans and ordinances for development not subject to the Highlands Act. RESPONSE: The Highlands Act provides NJDEP with regulatory authority over major Highlands development in the Preservation Area. The Highlands Act does not, however, include a provision that NJDEP s authority will no longer apply once the Regional Master Plan is adopted and instead requires a coordinated planning and permitting process by the Council and NJDEP. The RMP has been revised to include extensive cross-references to NJDEP Preservation Area rules in the project review section in Chapter 6. Similarly, Chapters 2 and 6 provide an overview of the agency coordination requirements of the Highlands Act. Regarding the exemptions in the Highlands Act, the RMP has been revised to specifically address exemptions in Chapter 4, Part 7. COMMENT: One comment suggested adding a discussion about the benefits of agriculture as it relates to culture, landscape and economy and its contribution to the character of the Highlands Region. RESPONSE: The RMP includes extensive recognition of agriculture as an important part of the essential character of the Highlands Region. The goals, policies and objectives of the RMP are aimed at preserving agriculture as an activity into the future. COMMENT: One comment suggested that the definition of agriculture is designed to be broad and decisions about whether a specific activity or land use is within this agriculture definition should be resolved by informal consultation with the New Jersey Department of Agriculture or formal determination by the State Agriculture Development Committee. RESPONSE: The Highlands Act includes a specific definition of agricultural or horticultural use or development. The RMP incorporated this statutory definition in the RMP for use in the implementation of the Plan. In addition, the RMP specifically references the Right to Farm Act and other mechanisms of coordination with these agencies. COMMENT: The Borough of Stanhope pointed out that the 5 acres listed in their municipality as in the Preservation area is incorrect and the Highlands Act boundary line description indicates that there is no 6

11 Preservation Area within the Borough. RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and notes that the figures for the Borough of Stanhope have been corrected to reflect the comment in Table 1.1 in Chapter 1 of the RMP. ANALYSIS OF THE HIGHLANDS REGION CHAPTER 2 COMMENT: One comment expressed the opinion that the first three chapters of the Final Draft RMP (including Chapter 2 Analysis of the Highlands Region) were excellent and provides an excellent resource. RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges and appreciates the comment. COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP should contain an objective inventory of environmental factors present in the region. This is an essential step in the development of policy and provides a "baseline" against which to evaluate the operation of the Plan over time. The comment noted that preparation of Environmental Resource Inventories (ERIs) should be the basis of municipal master planning. The Council staff has compiled vast amounts of objective environmental data that should be clearly presented in the RMP. RESPONSE: The technical reports that serve as the basis for the RMP present the substantial environmental data that Highlands Council has compiled and they serve as the baseline against which to evaluate the operation of the Plan over time. The goal of Chapter 2 was to present an introduction and overview of each of the resource assessment categories. The Plan Conformance process for municipalities includes requirements for the development or amendment of ERIs, including use of Highlands Council data as appropriate. COMMENT: A few comments stated that the 2007 Draft RMP does not address existing sources of pollution, reducing inefficient water consumption, or increased water needs caused by the State s population. RESPONSE: This regional document does identify impaired surface waters (Figure 3.17), nitrate concentrations in subwatersheds (Figure 3.19), and an inventory of contaminated sites (Figures 5.5 and 5.6) throughout the Highlands Region. In addition, the RMP identifies areas of water deficit, and address the efficient use of water and water quality restoration. The RMP is designed to use this regional information and update it with more specific local information through Plan Conformance. Lastly, the RMP s supporting technical reports provide considerable additional detail and information. COMMENT: One comment noted that Critical Habitat is defined using an updated Landscape Project (Version 2) developed for the Highlands Region by the NJDEP. This information has not been made available to the public or local government and therefore, has had no external public review. Because of the lack of feedback on the quality of the information, the Landscape Project Version 2 should not be used as a basis for defining the location of critical habitat, or as an indicator in the LANDS Model. RESPONSE: The Highlands Council utilized the most current version of the Landscape Project (now Version 3 for the Highlands), provided from NJDEP- Endangered Nongame Species Program (ENSP), which is now publicly available through NJDEP s GIS webpage. All mapping is based on species occurrence data and surrounding habitat requirements. The RMP includes the ability for modification to critical habitat boundaries due to site habitat suitability or existing land uses, as approved