Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Commission rushes to redesign stormwater project after NJDEP rejects key device, grant at risk
Loading...
Summary
Commission consultants told members that NJDEP rejected the previously planned vortex treatment devices and required certified manufactured treatment devices meeting an 80% TSS removal rate; revised plans must be submitted by Jan. 16 to avoid losing grant funds.
Consultants told the Watershed Commission on Jan. 15 that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection had rejected the project’s planned VORTEX stormwater treatment devices and required use of DEP-approved manufactured treatment devices that meet an 80% total suspended solids (TSS) removal rate.
The commission’s consultants said the DEP’s requirement — and a Jan. 16 deadline in a DEP email — means the commission must submit revised plans immediately or risk the agency refusing the grant disbursement. The commission’s presenter (identified in the meeting transcript as Presenter) summarized two DEP-approved alternatives: a soil‑matrix “Filterra” (tree‑box filter) style system and nutrient‑separating baffle boxes (NSBBs). The presenter said both alternatives are compliant with DEP’s MTD list but are more expensive and may require removal of existing on‑site structures.
Why it matters: the grant allocates construction funds and sets a July 1 project completion target; consultants warned missing DEP approval could forfeit the money. The presenter said the DEP’s certified list is limited and that some vendors pay significant fees to secure listing, which the presenter suggested affects device availability and cost.
What consultants proposed: the presenter and the engineer walked commissioners through tradeoffs — Filterra/tree‑box systems rely on a soil media that must be replaced periodically and have higher routine maintenance; NSBBs are below ground, reduce above‑ground visual and traffic impacts, and are easier to maintain but have higher unit, demolition and installation costs. Cost estimates provided at the meeting put NSBBs at roughly $125,000 per unit and an estimated $610,000 for construction of three NSBBs and vegetated buffers. The presenter said the existing grant construction allocation was in the neighborhood of $637,000, creating a narrow margin for higher‑cost options.
Next steps and commission action: the commission voted to reject the existing bids and reauthorize receipt of bids so staff can resubmit revised plans that list DEP‑approved MTD options and preserve a path to proceed if DEP approves the alternatives. The presenters said they would deliver revised plan drawings, a project description and cost estimates so the commission’s representative can submit the package to DEP by the stated deadline.
Voices from the meeting: the presenter said, “They require certified TSS removal rate of 80%. The VORTEX device is not on it. We have to revise the plans,” and added that one DEP reviewer had been particularly firm in the review process. Another participant with engineering experience described NSBBs as “definitely the better option” for minimizing above‑ground visual and traffic impacts but noted higher cost and demolition requirements. Several commissioners expressed frustration at what they characterized as a single reviewer effectively blocking the previously approved approach and discussed the risk of pursuing litigation versus modifying the design to secure funding and keep the project on schedule.
What remains uncertain: DEP’s final response and whether the agency will approve the revised submission in time were not known at the meeting. Consultants warned that litigation aimed at reversing DEP’s decision could jeopardize grant funding if it delayed construction past the grant’s completion deadline. Commissioners directed staff to submit the revised package under a “subject to DEP review and approval” condition and to pursue further advocacy after the immediate deadline.
