Proposed Amendment to the Northeast Water Quality Management Plan

Statement, Abigail Fair, January 5, 2006

MORRIS TOWNSHIP WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions (ANJEC) compliments Morris Township on its submission of a Wastewater Management Plan to NJ Department of Environmental Protection. The Plan gives residents a chance to understand and comment on future infrastructure needs, their extent and cost. ANJEC appreciates the opportunity to submit the following comments. ANJEC works to promote responsible development and protection of natural resources.

Woodland Treatment Plant Service Area

Considering the environmental sensitivity of the Great Swamp watershed and the degraded condition of Loantaka Brook as documented through studies by the Ten Towns Great Swamp Committee, we question expansion of the flows from 1.15 mgd to 1.68 mgd. This increase is based on zoning build-out. Changes in zoning should be considered to reduce the need for the increased flows. The WMP’s proposed flow increase, if approved, should be conditioned on Morris Township’s strictly controlling impacts from any new development allowed by the increased flow. Such conditions should include mandatory septic management, water conservation implementation, riparian buffers, and very strict stormwater management that covers commercial as well as residential development. According to the New Jersey State Water Supply Master Plan, the secondary impacts from the growth induced by expanded sewer service can nullify any water quality improvements made by advanced wastewater treatment.

Butterworth Treatment Plant Service Area

The sewer service area should reflect that the sewer area in Washington Valley along Mendham Road, Route 24 and the tract where St. Mary’s Abbey is located, was the result of a remedial measure taken to correct failing septic systems and the malfunctioning package treatment plant on the St. Mary’s Abbey tract. To remediate these conditions, Morris Township obtained a loan from the NJ Environmental Infrastructure Trust to construct a sewer extension. That loan was strictly conditioned so as to insure the sewage extension would not be used to promote any future development in the Washington Valley. Approval of a duplicate sewer line into Washington Valley would violate the intent of the loan.

The proposed WMP does not include specifics as to protection of Threatened and Endangered Species habitat. The public notice also states that other important environmental considerations may be addressed prior to final permit issuance. Morris Township needs to address those issues prior to any consideration of approval so the public has adequate time to review them and comment on them during public hearing.

SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL, CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY

ANJEC opposes this site-specific amendment. First, site-specific amendments are inappropriate and defeat the purpose of the Wastewater Management Plan regulations. They cause fragmented, short-term decisions that are not consistent with the regulations or the intent of the Water Quality Management Planning Act. In fact, one of the reasons NJ DEP amended NJAC 7:15 to require wastewater management plans was to stop the wholesale amendment of areawide water quality management plans during the 1980’s made for many individual development projects.

Second, this site-specific amendment is contrary to the regulations at NJAC 7:15-5.1(d), which state that a project-specific WMP can only be considered if it does not involve a new or expanded wastewater treatment facility and it will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. We understand this amendment does involve expansion of the Butterworth Plant. Any expansion of sewer service into this very environmentally sensitive area dominated by important county and national public lands, threatened and endangered species, high quality waters and water supply will have significant environmental impacts.

Third, extending sewer service into environmentally State Planning Area 5 is contrary to the policies of the State Development and Redevelopment Plan (SDRP). A major tenet of the SDRP is that public infrastructure should not be extended into environmentally sensitive areas. And this project will qualify as public infrastructure because, once built, the sewer extension will be handed over to the Township. The reasons the project is contrary to the State Plan include the fact that the sewer extension is expensive, can cause serious negative impacts on the environment, and can promote expensive sprawl development. This extension would create a second sewer line that not only violates the conditions of the state loan awarded to Morris Township but would create damaging environmental impacts. The Washington Valley area of Morris Township is in the Highlands and an environmentally sensitive area because of the important water quality and water supply benefits it provides as the headwaters of the Whippany River, the contiguous forest areas that provide recreation and important faunal habitat, and the existing publicly-owned federal and county parks.

Connecting infrastructure planning to the State Development and Redevelopment Plan is critical and was validated by the State Planning Commission in 2001 when Morris Township proposed to provide sewers to the CCRC from Morristown. The Commission warned that Morristown would risk losing their preferential funding as a regional center if they extended sewers for the CCRC into an environmentally sensitive planning area.

The State Plan set a target for the year 2005 for obtaining100% consistency of all state agency plans with it. This Wastewater Management Plan as part of the Northeast NJ Water Quality Management Plans will become a part of the state Water Quality Management Plan.

Approving this WMP amendment would violate the critical State Plan policy to control growth and protect important resources. This tenet of the State Plan is fundamental to stopping sprawl hemorrhage in New Jersey.

ANJEC appreciates the opportunity to testify today. In the interest of providing more opportunity for public input, we request a 60-day extension to the comment period. The 15-day comment period provided is not adequate.