by the Highlands Council in coordination with NJDEP-ENSP. COMMENT: One comment indicated that water supply allocation was used as an estimate of ultimate water utility capacity. Permitted estimates should not be used to identify the actual safe yield of a water source as they may over, or under, estimate this safe yield. The Council should continue to work with the NJDEP to determine safe yield in order to more accurately reflect actual versus perceived water deficits. RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The RMP does focus on protecting existing safe yields through maintenance of base flows, the protection of water quality, and agency coordination with NJDEP s water allocation permit process. Utility capacity, as expressed in permits, may be constrained by water availability in a source subwatershed. 7

12 COMMENT: One comment noted that the Council has developed a model with very conservative inputs as part of a precautionary approach to the establishment of septic standards. For example, the Council model assumes a typical Highlands Region household size of four persons per household when actual figures show typical household size at less than three persons per household. Having developed such a conservative estimate of permissible septic systems, the Council should resist the calls for even more stringent limitations and further septic restrictions. RESPONSE: The Highlands Council s analysis of septic system yield is based upon conservative assumptions in order to meet the requirements in Sections 10 and 11 of the Highlands Act. With respect to household size, the assumptions incorporated into the RMP are appropriately based upon a demographic analysis of the Highlands Region, included in the Council s Highlands Regional Build Out Analysis Technical Report, showing that household size in areas to be served by septic systems are closer to four persons per household. In addition, the Council s Water Resources Technical Report provides additional assumptions that were used to derive the septic system yields for the Planning Area. COMMENT: One comment noted that the discussion of the Highlands transportation system on page 60 references the use of a Highlands Sub-Area model to determine existing vehicular travel patterns and traffic conditions in the Highlands. The results of this modeling are not included in the RMP so there is no ability to review these in relation to RMP proposals. RESPONSE: The Transportation System Preservation and Enhancement Technical Report presents a discussion of the Highlands Sub-Area Transportation Model results including the model inputs and outputs. In the Technical Report the complete Roadway Capacity Assessment report is included as Appendix A. COMMENT: One comment noted that in its description of zoning, the RMP states that current zoning places more than two-thirds of non-residential floor space in areas that are inconsistent with the State Development and Redevelopment Plan. The comment questions this conclusion as communities in the region have completed the third cross-acceptance of the State Plan and planning area changes have been negotiated with the Office of Smart Growth to strengthen consistency between the State Plan and local conditions. RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment and believes that the statement is accurate based on zoning provided to the Council by the municipalities. Much of the land zoned for non-residential use is located in areas identified in the State Development and Redevelopment Plan as inappropriate for the extension of infrastructure needed to serve such zoning. The RMP is designed to create a process where municipal zoning will be revised to meet both resource protection and smart growth policies. COMMENT: One comment noted that on page 70 of the 2007 Draft RMP, it is stated that overlay zones build on base zoning by establishing additional standards and criteria that the underlying base zoning may not otherwise take into consideration. There have been comments made regarding anticipated changes in the base zoning as a result of the RMP. This is an incorrect assumption that should be clarified in the RMP. It would go a long way to assure Planning Area municipalities considering opt in if the RMP were clear in stating that no change in underlying base zoning will be required or requested as part of opt in. RESPONSE: The base zoning that the RMP is referring to is the municipal zoning, which includes a combination of allowable uses, bulk density limits, etc. The intent of the RMP s overlay Land Use Capability Zones Protection, Conservation, and Existing Community and Sub-zones (Wildlife Management, Environmentally Constrained and Lake Community) is apply additional restrictions on density and impacts that the base zoning may not address. The process of Plan Conformance is to revise local master plans and local zoning, where appropriate, to conform to the requirements of the RMP. The amount of revisions to local plans and ordinances will entirely depend on the degree of consistency with the RMP. COMMENT: One comment noted that the discussion of TDR under Landowner Fairness should provide information regarding the anticipated timeframe for actual implementation of a TDR program. RESPONSE: The Highlands Council will be working to implement the TDR program as quickly as feasible 8

