DEP protocols and public access

This was in a recent report that came out.


http://www.state.nj.us/governor/news...Protection.pdf

http://www.state.nj.us/governor/news...a_reports.html

DEP must take the following actions

Reexamine regulations to ensure they are properly focused on specific, well defined
goals, and minimize or eliminate peripheral requirements. An example of this is the
waterfront Public Access rule adopted by DEP in 2007 without direction from the
Legislature, which completely changed the existing waterfront public access framework
and imposed onerous new fees without standards for how the fee would be applied or
calculated.

The Subcommittee recommends several changes to the organizational structure of Department,
in order to facilitate these recommendations:
• Eliminate the Office of Policy, Planning and Science and allocate policy and planning
responsibilities to the appropriate regulatory programs (e.g., land use regulation) and assign science staff to an Office of Science Research.

Land Use Management Reinvention
Issue: The DEP is the single most influential department impacting development, business
investment and economic growth in our State. However, navigating this regulatory maze is a struggle
at best, especially when complex projects need a variety of different permits from the DEP and other
11
State agencies. Furthermore, the land use permitting program has been severely impaired by a myriad
of factors, some of which are process oriented, while others pertain directly to the regulations.
Specifically, the DEP has been unable to invest in critical Information Technology which has resulted
in unmanageable workloads and excessive delays in the review of permit applications. The complexity
of the land use regulations themselves also inhibit the timely and efficient review of permit
applications. Furthermore, in many cases, the land use regulations have been written by DEP staff
who are located outside of the land use program, and have no understanding of how the regulations
will be implemented or enforced. Many of the land use regulations that govern the review of permit
applications for development projects in New Jersey are internally inconsistent, conflict with other
State land use policies, establish unachievable requirements, are not grounded in sound science and
exceed the DEP’s statutory authority. This combination of factors has created a process that is
unpredictable and confusing to both land use regulation staff and permit applicants, ultimately
stagnating the permit application process.
Recommendation: The DEP must fundamentally overhaul the way development projects are
regulated and streamline the permitting process. The State must create an office that provides a
single point of entry with an accountable person to shepherd companies pursuing complex projects
through the regulatory process. The DEP must immediately suspend the implementation of
requirements that have not been properly adopted through rulemaking, and immediately reconsider
existing regulations that impose requirements that are not grounded in sound science, are
impractical to satisfy, and conflict with other State environmental and land use policies. Finally, the
DEP must continue to implement the recommendations of the Permit Efficiency Review Task Force,
including substantial investment in Information Technology.

Other Immediate Regulatory Changes
• Immediately suspend the inappropriate use of the Landscape Project mapping of purported
Threatened and Endangered species habitat. Pending rulemaking or other action, apply
regulatory protections for species habitat based upon scientifically valid data and documented
habitat as defined in DEP rules and statutes. The Landscape Maps were initially designed toprovide a map of the habitat that an identified threatened or endangered species needs tosurvive. DEP is now using Landscape Maps as a regulatory device to restrict all development in mapped areas where threatened or endangered species could theoretically exist.
• Immediately revise the implementation of the Public Access Rules, based upon recent
Appellate Court’s decisions (e.g., Borough of Avalon v. NJDEP and Sophie Bubis v. Jack and Joyce Kassin) which invalidated the rule’s enforcement. Pending revision, require publicaccess to be provided only when a proposed development will diminish existing access.
• Immediately rescind Administrative Orders requiring the application of 300-foot buffers from certain streams or rivers where existing rules require a 150-foot buffer.
• Immediately suspend the practice of conditioning permits on the imposition of conservation easements on portions of property not subject to the pending application.
• Identify categories of environmentally beneficial projects, such as renewable energy and green building projects that could be promoted through a streamlined permitting process.