Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands Mitigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DEP draft rules would favor mitigation banking, allow wetland preservation; commissioners briefed on trade-offs
Summary
Staff briefed the committee on DEP’s proposed wetlands mitigation rule amendments that elevate mitigation banking, propose eliminating the low-cost single-family contribution option, and allow wetland preservation as a mitigation choice with guidance ratios (DEP used a 27:1 example); environmental groups raised concerns about bank longevity and Highlands-specific protections.
Staff briefed the PNI committee on proposed amendments from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) that would change how wetlands mitigation is carried out under multiple programs, including coastal-zone management, freshwater wetlands protection and flood-hazard control.
The presenter described five amendment topics and said the most significant shift is elevating mitigation banking so that, when on-site mitigation is infeasible, buying credits from an approved mitigation bank will be the first option in the mitigation hierarchy. The presenter explained how mitigation banks are established and monitored and said they produce habitat credits tied to specific site and habitat types.
The presenter also said DEP proposes to eliminate the longstanding 'single-family contribution' monetary option — historically a lower payment available to single-family applicants — because the program no longer serves its original rationale. The presenter contrasted example figures used in the briefing: the single-family contribution was cited at about $47,600 versus an order-of-magnitude larger mitigation equivalency figure for other development impacts.
A further change would allow wetland preservation as a mitigation option in places where preservation is appropriate; staff noted DEP guidance suggests preservation ratios (for example, 27:1) for wetland quality but emphasized that the 27:1 figure is guidance rather than rule. The presenter said riparian (C1) waters would have particular limits and criteria, including minimum parcel sizes and a set of valuation criteria to evaluate preservation proposals.
Commissioners and staff raised concerns echoed by environmental groups about long-term viability of mitigation banks, the applicability of DEP guidance across Highlands wetlands, and the need for DEP to justify credit non-use in annual reporting. Staff emphasized that these are DEP proposals and that the commission is being briefed to prepare comments and to understand how the changes would interact with the commission’s memorandum agreement with DEP.
No formal action was taken at the meeting; staff said they will continue to track the rulemaking and engage with DEP as appropriate.