13 and has strengthened the framework for the TDR program in the revised RMP. In addition, the Council adopted Resolution on June 26, 2008, establishing the Highlands Development Credit Bank. Lastly, the Council approved a $1 million TDR feasibility grant program and has awarded grants to fund TDR planning at the municipal level. Given the voluntary nature of the Highlands TDR program, it is expected that considerable patience will be necessary until the program is fully operational. Natural Resources COMMENT: Several comments stated that the RMP should clarify why steep slopes are critical areas. 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). RESPONSE: Text was added in the Steep Slopes goals, policies and objectives (Chapter 4, Part 1, Subpart c) section that clarified why steep slopes are critical areas. This section of the RMP specifically identifies the importance of slopes adjacent to Highlands Open Waters and Riparian Areas in order to protect water quality. COMMENT: Several comments stated that the RMP should have a stronger emphasis on stewardship of existing forest resources through reduction of deer overabundance and invasive species. 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. RESPONSE: Text was added in the Highlands Forest Resource goals, policies and objectives (Chapter 4, Part 1, Subpart a) that mandates implementation of programs which encourage the inclusion of appropriate rare, threatened, and endangered wildlife and habitat protection and enhancement, and appropriate wildlife and invasive species management techniques in Forest Management Plans or in New Jersey Forest Stewardship Program s Forest Stewardship Plans adopted by any federal, state, county or municipal government entity. COMMENT: A few comments noted that 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 hibernacula). There must be clarity in the hierarchy of natural resource protection - (1) avoidance, (2) minimization, and (3) mitigation. RESPONSE: The concept of a hierarchy of natural resource protection of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation was added throughout the RMP (e.g., Highlands Open Waters and Riparian Areas, Critical Habitat, etc.). In addition, the concept of no net loss for critical habitat is defined in Objective 1F5b (Critical Habitat Goals, Policies, and Objectives) to include the four variables suggested by the commenters. COMMENT: Several comments stated that there should be clear protections for rare plant species and ecological communities located outside of Significant Natural Areas. RESPONSE: The introduction of the Critical Habitat section was modified such that Significant Natural Areas also include habitat for documented occurrences of threatened and endangered plant species. COMMENT: One comment recommended that the entire Section (Analysis of the Region Part 1. Natural Resources) be re-written to add an objective inventory of the Highlands Region. Objective resource inventory data should be compiled and presented. This data should be made available to local and county government in printed and electronic formats prior to the beginning of the conformance process. RESPONSE: The Technical Reports that support the RMP contain detailed and objective resource inventory data. While this information is generally described in the RMP, detailed information is contained in the Technical Reports. The data has been made available to the public and may be used as the conformance process commences. COMMENT: One comment suggested that a separate geology subsection should be added to this section (Analysis of the Region Part 1. Natural Resources) and include discussion of bedrock geology, surficial geology, depth to bedrock, unconsolidated deposits, generalized groundwater yields and natural water quality 9

14 issues, and economic mineral resources. The comment complimented the Council on including a section on karst, although believes this should be placed within the context of the geology section. RESPONSE: As responded to above, Chapter 2, Part 2, of the RMP was expanded to include a section specifically addressing the geological conditions of the Highlands. In addition, the Council s technical reports address geologic conditions of the Highlands. COMMENT: There was one comment that stated that Analysis of the Region Part 1. Subpart e. Open Space: Land Preservation and Stewardship 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. COMMENT: One comment stated that all federal programs applicable to land preservation should be described. The Council, in consultation with counties and municipalities, should attempt to establish specific funding allocations for Highlands land preservation funding. COMMENT: 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. RESPONSE: The Highlands Council expanded the analysis of historical land preservation funding by governmental and non-governmental entities in Chapters 3 and 5 of the RMP. In addition, these chapters of the RMP include extensive analysis regarding conservation and agricultural priorities moving forward. Lastly, additional information on these issues is in the Land Preservation and Stewardship Technical Report and Financial Analysis Technical Report. COMMENT: There was one comment that stated that the first paragraph of Analysis of the Region Part1 Subpart e. Open Space: Land Preservation and Stewardship is unclear and should be rewritten. RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment, although no change was made to the RMP. COMMENT: One comment stated that the term stewardship (in reference to land preservation) is largely unfamiliar to most people and should be defined in the Glossary. RESPONSE: The