Pinelands committee reviews state 'real rules' delay and flags MOA, mitigation and stormwater problems

The Policy and Implementation Committee of the Pinelands Commission on May 29 reviewed the state’s recently adopted coastal, flood-hazard, wetlands and stormwater “real rules,” discussed an expected one-year delay in their implementation, and debated whether to amend or terminate decades-old memoranda of agreement (MOAs) that govern how the commission and the state agency coordinate permit review.

The committee chair opened the meeting and said staff had heard the governor was likely to sign a one-year implementation delay. “It certainly gives municipalities additional time they have to respond and adopt ordinances,” a staff member said, calling the delay an opportunity to align the commission’s procedures with the new state requirements.

Why it matters: the new rules alter how and when applicants must document flood risk, perform alternatives analyses, and obtain authorizations for wetlands, coastal work and stormwater. Commission staff told members the changes have procedural and substantive effects inside the Pinelands National Reserve (PNR) because the commission shares review duties with the state agency under the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP).

Staff presentations and takeaways

• Permitting structure: Staff explained that many low-impact activities have moved from an old “permit by rule” approach into registration or certification streams that provide automated authorization, while higher-impact projects now require general or individual permits and closer department review. The reclassification means the commission must track more rule changes and ensure its delegated procedures still work with the state’s digital portal.

• Horizontal directional drilling and utilities: Staff highlighted new conditions for underground work. Under the amended rules, applicants doing HDD or underground jacking must use potable water for drilling where required, use NSF-certified drilling fluids (NSF/ANSI 60 or 61) when specified, submit contingency plans and properly seal and abandon bore holes. The commission said these items largely mirror practices it has required in application sets but are now codified by state rule.

• Mitigation and thresholds: Staff said mitigation is now required for a larger set of general permits (staff cited 17 of 27) and for some temporary disturbances. Committee discussion highlighted a change in thresholds — participants contrasted a prior quarter‑acre trigger with references to a 10‑acre threshold in the new rules — and warned that altered thresholds will change when mitigation applies.

• Stormwater and BMP questions: The stormwater briefing emphasized three areas of concern. First, the state extended an 80% TSS (total suspended solids) removal standard to many reconstructed motor‑vehicle surfaces and redevelopment triggers, which will affect some parking-lot and roadway work. Second, the state added volumetric retention requirements for the water‑quality design storm and allowed limited off‑site options when on‑site measures are impracticable. Staff warned off‑site alternatives in state language are not required to be inside the Pinelands, a cross‑boundary issue the commission may want to address. Third, an updated state BMP manual assigns lower nitrogen removal credits to several BMPs; because the CMP requires a 65% total nitrogen reduction for major development, the new credits could force applicants to add a third BMP in series, increasing cost and site impacts.

Staff recommendation and process changes

Commission staff told members that the existing MOAs with the state date to the 1980s–1990s, predate current portals and many rule changes, and are routinely misunderstood by new staff in both agencies. Staff recommended sitting down with the state to update or rework MOAs so responsibilities — including who performs wetland delineations and when the commission’s comment is required before the state finalizes an application — are clear. Staff said some MOAs (for example, certain freshwater wetlands delegations) could be terminated where authorities are now codified in rule, while others should be amended to reflect modern procedures.

Public comment and next steps

A caller, who identified herself as Cindy Justice, thanked staff for the briefing and asked the commission to note a local project permit number for review: “I just at a minimum want to throw out a permit number. It’s 20008-000028002,” she said, and urged commissioners to consider downstream wetland impacts.

Staff noted the one‑year implementation delay gives the commission time to finalize model municipal stormwater ordinances, clarify definitions that determine when state standards apply, and negotiate MOA amendments with the state agency. The committee did not take new formal policy votes on CMP amendments at the meeting; staff said drafting targeted CMP language (for nitrogen crediting, off‑site mitigation inside the Pinelands, and procedural cross‑references) would be a near‑term priority.

Votes at a glance

- April 24 minutes: motion to adopt (mover/second not specified); outcome: approved by voice vote.
- Meeting adjournment: motion and second; outcome: approved by voice vote.

What to watch

Commission staff will pursue a coordination meeting with the state agency to modernize MOAs and will prepare model municipal stormwater ordinances and potential CMP amendment drafts addressing nitrogen crediting and off‑site mitigation location. The expected one‑year implementation delay will affect the timing of those actions.