concept of stewardship is generally described in the RMP and in the Land Preservation and Stewardship Technical Report. COMMENT: One comment stated that the language about the critical nature of Garden State Preservation Trust (GSPT) funding should be more forceful and the Council should continue to advocate for reauthorization. RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment. RMP Objective 1H2c states that the Council will support and implement new, innovative and alternative methods and programs of land preservation appropriate for the Highlands Region. Reauthorization of the GSPT has been repeatedly supported by the Highlands Council in the form of resolutions and actions. COMMENT: A few comments stated support for the use of a water consumption fee as described on p. 38 of the 2007 Draft RMP, provided that the use of these funds is accompanied by a prior planning framework to guide acquisitions to high priority water resources related lands. RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has and will continue to advocate for passage of a water user fee that would be assessed against water consumers that are outside of the Highlands Region and consume Highlands water. Additionally, the Highlands Council continues to advocate for other potential revenue sources as set forth in Policy 1H4. Lastly, Chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the RMP include an analysis a priority policies regarding conservation lands that should be the focus of preservation funding. COMMENT: One comment noted that the NJDEP Land Use Regulation Program increases development restrictions within areas with rankings of 3, 4, or 5 because these indicate the presence of state-threatened, state-endangered, or federally-listed threatened or endangered species. However, the RMP extends the restrictions to areas with a ranking of 2, which is inconsistent with the NJDEP policy. RESPONSE: The Highlands Council, with the assistance of NJDEP s Endangered and Nongame Species 10

15 Program, delineated Critical Wildlife Habitat by utilizing Landscape Project Version 3 to identify areas of habitat for rare, threatened, and endangered species habitat. Specifically, the Council used Landscape Rank 2 through 5 in the Preservation Area and used Landscape Rank 2 through 5 and Highlands Rank of Critically Significant or Significant in the Planning Area. The use of Rank 2 provides protections consistent with NJDEP s requirements in N.J.A.C. 7:38 in accordance with the requirements of the Highlands Act. COMMENT: One comment suggested a rewrite of the opening paragraph of this section. Biodiversity is not defined in the glossary and the term should be defined and clarified in this section. RESPONSE: The term biodiversity is defined directly in the text of the RMP and in the glossary of the Ecosystem Management Technical Report. COMMENT: One comment noted that with respect to the Critical Wildlife Habitat section, the first paragraph indicates that... an updated Landscape Project (Version 2) was developed... - should this read Version 3? Supports the use of Version 3 data. RESPONSE: Text was modified to reflect the use of Version 3 data, which are now publicly available through the NJDEP website. COMMENT: One comment requested expanded discussions of Significant Natural Areas and Vernal pools in this chapter and to clarify their importance. RESPONSE: Text was added to this chapter to state that Significant Natural Areas are designated based on the presence of, and associated habitat required for the survival and propagation of, the species of concern. Vernal pools are certified by the NJDEP and, to protect and promote the biodiversity of Vernal Pools, the Highlands Council has determined that a terrestrial habitat protection buffer of 1,000 feet around Vernal Pools will generally address the habitat requirements of vernal pool-breeding wildlife. COMMENT: A few comments noted that the RMP should clarify terms used to assess forest health such as predominantly forested, a high proportion of forest cover, patch size, etc. RESPONSE: The Ecosystem Management Technical Report provides detailed descriptions of each of these metrics. While these terms are generally described in the RMP, detailed information is contained to the Technical Report. COMMENT: A few comments noted that karst topography, while potentially visible at the surface, is not strictly a surface condition as implied on p. 38 of the 2007 Draft RMP. Karst is a three dimensional topographic condition with the potential to contain substantial sub-surface structural conditions of concern. RESPONSE: Text was clarified in this chapter and elsewhere in the RMP and technical documents to clarify that karst is not strictly a surface condition. COMMENT: A few comments noted that the various functions that karst features provide should be noted in the RMP. RESPONSE: Text was added into the carbonate rock goals, policies and objectives (Chapter 4 of the RMP) regarding the important functions that karst provides. COMMENT: A few comments commended 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. RESPONSE: Additional sources that can contribute contaminants directly to ground water through karst features were added in this chapter and in the Carbonate Rock goals, policies and objectives section of the RMP. COMMENT: A few comments offered the opinion that this section should note that the nitrate dilution model utilized elsewhere in the 2007 Draft RMP tends to allow greater septic density on the carbonate rock 11